Toll Bridge Facts.com

 
  
Township offers $900,000 for GIBC lawsuit payment

Published: Friday, October 16, 2009 
By Lena Khzouz Magyar

The township will offer $900,000 to the Grosse Ile Bridge Co. as partial payment for attorney fees involving a toll bridge lawsuit.

The partial payment is being made on the anticipated costs of settling a dispute over legal fees resulting from the township’s loss in the GIBC condemnation case, which began in 2003.

After a closed executive session, held from 7 to about 8:45 p.m. during a regularly scheduled township board meeting, the trustees unanimously approved the partial payment during the open meeting.

Township Supervisor Brian Loftus said the township would continue to appeal the assessment in the toll bridge case unless the GIBC accepts the $900,000 as full payment.

“We’re hoping that will serve to settle the lawsuit,” Loftus said.

The money would be borrowed from the township’s Open Space acquisition fund and repaid from the general fund with 2 percent interest over a 10-year period.

“We have idle funds in the Open Space acquisition account … that we don’t plan on accessing anytime soon,” Loftus said.

He said that is allowed as long as the money is paid back to the original account with interest. The plan is to pay $100,000 per year back to the Open Space acquisition account, he said.

The original lawsuit began in 2003 when the township tried to take the toll bridge from the GIBC through eminent domain.

The toll bridge at the northern end of the island has been owned by the Smoke family for generations.

The only other road to the island is the Wayne County-owned free bridge. closer to the southern end of the island.

When trying to take the bridge, township leaders had said that they wanted control of the bridge for the safety of the island’s residents, being that the toll bridge is one of the only two access points to Grosse Ile.

That part of the suit was in court for several years, with the ultimate ruling in the bridge company’s favor.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Susan Borman ruled this year that the township owed the GIBC nearly $1.4 million for attorney fees, but the township is appealing that ruling.

State law provides for interest payments in appealed attorney’s fees after a judgment has been rendered.

As a result, since March 6, the township has been potentially liable for interest accruing on the debt of nearly $1.4 million at a rate of 5 percent per year, or about $70,000 annually. Paying the $900,000 would help lower the amount of interest, officials said.

The normal timeframe for such an appeal is about 18 months, so the township is expecting a verdict from the appeals court in about a year, although it could come sooner or later, Loftus said.

Greg Karmazin, GIBC spokesman, said their attorneys are aware of the township's action and will make a decision.

Frequently Asked Questions and Facts about the Township Board's Eminent Domain Litigation Against the GIBC

Updated as of September 27, 2007

Question 1:  Why, and when, did the Township Board start their eminent domain lawsuit against the GIBC?

Answer:  On June 9, 2003, five members (Kurt Kobiljak, Ute O'Connor, John Raithel, Rodger "Marty" Will and Leroy Wojewodzic) of the current Township Board -- a majority of the Board -- voted for a "resolution of necessity" that outlined several vague reasons for the Township Board to begin legal action to seize ownership of the Toll Bridge through the use of the government's eminent domain powers.

The Township Board unilaterally began this legal action without first talking to GIBC Owner and President Paul Smoke to determine if any of the Township Board's concerns could be addressed through a process other than costly and contentious litigation. The Township Board also voted to start this litigation without any public debate. 

Ultimately, three levels of Michigan courts issued four opinions firmly rejecting the Township Board's lawsuit: the Wayne County Circuit Court opinion on May 7, 2004; Michigan Court of Appeals opinion on April 4, 2006; and Michigan Supreme Court opinions on October 13, 2006 and February 27, 2007. 

These three levels of Michigan courts contain 11 judges who ruled on the Township Board's lawsuit. Contrary to the Township Board's past and recent claims, their lawsuit against the GIBC was not primarily decided by just one judge.

Question 2:  Did the GIBC ever offer to sell the Toll Bridge to the Township Board?

Answer:  Yes.  During the last 26 years, the GIBC has twice offered to sell the Toll Bridge to the Township Board -- sales offers were made during a period of time from 1979 to 1981 and during 2003.

Although GIBC Owner and President Paul Smoke had no intention to sell the Toll Bridge to the Township Board (or anyone else) at the time they started their eminent domain litigation, he did subsequently offer to sell the span to the Township Board at a fair market price during the fall of 2003.

Paul Smoke's sales offer could have been funded through selling revenue bonds supported by the existing toll fare revenue at the time. The Township Board would not have needed to use any taxpayer funding to purchase or operate the Toll Bridge under Paul Smoke's proposal.

