Board - Regular Meeting

Charter Township of Plymouth Regular Board of Trustees meeting Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 6:32 p.m. Call to order. [clears throat and cough] Trusty Buckley here. Trustee Clinton here. Supervisor Kermy here. Treasure Dors Chavez here. Trusty Grove here. Trusty Stewart here. Clerk Borba here. We have a quorum.

All right. Uh, pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Approval of the agenda. Mr. Supervisor, I move for the approval of the agenda for Tuesday, January 13, 2026. Second second by growth. All those in favor I I. Motion carries uh approval of the consent agenda. So we have the proposed minutes. Any comments on the proposed minutes or changes? I have some questions and concerns but not about the minutes about the monthly reports. Uh well we can let's talk about them now then. Okay. Sure. Um and then we can do we have to vote on a resolution for item two.

Yes. Which is the Wayne County permits. And we'll do a roll call on that. Okay. Um first I I want to say that I have for the past few months looked at the listing of bills that were provided. And this month in particular, it is 37 pages long. and I can clearly read seven of those pages. And um my aging eyes do not allow me to see detail on most of the other pages. And I would just ask that we have better quality in the copies so that we can actually read what we are approving. That's my first thing. You mean in the packet?

In the packet. Yes. I'm sorry. In the packet. The background needs to be changed. Yeah. There's so much shading that you can't see it. Well, Mhm. Right. All right. We'll get that. For some reason, the front part is a little better, but some of the other ones. Yes. The AP invoice listing.

Yeah. So, just perhaps better attention to the quality of the copies. And then, um I I want to ask a couple of questions about the monthly report particularly for uh Chief Conley because he's the only one who can answer these. Um, Chief, what is the holdup on the programming of the radios in Northville Township? You indicated that they're still there and they have been for quite some time. So, I'm curious to know exactly what the problem is and what we can do to expedite.

Um, in short, nothing. It's through the state. They have one person through the MPS. Um, Director Fal can attest to this [music] too. They There's like one person for the whole state to program like every radio in the state. Wow. It's ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Um, but we are basically I've been told we are next in line and we should have them soon. Okay. I I would just like us to stay on top of that because you did all the work to get the grant to get the radio. No, it's it's a I talk too much about the system. We need to see them. And um I also wanted to ask you, I assume the answer to this is no, but I've not officially heard, were we declined, were we turned down, denied the request for additional staffing for the safer grant?

Yes. We haven't we haven't received anything saying we didn't get it, but the award period is over and we didn't get it. And it's federal government um information you have to glean through and figure out. In one place I saw that they would be notifying us and then I read through a little more and found out another place that said they wouldn't be not notifying us. So somewhere in between.

All right. I wanted to know about that. And then I I noticed um when you refer to mutual aid in the monthly report, you refer to Northville City Fire Department and because of what's actually going on that people perhaps do not understand. Are you referring to the city of Plymouth or are you referring to the city of Northville? We don't we don't it's one department. So it's the Northville City Fire Department provides services to Plymouth. So Okay. So it is technically the Northville City Fire Department. So it's one department. Yeah. Yeah. So technically speaking, the city of Plymouth does not have their own defined individual department. Um Yeah. Well, they contract with the city of North,

right? They contract. So So when we get assistance, who is providing the assistance? depends. If uh if a city of Plymouth unit is available, we'll get a city of Plymouth unit. If not, we'll get a Northville unit. The key being if they are available, they provide it. If they are not, they do not. Okay.

Um and then the last thing is I always make it a practice to look at your monthly report in particular as it relates to the rescue and emergency medical runs. And I noticed on this month's report, it shows um you do it by shift and you do it by station. And it shows this month that there were six rescue and emergency medical service responses on shift A, six on shift B, and eight on shift C. And that would indicate a total of 20 EMS runs. And you indicated also that HBA transported 111 patients and we transported 40. So I don't know if something went wrong with the

So we we transitioned to nearest this month. The NFERS, I'm sure you're familiar with NFRS is gone. Okay. And they've replaced it with this nearest system and I've already had a problem today with gleaning information. I had to contact Clemus because they didn't choose to do it at the beginning of the year. They choose to do it in the last month of the year, of course. And it's really skewed a lot of our stuff. So that when I look at that and I looked at last month's report just to see because on average we see station one shift shift A is um 18 rescue runs and we're seeing this small number and I noticed also an indication that there's um hazardous conditions is one of the criteria.

They changed all the codes, right? They changed the codes. So we're not getting a true picture of the rescue runs. And I just wanted to make that note because yeah, we're still working out the the Clemus or the uh nearest thing, but there's actually going to be cuz we were in the the month they or in this year they had to kind of use the Enford codes for 11 months and then the nearest codes for one month. Okay. So hopefully it smooths out this month in January and we'll get a better picture on it. Well, at least you know I because we'll actually know more in depth with what we're going on for medical calls.

Good. and you do know I look at the report because I noticed that change and I know it's not right. So I just wanted to ask you about it. Um those are the only questions that I need to speak to regarding the consent agenda. Mr. Supervisor, I move for the approval of the consent agenda, excuse me for Tuesday, January 13, 2026. And there is a resolution 20261 uh 1301 uh requires a roll call on this. And so I made the motion. I need a second. Second.

Second by Bob Doritz. Okay. Um clerk Forba. Yes. Trusty Stewart. Yes. Trusty Growth. I'm going to say yes, but I'm also going to thank our attorney for pointing out the change in the indemnification clause of those permits. And um I appreciate you doing that because it's important that we not assume liability that we should not be assuming. So I want to thank you for doing that. Treasure Dorchevitz. Uh what am I voting on on the consent agenda? Yes, it's a right away. Yeah. On the res. It's a the rightway in the It's something we do every every year. Uh, Supervisor Kermy,

yes. Uh, Trusty Clinton, yes. Trusty Buckley, yes. Motion carries. So, public comment, non-aggenda items only. Any speakers?

So glad to see more people here already. Mary Pine like this. Okay. Here, here are significant points about the recent joint planning commission and board of trustees meeting on the master plan. McKenna Laura Hall proposed areas of concern based on a survey of 800 people, less than 3% of the residents. Greater participation is vital to our community's future. Is is the approp appropriate effort being made to get citizen input? Is this intentional or unintentional? This survey clearly reflects her point of view as one mostly answered her questions. Keep in mind, McKenna frequently references a U of M public participation study that never included residents as stakeholders. Many of McKenna's statements appear to reflect social engineering, not planning, as evidenced by the concern for the missing middle instead of planning for the traffic and truck traffic problems that have resulted from their planning failures. Lisa Hart has had to apologize twice at board meetings because Trusty Growth does her homework and uncovered missing considerations. Planning Chair Dennis Sabolski stated that he wanted to maintain the character of Plymouth Township and be open to trends. Are these competing goals? Does this reflect a standing on the fence appro approach with a history of pleasing others rather than the residents? Don't forget the racetrack fiasco. Dennis's name appears on page 21 of the Northville Johns versus Plymouth Township lawsuit. Also, Laura Hall stated that all the PDU items were met for the racetrack. Others begged to

different. How can residents trust PUB considerations after everything that happened? Planning Commissioner Dave Ladawick expressed concern for builders. Should he even be on the commission? The presentation of townhouse photos went west of the Red Olive on Ann Arbor Road and then asking for opinions on building town houses on the Arby property by Laura Hall clearly demonstrated a builder's bias. Do we want to become an urban craers want to squeeze profit out of our community? Dave was also pushing for higher taxes. If our previous super supervisor hadn't wasted money for things like an $80,000 architectural study for a fire station that even firefighters found unnecessary, the township would be better off. Toll Brothers Plymouth Walk by the railroad tracks is a prime example. McKenna and Dennis Sabolski have shown by their actions that they care more about profit than the character of our community and our looming traffic problems. The cart again has been put before the horse. Township ordinances in general need to be re-evaluated first. Trusty Growth is a valuable resource as she worked in the township since the 70s clearly has proven dedication to research and deeply cares about what the citizens want. Ideally, an in-house planner would be more accountable and committed to the township. Dennis Abolski, Dave Ladawick, and Tim Boyd all have expired terms on the planning commission. Thank you to Tim Boyd for his dedication to green space and especially trees. The racetrack effort resurfaced. Why as residents we chose to live here, what needs to be protected and the ambience that should be maintained. Mechanics simply appears to be a sly version of Gary Heman's wanting to fill up green space. Slowing down the process and getting fresh thoughts are invaluable. Please make an effort to participate in the master plan decision and spread the word. Thank you. Anyone else?

Good evening everyone. Good to see you all. Um, the Michigan legislature, we start back up tomorrow. Who you are? Oh, yeah. I'm Matt Kulazar. I'm your state representative. Also a I'm celebrating my 15th year as a Plymouth Township resident this year. Time flies. Congratulations.

So the legislature starts back up tomorrow. And what I'm here to talk to you about tonight is just I want to give this entire board a heads up that it is a lot tougher these days to get any funding grants for local projects. We also have a requirement that um means we need to go 45 days in advance. We have to make sure we are submitting them before any vote. So, if the board is interested in looking at any type of potential funding for any local project supervisor, I encourage you to reach out to my office. I'd be happy to have that discussion with you or anyone on the board to see if there's anything we can't do for anything you're looking at here in Plymouth Township. Thank you. What's the format look like typically? Is there standard form?

So, generally, no. We we have well we have our own form we fill out that basically talks about community impact, economic development, what is bas what is in it for the community essentially and also why should the state invest in this for example and and the format has changed to where now we have to give 45 days advanced notice before a vote and we have to personally testify on it. Now, we followed a looser version of that last year in which we were able to get funding for Schoolcraft College for a new masonry facility that they are building. But in terms of what it used to look like, we used to just fill out a form really quick. We could informally talk about those things. It's a much more formal process now for us. But the biggest thing I've learned is I have to talk to our local leaders early, a lot earlier than we used to. So, I'm I'm here kind of to sound the alarm on that because it's much earlier than it used to be in the past.

Good. All right. My understanding is last Friday there was a statewide TV show that said the state of the state budget would not be or the state of the state message by the governor would not be given until February 25 and that the budget would not be presented until March. And you and I know from experience, you really can't do a lot of substantive work until you have a state of the state and you have a proposed budget. And we all know and I appreciate the fact that you were willing to come and say money is going to be tight. So, uh, is that the schedule February 25 and then March? From my understanding, the state of the state is happening in late February. That is correct. And then of course then when she delivers her budget would be in the month after that. That is correct. I prefer to regardless of we may not know exactly how much funding is going to be available. I prefer to be out in front of it and I would rather at least get the requests ready. If we don't get them, we don't get them. But I don't want to not get them because we weren't having these conversations early.

And you might be our state senator because you filed to run for state senate. That is correct. I got a question for you. Um the uh our neighbor the roads in our neighborhoods, most of them are in really bad shape and I was short that was that couldn't have been [laughter] more than 5 seconds. Well, I was going fast because I was cognizant of the timer.

Um, and to in a lot of the cases that's due to uh uh some issues in the late 90s with the addit additive of a chemical. I forget what it was called ASR or something like that. But the point is is that, you know, they're I mean they're crumbling and you walk neighborhoods when you campaign, you see it uh firsthand. Um, is there any appetite at the state for assisting assisting local neighborhoods with uh um rehabilitation of the roads given that uh under the current practice, a neighborhood would have to pass an SAD and pay for it themselves. And some of these some of these neighborhoods could get extremely expensive. So, when the roads package that was passed last year did provide for a lot a bunch higher amounts of local road funding, but I'll be honest with you, especially because this is a township, a lot of that still does run through the county, which I know does create its own hurdles and its own challenges. It was something I've brought up many times. I I sit on the transportation and infrastructure committee now, and I continuously in talking to the chair, Pat Outman, and I said, "What are we going to do for townships?" because they continuously their local roads get neglected just because of the basic format of things. That issue has not been solved yet, but it's something I continue to talk about because I live in the township. You're right. I have rolled it more than one ankle uh walking some of the local roads in the township, but uh I do think that the way it is structured right now does put you at a disadvantage. It's something I continue to talk about.

Well, I have a couple of points, but Southeast Michigan has a large chunk of its population living in townships. And second is Wayne County has 42 million in what they call the neighborhood road funds, but it doesn't appear that it's what we think is a neighborhood road. Do you know anything about that designation? Cuz they have received more than normal. I think more than what they would normally get with Act 51. Um, so with that 42 million on the line item, you always wonder we should get more because we're a neighborhood uh and we have more than county roads.

So, we're trying to work that, but nobody has an answer at the county. I'm absolutely happy to look into that because I would like to know as well. There's a document that has all 83 counties and it breaks down, right, with the act 51 and then neighborhood roads and some the increase. And so if you don't have it, I'll get it to you probably have it, but I'll get it to you so you can look at it and you can see the numbers. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you for your time tonight. Well, anything you can do, anything you can do for seniors and uh real property tax reform. Absolutely. That's apparently on the agenda. So, we will see.

Get rid of the income tax and we can compete better with the states. Get rid of all taxes and we'll love you. [laughter] Thank you very much.

