To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Peninsula Township Supervisor Maura Sanders updates us on happenings in the community, including an explanation of the Joint Defense Agreement between the Township and Protect the Peninsula. Big thanks to Maura for these weekly updates. Read on for this week’s note. -jb
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
February 28, 2026
The Parks Committee met this week with a packed agenda. They had a great presentation/Q&A from Steve Lagerquist of the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy (GTRLC) about best practices in our parks. As mentioned in the recent newsletter, volunteers are welcomed for various tasks in our parks. If you’re interested, contact Erin Gartland of the Parks Committee at [email protected].
The Township Board (TB) held a special meeting on Tuesday. Gregg Bird, Grand Traverse County Emergency Manager, provided a presentation regarding Peninsula Township Building Emergency Action Planning (BEAP). Health and Safety are priority #1 for our staff, residents and visitors to the township offices and meetings held at the township hall. Every citizen can serve as the eyes and ears of law enforcement to help safeguard our community. Learn more about reporting suspicious activity here.
Discussion continued regarding the potential purchase of land for fire station #1. The TB tasked Trustees Sanger and Milliken to prepare a financial analysis presentation for the March 10th TB meeting regarding the cell tower income from the current leases and the long range projections for income from that asset. The TB discussed the property appraisals for the purchase of vacant land, zoned A-1 agricultural, across from the Mapleton Market, as well as the current Fire Station #1, zoned commercial, and its income-generating cell tower.
WOMP Litigation Update
Questions have recently been raised about the Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) between Peninsula Township and Protect the Peninsula. I welcome the chance to address them directly and transparently, even as we continue to make progress on other fronts.
Joint Defense Agreement = A Standard Tool, Not a Secret Arrangement
Joint defense agreements allow parties with common interests to communicate during pending litigation. They can take different forms. When multiple parties retain the same attorney — as the WOMP wineries have done — coordination happens naturally through shared counsel. When parties have separate attorneys — as the Township and PTP do — a written agreement serves the same function. The principle is identical: parties with common interests are permitted to work together without waiving the privilege that protects their communications. There is nothing unusual about this on either side of the litigation.
But joint defense agreements do not merge parties into a single decision-making entity. Therefore, the joint defense agreement does not give the Township control over PTP, and it most assuredly does not give PTP control over the Township. Each party retains its own counsel, makes its own decisions, and remains independently responsible for its own conduct. The same is true for the individual Wineries — they are welcome to argue and negotiate independently of the others.
This is not obscure or unusual — in fact, it’s a popular way to save on litigation costs. Courts across the country have recognized joint defense agreements as smart litigation tools since 1871. Every federal appellate circuit has accepted their use, as have Michigan’s state courts. They are a routine feature of multi-party litigation.
PTP Does Not Control the Township
The existence of a joint defense agreement does not mean PTP controls the Township in the winery litigation. The Sixth Circuit made this clear when it rejected the Wineries’ argument that PTP and the Township were “joined at the hip.” PTP sought its own status as a party in the litigation because of its interests, which are aligned in some respects with the Township, but are not identical. The Sixth Circuit agreed and allowed PTP to intervene as a full party — no different than the individual wineries, WOMP, or the Township — for that reason.
The Township Welcomes Negotiation with Individual Winery Owners
That PTP and the Township are separate entities with separate interests is not a new statement. Recently, a meeting between appointed representatives of the Township Board and some Wineries’ representatives was reported in a Supervisor’s Weekly Note. The discussion, and those that followed between counsel, occurred without PTP present and were aimed at further understanding the Wineries’ and Township’s respective interests in the litigation.
Just as the Township operates independently from PTP, those discussions confirmed that each winery has its own specific interests. Unsurprisingly, any meaningful resolution of the litigation must ultimately address the distinctiveness of each winery. For this reason, the Wineries could choose to negotiate as the independent businesses they hold themselves out to be, something the Township would welcome.
The Joint Defense Agreement Remains in Effect
The joint defense agreement was executed during active trial court litigation and continues to govern coordination as the appeal proceeds through the Sixth Circuit. Agreements of this kind do not terminate simply because counsel changes — they remain in effect until the parties agree to terminate them or the litigation concludes.
As the Township continues before the Sixth Circuit — joined by the amici groups who have stepped up to support its position — residents can expect that more questions and commentary will follow. That is the nature of contested litigation of this importance. This case has always been about protecting the agricultural character of the Old Mission Peninsula for residents on both sides of this debate (see the 2024 Master Plan Vision Statements). The recent settlement conversations have made this and the Township’s other positions clear, and the Township remains ready to work toward a resolution with any willing winery.
Public Hearings
The Public Hearing Notices for the 2026/2027 Budget are posted on the township homepage along with other helpful information. Peninsula Township follows the Michigan Department of Treasury Uniform Budget Manual for Local Units of Government. The purpose of this manual is to assist local units of government in applying legal requirements and establishing a sound budgeting process. Recommended practices that would enhance the budgeting process are also included. The DRAFT budget will be posted no later than close of business on Thursday, March 5th.
Updates From Down the Hall
February and March are very busy months for the township government. The Assessing Department has sent out assessment notices. Please contact their office with specific questions or to schedule an appointment. Click here for information regarding the State Tax Commission Board of Review.
Looking Ahead to Next Week – and Beyond
Please keep an eye on all upcoming meetings via the township website and our live streamed meetings (saved for 30 days) on our YouTube Channel.
