To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Peninsula Township Supervisor Maura Sanders released a memo today regarding a moratorium on all non-statutory requirements until the Township has the ability to lessen and/or eliminate the burden of the pending winery lawsuit on taxpayers. The Township Board will discuss this at their August 12, 2025 meeting. All interested residents are encouraged to send a note to the Township to be included in the meeting packet, or attend the meeting and comment during the public comment time. Read on for Maura’s note. -jb
I have been reviewing the approved budget and activity for our current 2025/2026 FY. The departments, commissions, and committees all provided well-defined budget proposals and project plans when the drafting was taking place. Unfortunately, there was no way to predict the outcome of the WOMP lawsuit.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
As you are all aware, we are moving forward with an appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and those legal fees are being covered by the insurer. We have no timeline for an appeal decision and/or a settlement agreement.
Because of all of the unknowns, I believe it to be extremely prudent to review all non statutory expenditures at this time. This is a very unwelcome recommendation, as I know how much time and attention is being dedicated to thoughtfully planned maintenance and improvements in the township. I believe we should be addressing our spending, whether budgeted or not, beyond the statutory requirements at this time.
Recommended Action:
REVIEW and POTENTIAL MORATORIUM of ALL non-statutory requirements until the Township has the ability to lessen and/or eliminate the burden on our taxpayers:
• Township offices will be closed, and all statutory positions (Supervisor, Clerk and Treasurer) will work from home.
• Planning and Zoning will be suspended, and permitting will be ceased.
• The cemeteries will no longer be administered or maintained.
• All parks maintenance will be suspended.
REVIEW and POTENTIAL SALE:
• All township-owned real property, without restrictions, will be appraised and prepared for potential sale. This would include: Mission Point Lighthouse, Archie Park, unrestricted platted lots at Haserot Beach, vacant parking lot across from Haserot Beach, Bowers Harbor Park (with potential for re-zoning to maximize the highest and best use).
Restricted funding that cannot be used for the WOMP judgement:
• Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) millage funds
• Pelizzari Natural Area millage funds or restricted funds from the recent fundraising campaign to construct the sustainable trail in the Hemlock Wing
• ARPA funding that is already committed
• Grand Traverse County funding for Peninsula Township Parks ($25,000/year for 5 years)
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Is everyone scared yet? Well as far as half baked ideas go this is as good as any. I have a few questions. First, if the building is going to be closed and no permits issued, do the employees continue to be paid. Second what is the money from the county for our parks going to be used for if not maintenance? Third, if the supervisor, Treasurer, and clerk are to work from home, will they take appointments at home? Fourth, the Board just approved spending $250,000 on design work for a new fire station, will that work be stopped? If no land use permits will be issued, does that mean we can build without one because the township is neglecting its responsibility.
Maura has taken a page from Biden and Obama. When congress does not pass the debt ceiling the President shuts down those activities that people care about like national parks and food stamp payments.
I have some ideas for raising real money not this penny ante stuff and I will present them to the town board at their next meeting. It is also obvious from Maura’s statement here that the township is not interested in truly negotiating with the wineries. This is not a good sign for us taxpayers so we need to prepare for taking action ourselves and find ways to solve the problems they have created and may create with the not well thought out actions they appear to be getting ready to take. Maybe they need to study the idea of filing bankruptcy and letting the State take over. I can’t believe the state and the courts could do any worse than they are doing.
I am so confused.
“Maura has taken a page from Biden and Obama. When congress does not pass the debt ceiling the President shuts down those activities that people care about like national parks and food stamp payments.”
That didn’t much sense to me, at least in the recent past and here is what I found:
Republican-led shutdowns have more often caused closures or degraded services at national parks and disruptions to food-related programs. Democrats have not initiated a shutdown where national parks were visibly degraded or SNA was halted. The underlying cause is usually congressional funding impasses-not one party alone-but Republican-driven shutdowns (especially in 1995 and 2018) led to the most severe impacts.
Please let me know if I have the wrong information but from where I sit today, there is horrible destruction happening to some of our most important programs under our present administration.
Cary, you missed my point. I guess I did a poor job in making it. I should have used the example of school boards when they want more money they tell the voters that unless the millage is approved music and sports will be dropped. The point is Maura is trying to use scare tactics for a reason.