Hi, Bill from Hidden Creek Plymouth Township. Uh 25th year of uh living in the township here. A couple things. Number one, uh the survey. It was great to get feedback. It would be nice to get more residents participating in the survey. And I just want to make a suggestion here. Number one, uh, if we can get people to go to electronic billing, number one, and providing the email addresses like most of us have to do for services, it's a way to reduce costs a, but it enables us to ping people, let them know when these surveys are going on to get more residents input. Okay, it's very vital for the survey we just had done for the master plan. So, it's a suggestion. The second thing I wanted to do is talk trash. Okay, I was a employee back in 1984 of Waste Management. at the Woodland Meadows landfill number one. That's the landfill along the east side of I275 just south of Michigan Avenue that you cannot see behind the trees. I'm not sure if they're on Woodland Meadows 9 or 10, but that landfill expansion that's over there more than negates the need for a second landfill at Arbor Hills. Right. So, for information, right, most people don't know that GFL, they call themselves green with an N for life. We probably ought to try to get a resolution to make it change to greed with a D for life. Right? This is nothing more than a a revenue grab by our neighbors, Salem Township, right? And back in the day when I was a kid growing up here, playing in the same uh areas that Mayor Turbo did, right? Riding many bikes, uh swinging off of trees with ropes off a back road into the the gravel pits there for fun in the summertime, which was dangerous, right? This was the dumping ground. It was a dumping ground for prisons. It was a dumping ground for Dehoko, for the medium duty prison, for the state mental institutions. The west side of this county has cleaned up its act. The biggest eyesore that is left is that trash hill, right? So, there is a collaboration of people that are looking

for help, right? And there are very important meetings going on with the MMP and the county commissioners. So, flood them with emails saying no to that second dump. Uh the the two other things I want to recognize. One, I was glad glad to see two representatives, right? Mr. Kasar was one of them to be there last night, as well as our supervisor, Chuck Hermy, which is important to keep a pulse on what's going on. But I I did want to uh ask, right, if we're going to allow sewage to flow through this township, the least Salem Township can do is is stop pushing the trucks through this county on our roads that cause trouble. That's one of the biggest complaints that also was in that survey. And the second thing here is, boy, I'd love to see a piece of legislature authored by Representative Kolasar that says you can't put a dump on the neighbor or edge of the township so westerly winds can blow and stink up your your county neighbor, right? If they want a dump, it ought to be 2 to three miles to the west of Salem, the city of Salem, right? So they can smell the stink and deal with it as well as the traffic. So that's it. [snorts] Respectfully submitted. Thank you for the time.

Thank [clears throat] you. Anyone else?

Hi, it's uh Paul Scholes from Green Meadows in Plymouth Township. Uh good evening. Uh I would like to uh share with you get closer to the or put that closer to you.

Uh good evening. I would like to share with you uh the in incompetence of our planning commission current both current and past. Plymouth Township is not an experiment to risk with unproven concepts for our updated master plan. Competent leadership does not follow trends. It follows our history passed down from our founding fathers and those who built this community. Our current master plan follows a consistent proven track record providing a balanced density of commercially zoned properties along with the anno corridor allowing capitalism to prosper providing goods and services to our residents. After reviewing the video of the joint session of both board of trustees and planning commission, I found it very disturbing that there was a discussion being recklessly steered in a direction to completely change future land re use from commercial to residential. This discussion is drastically of drastically changing. Our master plan is being led by the same municipal planners and planning commission that has allowed poor planning and overdevelopment throughout our Plymouth township for decades and it needs to be stopped. Let's look back in history at the first highdensity condominium development in a commercially dis in a commercial district across from Lee's Chicken that encroaches into Green Meadow subdivision. Our residents do not want residential development mixed with currently zoned commercial properties that will be necessary to provide future generations various needs to our community that require brickandmortar businesses to operate. This makeelieve municipal planners uh make up along with our planning commission that are perpetuating is purely fantasy. This change in zoning in our master plan will endanger the future prosperity of our entire community. The Anna Road quarter is not broken and it

its zoning should not be changed. Enforced PUDS should not be a way around the master plan. Future development changes will evolve naturally as they always have, not by makeelieve concepts and trends. The planning commission led by our former administration brought eight years of reckless overdevelopment. Various examples of the is the former Elks Club property and Woff steel industrial property that have become a residential neighborhood, the Plymouth Walk that does not conform in any way to our surrounding zoning. This new residential development will now compound the existing traffic congestion with 1,000 plus additional cars entering and exiting into a strip mall. The Plymouth Walk residential development should never have been allowed there. In closing, many of these who promoted poor planning and overdevelopment still serve on the commission. Their terms have expired and should be ter and should be removed [music] and not extended. We need new planning commission that put our community first, not developers. As for our current municipal planning services, they should be terminated. There are many other planning consultants that could better serve our township. Our people, our priority. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else? Okay. We'll go on to the regular agenda now. The new business. Uh number one is we're going to talk about FOYA in two forms. One is police uh foyer report and number two would be the clerk foyer report. So we're going to who's going to tee this up? Uh is it going to be Chief Nitel or Cindy first? Cindy is our u uh dispatch civilian operations uh director. and the original idea to make some changes did percolate up through her department.

Thank you, supervisor, and thank you, board of trustees, for the opportunity to speak on this topic tonight. Again, as the supervisor said, I'm the director of civilian operations for the police department. Uh my span of control includes [clears throat] the dispatch center, the records department, and the jail. This topic tonight comes from the records department as the records department is tasked with compiling what you see on the screen there which is the police department's foyer report and the monthly report. Uh we have employees in our department that have previous experience with other uh municipalities. And at one point a couple of years ago, about five years ago, uh our records management analyst came up to me voicing concern about the fact that the previous uh version of this report included the requesters names. Nothing was redacted. Uh throughout the years, uh things have changed. She brought it up in COVID time. So, you all know that that kind of put a pause on everything. And then a couple of years later, we were reaching out to subject matter experts to try and kind of really zone in on exactly what the right answer was. And we were unable to get a lot of people to um answer us directly as opposed to what they were doing in operational terms. we were looking for something that was more statutoily based um and in regards to our legal liability. So in discussing with Chief Nitel this topic um he wanted me to do some history search kind of like talk about the history of our department and then look at research what are the best practices for our area. The police department just for stat statistical knowledge completes about 66% of the foyas that come into Plymouth Township every month. Um, our research indicated, I'm sorry, focused on industry standards, legal requirements, and liability. After the training uh that they received

kind of percolated this issue, I instructed the records department to Could you speak to us instead of that?

Oh, so my apologies. Um, I instructed the records department to coordinate with the clerk's office in regards to the foyer report. As the superi advisor indicated, the foyer report and the monthly report comes in two forms. So, we wanted to speak to the clerk's office and get their um opinion as the clerk's office is the ultimate keeper of the record and manager of foyer for Plymouth Township. Uh the focus of that conversation was consistency. Um systems that are operating in different ways tend to not be consistent. So, we wanted to have a consistent perspective on it. Uh the clerk's office was amendable to the decision, but in that conversation, it was determined that we were not sure if there was a statutory requirement that we include those names in that report. At that time, we roped in the township attorney, Kevin Bennett. He was emailed um at the request of the clerk and after a conversation with the chief of police uh to confirm that there were no statutory requirements. The idea was if there was one conversation's over. Uh the township attorney Bennett responded. He indicated it was his opinion that we may eliminate the names of the foyer requesters and there is no legal requirement regarding the inclusion of said information. Moving forward in history uh after this issue was brought up and run by the township attorney supervisor Kermy brought uh the main players in this. So the clerk's office uh Jerry Vorva I believe it was Denisa myself and my record staff in for a meeting to have a conversation about the direction that we were going. In that meeting, it was discussed that all of our uh Jerry and my employees were going to training the next day put on by the assistant attorney general of the state of Michigan focusing on FOYA law and that they want uh I'm sorry, the supervisor

wanted them to pose this question to the assistant attorney general. Foye training was attended the next day and the opinion of the assistant attorney general Thomas Kuzano indicated that the redactions and named from the reports would be something that he recommended in order to protect the individuals from potential harm, threat or endangerment. Redaction of names on requ of requesters of foya is the policy of the attorney general's office. July 1st of this year, I provided the monthly report for the police department for June without the names. At the request of the supervisor's office, I additionally and then in coordination with the chief of police, I additionally provided the original format with the names. [snorts] After a conversation at the supervisor's office le level, it was decided to move forward with the report without the names. We have been providing the report without the name since June of 2025. In regards to the research that was conducted, initially the supervisor asked me to reach out to three uh local jurisdictions, kind of take the temperature of what they're doing. We're looking for best practice measurements. Hampton, Northville Township, and Leavonia indicate they create no report for the township board regarding FOY. Additionally, we wanted to grab some more uh representation from local departments. Uh Farmington Hills, Novi, Southville Police, Troy, Heron Township, and Bloomfield Hills were reached out to regarding their practices regarding providing reports, and if they did, did they rep uh provide the requesttor names? None of those jurisdictions provide a foyer report to their township board. We also reached out to the Michigan State Police. [snorts] They indicate they have no monthly report that they create and they have a policy not to

release the names of foyer requesters. Additionally, I reached out I'm sorry, I looked uh for statutory cases regarding FOYA. Um, at this point I can find in another state that there was an issue with the Department of Transportation releasing the list of foyer requesters in the state of Virginia. There was significant threat of uh litigation regarding that. Those who were involved alleged harassment, retaliation, and threatening threatened legal action. Although that case never came to fruition in regards to the lawsuit, it inspired statutory change. at the state level. In 2020, they changed the criteria in which you can receive the requester of a foyer in the state of Virginia. So lastly, uh excuse [clears throat] me, the police department's position. The first reason why we recommended uh and and research this issue was safety and security. It is our mission to make sure that we are using uh everything that we can to make sure we're not inhibiting people's access to the police. [snorts] And when there is a threat of retaliation and harassment uh to someone who is requesting these documents under the color of the law, potentially there is that threat there and that might hamper someone from using us as uh their governmental resource. Secondly, we're discussing this in the in the under the vein of liability. Um, we were concerned by releasing information of potential victims that are involved in criminal uh case reports that we would incur civil lawsuits for damages at the township level if something bad happened as a result of that. And last, we were talking about privacy. For those of you who know about FOYA, there are exemptions within the

FOYA law. One of them is privacy. Privacy is not just a you're exempt because of privacy. It's a balancing test. We're asked to look at the document, look at the data, and determine is the uh privacy of the person involved. Does that outweigh the public's interest in that information? We're doing balancing tests. So indicating on at the federal level they use the rule under FOYA exemption six and allowing information to be withheld if it would constitute a clearly unwanted invasion of privacy. One of the more poignant comments that they have on their website is if the disclosure of the names does not further the core purpose of illuminating governmental functions then the name should be redacted to preserve privacy. Lastly, just a couple of hours ago, uh Lori Hinckley, who was the foremost expert of was she is she is the foremost expert of FOYA in the state of Michigan, responded to our request to comment on this. Uh she spent 20 plus years at the Michigan State Police. She ended up training for the last 20 years FOYA to governmental agencies, police departments, and records personnel. She's the president of law enforcement records management association. She's been their president for eight years. She has a BS in criminal justice and her jurist doctorates from Kulie. We believe that she is a subject matter expert on this topic. She actually echoes the federal comments when she answers us. She states, "I believe the react redaction uh she was speaking about redacting names from the report. I believe the redaction met the privacy test under the FOYA and still honored the core purpose of FOY FOYA. Essentially, the

requesters's name was not material to the public body's processing of the request. And to just clarify that when we process FOYA, we don't consider who the requesttor is. We process the data based on exemptions and non-exemptions. who is requesting is not something that is material to how we do our job and that's why she states that it can be uh redacted. Thank you. Questions? So uh the issue is whether we include the name of the requesttor. Correct. It was the police department's recommendation that the name of the requesttor on all foyer reports be removed.

And what's the other side of that argument? Why do people argue that we ought to

I would be happy to present the other side. I did my own research. Um the purpose of freedom of information. It's a federal act. It's binding on all states and subsequently all states have their own FOYA laws that are binding on all public bodies. The public body is defined as anybody created by state or local authority and primarily funded by state andor local authority. That certainly includes the Charter Township of Plymouth. I have taken the time to read and print chapter 15 of the Michigan Compiled Laws as they relate to FOYA. The specific intent of the act is clear. Much like the Open Meetings Act, it is a proisclosure act. The intent behind the law is to open doors to public information and to provide the public access to this information without censure, without politization, and without regard for personal bias, favoritism or discomfort. Information generated by an actions of the government should be as transparent as possible. The public has a right to know and we as representatives and gatekeepers of the public trust have an obligation to ensure and oversee our local government's adherence and complete compliance with FOYA. Historically, the report that we are referring tonight to tonight, as you see up on the screen, was designed to advise elected board members of the status and compliance of FOYA requests. This is not put out to send an alarm to the public. So, and so asked for a report. It is put out for the board because we are the authority that hears any appeals on denials of FOYA information. As such, it is

inherent that we have some information about what is going on with FOYA and that we ensure that it is being complied with. Now, I would like to refer to these reports in particular, police department and the clerk's office and note that these are incredibly generic reports. It says the date of the request. It says the company name of the requesttor and when it refers to the information that is being provided, it says police records, assessing records, clerk's records. It does not say accident report. It does not say domestic violence assault victim because the people who are requesting are not assumed or perceived to be victims. They are actual human beings who request information and we all have the right to do so. Um, I believe that um I believe that victim crime victims have rights, but I could question how can you classify a person who requests a report as a crime victim when that has not been ascertained in a court of law. I'm also asking my colleagues to continue.

Would you repeat that sentence? A crime, a person that is referred to as a crime victim is done so by the police department, but we as board members and you as citizens don't automatically assume that every person who requests a report is a crime victim. Crime victims are proven in a court of law. They're not just automatically victims because they make a report. Because the fact of the matter is that h people are humans and humans don't always tell the truth. And I'm not request I'm not questioning anyone's integrity. I'm simply stating that I believe we are adding we are making more of this than we need to. I have talked to a 31-year clerk in Oakland County. I have talked to a 25-y year FOYA coordinator. And the reality is that when you present your report, it shows the date of the request. It shows the not just the name. Foil laws have been upgraded to show name, address, and phone number of the requesttor. It shows specifically what is requested. A police report for a dog bite. A police report for a domestic violent incident. Show me where on these reports any of that specificity is being done. We are getting very generic, very general information. and we get that so that we can oversee the application of FOYA and compliance with FOYA. We do not ask for specific personal information. We do not get into specific personal FOYA information. And I want to go one step further and state that our FOYA coordinator is the clerk.

