Category Archives: Legal Problems

Please attend September 9th Parks and Recreation meeting if you want to help restore integrity in Oakland Township

1 Reply

Please attend the Wednesday September 9, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that will be held at 7 pm at the Township Hall on Collins Road. The Commission will be considering a motion to censure Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers for a breach of ethical and honorable behavior. Citizen support is needed if we want to maintain ethical behavior in our elected officials. It is hoped that the Commission will move this agenda item near the beginning of the meeting.

Here is the agenda for the meeting (see item 13):

Sept 9, 2015 PRC agenda

As previously reported on this website, it was discovered that Park’s and Recreation Commission member, Ann Marie Rogers, as well as former Trustee Maureen Thalmann had shared privileged and confidential material with others. The findings were forwarded to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s office to determine if any illegal actions had taken place. Their investigation determined that no criminal actions had taken place.

In the July 27, 2015 Oakland Press article, describing the issue and the Prosecutor’s findings, Ann Marie Rogers is quoted as saying:

“The fact of the matter is that the (Oakland County) prosecutor found that I did not commit any crime nor did anything improper. Maureen Thalmann and myself have been completely exonerated of any wrongdoing.”

Here is comment made in the May 7, 2015 Oakland Press article on this subject, where Ann Marie Rogers attempts to defend her actions:

Rogers noted she was never asked to sign an agreement stating she not share attorney-client communications following her 2012 election to the board.

It appears Ann Marie Rogers believes since sharing of privileged and confidential material was not illegal, it was not wrong or improper behavior. It appears that others on the Parks and Recreation Commission may think otherwise, and may be censuring her for her actions.  The Parks and Recreation Commission will be considering officially censuring Ann Marie Rogers’ behavior.

The Township Board had previously passed a similar resolution indicating that sharing of Privileged and Confidential material was “breach of trust” and that a failure to report an unauthorized receipt of correspondence marked Privileged and Confidential was ‘improper”.

Here is a copy of the Township Board’s Resolution 15-15:

Resolution 15-15

Here is a copy of the draft resolution being considered on September 9th:

Parks and Recreation censure motion

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? Oakland Township has now established a new standard for ethics in government. Sharing of information marked ‘Privileged and Confidential’ will now become the acceptable standard for elected officials – unless the Park’s and Recreation Commission make it clear that such behavior is unacceptable.

An individual’s moral values are the basis for one’s behavior. Ethical behavior is therefore in the “eyes of the beholder”. Laws are written to protect society from significant unethical behavior. Laws do not restrict ALL unethical behavior. Sharing Privileged and Confidential material has now been determined not to be illegal or criminal, and, in the eyes of one of our elected Parks Commissioners, acceptable.

The issue of whether the information HAD been shared by the two elected officials was never contested. The issue the Sheriff and Prosecutor had to determine was whether sharing the information constituted a criminal act. To be clear, the prosecutor DID find that Ann Marie Rogers did not commit a crime. However, they DID NOT conclude, as Ann Marie stated to the Oakland Press, that there was not ANY ‘improper’ behavior. It appears her value system is based on only following the laws on the books.

The Park’s and Recreation motion will parallel a similar motion the Township Board took following Maureen Thalmann’s actions and the County’s findings. Both actions will make it clear to our elected officials that sharing of Privileged and Confidential material IS considered a breach of ethics and honorable conduct in our Township.

Here are some previous posts on this subject:

Board Resolution – Acts By Rogers, Thalmann “Repudiated” as a “Breach of Trust” . Gonser’s inactions termed “improper”

Parks Commissioner Ann Marie Rogers attempts to defend her behaviour

Former Trustee Thalmann and Current Park’s Commissioner Rogers DID forward “Privileged and Confidential” material!

Trustee Thalmann’s resignation and legal investigation

Richard Michalski

Board Resolution – Acts By Rogers, Thalmann “Repudiated” as a “Breach of Trust” . Gonser’s inactions termed “improper”

4 Replies

The Oakland Township Board of Trustees, at their July 28th meeting, voted 6-0 (Gonser absent) to approve a resolution stating “There has been an inappropriate release of privileged and confidential and/or Attorney/Client protected communications which constitutes a Breach of Trust and is hereby repudiated.” and  further “It is improper to fail to disclose any unauthorized receipt of privileged communications prior to entering deliberations pertaining to matters discussed in the communications.”.

