Preserving Parkland or Relocating a Fire Station? Voters Face a Complex Decision with Costly Implications

Photo: The Dexter Fire Station has been emptied, and plans for its future use are still uncertain. Photo by Doug Marrin.

Despite the simplicity of its language, an awful lot is riding on the proposed charter amendment Dexter voters will soon be asked to consider.

At face value, the measure is focused on preserving city-owned land for recreational purposes. However, on its website, the Friends of Mill Creek Park, the group behind the petition that resulted in the ballot proposal, directly connect the park preservation with moving the fire station to a different location. Many maintain that the real purpose behind the amendment is to force a change in plans for the Dexter Area Fire Department’s Alpine Street fire station, currently under renovation, and the park preservation language is simply an effort to convince voters to support it.

An attorney representing Friends of Mill Creek Park confirmed that belief in a recent letter to the city.  The letter states, “In our opinion, passage of the proposed Charter amendment and the related expansion of Mill Creek Park would require the relocation of the fire station, as that use would no longer be permissible because it is not an active and/or passive recreation use.”

The letter, which can be found on the city’s website in the supplemental information packet for the September 23rd council meeting, went on to accuse the city of acting in bad faith on multiple fronts and closed with, “Please be advised that, if the Charter amendment passes, the Friends of Mill Creek Park will demand that the fire station be relocated, and reserves the right to take whatever legal actions are necessary to require the City to do so.”

While discussing the matter at this week’s council meeting, Mayor Shawn Keough condemned the letter saying, “Up until receiving this letter, I was holding out hope that the Friends of Mill Creek Park was trying to make sure that the land that was parkland would stay parkland in some way, shape or form,” said Keough. “But this letter clearly presents and forecasts the real intent of the silly ballot language that’s in front of us or will be in front of voters in November.”

“This letter that [the attorney] wrote us, has a lot of inaccuracies in it, a lot of false statements,” continued Keough. “And it’s disappointing because it just it’s just another misleading document on this whole path…I’m not impressed by it. I’m offended by it.”

To address the inaccuracies in the letter and provide additional relevant information to voters, city staff and the city’s attorney compiled a list of facts related to the ongoing conflict. The full list of facts is available on the city’s website in the supplemental information packet for the September 23rd council meeting but some highlights include:

• “The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a voter-enacted initiative to amend a city charter, whose practical effect is to amend the zoning ordinance, is invalid unless it complied with the procedural requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Save Our Downtown v City of Traverse City, 343 Mich App 523, 539 (2022); cert denied 512 Mich 908 (2023). The Friends of Mill Creek Park voter initiative impacts the type of land uses permissible at 8140 Main Street, but did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.”
• “The Letter states that the City has acted in bad faith to delay placing the Friends of Mill Creek Park initiative on the ballot until November 5, 2024. Under Michigan election law, November 5, 2024, was the first lawful date that the initiative could have been placed on a ballot.”
• “Should work cease on those portions of the work that have been awarded, the City shall continue to incur costs per the contracts with the Architect and Construction Manager… For example, should the City terminate the contract with Cunningham-Limp, the City “shall pay the Contractor for Work properly executed; …the Contractor shall be entitled to compensation of an amount equal to Three and Three- Fifths percent (3.6%) of the balance of the Cost of the Work not executed at the time of termination. As of September 23, 2024, 3.6% of the Cost of the Work is $121,906.00.”

City officials and residents opposed to the ballot measure say that if the charter amendment passes, the impact on the city will be costly. In addition to expenses already incurred for work completed and/or under contract, the additional complexities related to the use of voter-approved bond money, ongoing renovation, contractual obligations, and vague language used to describe the property in question all add up to a lengthy and expensive legal process to sort out the mounting conflicts.

Right now, the outcome remains unclear. While there is a lot of speculation, there is no way to predict for certain what will happen if voters approve the Mill Creek Park preservation amendment.