The Township Board did not negotiate Paul Smoke's sales offer.  The 2003 Township Board only offered to buy the Toll Bridge at a price that was less than 50% of the inflation-adjusted amount that several members of the 1979-81 Township Board (including then-Supervisor Merle Solomon) thought was fair in 1981.  It is worth remembering that the Township Board rejected the GIBC's 1981 sales offer by only one vote (the vote was 4 to 3). 

Then-Township Supervisor Merle Solomon sent a letter to the GIBC on October 14, 1981 that stated, "While I am obviously in the minority opinion, I regret that we were not able to complete negotiations with purchase. I have an extremely deep feeling that your company and the Smoke family made an all out effort to make it possible for the community to own the bridge."

The Township Board's purchase offer in 2003 failed to take into consideration that Paul Smoke had invested millions-of-dollars in upgrading and renovating the Toll Bridge between 1981 and 2003 as well as ignored many other important factors that had significantly increased the value of the span since 1981.

The Township Board's 2003 purchase offer was obviously not made in good faith given that it amounted to less than half of what Supervisor Solomon and two other members of the Township Board were willing to pay for the Toll Bridge in 1981.

Question 3:  What is the current status of the Township Board's eminent domain litigation against the GIBC?

Answer:  After the Michigan Supreme Court rejected the Township Board's eminent domain lawsuit for the second time on February 27, 2007, the case was brought back to the Wayne County Circuit Court to decide the next phase of litigation which is to resolve the payment of fees and other expenses of the GIBC's successful defense.

The Michigan Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act provides a process by which the court will decide how much a municipality must pay for the property owner's successful defense against a failed eminent domain lawsuit.

The lawsuit is currently pending before Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Susan Borman.  On May 18, 2007, Judge Borman ruled that the Township Board must pay for the GIBC's successful defense although she did not determine the amount to be paid at that time. 

Instead of taking steps to resolve this matter based on Judge Borman's ruling, the Township Board decided to file a motion to have their lawsuit adjudicated by a different judge. The Township Board has implied that they will likely file an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals because they do not want to pay for the GIBC's successful defense.

Question 4:  The Township Board has claimed in recent newspapers articles and the Supervisor's September 7, 2007 "E-Update"  that the four year successful defense by the GIBC has not cost anything.  Is this true?

Answer:  Absolutely not, this claim is a deliberate, gross distortion of the truth.  According to an article published in the Ile Camera on February 2, 2007, the Township Board had spent approximately $450,000 (about $110 for each of Grosse Ile's approximately 4,100 households) on legal fees and all other expenses involved in pursuing the eminent domain lawsuit against the GIBC (at least as of early this year). 

The cost of the GIBC's successful defense is substantially higher than the amount of money that the Township Board claims to have spent to pursue their lawsuit against the GIBC.  Given the tremendous power of the government to prevail in eminent domain lawsuits, the GIBC was forced to mount a vigorous defense. According to the Detroit News, Michigan is one of the worst states in America for eminent domain abuse by the government.

Even the Township Board now recognizes that the GIBC's legal fight was an extremely difficult uphill battle.  Trustee Jeff Forester wrote a guest editorial published in the March 16, 2007 issue of the Ile Camera that stated, "Even I like an underdog story where the individual entrepreneur wins out over 'oppressive' and 'greedy' government -- it's a Cinderella story and Paul Smoke's win is no small victory."

Question 5:  The Township Board has publicly stated that relatively little additional expense will be caused by continuing to fight the GIBC in court rather than immediately settling this issue once and for all time.  Is this correct?

Answer:  No, it's totally wrong.  The longer the Township Board persists in fighting the GIBC in court, the higher the ultimate cost will be to Island taxpayers.

The GIBC annually pays approximately $58,000 (up from $55,000 last year) in taxes to Grosse Ile Township -- we are one of the single largest taxpayers on the Island. The amount the Township Board has spent suing us is approximately equivalence to the tax payments we made to Grosse Ile during the past 8 years. In effect, the GIBC has paid for the Township Board's lawsuit against us.

In any event, the Michigan Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act is clear that a losing municipality in an eminent domain lawsuit must pay for the successful defense by a property owner. Sooner or later the Township Board is going to have to pay and delaying the day of reckoning will not benefit Island taxpayers.

Question 6:  The Township Board has publicly claimed that Judge Susan Borman and GIBC attorney Alan Ackerman are business partners and she is biased toward the GIBC because of this alleged relationship.  It this statement accurate?