Your point was lost as soon as you decided to make it political. Cary’s response was appropriate.
👏👏👏👏
Fear mongering is what PTP used in Oct. 2021. We don’t need more of that losing viewpoint today. We do not need a pity party. Yes we are in a tough situation and we need really good leadership now at this critical point in time. Citizens have offered suggestions on how to move forward. We need to immediately initiate ( not them come to us) discussion with WOMP ( and without our losing law firm present) on how to settle this lawsuit. The wineries wanted our zoning laws and special use permits to align with United States constitutional law. So instead of having our board try to save a pittance on the budget, have them instruct our Planning Commission and planner to get going on amending the zoning ordinance to comply with Judge Maloney’s findings and revise Amendment 201 to make it farmer friendly. That should absolutely be the top priority at this moment.
Does this mean you now know how much coverage we have? And it isn’t enough and therefore you have to plan for this fact. Don’t we deserve an answer.
Or are you and therefore we still in the dark.
Telling us the insurance co is covering our attorneys fees gives me no comfort. What about the $50 million. How much of that are they covering? Wouldn’t it be prudent to
demand an answer. How can you negotiate from a point of not knowing how much you(we) are on the hook for.
As an aside here is an idea. Give us our money back from the PDR millage and fire millage balances to help us defray our expenses we have incurred due to your actions ( and cancel the contract for architectural fees etc for fire house).
PDR is a voter approved millage – I believe this went to a vote of the people at least twice and was twice approved – as was Pelizzari back in the day. Police Fund and Fire Fund are also specific funds. Lawsuits, legal fees, and the potential WOMP settlement would come out of the General Fund. Residents can find the millage for the General Fund on their property tax bill on the line called “Township Operating”.
One of the cardinal rules in government accounting says Thou Shalt Not Co-Mingle Funds.
Even if the PDR cash balance was $100 gazillion, this is a millage voted by the people for a specific purpose. Thus, a specific fund was established and the taxed millage for this can ONLY be used for PDR.
Do you think those things add up to the $50M that WOMP wants from us? I don’t think so, but maybe I am reading the wrong line items. All residents are getting saddled if there isn’t a way forward worked out, I agree with you there. I believe PDR is untouchable based on how it has been used and it has limited some development so I think it has done what was expected.
LUDICROUS!
Supervisor Maura Sanders is realistic, straightforward and honest, and not prone to acts of manipulation such as unnecessarily trying to scare our community. I believe today’s memo (for discussion on August 12) is deadly serious.
Is this potential outcome we now face the ‘community’ that WOMP envisioned in the statements from their website copied below? Because it feels an awful lot like our community is being destroyed in order to pay enormous sums of our public and personal dollars to each of the wineries.
WOMP MEMBERS: If the answers in the statement below are respectively still ‘no’ and ‘of course,’ THE TIME IS NOW. TAKE THE POWER BACK FROM THE LAWYERS. BE NEIGHBORS. BE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
“Would wineries destroy the very community that nurtures their produce, raises their families, and provides recreational opportunities for all? No. Would the wineries have preferred to find compromise and resolution years ago through collaboration and frank discussions with all involved stakeholders? Of course!”
Well said, Susie. I agree. She is acting in our best interest by trying to avoid any potential financial burden that may be levied on the residents.
👍
Back in the 80’s Michigan wines were a joke, we use to call it Ripple because it tasted like ripple. Then they came into their own and very respectable but mostly with grapes from Argentina, but it created an agricultural commerce and tourists started to notice. But just like Napa, it wasn’t enough. Sonoma is now ruined too. Greed is nothing new. Wealthy people with very deep pockets that can hire very savvy lawyers and could care less about Old Mission Peninsula. Maura is 10,000% right.
Readers should be informed of whether the amount of insured legal fees being paid on the appeals process are eroding the insured limits of liability of the insurer.
I have only dealt with cyber insurance issues and they require all avenues be explored before any insurance amount is even considered. They also require very strict non-disclosure and attorney-client privilege everything so you get your hands tied on what you can share or even use in negotiation until they are happy they are at a must settle judgement.