And I would like to know that our FOYA coordinator, our clerk is well trained and compliant with the laws of FOYA because decisions are being made and I don't have a problem with the decisions. But I do believe that as overseers of the public trust, we have a right to the information. We are not using it for political cause or any other cause. And I strongly recommend that we continue with that generic report with the exception of adding the name of the requester which is the public's right to know.

So So revert you're recommending reverting to where we were prior to June of 2025. That is what I am recommending. I could see how uh you could adding names to it could have a chilling effect particularly uh I mean if we addresses and phone numbers that's out of the question abs and I absolutely agree with that and I'm not requesting that. Thank you Trusty Dorch. That's actually dovetailes into one of the things that we were really concerned about is inhibiting people's access to the police department because they're concerned they're going to be published in a report that's put online. Excuse me. Foil law is very specific and it does deal with the public's right to know

and I'm not Excuse me. My apologies. Thank you.

And I am simply stating that as a board we have a responsibility and I don't think we can look at one department's viewpoint on something versus another departments. And I think in order for us to be able to know what is going on and assure compliance, this very generic report does not do any harm to anyone. And there is no provision in the law that says you may not put the requesters's name on the report. And our attorney made it very clear in a re recent meeting that this is a board decision, not a department decision, not a supervisor decision, not a foye coordinator decision, a board decision. We are charged with oversight. I don't see the problem. I don't see that we're violating anything and I would like to recommend that we continue the practice that we have in place.

Mr. supervisor, if I if I may. Um, the issue isn't that a victim is requesting it. It's that other people will see that a victim is requesting it. In the law right now, if a victim comes in and reports a law, they get the police report and they are given information about protection of victims. So, they're they're presumed to be a victim. It doesn't need to be adjudicated. they need to be protected. And so the law already says that if we believe that releasing certain information will be harmful or violating someone's privacy, we can do that. The board can't say we get to ignore that aspect of it. The board cannot do that. You'll open yourself up to liability. And and Treasuritz is correct. It will have a chilling effect on people making requests if they know that their name is going to be just given out. It's not it it it's not important to the process that they are that their name is. The thing is is they requested the information and the information is given out. Now I am really quite surprised that I didn't think of this myself when the when the uh the the the police department came to me on I'm going like well that makes sense because already in the law when it comes to releasing information about people's voting information there are people who are shielded automatically and you can't give that out. You can't give out their address. You can't I mean you can't give out their their telephone number. You can't give out their email. And I went like, well, that's logical and it would have a chilling effect on people making requests. Again, there are people who are automatically shielded from having their information gone. So

what if a shielded person requests something and then and then their name gets put on that and the person who is wanting to do harm to them is is uh comes after them because now they know where they're at or that they're in this community. And so we do not get to decide that we can circumvent the process of using good judgment of of not disclosing personal information. We can't do that. You can't do that as a board. They're completely improper. Now if someone in my opinion if someone in if someone in my opinion wants to know about people who are requesting they can do a foyer themselves.

That is absolutely correct.

And then we can determine whether or not that person should be shielded for one reason or another. And if we deny it they can come to the board and appeal and then they can go to court. That's the way the process works. So we cannot absolutely can we we cannot say we are going to circumvent the the process of deciding whether or not uh uh a person should be shielded. We can't just say we're going to give all the information out. We'll get sued. I'm telling you. And it will have a chilling effect. And quite frankly, I don't understand why we have this bifurcation of we're going to talk about the police and the and and the clerk's department separately. There should be no bifurcation of policy. It shouldn't be a policy for the fire department, a policy for the police department, a policy for the clerk policy for the It should be one policy. That's how you that that's how you do policy. You don't bifurcate it or triate it or quadificate it or or octicate it. you have one policy and that policy should be as they pointed out and I agree with and I'm like I said I'm I'm actually surprised that I didn't think of it myself because it's an important issue um of protecting certain private information and that stuff can be found out if the people go to court or come to us and and appeal for it. So this is really simple. Most of the communities don't even give this report. Now I think it's important that the report is out as Sandy has has indicated that we know what's going on. So I think the report should say we had this many requests. We collected this much money. You could even say kind of what it's for because the system when other people says why does it say other? Well that's what's in

the system. That's the box that people check. Okay. And so it it's in the it's in the program and so that's what the person is requesting and that box gets checked in the system. We're not we're not doing it. It's being it's being checked in the system. So really this is really a real simple issue. We need to have one policy. The policy should be that we don't release that information unless it's foyed and the person goes through the process to find that every month someone could foy and say who asked for this stuff. And if it's someone that should be protected because they're a victim or because there's some other privacy issue, then we can we can ascertain that. But sometimes someone who is in a protected status may ask for something and if we disclose that we could stand liability. And and who is determining where does it say in foyer law that the purpose of the law is to provide people protected status in the first place? And secondly, who is determining protected status? And thirdly, I was in a conversation with the supervisor, the chief of police and Miss Fel, and I said, "If you are seriously concerned about the name of a an actual victim being on the report, redact it." And I was told it's too much work because that means we have to go back and check.

May I speak to that? That's exactly what you said. She said, Let me finish. Okay. Thank you.

I I said redact it and she said that means we have to go back and check every report and determine where there's actually a victim. So what I'm saying is I am not being unreasonable in my request. A citizen who requests a report is subject to identity because of FOYA because we have an obligation to the public. I don't see the problem. I we we've done it historically for a reason and I don't see any reason why I speak to your first comment in regards to protected people. So there are statutory requirements under the FOYA regarding certain things that we don't have a choice and we're not we're not releasing any personal information about anything

in certain situations. your name is and is an issue of privacy that we have to address. And so there are privacy exemptions, there are crime victim's rights exemptions, there's all sorts of exemptions within FOYA. But all of Speaking to Trusty Vorva's uh solution that I think is is is clean and genius is people who are interested in the foyer requester list. Foyer the foyer. H you foyer the foyer. You can foyer the foyer requester.

Kick this whole thing off. That doesn't work. foyer, the foyer, the foyer, somebody allows the township clerk's office and the police department to do what we're required to do, which is an appropriate analysis of what we're releasing, and then we can release what we believe at that time is appropriate. Additionally, uh, as you spoke to on that conversation, it allows us to account for our time. If we release this information now [snorts] and my staff is required to go through I don't know how many is on there 22 to potentially 40 requests every single month. We are taking on additional manhour that we are not required to take on and under the FOYA statute I'm allowed to bill for if someone requests.

Absolutely. So we're we're passing up on a small revenue stream. we're incurring additional liability that we do not need to incur because the public still has the same access to the information. It's just in a way that's going to reduce our liability and streamline both of our processes because correct me if I'm wrong, Trusty Warva, at this point right now you guys are redacting manually people who are on protected status. Right?

So if they were to adopt the process that we have adopted in the police department to remove that column, it's kind of like an Excel spreadsheet. you remove that column. It kind of streamlines the process in the clerk's office. And so, um, for that reason, that's just to answer your privacy issue. And, uh, yes, I I I'm not disagreeing with you. I did say it will be additional work if that is what is required of my staff. And thank you for pointing out that there is an Excel spreadsheet that has much more information on it than what we are seeing every month. um that's already being redacted and well it's I'm sorry not to interrupt it's not an actual expense it's a program it's a program right how you deal with

information delete a copy right and it has much much more detail than this report and I are you are you saying that for example a police report you would have to redact the names in the police report if someone requested I'm when I say the police report the actual written not not FOYA police report,

right? Well, it depends on what they ask. If they if they ask for the FOYA requesttor list, it would ask us to go back to that requester and make sure that they don't appear in that report as a victim or in some sort of protected status. So, it's if and if your name is associated with a crime in a report, I believe Trusty Gro brought this up that has not been uh arraigned in court yet, I can't release that you haven't you're tied to a charge yet because it hasn't happened, right? So, there's all not to muddy the waters with all of these things that we have to consider, but yes, if we were to be publishing this report and reviewing it, it would be on a case-by case basis. We would have to go back to the original police report. my staff would have to ascertain their role within the report which is not always clear. This is not a liability zero solution. We all have people in our lives that have two last names in a family, right? So there's only certain information that we have available and if dad has a different last name but it's a domestic, I might not know that. The only zero liability solution is removing the names and then operating with the request for the FOYA requesters under the FOYA statute and then doing the analysis from there.

Well, the absolute zero liability risk is no report at all and we don't have that option under FOYA. There's no statutory requirement to report. Right. You said there's no stat the surrounding communities are not doing it. That doesn't mean that it's wrong. We have been doing it historically and the I explained why it has been done. You know about when we started, what year? I went back probably 15 years and found it. Yes. It might be longer than that, but that's it was before I got here.

And and quite frankly, if the board wants to make the decision, you can ask that that report just be provided to board members and not to members of the public. But I think you're usurping the intent of FOYA when you do that. I don't know. I will say that what we're given as it as it stands once we create a document Oh, I'm sorry. I agree. I hear you. As it stands right now, the the documentation that we're given, I mean, it it basically says nothing. I don't I mean, we might as well just not get the report. Save you guys the the time and effort. I don't see as as a trustee what benefit it does for me. um in my you know when I look at the police reports this is information you know these are

you're not looking at a police report you're looking at the fact that someone requested police records it is that I I'm talking about the summaries that we get that's more informative to me as a trustee because you know we we pay for the police and fire and it's good to know where our money is going but as far as FOIA I would rather discuss like what are the the benefits to us as trustees to get that information. I guess I'm just not seeing

I'm not seeing it. Why we need to know the requesters? Give me some examples. Um well, I think the first and foremost the reason that the previous board started doing this was to ensure that the departments were complying with FOYA law. If you don't ever get a report, you don't know if we're getting FOYA requests. You don't know if H foyer requests are being answered. I'm not talking about arbitrary decisions. I'm talking about across the board decisions. When I look at that report, I'm not looking to see, oh, Dwayne Xantop asked for this report. That's not the purpose. It's to let us know in our role as the public trust. It's to let us know people are requesting this and they're getting it. And the name of a person is not private information. The name of a victim,

the name of the person isn't important to your point. You said it wasn't important. So why put it in there? I agree with you. If you're just looking to see if it was done, it then the request doesn't need to be on there. It's not gerine to the process of FOYA. It's not about the sunshine law.

I did not write FOYA. I did not establish this procedure. I am simply stating that as a board we have oversight responsibility. I personally am not going to vote for approval of a consent agenda that does not include that report. If you don't want to make that public to the public, that's that's your issue. But as a trustee, I like knowing that this is being complied with and I have a responsibility to ensure that it is. And that's just a little way to show me that it is being That has nothing to do with who the requester is. The report can have all that information. We we charge this much money. We had this many report. There's no problem with that. The problem is including that requesttor in there might cause a problem. So just don't don't include it.

Yeah, we're repeating ourselves now. Okay. So, uh I trust the judgment of the police department. How about if we ask the attorney? He already did and he said they may. He said it's a board decision. Yes. So let's hear it again. Uh the decision to be made is by the board. Yes.

Right. We I think we talked about that before. So the board can decide to leave the status the current status quo. We can revert to the old process of disclosing the risk the requesttor names or we can do no report at all. You really have is that right? We have three alternatives. Can anyone think of another one? But including the name counselor, would it not incur a potential for for liability? Conceivably, yes. Potentially breathing incurs liability. I know. Let's let's be honest here.

So why incur it? You know, the the information can be given to us and the public about how many how much without putting the name in there. I think my point is I don't understand why the process has to be changed for that reason. I don't see it for the liability.

We're concerned at the police department level that we we went out and got all of this knowledge and made ourselves smarter and and now we can't unknow it. So, prior to knowing the things and reaching out to the the subject matter experts and getting their official opinions on this subject, we didn't have those data points to make decisions by. But now we're in a position where if that conceivable issue occurs and our feet are held to the fire, we're going to have to say, "Yeah, we were aware of the potential liability that existed and we did it anyway." Yeah.

And the same applies negligence. And the same applies to everyone else who's done their research and and checked information on this. And I'm simply stating that in talking to people who have been experts in FOYA, who do operate with FOYA, they have specifically said they do not see a problem with including the name of the requesttor

and other experts disagree with you. I was going to say at the police department level we aren't aren't able to make uh our decisions based on the opinion of you know one or two people and so that's why we went forth and and we gathered at least less than 10 municipalities. We went to two different legal experts. And then we reached out to, like I said, the lawyer that was employed by the state of Michigan that taught most likely the two people you spoke to, their FOYA class and got all of their opinions. And not one person that we spoke to said that this was a liability liability zero situation. that if you wanted to reduce liability for the township, you were to take the names off the report and let them follow the process that exists by f foiling the list.

So, John Stewart, you had you were raising your hand earlier. If you want us to come back to you, we will. No, no, no. I'm for the full disclosure. And what is the definition of full disclosure?