Background

The reasons for the resolution are  the April 28th 2015  findings of an investigation,  authorized by the Board of Trustees on March 24th 2015, conducted by Township Staff and the Attorneys for the Township and the Parks Commission that found:

  • Supervisor Gonser improperly received three emails pertaining to Parks Commission Closed Sessions or containing Parks Commission Attorney/Client privileged communications;
  • Trustee Thalmann had  sent three emails pertaining to Parks Commission or Board of Trustee Closed Sessions or containing  Attorney/Client privileged communications to (variously) Commissioner Rogers, Supervisor  Gonser  and/or unauthorized private citizens.
  • Thalmann had received two emails from Commissioner Rogers pertaining to Parks Commission Closed Sessions or containing  Attorney/Client privileged communications.
  • Commissioner Rogers sent six emails pertaining to Parks Commission Closed Sessions or containing  Attorney/Client privileged communications to (variously) Trustee Thalmann, Supervisor Gonser and/or unauthorized private citizens.

The Parks Commission and the Board of Trustees reviewed these findings at a April 28th 2015 joint meeting and forwarded them to the Oakland County Prosecutor. The Prosecutor’s office reported back on July 15th 2015 that “no basis exists for criminal prosecution and…no laws have been violated.”.

Commissioner Rogers and former Trustee Thalmann, who had resigned during this time period, each stated in various public meetings that they had done nothing wrong, were totally exonerated and were owed apologies.  They did not dispute the findings of the investigation that they had violated  Attorney/Client Confidentiality and Privilege.  They dismissed that as unimportant.

The Board of Trustees felt that, criminal or not, the behavior was improper and important and called for Board action which was taken with the 7/28/15 Resolution.

What are we to think about this? 

We all know about Attorney/Client Confidentiality.  Is it really, as Rogers and Thalmann seem to think,  a matter unworthy of their concern when they are doing the citizen’s business?  We must think not. It is not immaterial.  It is not just a detail.  We would not be alone in being concerned with their attitude.  In an Article “What Attorney-Client Privilege Really Means” by the global law firm Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP I found this:

The attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence. In fact, the principles of the testimonial privilege may be traced all the way back to the Roman Republic, and its use was firmly established in English law as early as the reign of Elizabeth I in the 16th century. Grounded in the concept of honor, the privilege worked to bar any testimony by the attorney against the client.

A legal concept grounded in honor that has been fundamental to jurisprudence in Western Civilization for over five hundred years deserves our respect. Public Officials, elected by the people, cannot act as though it does not apply to them.

Perhaps these breaches of trust had their origin in the leadership,  People who lead an organization have the responsibility to set an example for the practice of strong ethics. Gonser did not inform the Board that he had improperly received protected communications about matters which were immediately important to him.  Also, Supervisor Gonser had, until recently, refused to abide by the Township’s Ordinance 97 which limits the elected Supervisor’s authority with regard to conducting Township business.  He made many decisions and did many things for which he had no authority.  In conversation with me last Spring he explained himself saying that he was elected by people who don’t know that the Supervisor’s power is limited and that they expect him to “be the leader of the Township” and that they didn’t elect him “just to chair meetings and ride in parades”.  Rogers and Thalmann may have just been following a bad example.

Taking another step up the chain of responsibility, lets look at ourselves, the voters.  We elected Rogers, Thalmann and Gonser either by voting in the 2012 August Primary or by not showing up.  At that time the Township had over 12 thousand registered voters.  How many votes did it take for these people to get elected?

  • Gonser  – 1784 votes – 14% of the electorate;
  • Thalmann – 1534 votes -12%  of the electorate;
  • Rogers – 1315 votes -11%  of the electorate.

What Can We Do?

The August 2016 Primary Election is 12 months away.  It is an important election because, in Oakland Township, for whatever reason, our local elections seldom attract Democrat candidates, so the November Elections for Local Offices are not competitive contests. Our Local elections are decided in August.

Let’s learn from these events.  Get active, Get informed, Get on the Ballot, Get to know the Candidates and Get Out The Vote in August.