Answer: No, it's completely false.  The Township Board has produced no compelling evidence to support this outrageous claim designed to attack the integrity of Judge Borman who is a widely-respected jurist with more than 30 years of experience on the bench.

Judge Borman's May 7, 2004 ruling against the Township Board's eminent domain lawsuit was praised by such independent entities as the Detroit News editorial board and the prestigious Mackinac Center for Public Policy that conducts research on, and promotes, free market enterprise.

From the very beginning of this lawsuit, the Township Board has exhibited a pattern of making disparaging and disrespectful statements about any court that rules against them.

One week after Judge Borman rejected the Township Board's lawsuit on May 7, 2004, then-Township Treasurer and Trustee Kurt Kobiljak was quoted in a May 14, 2004 Ile Camera article stating, "It was clear that the way she [Judge Borman] interpreted the law early on in this case and her comments from the bench that she was going to proceed with the course that I don't think was supported by the law."

After the Township Board lost at the Michigan Court of Appeals (a three judge panel), Supervisor Kurt Kobiljak was quoted in an April 7, 2006 Ile Camera article stating, "It is my opinion that the court [Michigan Court of Appeals] didn't want to take this issue on and relied exclusively upon the lower court's misunderstanding of the facts... It was an easy way to move it off the docket. This is a hot issue and not everyone wants to deal with it."

Following the Michigan Supreme Court's (a seven judge panel) second rejection of the Township Board's lawsuit, the Township Board's attorney was quoted in a March 2, 2007 Ile Camera article stating, "I'm extremely disappointed.  The way they [Michigan Supreme Court] left everything here made no sense....It's a bad decision, quite frankly."

Question 7:  The Township Board has implied that continuing the legal battle is beneficial for Island taxpayers.  What is the GIBC's opinion?

Answer:  The only likely outcome of continuing their legal maneuvering and appeals designed to avoid paying for the GIBC's successful defense is that resolution of this litigation will be pushed past the 2008 elections for Township Board. While that outcome might be beneficial for the re-election campaigns of incumbent Township Board members, it will not help anyone else. 

Although the Township Board can probably delay the resolution of this matter for at least a year by appealing to the Michigan Court of Appeals, this action will only increase the ultimate cost of the settlement for Island taxpayers.

A majority of the present Township Board unilaterally began the eminent domain litigation in 2003 and they have the full responsibility to resolve it now that three levels of Michigan courts have ruled against them. 

It would be a clear dereliction of duty for this Township Board to make bringing closure to their lawsuit the job of the next Township Board.

Question 8:  Is there anything that Island residents can do to encourage the Township Board to settle this legal battle rather than make it the problem of the next Township Board after the 2008 elections while in the process driving up the costs to Grosse Ile taxpayers?

Answer:  Yes, definitely.  Islanders elected all current members of the Township Board in 2004 to represent them and implement policies that are in the best interest of Grosse Ile taxpayers.

Members of the Township Board are collectively paid $63,287 a year in salary to work for you. You have the right to ask them to work for the best interests of the Island taxpayers. 

After each loss in court during the first phase of their eminent domain litigation, the Township Board told Islanders that they would eventually win if they appealed. Each time they appealed, they only succeeded in increasing the cost of the litigation for Island taxpayers (GIBC included).

Unfortunately, while a number of thoughtful, civic-minded Islanders did speak out against Township Board's litigious actions during past four years, many residents took a wait-and-see attitude that allowed the Township Board to pursue the most aggressive and expensive lawsuit in the history of Grosse Ile government. The Township Board appears determined to repeat their mistake once again unless residents demand that they cease the legal games.

If you do not believe members of the Township Board are acting in your best interests by continuing to fight the GIBC in court, you have the ability to ask them by e-mail, phone or in writing to settle this litigation.

The Detroit News editorial board's September 5, 2007 editorial was right on target when it stated, "It would be smart for the Township to bury the hatchet and concentrate on rebuilding relationships with the Bridge Company."

We agree that it is time to begin the process of restoring the mutually respectful and positive relationship that existed between the Township government and GIBC from 1914 until 2003. But, as long as the Township Board is fighting the GIBC in court, it is going to be very difficult to make progress.