Put the requesters's name. Yes. Um, sunshine, we got to get at the truth. Uh, I've talked to state police and county clerks out in Oakland County, and police reports contain bald-faced lies. [snorts] And you're talking about a balancing test positing Posi Ting, the authority with this clerk. and trust is gone with this clerk because I've observed what he's done to Dwayne Santo. So, it's all over. Oh, no, no, no. I don't trust. Oh, it it's No, no. This is And do I have to embarrassingly acknowledge what happened a year ago when a certain teenage girl came into the police department and they took her side months after months after months after months? And then a forensics expert analyzed the the telephone and find out she was been lying to the police

for 6 months. Yeah. And it was on the front page of the Detroit Free Press that Plymouth Township was fooled. That's disgusting. Now, let me finish. All right. No, we've got to open this up. Well, we don't want this too much. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Let the courts do their work. Let the police, the state police have indicated to me there's bald-faced lies in police reports and the courts have indicated there are bald-faced lies. So I'm I open this up and uh you know I no

Okay. So all right, John, we heard you. Uh Chief Nitel, do you have something to say? And then we'll discuss what the next step is here. It may be nothing. like that. I appreciate uh Director Fel's time researching this. Extensive research was done initially. Uh continued research was done. It's a recommendation uh of the police department that names not be on that report. Period. The request your name. The request for names for public safety for the safety of all. So what we could do is do nothing and leave this as the new status quo. Well, that's what's going to happen.

Why bother? Or we can take a motion if we can to change it to one of the other two alternatives which is revert to the old status quo which disclose the requesttor's name or do nothing. In other words, no report at all. I I would like to point out Chief Nitel, I appreciate what you said. I'm not being paid to do the research myself, but I'm also doing the research and my research counts for something here as well. So although you acknowledge her research and I appreciate it, I have also done research and that should be a part of this decision.

Well, trustee growth points out the gross politization of the foyer process. Don't you get it? I can say it. Pisimo trustee growth has pointed out the gross politization of the foyer process. Citizens have Don't you get it? So let's shine some sunshine at all. Let's disclose. I would like to make a motion that we continue status quo which is which is what is in the report in the board packet today which is no request name. No requesters name. I second the motion.

But we also need to hear anyone that needs to speak from the public. We want to hear what they have to say before we vote on 30 minutes on this issue. Let's grant Mr. Zan top three uninterrupted minutes which he was not accorded in December. Thank you. [clears throat] Yeah. Um last year um I was

get close to the mic. Last year I was um [snorts] charged with a crime that I did not do and there wasn't a foyer but somebody tipped this person off and he did a foyer [clears throat] and put up on social media trashing me and this was totally outrageous. I did not do the crime and I would like to be able to see these foyers when people do this. So I guess if if it's the status quo, you're going to see a lot more foyers from me. So thank you. Don't worry, we won't put your name on it. It would have been

Go ahead. Well, anyone else in the public? And then we'll come back. No, I'm just talking about the liability. I guess for Sandy, thank you for actually looking at all these things because I didn't realize that in 2015 for 201 we changed the rules. I I didn't realize that. Uh I I always appreciated the old ways. Um well, the old ways showed the requesters name, correct? Right. Right. But that changed in 2015. No, that changed in June of July of this year. This year,

right? I'm sorry. That's Sorry, that's what I meant. Um, so is it is it a board meeting? I guess that's the thing. Me personally, I would like to go back the way Sandy did it. Yeah. Revert to That's what I would like to do that the original old way that discloses the names. Exactly. Exactly. How many um um Well, I'll I'll leave it there. There's a motion on

Well, hold on. We're still not done with public comment on this part. You got to come to the podium. [snorts] This is real government action where people get to say what they think. Don't be frustrated by the time it takes to

Mary Pine again. The last administration weaponized fo foyas. The current clerk is continuing that practice. So, how can there be trust in Foya administration when a fishing expedition is launched by a disappointed lawn care service resident/suporter of the former supervisor by foying the current supervisor's assistance emails and residents joking comment is put on social media with no redactions, violating one's home security with travel plans. Clearly, the poor loser mean girl social media postings exposed the former supervisor as unfit for office. Jerry, you have a set you have set a definite pattern of long blathering when being called out for your behavior, which is a red flag confirming that you are trying to hide something. The double standards and misuse of foyers needs to end. The above need to show themselves some self-respect. dignity and maturity. Now, the politicalization of foyers has to be taken into consideration here. Foyers used for political reasons put a chilling effect on communication with current supervisor and others in our community. And I want to thank you, John, for pointing out the trust issue for the citizens. Thank you.

Don't go away yet. I have a question. the um the situation that happened from information was disclosed from Sheila Aker's uh email I believe so yeah if we didn't show the requesters's name that would not be known or it would be known what you could

well I I don't know how this got to be known but it was told to me and I believe that there's more ram ramifications to all this than just the requesters's name. I think that it should be um the clerk's office needs to do their duty. If their duty is to expose to anyone that people travel and it's easy to find somebody address, they're making them a sitting duck. And that was just done for spite.

Okay. So though that one I guess knowing the requesters's name might not wouldn't have helped either way. The information was not redacted from the email that describ plans and your home address, right? No, anybody can find our home address, right? But the travel plans that you were going to be gone or something. Well, yeah. There's been What would you do? Would you revert to the way keep it the way it is or revert to the old way with the requesttor? Disclosure. I think like we referred to with the um planning commission, I think you need to give the whole process some further thought. Yep. I'm sorry. Give

give the whole process some further thought. There should be guidelines on redacting and you can't I don't think you should make a decision tonight. I think you should think about this more. But John got to the core of the matter. This is based on trust and trust has been completely violated. People don't want to give you information, Chuck. That was done purposely because they have to make sure they handdel it to you, otherwise they're vulnerable. Now, that was quite a political tactic that was uh accepted by the clerk's office. So, okay, we do have a motion on the table. Do you want me to go? Do you want me to still be here?

No, you can. You're just You're dismissed. Thank you. Um, there's another resident who wants to speak.

So, I'll try to make this quick. Two points. Number one, okay, the police always want to protect our citizens, which is awesome. So do the trustees. This is a great community to live in. When a resident is being attacked or cyberbullied because of a policy, that's a big problem. Okay. The second point I want to make is I have had meetings with trustees in Burger King. I handd deliver documents that are written on a word [clears throat] document in envelopes, right? Because of the excess foying going around here in stealth within this building. And it's a sad day when you as a resident have to take those type of steps to have communication that is confidential yet important, right? And it it seems excessive that I need to do that, but I'm doing it because of the current policy. And to to Mary Pine's point, it's worthy of understanding it deeper because the need to protect somebody is there, but there's also need to protect residents. Okay. And communication, which is extremely important, right, to run this township, which is awesome. Thank you.

So, Bill, you're you're you're for having the requesttor on there. I'm starting to get lost here. Yeah. So, I I am for holding people accountable if they want to foyer information. That name should be available. Okay. Because the fact that it's not available is harming citizens. It's cyber bullying. And we have one of them sitting right here. Okay. And it could harm other citizens. As a parent, I had a daughter who was was bullied, cyberbullied in middle school, ironically. And I had to go to all kinds of lengths, right, to get that stopped. So they were cyberbullied because the requesttor's name was removed from the FOYA.

Yes. In Mr. Xanto's case, that is what happened. In school, it was not a FOYA situation, but people hiding behind keyboards, right, and documents is is a dangerous problem also. I'm just trying to bring that to your attention as voting members, as trustees. All right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?

Paul Scholes from Green Meadows. Um, I think you should revert to the original way and um disclose the requesttor. Uh, with the exception of the police department. If this is a criminal case, I think if something needs to be redacted, names, if it's uh, you know, someone being there should be some privacy just in that manner with the police. um with everything else, people requesting public information for all sorts of different things. It should be uh the information should be available who's requesting this stuff because a lot of this stuff has been uh weaponized uh especially throughout the the past administration, you know, and it's still being done today. And uh I would revert to that, but with the exception, you know, of the stuff you have to uh redact for the police department. There are some things that you have to protect people's privacy but most of the stuff that people are requesting there's no reason to protect someone's privacy for what purpose thank you so I know we have a motion on the table one solution would be to bifurcate which I know uh the clerk recommended not doing and the bifurcation would be police so it would be easier and more mistake proof for redacting is no request or shown but for clerk list requesttor shown. That's an idea.

I like that idea. Or you revert completely to the original old way which opens up if it's on the police side uh some potential issues with uh sensitive criminal cases. I think the point is that not everyone who requests a foyer from the police department is a potential victim. And that is why I originally suggested redacting the name of potential victims, but not every single person who requests a foyer.

Well, you have requested a foye coordinator, someone other than the clerk, which would depoliticize the process. Does anyone want it? Do you the offer of the of the um bifurcation of the current item that we have on the floor which is to retain the present process which is delete the requesttor. No. So you don't want to delete that. You don't want to retract that. You want to vote on it because I want to drive towards the bifurcation because I think that's the best. The problem is

the best that pleases the most and accomplishes the most. The problem is is that someone who is in a protected class could make a request and then we not know it. When you say make a request to the police department or to or to me, who is the protected class? It could be someone who is protected like all the people who are protected in our voting system. But you're talking about personal information and we're not talking about providing personal information. That person's name. Once that person's name, oh ha, they're around Plymouth somewhere. I'm going to go look for them.

You know what? Honestly, Jerry, if if I want a police report and I'm a I'm a potential victim, I'm not going to request the report. I'm not talking about victim. I'm saying that a victim could make the request and we not know it and then we disclose that name and then someone finds out about it who wants to get after them. So that's that's the harm is that if you if you just say we're not going to do it, but then the person somebody out there who wants to know uh who who's requesting stuff, they can make a foyer and then they can get that information if it's not.

Ooya is written to eliminate personal discretion and to provide public information. Yes, it is. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Because the law says that if we if we believe that that giving that information would be harmful that we can do it. That's a decision that we make. How you're putting it to someone's judgment to make that determin. And that is why I ask that they redact those names. But that isn't totally mistake proof is what worries me.

Nothing is totally mistaken. That's why and that's why you only limit it to people who are curious enough to want to have that information and not have it floated out there to all the public. That's the problem is that when it becomes universal, then that's the problem. If a curious person wants to know something, they can potentially find that out through the process and provide it just to the board members and not make it part of the board. Well, no, because once it once the board gets it, it becomes public. What is your recommendation, Mr. Supervisor?

My recommendation is bifurcated and police will not put a a requesttor and the clerk list will will have a requesttor and if a potential protected person gets disclosed then we we stand liability. Yeah, I understand that. But that may be an interim step [clears throat] until we further work on it. Or the other interim step is status quo like what we have in the report today. But on the te on the floor right now is a vote uh to revert to the original. No, it isn't. Oh, it's to leave it as it is. He says to leave it as

to leave it as is. That's right. Okay. Um, let's take a vote. If that fails, then let's take another vote on one of the other options. How many how many foyer requests do we get? I answer 150 emails every morning. There were 22 for the like 40 in a month. And Miss Felts, do you review Are you allowed to render your I have a lot of professional respect for you. And do you are you allowed to look at all foyer requests?

I have two employees that handle the foyer requests. So I have a records management analyst and a senior records clerk that handle the foyer requests that come to the police department. Okay. But we're talking about 40 a month. 22 22 a month. Well, that was December in December. Yeah. I answer 150 emails every morning. So I I don't have any sympathy for I'm not sure what the question is. I want you to have I want you to have time set aside to look at them. I don't to be frank. So all right. Uh I don't I don't really want a vote to uh revert.

Well, it's not revert. It's revoke. The vote would be to keep what we did tonight, right? uh because I don't like it tre tremendously either but I understand the implications is in the police department. So if I have to vote now I guess I'll have to okay I'll withdraw my motion and I'll make a motion that we bifurcate it and in the police department we redact the any uh names or any other personal information. Uh but we uh in the clerk's office we we put the name of the requesttor.

So the balancing test that Mel referred to some authority will be given to the police department. Not authority. They simply will keep it off. Follow the process. Do we have anyone that's seconding it? Second. Second. Okay. So what we're voting on is to bifurcate police uh foyer report will have the requesters named redacted and other victim related information. Well, I don't make it about victims. Well, here's what we need to do is because when stuff when we're talking about the clerk stuff that includes building, that includes fire, right?

Okay. So, fire has a lot of personal information in there that may be a victim also. And so it's protected by HIPPA tends to manage a lot. But they could be a victim. They could be transported. And so you're going to have to you're going to have to include fire also. Well, we lived with Well, we lived with it a long time. All right. But, you know, we can always revisit this. It it's this is a tough conversation. uh and it's been brought about by some bad actions that uh abuse uh resulted in

some bad things. Um and you know I I I was the target of some of it or a lot of it. Uh I'm sorry I was the lightning rod. But anyway, we're ready to vote. Well, would you would you amend it to include fire because there could they could be victims? I mean there be people being transported does fire think that they should be redacted I say certain situation yes so uh that requires a judgment call so it should be a kind of an all or nothing probably all

okay amend I amend my motion [snorts] to include fire so police and fire will redact any uh request Request your names. Request your names or other personal information that could identify a victim or uh result in, you know, liability for something and [snorts] the in the clerk's office will leave only the name of the requesttor and no other information. You mean not the subject either? Just the requesters's name. It's got to have the subject like we Oh, we always The subject isn't The subject isn't the subject isn't the problem, right? The subject is not the problem. The problem is the requesters's name.

Yeah. How's that? Can you show me where we're actually voting? I haven't No, there isn't one. This is This is on this is on the fly. It's on the fly. Well, it said the the item said possible vote. Yeah. And so he's made a motion and someone has second it. Um second. Okay. So now we need to we need to do something. So we we will be voting to bifurcate or trip for fire and police in one bifurcation together and clerks in the other. And remember that it's not you you can always if it doesn't work out we can adjust the process. Nothing's permanent.