Jim Foulkrod

Supervisor Gonser opposes Township establishing ordinance to minimize impact of oil and gas drilling in Oakland Township

5 Replies

As previously reported, the Township Board requested the Planning Commission review and develop potential zoning ordinance changes for the Board to consider regarding the control of gas and oil drilling sites in Oakland Township. The Board also put in place a six month moratorium on new oil and gas drilling sites while the Planning Commission and Board potentially take action.  The Planning Commission will begin their efforts on this request at the August 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.

The Oakland Press published an article on this matter on August 4, 2015.  In that article, Supervisor Gonser’s opinion on this issue was stated.  Here is what the Oakland Press wrote:

Township Supervisor Terry Gonser, who, along with trustee John Giannangeli, was absent from the (July 14th) meeting and did not cast a vote in the matter, said he is not in favor of addressing oil and gas exploration at the township level because of state laws regulating the act.

Here is the link to the Oakland Press article:

Oakland Township officials to discuss oil and gas drilling regulations

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  Concerned citizens should try to attend the August 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and voice their support for having the Township take advantage of neighboring communities learnings regarding oil and gas drilling sites.  The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7 PM, and is held at the Oakland Township Hall on Collins Road.

It is disappointing that Supervisor Gonser is satisfied relying on the State to ‘regulate’ oil and gas drilling in Oakland Township when several of our neighboring communities have put in place a limited level of local protection for their communities. Why would one of our elected officials not try to similarly protect us? I guess the Supervisor’s conservative values concerning individual property rights, big government intervention and regulations also applies to local government regulations, even if those local regulations would protect our residents.  The ‘balanced’ approach that Trustee Ferriolo describes in the Oakland Press article is the more appropriate approach to protecting everyone’s individual property rights.

Here are several previously reported articles on this subject:

Oakland Township Board implements 6 month moratorium on new oil or gas drilling in Oakland Township

UPDATE: Oil and Gas well sites in Oakland Township and Surrounding Communities

Results of June 23, 2015 BOT discussion on Oil and Gas drilling in Oakland Township

JUNE 17th UPDATE: Is Drilling for Oil and Gas coming to Oakland Township?

Is Drilling for Oil and Gas coming to Oakland Township?

Richard Michalski

Township subsidizing developers? Board identifies accounting error – reduces retainer fees for legal services in Oakland Township – still many unanswered questions

2 Replies

At the July 28, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Board revised the contract with the Township’s legal firm, Giarmarco, Mullins and Horton P. C.  The monthly retainer fee was reduced by $750.  Treasurer Langlois stated the reduction was done for a ‘more proper’ allocation of expenses regarding legal services.  Trustee Bailey indicated that there were some legal service fees that were put ‘erroneously’ into the General fund that should have been billed to ‘other people’. 

The change to the contract is welcomed. As previously reported on this website, the legal service fees for our Township have almost doubled since the new Board was elected in 2012.  This recently discovered error explains a portion of the reason for the higher expenditure, but does raise several questions regarding whether the Township has been subsidizing developers, and whether we can retroactively recover those costs.

The Board also missed an opportunity to clarify an issue that had been repeated raised by former Trustee Thalmann regarding ‘double coverage’ for legal services for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Treasurer Langlois proposed the change in the contract to:

“facilitate a more proper allocation of the expenses regarding the legal services to the accounts and funds that make use of those.”

Trustee Bailey stated:

“One of the advantages of what you are proposing is that we’ll be billing appropriately the people that should be billed for these legal services. Whereas before, they were kind of all,  much of them, or some of them at least were put into the General Fund erroneously or not correctly, and were funded by our General Fund.”

The author of this post raised several questions at the meeting.  They are restated here:

  • Have all the charges that should have been charged to the developer’s escrow funds been identified?
  • If they have been identified, have they been correctly charged to those accounts?
  • If they have not been identified, will they be identified?
  • If not, have the Township citizens essentially been subsidizing the developers?
  • Are there other consultant fees, beyond the legal fees, that have improperly been charged to the Township?

The Board did not respond to any of the questions raised.