It is important to understand that the Township Board's increasingly hostile attitude toward the GIBC is having a negative impact on other important issues such as our fire hydrant and new operations building proposals that would benefit all Island residents, businesses and visitors who use the Toll Bridge. Both of these interrelated proposals are designed to enhance safety and smooth traffic flow on the Toll Bridge and in the toll plaza.

The Detroit News' September 5th editorial observed this deteriorating situation and stated, "Township officials are refusing to let the owners of the Grosse Ile Bridge hook into municipal water lines to install a fire hydrant for a planned new toll plaza. A hydrant is required before the plaza can be built. The new plaza should speed bridge crossings.  But Grosse Ile is allowing vindictiveness to trump sound policy.  They won't give the Grosse Ile Bridge Co. the permit in a decision that looks spiteful, considering the township lost a four-year battle to seize the bridge..."

Bottom line, if you're opposed to the Township Board wasting your tax dollars on more pointless litigation against the GIBC and you want the things to go back to the way they were before June 9, 2003, you can inform them that they do not have your support for more legal maneuvering and appeals designed to avoid paying for the GIBC's successful defense (see below suggested e-mail that you could send to the Township Board to register your opinion).

SUGGESTED E-MAIL TO THE GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP BOARD (The GIBC encourages you to write a completely unique e-mail, but the below e-mail may serve as a model to organize your own thoughts):

Supervisor Kurt Kobiljak
Trustee Jeff Forrester
Trustee Ute O'Connor
Trustee Walter Pociask
Trustee John Raithel
Trustee Rodger "Marty" Will
Trustee Leroy Wojewodzic

Dear Township Board Members:

I am aware that the Township Board has spent at least $450,000 of Grosse Ile taxpayers' money to pursue your eminent domain litigation against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company (GIBC). I respectfully ask that you immediately stop spending Island taxpayers' money to continue to fight the GIBC in court.

I request that the Township Board takes immediate steps to achieve a fair resolution to paying the GIBC's legal fees and other expenses as required by Michigan law in a case where a municipality loses an eminent domain lawsuit against a private property owner.

I do not believe that it will benefit Grosse Ile taxpayers for the Township Board to delay any longer the resolution of the lawsuit that you started in 2003. Please don't make resolving your lawsuit the responsibility of the Township Board elected in 2008 by filing another appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

During the last four years, three levels of Michigan Courts with a total of eleven judges have ruled four times against the Township Board's eminent domain lawsuit. You had your days in court.

It is now time to bring closure to this matter and start the process of restoring the historically positive and mutually beneficial relationship that existed between the Township Board and the GIBC for 90 years prior to your eminent domain lawsuit being filed in 2003.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Grosse Ile Resident Name
Mailing address

CONTACT GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP BOARD MEMBERS WITH THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESSES:

Supervisor Kurt Kobiljak: Kkobi@aol.com

Trustee Jeff Forrester: jforres1@comcast.net

Trustee Ute O'Connor: ute@wideopenwest.com

Trustee Walter Pociask: wpociask@excite.com

Trustee John Raithel:  johnr@grosseile.com

Trustee Rodger "Marty" Will:  rmwill@comcast.net

Trustee Leroy Wojewodzic: (no e-mail address)

GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP BOARD'S MAILING ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER:

Grosse Ile Township Board
9601 Groh Road
Grosse Ile, MI 48138
(734) 676-4422, ext 215

"An Island business connecting Islanders since 1913"

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Contact:   Greg Karmazin, Director of Community and Government Relations
Phone: (734) 718-8465
E-mail: karmazingibc@aol.com

Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Grosse Ile Township Board's Eminent Domain Lawsuit for a Second and Final Time
GIBC and Islanders Valuing Property Rights and Civility have Won

Grosse Ile, Michigan, February 28, 2007 - The Grosse Ile Bridge Company (GIBC) announced that the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion on February 27, 2007 that upheld its October 13, 2006 decision rejecting the Grosse Ile Township Board's eminent domain lawsuit against the company. 

GIBC Owner and President Paul Smoke said, "I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has finally put an end to the Township Board's completely unnecessary, highly counter-productive and very costly eminent domain litigation that has been dragging on for more than 3 1/2 years. 

"Throughout the duration of the Township Board's lawsuit, the Bridge Company always remained focused on its top priority which is to provide Grosse Ile residents, businesses and visitors with safe and reliable access to and from the Island.  The lawsuit, however, was a constant distraction that made the Bridge Company's work much more challenging. 