If the shoe were on the other foot and the township won the lawsuit (which in my opinion never stood a chance) do you think they would be willing to work with wineries and come to an agreement on an ordinance? Absolutely not! In fact they would probably put more restrictions in the ordinance. As far as I know, no one has reached out to any wineries to work on a settlement. Clock is ticking! And why are we kept in the dark about the insurance? So the township can keep up with scare tactics about selling land and working from home? How can you discuss the possibility of these things when the public has no idea what they are in for? Let’s hear the number! We deserve to know!
We wouldn’t be in this mess if the township/wineries settled years ago. Hmm…who pursued this lawsuit?
Lee, the wineries pursued the lawsuit, literally. They were the party that sued the township (please note – it may be euphemistic to say township and mean “people that work at the township”, but make no mistake, it is the entire population of the township)
Oops – the entire population, except those party to the suit (winery owners).
Yes they did and there was a settlement until PTP stepped in. From there it was PTP and the township that pursued it. Or if you want to say pursued the lawsuit that wineries started, fine. Makes no difference to me.
I was at that meeting, there were a lot more people than members of PTP pushing against the settlement (that only the lawyer had proposed, not the board, per Susie’s post in a prior forum). Stop painting it as just PTP. I also agree that Maura, and the board are upstanding and have tirelessly represented this Peninsula.
I’m only saying that PTP was a part of pursuing the lawsuit after that meeting. I’m sure there were people there on both sides of the argument with that particular settlement. Maybe not. I wasn’t there.
I believe Maura is doing the best she can under the circumstances. Not an easy job to take over.
👍
Agree, the suit is aimed at Residents here if this number stays on the table.
Hi Lee, I absolutely believe Becky Chowns description of events back in around the time of Sept Oct 2021. There was a mediation session with some township officials. Becky was one of them. From her account while the groups were working on an agreement it did not happen with all members and some of our twp officials left the meeting. Apparently there was then further discussion with Womp reps and twp attorney. At the St Joseph meeting shortly thereafter an unapproved agreement was presented to the board who unanimously rejected it. Who knows maybe that potential agreement was so bad that it was worth $50MM.
Just charge it to the residents and get it over with.
Upon appeal lets first demand that damages be calculated with real numbers. Presumably, after the restritive zoning was repealed in 2022 the wineries started holding more events and making more money per year than when the earlier restrictive ordinance was in effect. The damage calculation should not exceed this increased actual annual profit improvement for 2023, 2024, They should be forced to have their books audited so we can find out the real number, not just their wildly optimistic projected numbers.
Curt you are leaving out the fact that Becky Chown states clearly there was never a settlement proposal that she or the other board member present would have accepted. The since fired township attorney went out on his own to create the proposed settlement. Then when the entire board, including 2 wine industry participants on the board at that time, rejected when they finally saw it.
i find it interesting that both sides claim they are open to talking yet, no talking has occurred. Additionally although the cuts proposed are admirable, they will not put a dent into the judgment, and if executed, would destroy all the special things we live here for.
What no one has mentioned is the mostly likely solution if the judgement stands is that the township declares bankruptcy. Not great, but I adamantly disagree that any resident pay one dime of this judgement after how messed up the Township managed this, it’s really shameful.
I think if we we have any chance at all to manage through this, we need to ditch the lawyers, get a negotiating group together, drop the egos and pride, and work with the wineries to get this hashed out. Frankly, if township leadership chose to rise up and get that done, they would create a special commission of diverse folks with the sole purpose of resolving this mess.
There is lots of figure pointing from both groups, but it’s obvious that this is resolving nothing. It’s time for a different approach.
Steve Crum resident OMP
Seems to me that Maura is fulfilling her fiduciary responsibilities to her constituents. If the appeal is unsuccessful and negotiations fail to take the monetary damages down by an order of magnitude, the Township Board needs to plan for how to pay the bill. Lawyers have already weighed in that bankruptcy is not an option in Michigan. If our insurance was capable of covering the bill, we’d have heard so by now. That leaves the Board with the option of raising taxes or selling assets. It was the wineries’ own attorney, Joe Infante, who suggested in comments to the Record Eagle 20 July, IT HAS ASSETS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOLD.
I’m sure the Board is following the advice of its own legal counsel in contingency planning and is right to have these discussions in public. Having the discussion with the voters helps remind us what’s at stake, tough choices ahead, and the magnitude of what the wineries have cost us.