The author also pointed out a missed opportunity to clarify an issue regarding the legal fees for the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Former Trustee Thalmann repeatedly complained that the legal retainer fee includes legal support for the Park’s Commission, but that the Parks Commission continues to use Joppich’s firm resulting in double payment for services.  The Board members never corrected her repeated claims. As a result, the citizens were left to believe that the monthly retainer fee WAS intended to cover the Parks Commission.

Based on that assumption, an analysis was undertaken to look at the historical expense for legal fees for the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to the Board changing law firms.

The six year average for Parks and Recreation legal services, prior to this Board taking office, was approximately $5,000 per year. As a result, the monthly retainer fee with Giarmarco, Mullens & Horton, P.C. should be further reduced by $416 per month, or $5,000 for the year, to reflect that they are not providing Park’s Commission legal support.

Once again, the Board refused to respond to the question and suggestion.

Here is a video of Treasurer Langlois and Trustee Bailey’s comments at the meeting.

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  As previously reported, the legal expense for our Township has almost doubled since the current Board took office.  The following graph shows this historical and projected trend.

Oakland Township Legal expense

(click on graph to enlarge)

The recent discovery, that we have not been charging developer’s escrow funds for legal services, is a direct result of the inquiries raised on this website.  The Board needs to address the questions raised in THIS posting, so the citizens understand how much we may have subsidized developers and if the fees can retroactively be recovered. They also need to clarify whether the retainer fee is intended to cover Parks and Recreation legal support, as had previously been claimed by former Trustee Thalmann, and not challenged by the Board.

There are a number of other financial ‘transparency’ issues that will be brought up in later posts.  The Board still needs to make a case for why legal service fees have almost doubled during their tenure.

Here are some previous posts on this subject:

Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township?

July 14th UPDATE: Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township? Accounting error found!

 

Richard Michalski

July 14th UPDATE: Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township? Accounting error found!

4 Replies

At the July 14, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, Treasurer Langlois indicated that the expense for the legal (and possibly the other Township consultant) reviews of development proposals have not been properly allocated to the appropriate escrow accounts.  This expense has been included in the monthly $9,000 legal retainer fee the Township Board approved shortly after they came into office.  Treasurer Langlois indicated that this discovery might result in changes to the contract that the Township has with the Township’s legal firm.   

This discovery raises many other questions regarding how the Township handles our legal bills.  Treasurer Langlois’ investigation into this matter was a result of the previous post on this website:  

 “Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township?”  

Here are excerpts from Treasurer Langlois’ July 14th comments:

“I found that some expenses for Township reviews have not been passed along to the respective escrow accounts set up by applicants as outlined and required by our current ordinances.

I anticipate meeting with our Legal Counsel to request that the billing be modified, or the format of the billing be modified to assist us in properly allocating these costs.

Accomplishing this internal fix of our Township expense allocation will actually lower the amount of legal expense being charged to our General Fund, and properly allocating them to the escrow accounts which are funded by applications primarily submitted through the Planning Department.

If there is any change to the contract with our Legal Counsel necessary, that will obviously come back to the Board.”

Treasurer Langlois repeatedly referred to this as an internal allocation issue.  However, if the cost for the township attorney reviewing development plans was never detailed out as part of the retainer fee, the Township may never have recovered the costs from the developer’s escrow accounts.  To do so would have required another ‘set of books’ (or billing statements).  How much money has not been recovered from the developer’s escrow accounts since early 2013?

The author of this post contacted our previous Superintendent (or Manager) to understand how the legal expense for reviewing developer’s plans were previously ‘booked’.  He confirmed that the billing statements from the previous law firm explicitly called out the cost for those services, and were immediately ‘booked’ against the escrow account.  All of this changed in early 2013 when the newly elected Board hired the new law firm.  Treasurer Langlois, and the other Board members elected in 2012, agreed to the retainer fee approach and the changes implemented at that time.

An obvious question remains whether the cost for the legal (& possibly other consultant) reviews were ever ‘recovered’ through the escrow accounts since the new Board took office.  We may never be able to identify and recover the costs incurred since early 2013.

The recent discovery may just be the ‘tip of the iceberg’ regarding the justification for the higher legal expenses in our Township since the new Board came into office.  In the previous post regarding the legal expense issues, the author of this post made several recommendations.  They are shown below in the hopes that Treasurer Langlois and the Board consider them to improve the transparency of our Township’s legal bills.

