By Mary Drier
Staff Writer
DENMARK TOWNSHIP — Is there a flood of interest in creating districts in Denmark Township for municipal drinking water service? It basically all depends on who is asked.
Hopes are to develop a $2.4 million project to bring fresh drinking water to parts of Denmark and Gilford townships, but there are complications.
Some of the issues blocking the project are procedural errors: a lawsuit, unpaid legal fees of about $40,000, and voter rejection of a ballot proposal for the township to issue capital-improvement bonds of $1.4 million to finance a project that has a $1 million grant from USDA-Rural Development waiting to be used soon.
A few opposed to the proposal have regularly attended Tuscola County Commissioners’ meeting for several months to voice objections.
About 25 people attended the Sept. 8 county meeting to show support for the proposed water project. That was the first time several water project supporters attended a county meeting to have their voices heard.
“All of these people here are in the (new) districts and want water,” said resident Mark Gruber who is one of those in the district. “Those who are complaining about the district aren’t even in it!”
The intent of township officials was to issue capital-improvement bonds of $1.4 million to finance the project and use the $1 million grant from the USDA – Rural Development; but during August elections, a ballot referendum on the water project issue was defeated by a 57 vote margin with 497 no votes to 440 yes votes.
“Although a small part of the township is in this water district, the entire township got to vote and it was defeated by only a few votes. That’s wrong. It’s a tail wagging the dog (situation),” said Gruber noting there was a lot of misinformation about the cost and scope of the project spread.
“People in the district want water and are willing to pay for it… it doesn’t concern the entire township, but everyone got to vote.”
This last water project was started in 2013 by petition of those who want water so township officials started drafting plans for it. The petition had about a 60 percent approval of those in the area. There are about 103 parcels of property in the water districts.
The last water project is ready to go. The engineering plans are complete and the bidding process is done. This project would have an eight-inch service line, which means it would have enough capacity for fire suppression service use if it is built.
“We just need a bonding conduit because of the referendum vote to be able to move forward,” said Civil Engineering Consultants President John Billette.
Several issues are confounding the water project such as procedural errors, a pending lawsuit, unpaid legal fees of about $40,000, and voter rejection of a ballot proposal for the township to issue capital-improvement bonds to finance a project that has a $1 million grant from USDA-Rural Development waiting to be used.
The county pledged its “full faith and credit” to help the township fund a 2010 water project; but when it the project didn’t happen because the final cost was too high, the township couldn’t collect the money in special assessments that was to pay for it. At that point, about $395,000 worth of engineering, legal and other costs had been incurred. Because county officials had agreed to financially back the 2010 project, the debt became their responsibility.
Normally, pledging a county’s “full-faith and credit” is routine for a municipal project as it helps get a better interest rate. The default situation in Denmark is a first in Tuscola County.
In order to meet the financial obligation, the county sued the township; which was a necessary first step so the county could get a court judgment to levy a special tax on all township residents to pay for the debt.
Before that court action had to be done, the township paid off the $395,000 debt. However, the case is still pending as well as all of the legal fees the county incurred in suing the township have not been paid by the township.
Commissioners didn’t respond to pleas to work together on the 2013 water project because the lawsuit from the abandoned 2010 project has yet to get a court date and the township still owes the county attorney fees.
“Our attorney advised us to muzzle ourselves on this issue,” said Commissioner Craig Kirkpatrick.
Mary Drier is a staff writer for the Tuscola County Advertiser. She can be reached at drier@tcadvertiser.com.