Foil law is not written to provide foil law is not written to provide exceptions. It's it's public information. Oh yes it is. The name is public information. Okay. But what we're doing here is going to you're separating and saying victims, potential victims, that type of thing. But that foyer is not written to define these exceptions. I'm wanting to make something that is a a a reasonable solution that we can live with for a while, I hope, and let's see what happens. Let's vote. Well, I I appreciate the compromise here. Thank you. Uh, Trusty Trusty Buckley, yes. Trusty Clinton,

yes. Supervisor Kermy, yes. Treasure Dor Chevitz, yes. Trusty Grove, I might question why I waste my time doing any of this, but my answer is no. No, your time was not wasted. Yes, it was. My vote is no. Okay. Um, Trusty Stewart, yes. Clerk Vorba. Yes. [snorts] All right. We were going to try bifurcating. We'll see what happens. Let's take a five minute break and we'll be back in 5 minutes, which is 8:05.

That's not good. Thank you. That's my problem. It's not the police department. It's not It's not the procedures. Yes. Call to order at 8 07 p.m. We have Well, we don't have everybody yet.

Oh, yeah, we do. [clears throat] Okay. Next order of business is uh the leasing of Flock Brand. That's a brand name. uh cameras in the downtown development authority. This was discussed at the DDA and it was also discussed during budget planning in the fall of 2025. So, we're going to have uh Assistant Chief of Police Dan Kudra tee this up and tell us why this is a good idea um and any other pertinent information so we make a good decision.

All right. Uh thank you, Mr. Supervisor. So, uh what you have before you uh is a request for board action uh to approve expenditure from the downtown development authority budget uh for the three-year lease of 14 LPR cameras. Uh those cameras are going to be installed along the DDA uh Ann Arbor Road corridor. Um the uh costs of that is is listed in here. The initial cost is a little bit higher because it includes all of the installation costs. uh $61,500 and then uh additional years after that because we're no longer paying to install them is $44,000 per year. Uh I just want to go over really quick what LPR cameras are and what they are not.

Tell us what the acronym means.

LPR is a license plate reader. Uh so what they are is an investigative tool for law enforcement uh that allows us to uh take a a given camera or a given group of cameras and we can search for certain uh vehicle identifiers within a given period of time. So, for instance, if we have a crime occur, you know, insert business name here has a strong armed robbery or they have a uh a retail fraud or something along those lines and we have a vehicle description. This this happens very often. In fact, it happened last weekend. Uh we we had a strong armed robbery uh at one of our local businesses. Uh the clerk, not a car person like myself, described the vehicle as a dark-colored sedan. That was the only description that we had. Uh, with the LPR cameras, uh, you can search for sedans. You don't have to have a make. You don't have to have a license plate. You can search by color. Uh, we've had cases in the past where we have a a vehicle description, and they say, "I'm I don't know what kind of vehicle it was, but it has damage on the driver side front." That is an identifying characteristic that you can search for in this uh uh uh software program that comes with this system. Uh, and I'll talk about a case where that that did happen and we did use that as a marker that helped us to identify a suspect vehicle. So, it it's an investigative tool that allows the police department uh to take maybe not a great vehicle description from a victim or a witness uh and be able to develop leads and identify a potential vehicle from which we can develop potential suspects. Um, what it is not is it is not big brother watching over you. Uh these uh license plate reader cameras are not connected to any databases. They are not connected to NCIC, the National Crime Information Center. They're not connected to LEAN, the Law Enforcement Information Network. So, it's not as if you drive past one of these cameras and it captures your license plate and it runs your license plate and

[clears throat] it it knows who you are and what you're doing. Um, another uh feature of this uh system is that we can input um certain vehicles into the system as as a vehicle that we're looking out for. Um, oftent times in in my younger days in law enforcement, we we kind of knew who a suspect vehicle might be that like this is is a vehicle that we think is associated with, you know, lararseny from autos. Maybe they're stealing rims and tires from vehicles or they're stealing catalytic converters or something like that. Um, we [clears throat] would basically be on the lookout for that car. And hey guys, if you see this vehicle, uh, keep an eye on it. This might be an LFA guy, an LFA crew out here committing crimes within the community. This LPR camera uh network allows us to put that vehicle into the system and if we have the LPR cameras at the entrances to our community and this vehicle that we have input into the system is a vehicle that we are interested in goes through and one of the LPR cameras hits on this. Uh it will notify our guys, hey, this vehicle that you think is associated with an LFA crew just exited Ann Arbor Road at I275 and then our people can go and start canvasing the area and looking for that vehicle, hopefully trying to prevent some crimes. Uh so that's a little bit of a description of kind of what they are and what they are not. Um even though we do not actively have LPR cameras uh in the township right now uh the whole system is interconnected, right? It's a network and all of our surrounding communities use flock uh cameras. [clears throat] Uh Leavonia has them, Redford has them, Westland has them. Um [clears throat] Northfield Township has them, Novi has them, Farmington Hills has them. I think is Canton going to them? Do [snorts] we know? Yeah. So, can Canton is uh trending in that direction? So, we are all surrounded by communities that either have or are going to the flock camera system. And if um I enter a vehicle uh into the system that I'm looking for, if it drives past

a flock camera in Leavonia or Redford or wherever the case may be, we will get that information. Um some of uh uh examples of cases where where we have utilized flock data to help us solve crimes. A few years ago we had an ATM theft at our Shell gas station up at 5m and Beck. Uh the uh folks came in one, you know, middle of the night. One of them distracted the clerk who was the sole uh employee working there. Uh while the other person uh literally unplugged the ATM machine, loaded into the vehicle, and then they left. Uh the clerk caught a look at the vehicle as it was pulling out. Uh he said he thought it was maybe a PT Cruiser or a Chevy HHR, but he knew that it had a certain sticker in the rear window and he knew that it had front driver side damage. And so we were able to though we didn't have flat cameras, we paid to have access to that network, we were able to search for that and we got a hit on a I think it was a PT Cruiser with driver side front damage with a sticker in the rear window. From that, we were able to follow that vehicle where it hit on LPR cameras as it went back to where those [clears throat] people lived. Um, we actually went down there. Our detectives located the vehicle. Uh, and we recovered the ATM machine in an alley behind the house. Uh, so that's one example of how we use these this technology to solve crimes right here in the township. Um, we had a a a counterfeiting um I guess you'd call it a ring uh that we were able to develop suspects uh from the LPR uh camera network through Flock. That was within the last month. And then just last week, we had uh a subject come in and report his adult child missing. Um didn't know where his kid was and didn't know where the vehicle was. We put that vehicle into the Flock camera system. It hit down in East Point. Our detectives went down, started looking around in East Point where this vehicle had hit. We found it at a motel. Uh that young man was being held against his will by

two individuals. He was actually kidnapped, we believe, in Ann Arbor. Uh but we were able to safely recover him because of this flat camera network. Um now again we are uh able to access the network right now with other surrounding communities uh who have flat cameras but we're looking to install those uh in our own venue here as well. Uh now are there other vendors? There are. Um I looked at three different vendors uh when I started this project over a year ago. Uh, I looked at Flock, obviously. I looked at Motorola and I looked at Verata. Um, we met with representatives from all three of those companies. They came to the station. They gave us presentations. The township supervisor attended at least two of those presentations. Um, after looking at all of these vendors, it's the [clears throat] determination of the police department that uh, Flock represents the best value for money. It is kind of the industry leader in Southeast Michigan and I would I would argue across the country as far as LPR cameras go. Um the difference between what Flock offers and what the other vendors offered, Flock is a lease. Um the other vendors would have required us to buy the equipment. Once we buy it, we own it. There's no upgrades. Um if it's damaged, we got to pay for it. Um if if there are maintenance issues with it, we need to replace batteries, we need to replace solar panels, whatever the case may be, um that would all fall upon us. With Flock, it's a lease. We pay our lease payment. If a new better camera comes out to replace the old one, Flock swaps those out. If the batteries die, Flock comes out and swaps those out. If uh a a a solar panel dies, Flock comes and replaces that at no cost to us. Uh so we feel that it's the best system. We feel it's the best value for the money for the taxpayers and um that is what we

are recommending the uh downtown development authority uh contract. So there's there's two separate contracts and I can talk to each contract here. I can just hit both of them at the same time. That's up to the board. Uh the downtown development authority contract is specifically for those along the Ann Arbor Road corridor. Um, we as the police department wanted to also cover more uh uh area in the west end of the township uh and also uh the north end of the township up near the Lake Point sub. So, we also have a separate uh police department uh contract which we intend to pay for using state forefeer funds. Um that would be for 12 LPR cameras. All of these are a three-year lease. Um and I think that's all I have at the moment. I'm happy to answer any questions. And you selected the model that is uh solar powered, right?

Correct. And it works in the winter time. It does. Yep. Yep. They come with they come with battery packs and Yep. It'll charge the battery pack. The [clears throat] solar charges the battery. Yep. And it has a life a certain number of hours uh if there's darkness or no sun. Yeah. They work at night. They have night vision. Uh yeah. So if it powers powers up by the sun during the day and it will it will last during the overnight hours. So regard regarding the quantity it you're proposing 26 of them. How does correct? How does that for

well I guess we're small in population but are is it because we're a larger size township? How do we compare to other townships? Do they have just as many?

You know I'm not sure what the other municipalities numbers are. Um, we looked at the major points of ingress and egress to the township and then uh the downtown development authority. We kind of wanted them and I'm I'm not going to get into specifics of where we intend to deploy them, [laughter] but they're going to be [clears throat] throughout the downtown development authority because what we don't want is for instance somebody to commit a crime at one of these businesses in the DDA and maybe head south on Lily Road, right? take an road to Lily and then head south and then you know we don't have an LPR camera until the freeway entrance down here uh because uh we won't catch them on an LPR camera. So the the objective is to have them strategically placed along the downtown development authority and road corridor. Uh that is where the most uh intense concentration of these cameras will be. Uh the other cameras are going to uh cover our entrances and exits from the freeway. uh uh both M14 uh so that would be Sheldon Road and Beck Road. Uh and then of course the DDA will encompass An Road and I 275.

And then of course we have some other uh I would say uh common points of entry into the township. We'd like to have some coverage at those areas as well that they're outside of the DDA area. So, are you saying they are specifically to be used for um your use in crime um issues or are they going to be used for anything else?

Nope. So, they're they're strictly an investigative tool to help us solve crimes. You know, again, they're not connected to any you know, they don't have the ability to run your license plate. Um they they um the data belongs to us, right? So it's not like Flock [snorts] as a company collects this data and then has the ability to distribute that data out. The data belongs to the township. We determine how long that data is kept for. The default is 30 days. Uh if this is approved, we'll look at that and we'll put our policy together and determine what length of time we want them to retain this data for. Um yeah, so it it it would not be used for anything other than as an investigative tool uh to solve crimes.

Okay. I would like to say on the record, especially in light of the conversation that we just had, um, as the daughter of a former state police officer, I am very committed and concerned about crime, I'm very concerned about the job that our police department does to keep us safe. I also want to say in light of the conversation we just had that there have been, we're talking about human beings. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes

and there is a very real sense of overreach. There's very a very real sense of people not being treated equitably and fairly. So I would like to know and maybe your representative can speak to this. I would kind of like to see what kind of policies and procedures are in place for the use of these cameras. Um because I think we need to do that for our public. We need to assure them that there are policies and procedures in place that will be utilized to prevent what I'm talking about the overreach and that type of thing.

Yep. So, if we do approve this, these these are not going to come online for many months. Uh there will be a policy. In fact, if we do have LPR cameras, we are an accredited police department. There is an accreditation standard that requires us to have a policy. And as I do want to maintain our accredited status, uh you can believe we will have a policy and and and the board will also have um exposure to that policy so that we that's up to the chief we are aware. I'm not going to that's the chief's decision. I chief Yes. Okay. Okay. So yes, we would certainly share that with you, Sandy. [laughter]

I understand what what we're trying to do is avoid employee abuse where you you may uh spy on your husband, ex-girlfriend, whatever. Yes. So, any anytime that an officer searches, so so the LPR uh camera system, if you're going to do a search, right, or if I'm going to enter a vehicle in there that I think is associated with an organized retail crime group or something like that, and I do a search for that, that is all logged. There is a record of anybody who searches in there. You can't just go and randomly search. That search has to be tied to a case. You have to have a reason for the search. You could you have put a case number in there uh to be associated with why you're searching for that vehicle. Uh so it does it does it does maintain a log of who is searching, what they're searching, and what the reason is for the search

cuz it's like lean usage. Yeah. I I I would like to um ensure that the p there the the policy that is written provides for punish proper punishment for anyone who violates that. Um because you're absolutely right. I mean we we can't so so so the policy would likely uh refer back to our standards of conduct and and we do have a policy on use of uh department computers and things like that. So it would it would probably refer to any violation of this uh uh policy searching for whatever reasons would be a violation of those policies and the appropriate disciplinary uh measures as laid out in our discipline policy would apply.

And I want to make it clear I I'm not suspecting that any police officer is going to violate it. I just want to make sure that we that our citizens are protected. Yep. Uh I think you maybe have forgotten one thing is allegedly this is the largest single innovation in police investigation to come along in 25 years. Is that true? And and I've been here for for a little over 25 years. This is the single most impactful tool that has come along in my my law enforcement career. Uh chief's been doing it a while. I think he'll tell you the exact same thing.

Yeah, I can tell you that. Um and and to kind of answer uh your question, Jen, um other departments have many more. Farmington Hills, Leavonia, Leavonia, I think is adding 40 more to uh their uh roll out. um chief in conversations with uh Chief Pigot, with Chief Groski, uh with Chief Isa Shaheen, which I just had this week, uh we had this discussion about LPRs, uh he's all of us agreed that um this uh technology, this innovation is something we've never seen in any of our careers, you know, spanning uh 38 plus years. So So it's not picking up faces at all. Is that right?