Here are my specific recommendations that I would like the Board to consider:

  • The monthly Board packet should identify the plaintiff & defendant in each lawsuit, and the amount of money spent on each litigation item.
  • The Board should request an hourly summary of what all is being covered in the retainer fee. We need to understand if we are “getting our money’s worth”.
  • A running tab should be created for each litigation issue, so the residents understand the total amount of money spent on each lawsuit we either initiated or are defending.
  • As part of the retainer fee service, our Township attorney should generate a quarterly report showing the status on all litigation activities (similar to Troy’s report).
  • The Board should ensure the Litigation report is posted on the Township website.

Here is a graph showing the Township’s historical legal fees:

Oakland Township Legal expense

(Click on graph to enlarge)

Here is a video of Treasurer Langlois’ comments:

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  It appears that a number of new questions have arisen as a result of the previous post on this subject.  It also appears that the recent audit of our Township financials did not discover that our financial processes are not in compliance with our ordinances.  Continued citizen scrutiny of what is going on is necessary to make sure we understand how our money is being spent (and if appropriate, recovered).

Richard Michalski

“Oil and Gas Drilling” is on July 14, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting agenda

4 Replies

At the June 23, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting, the Board asked that the Township Attorney provide some guidance regarding actions that the Board could take to protect the Township from inappropriate Oil and Gas drilling in Oakland Township.  Surrounding communities were successful in putting a drilling moratorium in place until their communities could review and modify their ordinances to protect their communities.

The Oil/Gas drilling issue is on the July 14, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting agenda.

Let our township officials know you support a temporary and enforceable 6 month drilling moratorium. Following the process of the surrounding communities, the moratorium can be predicated on providing the time to investigate and install zoning or other ordinance(s) relating to oil/gas activities and infrastructure.  Since the Board is currently reviewing a proposed draft Zoning Ordinance for Oakland Township (Ordinance #16), it seems appropriate a moratorium could be justified.

The meeting starts at 7:00 PM at the Township Hall located on 4393 Collins Road.

Here is a copy of the agenda:

July 14, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting agenda

Richard Michalski

Attorney bills out of control in Oakland Township?

3 Replies

The cost for legal services in Oakland Township has doubled under the Board the citizens elected in 2012.  The yearly expenditure went from slightly over $100,000 to $200,000.  This post is intended to give the citizens some insight into what is driving that, how difficult is has been to find the information necessary to put this report together, and some specific recommendations for the Board to consider.

The yearly legal expense incurred by our Township Board has almost doubled since the existing Board came into office in 2012. One of the first actions that the new Board took was to replace the Legal firm that had been working for the Township for years.   The yearly legal expense to the Township increased at the same time this change occurred.  Here is a graph showing the historical fiscal year legal expense, as well as the budgeted amount for future years.

Oakland Township Legal expense

(Click on ‘Legal Fees Graph’ to view larger image)

Legal Fees Graph

In order to understand the reasons for the increase in the Board’s legal fees, a review of the legal bills was undertaken.  In looking at the readily available documents the Township posts, it became apparent that decisions had been made regarding how much information would be provided residents.  The information went from very vague and useless (prior to July 2, 2014), to fairly informative (July 2, 2014 to Feb 24, 2015), back to very vague and useless (after Feb 24, 2015).  Examples of this will be shared later in this post.

Supervisor Gonser’s actions may provide some insight into the apparent policy change on how much information was to be made available to the residents.

  • On March 24, 2015, Supervisor Gonser accused Trustee Buxar of inappropriately providing legal financial records to the author of this post.  His accusation was proven to be false, but more importantly it reflected his position on sharing legal financial information with residents. Here is a video of his accusation and the response.