Have a wonderful weekend,
Maura Sanders, Peninsula Township Supervisor
Phone: (231) 223-7323
Email: [email protected]
Office Hours: Mondays 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesdays – Thursdays 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; closed Friday – Sunday and Holidays. If TCAPS is closed due to weather, Peninsula Township offices are closed at least until 10 a.m. Please check the website homepage for any updates.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Very well explained Maura, thank you
It’s interesting to hear that the Township is open to negotiating with individual winery owners outside of the PTP framework. Do you feel that a ‘winery-by-winery’ approach might lead to a resolution faster than waiting for a collective settlement through WOMP? Looking forward to the March 10th analysis
NOTHING TO SEE in the Joint Defense Agreement, per Supervisor Sanders!
Seriously, Madam Supervisor? Unfortunately 100% of the JDA terms have been redacted by PTP. Our Trustees have done nothing about it. Our Board has intentionally kept us in the dark, first as to the existence of the JDA, and, now, as to its terms. All at a time when our Board has been outmaneuvered for 5 years in a dreadful lawsuit. How are we to trust the Board now on this? You and our board fail to see that full disclosure i something you can leverage to get other bright minds pondering complex matters.
I am heartened by your clarification that PTP does not hold the veto power Mike Dettmer asserts over us all! Forgive me, our Board’s track record of being outmaneuvered on legal matters leaves me very concerned about this one. It also concerns me that you have just ratified that agreement with your post.
And, then there is the matter of your asking us to trust that an extraordinarily unusual contract, the JDA, is a standard practice. It was signed by Greg Meihn, the township attorney being sued for malpractice!! I am sure that not a single trustee had previously heard of JDA’s before this lawsuit – same for me, a long time lawyer. At the same time, I am very confident that Mike Dettmer IS familiar with them.
All of this goes away with the Board’s and PTP’s full disclsure of the terms of the JDA. Please start there by disclosing the terms and by CAREFULLY explaining and defining the “alignment” of interests between the Township’s voters and PTP so that your constituents can evaluate how our Trustees assess your take on alignment.
Two simple tasks. Get PTP’s permission to share and share it.
There is nothing normal here. Does PTP have a veto or not? Does it share in any recoveries from insurers or not?
Thank you.
Mr. Anson, unfortunately, you’re upset that our fairly elected officials, who were elected to protect this community, have not shared something with you.
Cries for transparency are pretty embarrassing from someone who has repeatedly said they are not supporting WOMP or OMCC, yet they are. Do you want to admit it, or are you happy to continue the charade?
So everyone is clear; Mr. Anson has been acting as a “mouthpiece” for WOMP and OMCC.
Why has WOMP done everything in their power to not share the “sweet” settlement they sent?
Why has OMCC (a 501(c )3) continued to subvert the elected officials of this community?
Ann S.-
The first stone is cast! The personal attack!
Sorry to disappoint you, Ann, but, I am anything, but a mouthpiece for WOMP. You know nothing about me other than through these posts as a very concerned citizen and neighbor. I knew none of them before this debacle unfolded.
I am upset by the illegal training by scheme. I am upset at the amateurish planning overreach of our ordinance and the liability it has created for me and others. I am upset by the secrecy and control unelected officials hold over our township. Something is radically wrong here.
Frankly, I am upset that you don’t seem to care that a group operating in the shadows like PTP rejects transparency as to its organization and as to the seminal document at play in this dispute. It’s hard for me to not be curious.
I have 40+ years as a lawyer dealing with sophisticated real estate matters and have never witnessed a cataclysmic failure of governance of this magnitude resulting from the stranglehold of one organization, it has become clear.
Your “trust” in our fairly elected officials was rewarded with a $49M judgment, assuming you live on OMP, as we do.
Good enough for you, I guess, but a cataclysmic failure in my book.
Lastly, please do some homework before attempting to tether me to either WOMP or OMCC, whatever that is? I’m afraid I’ve never heard of it. Should I have?
In this the spirit of public transparency & welcoming questions, please disclose all terms of the JDA contract with PTP & clarify the following:
1. Authority & Autonomy
Settlement Control: Does the JDA require PTP’s written consent for the Township to settle or dismiss its portion of the litigation?
Veto Power: Can PTP legally block the Township from exiting the lawsuit?
Reporting: Is the Township required to brief PTP on private meetings between Board members and individual wineries?
2. Exit Consequences
Penalties & Notice: What are the financial penalties for withdrawing, and is there a mandatory notice period (e.g., 60 days)?
Work Product: Must the Township “return or destroy” shared research and expert data if it leaves the agreement?
Future Boards: Is this JDA binding on future elected officials regardless of election results?
3. Post-Exit & Enforcement
Restricted Cooperation: Is the Township forbidden from cooperating with the opposing party after withdrawing?
SUP Monitoring: Does the JDA grant PTP a role in monitoring or enforcing individual winery permits (SUPs)?
Breach of Contract: Under what specific conditions can PTP sue the Township for a breach of this agreement?
Definitely makes sense to have this joint agreement. I’m happy we have both the Board and PTP defending us.
Comments from both Ann S. and Anness? What’s up with that? They both should just read “anonymous”.
Todd
Of course you will be subject to attack. Instead of dealing with your arguments you get attacked and unsubstantiated accusations get leveled against you.
remember the term argumentum ad hominem or as reported by some Socrates said “when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of losers”.