Nope. There's no facial recognition component to it. It it's strictly uh picking up vehicles. Have you looked into um any lawsuits that might be out there against police departments for mishandling? Are you guys getting in with with all new technology? You know, there can be some abuse and not just even like, you know, for someone's personal information, but what do we have uh to back us up on false investing in false uh or inaccurate uh charging of people based on the data? I I'll I'll let our our our flock representatives chomping at the bit to answer your question here. So, I'll let him step up.

Mr. Kermy, members of the board of trustees, thanks for having me. My name is Mike Lampman. I am your city's flock safety rep and I'm happy to be here. Um, so as far as just like accountability and audit trails and everything like that. Um, as assistant chief Cudra said, there is a permanent audit trail that is recorded for every single search that an officer does. It's tied with that officer's name, search reason, case number, and all the pertinent details of the search. As far as the uh audit goes, also um we also so in addition to the police department that's going to conduct their own audits, whether they set that up as quarterly, semianually, or whatever uh tempo they want to do, some departments do monthly. Um we also internally also track and make sure that there's proper use of the um of the system. And we also also hired a third-party independent uh auditing company also that goes through does audits to make sure that it is being used appropriately. There is um a couple cases where we've uncovered where there weren't proper use cases for it. Um I believe there are is one law enforcement agency that we completely kicked out of the system and then there's a couple one-off basises with oneoff officers exactly like what you all mentioned like trying to keep track of like an exwife or something like that. and our auditing tools spotted it and in most of those cases because of the brevity of the situation those officers actually like faced criminal charges for that.

So in this other case this was like a systemic issue this police department that got kicked off.

Um it was before I joined Flock so I don't really know all the details of what exactly happened in that situation but I do know that our auditing system flagged it as improper use of the uh system we reviewed. We just severed our partnership with them entirely. I mentioned several meetings ago I I watch true crime and um I like that better than the news and I mentioned that I saw a case where an officer stopped a gentleman and he was talking to dispatch and requesting information and provided the plate number and and the dispatcher told him that vehicle was in Mexico earlier today at this point in time and That is kind of a a good way to exhibit the potential and the capability of a system like this. And that's why it it's very important that integrity is used in the process because this is information that is over and above what the average officer or person would be aware of.

I completely agree with you. Okay. Will the officers have training? Yes.

Absolutely. Yes, they will. So we provide rigorous training for all the officers for different levels of whether they are detectives, patrol for different use cases. Um the department also has control too of like who can create the hot list or enter a specific vehicle into the system that they're looking for whether it's going to be like the command staff if it's going to be investigators, detectives, uh or at the patrol level. So and then they also control the department does uh who can access that data, what they can actually see through the system and everything as well. And then I'll I'll I'll speak to that as well. Uh so part part of the contract uh for this lease is that representatives from Flock, like you mentioned, will come out and and actually train us how to use the software. We do have a little bit of a head start because the city of Plymouth does have uh at least one I think they're up to two Flock cameras now. So we have their software program already in dispatch because we do dispatch for the city of Plymouth. So we do have a slight head start versus an agency that was just getting started on this. uh however part of the contract is flock will come out and and provide more formal training for our folks and then as far as uh the policy goes when that policy does go into place uh we have an electronic uh document management system all of our policies are electronic uh that policy would be issued to every member of the department they would have to read it they would have to sign off that they read it and then we would also uh issue a directive to our supervisors that they were going to go over this policy with their staff at at shift level uh training at briefings. So, uh, we would be trained both on the use of the system and then when the policy is put together, uh, the, uh, individual folks would have to read it, sign off on it, and then they would each receive training on the policy itself as well. Any other questions?

And then just how visually obtrusive are these things? The the picture in the packet here, they looked kind of big and ugly, but So, I I'll I'll speak to that. Um, before I started with this project, I never I don't think I ever observed a flock camera. Uh, once about a year ago, I started getting into this project. I see them everywhere now. Uh, but that's just because I'm I'm really aware of them because this is kind of my project and my baby here. Uh, my wife never sees a single one of them and every time we're driving, I always point them out to my wife. It really irritates her because I keep telling her all the LPR cameras that we pass. But if you didn't know what you were looking for, you would drive right past it. and and and uh give it a second glance. [clears throat] Yeah. On

Yeah. They're not They're not very large. They're not very large. Yeah. Are they going to like attach to like a light pole or are they going to be standalone or they'll they'll have a standalone pole and they have a little uh solar panel that's on top and and the camera and a little battery pack. Uh they're not large. Two of them and and there there should be some uh information in the packet that has pictures of them and and the pole that they're mounted to. [clears throat] Can we scroll to that Bob as and drive just drive to a surrounding community and as you go on a main thoroughfare into like Northville Township or Leavonia if you look you'll see them no picture. So the fact that you haven't seen any of them and I assume you drive around this community tells me that they're not really

noticeable because you you would have uh seen them if you were looking for them. How big is that? How many how many inches is that solar collector? What's the size? So, the camera itself is a little bit bigger than the soda can. It's about yay big. And then the solar panel, I think, is like 16 by 14 in. So, it's not very large. And that's up quite high off the ground. So, it's not like that's six foot where you're looking right at it as you're walking your dog down the sidewalk. All right. Any other questions from the board?

Yeah. Sorry, that's I guess my baby over here. Do you feel as a community that that this is, you know, like we're this isn't Detroit, you know, this I don't feel like it's just like an eminent thing [snorts] that we need to be doing. I'm also just visualizing 14 of these going down Ann Arbor Road. And how welcoming does that feel to our community? Those are the things that are kind of weighing on my mind. I'm obviously a police officer's wife, so I, you know, I have different mixed opinions about, you know, that as well, but just as a as a citizen, um,

so I [clears throat] I'll I'll speak to that a little bit. Uh, you know, there's a there's a common, I think, misconception amongst folks who live in Plymouth Township, that nothing ever happens in Plymouth Township. We had a strong armed robbery last weekend. Um, we have retail frauds, we have organized retail fraud groups that hit in Plymouth Township regularly. Um there is crime occurring here. Of course, it's not our residents, generally speaking, who are committing the crimes. It's folks who come into the community from outside of the community and they victimize our residents and they victimize our businesses. But you're still getting them without these things. Correct.

Uh sometimes, yeah, sometimes. But if we have no vehicle description, right, uh, and and something happens in the middle of the night, we can still go to, uh, you know, these cameras, if we have them along the DDA corridor, and we can say, give me every vehicle that passed here within this 10-minute window when this crime occurred, and then we can we can go from there. At uh, you know, 2:30 in the morning on a weekday, there's probably not much traffic out there. Well, I know there's not much traffic out there because I used to work that time, but uh they're they are a tremendously valuable investigative tool. And I think um once uh if this is approved and they get uh put up out there, I think the majority of people won't even notice that they're there. That's my opinion because again, I drove past them for many years in uh on my way to and from work or in communities surrounding where I live. I never noticed them. something.

What What is the road that I could see all these? You said in Northville, what road is it? They got some He can't tell us. Yeah. Every every access point probably into I don't know where their specific locations are. That's not something we generally share with one another, but uh I would I would imagine if you go up Sheldon Road, I would imagine if you go up Sheldon Road as you go into Northfield Township, you'll probably see some LPR cameras there. If you go up Beck Road and enter into Northfield Township, you'll probably see some LPR cameras. If you go up Hagerty Road into Northfield Township and you look, you'll see some LPR cameras. The clue will be the solar correct collector. It's the most obvious.

If you see a pole with a solar panel on top and a little black box on it, that's an LPR camera. [clears throat] Any other otherwise, anyone from the audience have a comment? Yep.

Yeah. You No. Come on up here. [snorts] Paul Scholes. Paul Scholes from Green Meadows. Um my concern is why is this a priority for the police department? Um we have a traffic problem out on every road in this commu in this community. uh shouldn't we put be putting more money into patrol cars, you know, for traffic enforcement and not be spending this kind of money on non-essential items. I mean, that would be my question. And and the other is this is just opening the door to, you know, more intrusive um government surveillance. And I'm not against the police department. I I give them anything they want. But there's certain parameters I think that we need to protect our privacy. And you know, we have AI moving in. Um I' I'd like to know in some other communities, this would be a question for uh the gentleman here from the company. Uh can you connect these things to the internet? Um can they um um data mine you everywhere you go over time? Um how many mistakes have been made? I mean, I've seen some of the surveillance systems in Detroit with facial recognition uh and RFID readers. We all have, you know, if you know in your pocket, if you have the enhanced driver's license, you have an RFID chip in there. And if they have our FRFID readers, they know who you are just walking by. And um that's just my concern. Um why is this a priority right now? I mean, there are other things I would expect our police department patrol our roads. I mean, I've never seen the traffic problems as I have seen today. But I'm not against the police and their surveillance and the tools they have, but I think this is a little intrusive. Just my comment. Thank you.

We will be doing traffic patrols on a regular basis. Can I ask him what can these uh systems be connected to the internet and are can they data mine? Can they um are other communities like Chicago or Detroit are they doing this kind of stuff? [snorts and sighs]

Uh yes, they're all doing it. Um so we're not collecting any information. Uh so it's part of our terms and conditions. It is like firmly a root of our company here. uh your city and your police department will own 100% of the data. Flock will never sell, share or distribute any information generated from these devices. So it is strictly a law enforcement tool. After 30 days, the information or any images or captures that these got will be hard deleted from the system. There's no recovery from that. Um so even if like an investigation pops up and is 30 day 34 after it happens, I get asked it all the time. I have to tell law enforcement, I'm sorry, that information is hard gone. it is not accessible. It's gone.

But how does the camera connect back to the central location where all the data is stored? So all of our data is stored on encrypted um cloud servers and so it is encrypted at a level like comparable to state and federal governments. So um it is fully encrypted from the time it is captured. It the information only stays on the camera for long enough for it to get uploaded to that cloud. So even if you were to like steal this device off the road or whatever, you won't be able to get anything off of it. So the device is encrypted and then it's transmitted [clears throat] and stored. But what is it used for transport? Does it use a cell network or

It is a cellular network. LTE cellular transmission. We had one other person with their hand up. Just want to answer the question that was asked, right? That solar panel is 14 by 21 in. It's 30 watts. Okay. And the the camera itself looks like it's um 8x 5x two. Good evening, Mary Tavarosi. Um I have a a question and um two questions. One is financial and the other one concerns data privacy. Um given that there's going to be more cameras deployed along the downtown development corridor um 14 I think you said uh and for the vast majority of that corridor or at least a huge amount of it is half the city of Plymouth. Um, and we're going to put 14 cameras up. They have a total of two. Um, how come we're not splitting the cost of this more with the city of Plymouth? If I mean, I'm assuming they'll have access to the data and we'll share it with them and, you know, with from their two cameras, we'll get some stuff from them. But if we're putting up 14 and we're paying like um $61,000 year one, $44,000 the next two years, shouldn't we be asking them to kick in some money? That's my first question. Uh, second question about data and I think Trusty Growth said we have to be able to tell the public what to expect about the data collected off these cameras. I hypothetical question that I have is if um if another agency, another government agency came knocking on the door and said to the township of

Plymouth, we want to download the data that you have uh for the last 30 days on those cameras. And I'm just going to make up an example like maybe HHS or something. Would we have to give it over to them like ICE for example? Well, I use the term HHS. That's on your mind. That's what you're referring to.

But anyway, but that's a question I have. I mean, I understand about the issue of not wanting employees to, you know, have access in inappropriate access to the data, but once we have the data, the township has the data. If it's requested by another government agency, do we have to release it to them? I think the public needs to know if that is a possibility. Thank you.

Yes. So, the answer, do we have to release the data to another government agency? No, we don't have to. Uh, now if they have access to the flock network, they can run a search and they they can have access to if that vehicle they're searching for pinged in our area, our venue, uh, one of our cameras. Now, I think that we have an option where we can lock out other municipalities. Uh, I don't think that we would do that because we work in cooperation with many neighboring communities and we wouldn't want to lock them out because we want to work collaboratively with them to solve crime. So, and I'll let the flock rep speak further.

And I'll also add by uh default too. So, all federal agencies are automatically blocked uh from any state level or city level entities. So, like you would have to manually add them in to be able to access your data, which I don't think very many agencies are going to do. They can subpoena them. That's not going to stop them. They'll do what they want or foyer or whatever. Yeah. Well, you can also cooperate with them and give them the data. Or yeah, they or they could get a court order for it, you know. But by default, they will not have access.

Um, I apologize if you talked about this when I snuck out to the bathroom, but Bill, you have to speak this way because from a technology standpoint, are there concerns about longevity of the equipment, uh, it being updated, new new trends? How do you guys address that so that you don't have something you get that's nice but it's not nice in two years? Absolutely. [snorts]

So with your flock um investment here so with your subscription anytime we come up with new devices as your older devices start to age out or anything just like your cell phone or anything like that right your tech from two or three years ago isn't as good anymore. So, same thing with here, our devices. As we come up with newer and better equipment, you guys will automatically get those investments. As devices tend to age out, we also push out software updates constantly. Um, if you think about like vanity plates or something like that to be able to recognize the different colors and characters of uh license plates and everything to know what state they come from and uh we're constantly pushing out updates in the system and all that's automatically included in your contract.

All right. Do you have sample uh procedures that are being used by police departments that you could share with with our police department? Absolutely. I actually have already pushed that over. Okay, good. Thank you. And we can also receive them from friendly [snorts] departments. No sense reinventing the wheel. Start from somebody else's and work to yours. We'll start from compliance. Any more comments, questions? Otherwise, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Supervisor, I move to approve.