At a public meeting that former State Representative McMillin had on March 28, 2014, Attorney Herschel Fink made it clear that citizens are legally allowed to review financial bills.  By his March 24, 2015 comments, Supervisor Gonser clearly indicates that he disagrees. Here is a video of Mr. Fink’s comments:

 

In order to obtain an understanding of what is driving the legal expenses for calendar year 2015, the author of this post FOIA’d all the bills from the Township Attorney.  The documents supplied were heavily ‘redacted’, but I was able to put together the following summary:

Here is a pie chart that shows the dollar amount and percentage of the year-to-date legal expense for the Board’s legal support and lawsuits in our Township:

2015 Legal fee percentages

(click on image to enlarge)

Several conclusions and comments regarding the findings:

  • Although there is a difference between the fiscal year and the calendar year for Oakland Township, the calendar year to date expenditure totals $87,000.  If that spending rate continues for the entire fiscal 2015-2016 fiscal year, we will spend $209,000 very close to the budgeted amount, but still twice what Oakland Township has historically spent for legal bills.
  • There is no documentation on how many hours the attorney has spent on Township business as part of the $9,000 per month retainer fee.  The retainer fee approach was instituted when this Board came into office.
  • 17% of the legal expense is due to ‘Labor and Employment’.  Much of this is due to the unionization efforts of Township employees that started when this Board came into office.
  • 14% of the legal expense is due to Oakland Township suing the Clinton River Watershed Council over the impact the removal of the dam had on the millrace and its property owners.  This issue, along with Blossom Ridge, was a campaign issue that helped many of the incumbent Board members get into office.
  • 4% of the legal expense is due to the decision the Board made to not consider using Detroit City water, hence driving the need to refund millions of dollars to developers and some property owners.

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township? The citizens of Oakland Township elected most of our current Board (one was recently appointed when Maureen Thalmann resigned).  Some of the campaign items the Board ran on resulted in increased legal expenditures.  However, did the citizens recognize that our legal expenditures would double?  Has the Board and or Supervisor made decisions to make it difficult for citizens to understand where the legal expenses are being incurred? Is it consistent with their repeated claims about being transparent?

The contributing factors for the increase in expenditures appear to be:

  • The $9,000 per month retainer fee implemented by this Board. The $9,000 per month fee results in an annual expense of $108,000 – approximately the previous legal yearly expenditure which included litigation and labor.
  • Several Board decisions that are driving the litigation expense up.
  • The behavior of the Board that drove the employees to join unions, and the resultant increase in Labor legal expense.

All of these items are now history, and there is nothing we can do about it.  However, going forward, I believe the transparency of the legal bills needs to improve.  Citizens should not have to FOIA records to see what is driving the legal expenditures.

The attorneys for the City of Troy publish a quarterly Litigation report that is accessible to all citizens through the City’s website.  A copy of their May 13, 2015 report is shown here:

CIty of Troy 2015 first quarter Litigation report

Clearly that community’s leadership feels that litigation activities are important and deserve to be shared with their citizens.

Here are my specific recommendations that I would like the Board to consider:

  • The monthly Board packet should identify the plaintiff & defendant in each lawsuit, and the amount of money spent on each litigation item.
  • The Board should request an hourly summary of what all is being covered in the retainer fee.  We need to understand if we are “getting our money’s worth”.
  • A running tab should be created for each litigation issue, so the residents understand the total amount of money spent on each lawsuit we either initiated or are defending.
  • As part of the retainer fee service, our Township attorney should generate a quarterly report showing the status on all litigation activities (similar to Troy’s report).
  • The Board should ensure the Litigation report is posted on the Township website.

As mentioned above, here are examples of the transition of quality of information provided by the Township in their monthly packets over time.

FInancials over time

Richard Michalski

 

Results of June 23, 2015 BOT discussion on Oil and Gas drilling in Oakland Township

3 Replies

There were a number of concerned citizens who were at the June 23, 2015 Board of Oakland Township meeting sharing their concerns over the potential drilling for oil and gas in our community.  Their concerns focused on the negative impact that drilling would have on surrounding residential properties, the aquifers that supply drinking water in our community and sensitive environmental parcels.  One of the citizens was a person from Rochester Hills who has become very knowledgable on the oil and gas drilling issue in their community.  She made several recommendations to our Board and offered to work with Staff to help them come up to speed quickly on this issue.

The Board listened to the citizen concerns and suggestions, and asked that the Township attorney investigate the possibility of implementing a ‘moratorium’ on new drilling sites until we have an opportunity to review and potentially update our zoning ordinance.  The Board asked that the attorney provide the Board feedback by the next Board meeting on July 14th.  

A video of several of the key items discussed at the meeting is shown here:

 

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  An aggressive approach by our Board at investigating establishing a moratorium, as several other communities have done, to give the Planning Commission time to look at modifying our Zoning Ordinance for Board approval, could decrease the likelihood of wells being drilled in inappropriate areas.  This will be a challenge given the restrictions that are placed on Township’s in regulating well locations, but the Attorney indicated our Zoning Ordinance is the only way we will be able to control well locations in the future.

One of the Trustees suggested that the residents need to contact their State Legislators to ask them to support measures that would give local communities more control on oil and gas drilling.

The Planning Commission does not need the approval of the Board to begin to study possible changes to the zoning ordinance.  They should consider the advice of the Township Planning Consultant and the Township Attorney.  However, they do not need to wait until the Board makes a decision on a ‘moratorium’.  I recommend that citizens attend the July 7th Planning Commission and request they start the process now.

A special thanks goes out to all the concerned citizens from Oakland Township, and our surrounding communities, that came out to share their perspectives on this issue at the June 23rd meeting.

Richard Michalski

UPDATE: Oil and Gas well sites in Oakland Township and Surrounding Communities

13 Replies

UPDATE:  At the Oakland Township Board meeting tonight (June 23, 2015) Treasurer Langlois properly corrected me.  In looking at the ‘respectmyplanet.org’ website, I had missed that there are two oil wells IN Oakland Township. I had missed seeing them. They were missed among the many ‘dry hole’ well locations that are shown in video below.   The two oil wells are just north of the Myth Golf Club and Banquet facility on Stoney Creek Road.  They appear to be located in a secluded portion of the Township.  Thank you Jeanne for the correction!  

Richard Michalski 

 The attached video shows the various wells that are located in our region and our Township.  The source of the information is respectmyplanet.org website.

It is a short video. It includes an aerial view of the closest oil well site to Oakland Township (see update statement above).  It is located in Addison Township, very close to Lakeville Lake.  There are two wells at this location.  They appear to have started production in 1970’s per the records on the website.  One of the wells appears to have been converted to a ‘brine well’ in 2008. 

The video gives a perspective on what an oil production facility could look like after years of operation.

If any of you want to learn how to search for information on various wells in Michigan, please go to the following YouTube website.  Please note that only wells that have had the drilling approved are shown.  Lease agreements, like the two Oakland Township sites recently  reported on this website, are not shown.

How to search for well site information in Michigan

Why is this important to the citizens of Oakland Township?  The current records indicate that there are not many oil or gas wells in Oakland Township.  In fact, many of them are categorized as ‘dry holes’.  With new production techniques, these wells could become viable, especially if the price of oil goes up in the future.  Our country’s desire for energy independence will continue to place pressures on discovering new sources for gas and oil.

Oakland Township appears to have an opportunity to implement a brief moratorium on drilling, like Rochester Hills and Shelby Township have done, to allow our Township to implement ordinances that could prevent the type of operation that exists in Addison Township near critical Oakland Township resources or residential properties.

The Oakland Township Board should ask the Supervisor of Addison Township for an opportunity to visit the Lakeville oil well site to get an appreciation for what may be in store for our community.

Please come to the June 23rd Board meeting to learn more about what Oakland Township will be doing to protect our community.  Here is a copy of the agenda:

June 23, 2015 BOT agenda

Richard Michalski

JUNE 21st UPDATE: Is Drilling for Oil and Gas coming to Oakland Township? Please attend June 23 Board meeting!

6 Replies

As previously reported, a discussion about Oil and Gas drilling in Oakland Township is on the June 23, 2015 Oakland Township Board meeting.  Assuming the Board will allow comments from citizens on this subject, we anticipate spokespersons from the Rochester Hills Don’t Drill the Hills group, and the Shelby Citizens Against Residential Drilling group (CARD)  will provide specific suggestions to our Board based on their communities’ recent experiences.  

If you want to learn more about this issue in Oakland Township, and/or have some opinions on it, please come to the June 23rd meeting.  Oakland Township Citizen involvement  is important on this critical issue.

Here is a copy of the agenda:

June 23, 2015 BOT agenda

Here is a link to a recent Oakland Press article regarding this topic:

June 19th Oakland Press article

Richard Michalski