So, how long did you warrant these cameras? 33 years. How long do you keep providing us before we got to actually buy new ones reinvest? It's in the it's in the packet. All right. So, the question was how long till we you guys would have to either buy the cameras or reinvest in it. So, as long as your contract stays current, like we'll continually upgrade the devices for as long as it goes. So, um, we are very proud of we have a well over 99% retention rate for our contracts when they come up. So, but again, as long as that contract stays active and you all keep going, we'll continually update the devices. If at the end of the contract your city, township here decides that it's not good value added, you don't want it, we'll collect the devices at the end. No harm, no foul.

Easy. There is potential for that. Um, we've only had one price increase in the history of our company that did come back in 2022. And so for right now, we are doing our utmost to maintain pricing here. And we also have flat and fair nationwide pricing across the country. It doesn't matter if you're a huge city that's buying 600 devices or if you're a small township that's buying three. Um, like everybody gets the same price coast to coast. How long? We've were founded in 2017. Ready for a motion? Yes. And

excuse me, Mrs. uh Tavarazzi, she asked about the question about the city. And I think um Assistant Chief Kudra, what you were saying is you're talking about placing them all in the Ann Arbor Road Corridor. That is so it's not something that's part of Well, the city's on one side of it, but correct. We we want to capture traffic on Ann Arbor Road that's traveling in the downtown development authority corridor from the very eastern edge of Plymouth Township all the way out to to where the downtown development authority ends which is out just a little ways past Kroger. Okay.

So, uh the city is a portion of that. Um I would uh not say it's the majority of that. I I would argue it's probably a small portion of that. Um, uh, you know, I I I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not exactly sure if the city has any businesses in the downtown development authority or not, or if that's strictly township businesses, but it's a downtown development authority, uh, uh, budget that would pay for the DDA contract. So, uh, and you guys would know better than I would if there's any city businesses in the DDA. Not in our DDA. They're on the south, excuse me, the north side of the road. Lee's Chicken is in the city of Plymouth. Yes. [snorts]

Okay. That's my cop brain. I don't know how the DDA works. So, m [clears throat] Mr. Supervisor. I move to approve resolution 2026-01-13-02 to authorize the township supervisor to sign a three-year lease agreement with Flock Safety for the installation and use of 14 LPR cameras with fees to be paid from the Downtown Development Authority Rental Lease Equipment Account 248-727-94 D-00 00 second.

Okay. Uh, clerk Vorba. Yes, Trusty Buckley. Personally, I'm pretty conflicted about this one. Um, I don't feel like it's a a priority. I think the cost um could be better used. Um, I also think they're visually um obtrusive, not that hometown feel that we want and nor do I think it's eminent. So, I'm going to say no. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, Trusty Growth. No. Trusty Clinton, yes. [clears throat]

Trusty Stewart, yes. Supervisor Kermy, yes. Treasure Doritz, Motion carries. [snorts] Thank you. Okay, let's go to the next one which is oat camera. We've already discussed it. So 03 this is uh um yeah 03 and this will be from forfeite funds. Same same deal but just different funding source

different pot. Mr. Supervisor, I move to approve resolution 2026-01-13-03 to authorize the township supervisor sign a three-year lease agreement with Flock Safety for the installation and use of 12 LPR cameras with fees to be paid from the state forfeiture fund um number 265-311-9400.0000 00 second. Second by Dor. Clerk Forba. Yes. Trusty Buckley. No. Trusty Growth. No. Trusty Clinton. Yes. Trusty Stewart. Yes. Supervisor Kermy. Yes. Treasure Dorchitz.

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Doritz. All right. Item five, which is the final item of the night, and this is to establish a temporary moratorum on data centers uh to allow us time to develop a zoning ordinance that addresses the issues around this relatively new technology. And uh our planning consultant Laura Mangan from McKenna uh has recommended this and she will tee it up. Just uh this is not new technology. Data centers have been around since the early 1960s. Um they they're just different. They um

highly concentrated. Yeah. but it's not new.

So, thank you. Evening trustees. Um, supervisor Lauren Mangan with McKenna. Um, data centers today are a permitted use in the township zoning ordinance. Uh this means that if a developer came in tomorrow to the township and submitted a site plan for a data center, as long as that plan met the basic um requirements of the zoning district, so the dimensional setbacks, the landscaping, parking, etc., the township would be in a position where you would legally need to approve that site plan um because it meets your code. Um it is not a special land use in the zoning ordinance, which means there's no required public hearing and there's no noticing to residents. Um the township zoning ordinance was written over 20 years ago and the data centers of today could not have been contemplated um for [clears throat] for certain standards. Um communities across the state are looking at additional use standards um and researching uh best practices related to data centers. So, we are recommending that um just to ensure that the township is protected and can fully research and do its due diligence on this uh to issue an 18-month moratorum. Uh this will allow both the planning commission and this board uh to review literature um and those best practices and make sure there's no negative externalities um that are caused in the future. Uh the point of the this agenda item tonight is not to discuss uh data centers. that would be at a future date but simply to issue that 18-month mortorium. Uh there is a prepared resolution in your packet to that effect.

Thank you. So how do you define a data center? We have a data center on the second floor of this building where our servers were kept. That's a data center. Um how are you going to define it? Well, that is one issue. The t the township zoning ordinance does not have a def clear definition of a data center. It's only listed as a use. So that is something that we would need to clean up as part of this process. The data center that is just auxiliary for the township's use is not the same as a principal permitted data center that could be 200,000 square ft um and go in one of the industrial areas.

So wouldn't we need to articulate that? No, I appreciate your recommendation and you bringing that before our board because I agree that we do need to look at our ordinances and our uh the zoning and we need to um just be sure that we make the right choices. [snorts]

I'm not sure though. Um, so somebody could build a data center as a matter of right, but um, GM could build a data center. And so what we're saying is General Motors couldn't build a data center in Plymouth Township with a moratorum. No data centers would be allowed for new construction with within these 18 months time frame. I'm sorry, I I missed the early point. What were we saying about the 2,000 square foot? Oh,

data centers can range in size from micro uh establishments like 5,000 square ft to over 200,000 square ft. The one in Seline is allegedly 4 million square feet. Usually they're phased where they start smaller and then expand. And would it take us that long to gather this pertinent information and have a discussion?

It may take less time than that, which is perfectly acceptable. And in that case, the township would just adopt some text amendments um within, you know, a year or so, but this is just to provide enough cover. Um there are many planning applications going on right now. Um so don't want to rush anything. Do we have uh anybody that has approached the township uh to build a large scale data center? No. Yeah. I've known of none. None have approached me. None have discussed it.

We we did have some businesses that were allegedly marketing their buildings as data centers. And that was on the site of what was going to be the racetrack. But yeah, there was one there was a sign up there, right? By that way. Yeah. Yeah. It's not up there anymore. No, I'm just I'm just simply stating that we have had someone mark it uh a site as a data center. They just didn't catch any fish yet. They can't and you can't put them just anywhere. They have to be uh along where you have high, you know, high bandwidth pipes

and um you've got to have power. But you have to have connectivity. So you can't just stick one anywhere. Um, of course you could build a connectivity like in Sale in Selen Township.

You could. Um, it's not cheap. [snorts] Um, but I'm just I'm just wondering if we're trying to solve a problem that we don't have. Well, it came up during the the joint study session where they were talking about the parcel of land that's like triangular and like you know what we were open to uh in terms of land use for that and then data centers got brought up as a possible use of that and would we be open to it and so the discussion went back and forth. Are you talking about in the MITC that triangle? Yeah. Yeah. And then John mentioned that I think you said Northville Township or city Northville City had just passed a moratorum this week

and so they have no problem last week. Yeah, they [clears throat] for them it's a moved point. Just allows us the opportunity to make sure that our zoning ordinances and everything is in place so that if the request comes we are ready for it. That's that's really what we're asking for is the time to do that to address that. Then why do we need 18 months? Well, I I think she just said we don't need 18 months. She said it gives us time, but if you give yourself 18 months, you you'll take 18 months. [snorts] If you give yourself 6 months, you'll get it done in 6 months. Uh I don't that hasn't been the case with the master plan.

Yeah. And most communities are doing at least a year on the moratoriums. That's what I What did Northville do? I thought they did six months. No, they did 12 months here. I got it right here. Um, well, but for them it's kind of a non-issue. There's no space. The land is so expensive. Uh, the land in the city of Northville might be worth 400,000 an acre. Uh, so you probably wouldn't make a very good business decision to put one there. as it is now in Plymouth Township, the land is worth about 250 an acre.

So, do do we have a motion? I I will make the motion when I find it again. First of all, well, we'll also Does anybody have any comments? Oh, yeah. Hi, Mike Rosie.

Hold on. Get up there and then we'll hear you. I'm not a uh I'm not an expert at all about data centers, but I do have a little information. I worked for IBM for 30 years, and I think if you're going to do a moratorium, I think you should have uh a designated uh thing because there's going to be some people that might want to come in and put a building that has a small data center in it like you guys have here. So, you don't want to discourage, you know, businesses to come in to to do some new business, you know, as far as some kind of industrial. But I think what you're talking about is is a mega data center like you're talking about in Selen where I don't think that would even be feasible in Plymouth Township because of the water requirements and the sound, you know, things next to neighborhoods and that kind of thing. So, um, I just think if you were to do a moratorium, you should probably just designate it as a mega data center as opposed to something that would help, you know, regular business do their do their day-to-day work. That's just my comment. We heard you

that I want to keep it generative. That's exactly, you know, the this is an attempt to be proactive if uh I don't think this would prohibit what he's talking about, right? A building that has a data center within it. This moratorum there's a lot of companies that have some data facilities within their organization um or their their structure, but those are just um ancillary to the principal use. We're talking about a principal used on a property as the as a data center. So the the Yeah, I think the township is covered. So this is Does it need to be more specific in the language? I think we're very complex. I I I agree.

It's specific to the mega data center, not to to a facility whose primary purpose is to sell data services out of the data center and not in support of another business. cuz we have a data center that is the uh belongs to the school district. Yes. And that would be if they had come in now if we pass this and they and the school district comes in and says I want to build another data center. Sorry. [clears throat] I I would not say that's the same thing. Yeah, I understand what you're doing, but I just think it's a little too broadly. I think it's too broad. Yeah.

What do you want to do? Hello. Anyways, uh I don't know if the general public knows, but these data centers use a tremendous amount of water and the electricity is totally outrageous. You can cause our electrical rates to go up in this area and they don't put windmills outside of these things. They require big power plant power, big backup, big backup generating capacity. You got to have windmills outside

run by natural gas or diesel. I Laura, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the state of Michigan has passed legislation that would allow the data centers to have primary usage of the electricity in in certain events where residents would could suffer the consequences. You mean they'd allocate the priority to a data center? Yes. That law has been passed. Yes. Yeah. I don't know anything about it, but

I'll have to look into that. I I will say confidently that I businesses that want to come into the community are not going to be impacted by this. None of the none of the companies or businesses or developments that the township has seen in the past 5 years have included data centers. Um so I don't think we're excluding anyone or causing roadblocks in terms of economic development. Um this is just a proactive um measure that the township can take so that you don't uh look back in six months and say we should have um been more careful in our planning. Not actually a is there actually a motion for this? I don't see it. You have to make one up. It's probably on the back page.

Let's see what's the isn't the back page. There's a resolution. Yeah. 136. All right. So, there's also a proposed motion on page 136 [clears throat] on I don't I guess I don't have it. It's missing on my It's in mine. All right. Move to approve resolution number 2026-1. Oh, there it is.

Go ahead. Resolution number 2026-01-13-04 authorizing an 18-month moratorum on the establishment, permitting, consideration, approval, location, construction, and or installation of data centers in Plymouth Township. Second moved by uh by Stuart, second by [clears throat] [cough] excuse me very much. You're very much [cough] excused. By Trusty Gro, sorry. [clears throat] My goodness. Um, Treasure Dor Shabitz, no. Supervisor Kermy,

yes. Trusty Stewart, yes. Trusty Clinton, no. Trusty Grove, yes. Trusty Buckley, yes. Clerk Vorba, no. Uh, the motion carries. What is it? Four to three. Four to three. All right. We're going to make every effort to do this in less than eight months. Five to two. Four to three. We just thought it was too broad. All voted against it. Well, we just thought it was too broad. They feel it's too broad. [music] So, I want to make it clear that this is not intended to uh discourage economic development. It's encourage it's being done to do a logical clearly wellthoughtout uh planning process.

That may be the intent but that might not be the effect because it the moratorum now says you can't even discuss a data center says we can't consider it discuss it mention it. My biggest objection to data centers from a personal standpoint is the alleged low job creation per square foot. Not many people work in there based on the square footage. It's Yeah, but you use uh the internet. Uh you use web applications, you use banking. It's got to go somewhere. Yeah. [snorts]

And why not? Um well, I made my point. Yeah. All right. I I I get it. We just got the definition of what a data center is. Data center is everywhere and other people thinks the data center is just huge. And the two guys that spent their careers in technology voted no one. And we're the only two on this board that understand what data centers are. And lucky for us, you got to say that that have been been in the inner workings of data centers. Okay. uh we heard [clears throat] you. We're going to we're going to use what you have to say. We're not we don't want to be stupid. So, uh we

can't there's a moratorum that says you can't even consider it. I they somebody can't come here and have a conversation. That's the poorly written motion and now there's a moratorum that says uh if General Motors wants to build a data center here, they can't even have a conversation. Yes. Well, I'll I'll talk to what Laura was. I'll talk to him. The same. That's why I voted for it. Maybe we should have talked more and not thrown the motion out there so quick. The the Do we have any comments for on any subject now from the audience?

In reference to these cameras. Get up closer. Speak. In reference to the cameras, we're putting them on uh Ann Arbor Road and we're putting them on Sheldon Road. Sheldon, maybe we're not going to totally disclose every spot. Okay, let's just say anyways, we're talking about the the the uh city of Plymouth. I think if I'm right, both uh the city of Plymouth and the township can issue tickets on both of those roads. Is that true? Okay, that's what I was wanted to on both sides of the road.

Both sides of the road. Plymouth. Plymouth Township. I've lived here 40 years. I mean, the city of Plymouth has been issuing tickets. Sitting in the school parking lot over there for the last 40 years issuing tickets. They're parked in Plymouth Township, which Oh, you mean at at the church by Yes. In the mornings near West Middle School. Yep.

I've written tickets. Hello, Mary Tavrosi again. One last question. Um, it's been a month since uh at the the meeting where we discussed that uh clerk Vorva, you're going to at some point in February let us know the new precincts. And I was wondering now that a month has passed and it's um halfway through January, do we have a more definitive date of when the map will be available for the public to see either on the township website or coming into the township hall? I'm not talking about the cards. I know you got to mail out all the new voter registration cards, etc. Talking about seeing the map. Do we have a more definitive date yet?

Uh the state just approved our uh plan. We just got that just a few days ago. And so, uh, I will be distributing, uh, on the website. I'll be contacting papers, the magazines, and then, of course, be sending out new notices about, uh, uh, everyone will have to get a new, uh, registration card. Yes, you mentioned that. So, there is a map. It was just approved, and I'm going to put it on the website, and I'm going to disseminate that to as many people as possible. When? [laughter] Well, probably tomorrow. Okay, tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thank you. [laughter]

And also just to to let people know that, you know, the the federal government made some changes on postmarking of u of ballots. That was that was just done in December and doesn't count anymore. Is that right?

Well, no. just that what's going to happen is is the they're not going to the the the the post office is not going to postmark them at the post office where you drop off the thing. It's going to go to their processing center. So if you drop it off in in in the Plymouth post office, it goes to Detroit. That's where it's going to be postmarked and it may sit there for a couple days. So, what I'm going to be disseminating to everybody is that rule where you really can't count on uh the mail to make sure that your your your uh ballots were postmarked properly. So, at least a week ahead of time, do it. Drop it off in one of our dropboxes. Drop it off here. You can get an absentee ballot and go to an early voting center or on election day and run your absentee ballot through the tabulator on that on those days. So, there's ways of to circumvent that that problem. So, please be aware of that and we'll be disseminating all that information. But you'll see that map pop up on the uh on the uh because we just got it back from the from the state. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to pass these. These are organization charts. Give one to Kevin also.

Thanks for for that. Um, anyone else want Kevin one too. They're organizational charts.

Yeah. So, any comments from the board? Start with the Bob Doris. Uh so we had a kickoff meeting with BSNA uh yes yesterday um to lay out the uh timeline as well as the major uh events that happened in the migration. Unfortunately, they're booked up for October. So we uh we settled on November 16th as a go live date. Um November 11th is Veterans Day. So we'll we'll have a freeze on that day, a data freeze, and that's when they we'll migrate the data to the new system and then for two days we won't be able to we'll have to have manual workarounds. So but you know we everyone has time to develop processes for that. Um, so it went well. Most of the stakeholders were able to attend and um I think we're uh I forgot the police department uses POS so I forgot to invite you. I apologize for that. And the fire department. Um uh but I'll um but you know it it was it was I thought it was a good meeting. I thought they have a pretty well mature process for uh how they do these migrations and uh that's all I had for the board and the public. Uh [clears throat] Sandy Growth,

I just want to note that for the board members, I did compile a report that shows all of the different boards and commissions and the impending expiration dates as well as the expiration dates. And I want to thank Supervisor Kermy for noting in the Plymouth Today magazine that we are hopeful that citizens will apply to serve on these boards and commissions because we do have expired terms and impending expirations. And it's an opportunity for us to uh to allow for some more more opinions and diverse opinions as it relates to planning, zoning, and those type of issues. Thank you for mentioning that

John. [snorts]

Two things I want to encourage. First of all, three things. One, thank you very much for allowing me to serve. I appreciate the opportunity to uh to uh be here and to uh look into things. Pursuant to that, I want to encourage people to read and not only read, this is what people are spending time on. We're not reading books anymore. Uh I happened to be invited to a breakfast this morning with President Reus, Mark Reus of General Motors, and then 88-year-old Roger Pensky. These guys are still reading books. They're still reading reports. They're reading emails every morning and they're analyzing and they're so I just want to encourage people. I've been knock I've knocked off about three or four books since [clears throat] the week per week since the week before Christmas. Um and the next is the and my last point is nothing been mentioned here tonight. Uh, Monday is Martin Luther King Day. It's time to think about our civil rights. It's time to think about whether or not we have plantation mentality. Animal Farm, George Orwell. I read it in high school 65 years ago. So, I encourage you on these quiet winter nights to read and then call Dwayne Xantop and vent. [laughter]

Thank you very much and good night. Mark, anything? I'm all set. Just got to go home and read a book. Jen [laughter] Jen. Uh, yeah. So, three things. Uh, one, did someone from the board um step up for the planning commission? Yes. Okay. And who is that? Sandy Grove.

Okay. Um, thank you for doing that. The second is from the meeting last night regarding the second landfill. Would you be able to give us some bullet points either by email or maybe in your closing comments? um since most of us couldn't attend. And then the second is if you have any updates regarding Salem Springs. All right, I've got a list here.

Um first of all, the landfill meeting. Uh it's expanding north of Six Mile, which is the present composting area. Uh the crowd probably had 200 people. Um, most Northville residents apparently Northville Township and the big concern is odor and many people have experienced it. Although the the landfill says, "Hey, we were here first and you built the house, so it's kind of on you." Uh, some of the real estate agents allegedly told people it would be closed in 2 years, but we know that that didn't happen. Um the decision is completely in the hands of the county commission elected officials. The state law does not allow any other mechanism to stop their decision. They have a a a cookbook process that Eagle uses and the state law and they are following it. So, uh, it means lobbying the county commission. Um, I don't know where they are, but county is very environmentally uh conscious, but 60 years ago or so when that was built, it was built where it was for a purpose. It was as far as away from Ann Arbor that you could be uh downwind. I'm not. They're upwind. So, and we're downwind. So, that's the unfortunate thing.

Did you say [snorts] 60 years ago or more? It's been there a very long time. Very long time. Uh, it just grew big time in the last 15 years. It got above ground because it started as a big hole in the ground and now it's grown to a mountain. So Jerry Jerry, you have some comments and then I'll go I'll finish up because I have other ones.

Quick, you know, u I want to thank Spalding Decker because they helped me, you know, uh design the map and also do all the legal descriptions. You have to give the legal descriptions for each one of the precincts which we changed, you know. So it's time consuming. So you got to get that all done to where it it it fits the legal description. You just can't use roads and streets. Well, you do it, but it's got to be done like, okay, I'm going west on on five mile over to Sheldon, south on five, then then. So, it looks like a legal description even though you're using the main road. So, it's not a meats and bounds description.

It's like a meats and bounds because you've got to use railroad tracks and stuff like that, some of them. And so, it was complicated. So, it took time to get that all together to get it submitted. So, uh so I wanted to thank them for that. And so, that that's all I I I thank them for their help. Okay, I'll continue here. Uh, Salem Township sewer. Canton and Salem Township have a pipeline agreement and there are no subsidies from Salem. The I know a lot of people say you need to get some money out of them. They tried it. It wasn't successful. Eagle brokered a a meeting that led to the agreement and that meeting was in December. Uh so April will probably start the design and engineering work and it may take a year of engineering work and then after that it would probably take a year of uh construction and it will be probably well into 2028 uh if they really proceed. They're going to have to raise money uh for some people say 30 to 50 million bucks to do it. So that's the present status. Um the township has entered into a POS national settlement. Um apparently money has already been uh set aside by three major companies at least Dupant 3M and Tao I think and we do not have POS in our water. Um but the settlement is structured such that you can receive payment. Allegedly, it'll be could be as 30 to 50 bucks a resident. I find that hard to believe. For us, that'd be a million dollars, but I guess we'll get what we get. It's a lot like the opioid. Um,

can you explain Can you explain what it is? Poss. Yeah. Pifos is a man-made chemical. They call it a forever chemical. um that initially I think was used for waterproofing like Scotch Guard and other Teflon and things like that use POS. It's I think it's also a processing aid uh in chemistry. I'm not a chemical engineer. I don't know all the details, but there's some big sites in Michigan, unfortunately, uh out in Rockwood or no, Rockford, uh near Grand Rapids, where uh the hush puppy shoes were made for so long and they were coated with

waterproofing. And the other the other big one is the former Air Force base near Ocod where it was foam runoff uh into uh a marsh and creeks and rivers there from practicing uh for firefighting at aircraft disasters. So lesson learned unfortunately. [snorts] Um, in fact, most people probably will test positive for POS in their blood or their body. Um, we have a new accounts payable administrator, Donna Pienta. He's a part-time person. Uh, we have a new intern starting up in IT. Uh, Quentyn Rushnell. Uh, he's a student in uh, computer science. Uh, we have a new firefighter that'll be on board probably the first week in February if we're lucky. Uh, we have a new 911 one dispatcher. Are they on board?

Yes. Alyssa Henry. Yes. Um, we're trying out an additional car wash location to supplement where we were at Main Street. We're trying quick pass as another alternative. And my logic behind that is to get as many police cars on the east side of 275 where a lot of criminal activity enters the township. They're very police friendly, too. My son worked for them at the one in Canton, and they would issue them quick pass sweatshirts with the police logo on the back.

All right. Well, good. I hope we have good experience with them. Uh, but we still have Main Street. Uh, so we're just spreading it around a little. Uh, we repaired the police gun trailer, gun range trailer versus buying. I think we'll pick it up this week. The audit engagement has begun. Uh, we're signing the document tomorrow. The CSSX sidewalk, which goes under the railroad at Anna Road, uh, the agreement's been signed. It's been a real ransom. We've given over $100,000 to CXX just to review drawings and there's no negotiating anyway and it's been taken 5 years to get them to get to this point.

What about the Joy Road Railroad crossing? Is that ours? That one I drive is predominantly in Canton. Well, half in Canton and half in So, who do you call about that? Cuz it's a huge pothole. I'm now like going around. Is it on the railroad or is it in It's right on the railroad. Oh, it's the railroad. And that's like talking to a brick wall, but uh we have we have a phone number. Contact Sheila. She's got a list a phone number for the CSX complaints. Okay. Um any word on the uh south side of Ann Arbor underneath the railroad?

That's another project that never ends. Never ends. Um they are working daily inside on the pump station. It's an MDOT contract uh administered by Wayne County.

Well, that explains a lot. Um, so part of the issue is the design is that the access road or parking area that they're putting in may be a problem because I think they should have put a retaining wall and so they're may have a hard time keeping the uh sidewall from collapsing. So I predict it may be longer than anticipated. It It's really bad. We're not going to start the CSX sidewalk until that is done. We're not going to start another project.

While we're talking about that, uh, Chief and U is they have a truck there with an arrow that's out. It's It's not lit. I'm afraid at night, you know, in the winter time that that light has gone out and and uh and it's uh not operating. So, just from a safety standpoint, you have the one initially at uh at Lily and then you have one under the under the u uh overpass that's unlit and that's that's lit. It's just a straight line, but there there was an arrow. The truck is still there. The the the light is there, but it's not operating. Just a safety. We'll look at that immediately. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh sidewalk district 5 uh replacement program. The bids will be opened on January 20th and the target is to have it invoiced by September 15th or earlier in time to allow people to pay and those that do not pay to get on the tax roll. So what we're trying to do is get a a system in place where it's much the last three years have been a high maintenance disaster to get them to finish the job on time and not string it out and leave for example repairs of s of uh sprinklers to the last minute uh when people are trying to shut down their sprinklers. So we're trying to do something different. It may mean, well, we may have to make some workarounds. We'll have to see how it comes out. Uh, the MDOT is having a public hearing on the construction of M14 reconstruction on February 12th here in this room at 4 to 6:00 p.m. February 12th. Uh, that's going to continue for another year. Uh we're working on some gym improvements in our building to encourage people to exercise. Um the e-news I I hopefully all of you got it sent to your uh on Monday to your township emails, but if you want it sent to your personal, go to the website and sign up and put your personal in. I don't have your personals website uh personal emails. Do we Okay. Would What is our new emails? Are they

You mean your business card? That's still uh directs to still usable. But I'm talking about your personal if you want it sent to your personal. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know. I just meant Yeah. When we do have to turn over what will be our new email, right? We're going to trial before the end of the month. the Plymouth Townshipmi.gov uh domain name. It It's already works. Uh if you use that, it'll take you to our website right now. Is it TWWP for township? No. Townships spelled out. Okay.

Got too many people that said, "What? TWW? What? What? TWW?" Yeah. They just got all confused. So, it's a lot of letters, but it may be a little easier for people to convey to a person. Uh, next week or next on January 27th, we're going to have annual reports from, uh, police, fire, um, building, and HVA. Okay, it's all right. Will you kindly please dictate a memo describing the reiterating the issues that you've just mentioned so we don't have to wait until 9:30

to hear uh the latest greatest news from our supervisor. Wonderful article and I mean that sincerely in Plymouth today. Did Sheila write it? She helped. [laughter] It's full of positivism. She's more positive than me. It just came out one last note. It just came out for the residents watching and that live golf will be back at St. John's Golf Resort in case you're wondering. Mr. Supervisor, I move for adjournment. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. We can imagine closed.