"I am grateful to the Bridge Company's employees who maintained an unwavering commitment throughout this ordeal to providing customers of the Toll Bridge with the best possible service.  I am also thankful for my friends and supporters in the community who encouraged me to defend the Toll Bridge against eminent domain extremism.  This is a victory for all Islanders who believe in protecting private property rights and the principle that the government should not sue first, ask questions later.

"The timing of this ruling is very good because it is essential for the Township Board to devote its full energy and resources to working with the Bridge Company to ensure that the Wayne County Bridge closure period goes as smoothly as possible. 

"I would like my relationship with the Township Hall to return to when it was characterized by civility, cooperation and mutual commitment to doing what is right for Islanders."

The Township Board's lawsuit, which began on June 9, 2003, has now been rejected by Michigan courts for a fourth and final time.  The Supreme Court's one sentence opinion ending the lawsuit is as follows:

"On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 13, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered  erroneously."

Michigan Supreme Court Rejects the Grosse Ile Township Board's Eminent Domain Lawsuit Against the GIBC for a Second and Final Time

The Township Board's Lawsuit is Over, the GIBC and Islanders Valuing Property Rights and Civility have Won

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion on February 27, 2007 that upheld its October 13, 2006 decision.  The Township Board's lawsuit has been rejected by Michigan courts for a fourth and final time. 

The Supreme Court's one sentence order is as follows:

"On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's October 13, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously."

(place cursor on the below PDF file link, click to download and view)

Download supreme_court_rejects_township_board_2007_february_27.pdf

http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=255759&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0

MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
COA Case Number: 255759
SCt Case Number: 131185
TOWNSHIP OF GROSSE ILE V GROSSE ILE BRIDGE CO

The Township Board's Three Previous Losses in the Michigan Court System

May 7, 2004

On May 7, 2004, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Susan Borman rejected the Township Board's lawsuit and stated in her opinion "this Court concludes that there is no factual basis for a finding of public necessity in this case...this Court finds that the Township abused its discretion in finding public necessity.  The Defendant's [Grosse Ile Bridge Company] motion to review necessity is granted.  Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the case."  (http://gibc.typepad.com/toll_bridge_facts/2006/09/judge_susan_bor.html)

April 4, 2006

On April 4, 2006, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the Township Board's appeal and stated in their opinion "Plaintiff [Grosse Ile Township Board] appeals as of right an order granting defendant's [Grosse Ile Bridge Company] motion to review necessity and dismissing the case in this condemnation action.  We affirm...Plaintiff argues that the trial court exceeded its authority by deciding that the plaintiff abused its discretion in finding necessity to take defendant's toll bridge and that the matter should be remanded to a different trial judge.  We disagree."  (http://gibc.typepad.com/toll_bridge_facts/2006/09/michigan_court_.html)

October 13, 2006

On October 13, 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected the Township Board's appeal and stated in their opinion "In this case, the plaintiff [Grosse Ile Township Board] has revealed no authority that would allow the Township to acquire property by extraterritorial condemnation.  Because plaintiff enjoys no statutory prerogative to condemn the property it seeks, the Court of Appeals property affirmed the Wayne County Circuit Court's order dismissing plaintiff's condemnation petition.  Accordingly, leave to appeal the April 4, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED." (http://gibc.typepad.com/toll_bridge_facts/2006/11/michigan_suprem.html)

Michigan Supreme Court Rejects the Grosse Ile Township Board's Lawsuit in October 13, 2006 Ruling

Court Rules that the Township Board Lacks Legal Authority to Seize Property Not in its Jurisdiction; Half the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge is Located in Riverview

On October 13, 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected the Township Board's appeal and stated in their opinion "In this case, the plaintiff [Grosse Ile Township Board] has revealed no authority that would allow the Township to acquire property by extraterritorial condemnation.  Because plaintiff enjoys no statutory prerogative to condemn the property it seeks, the Court of Appeals property affirmed the Wayne County Circuit Court's order dismissing plaintiff's condemnation petition.  Accordingly, leave to appeal the April 4, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is DENIED."

 

(place cursor on the below PDF file and click to download and view)

Download GIBC_Supreme_Court_Order.pdf

http://www.cityofriverview.com/meetings.html

Meeting Minutes

11-02-06

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE RIVERVIEW CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF RIVERVIEW, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN,
HELD ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006, IN
THE COUNCIL CONFERFENCE ROOM
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
14100 CIVIC PARK DRIVE
RIVERVIEW MICHIGAN  48193-7689

The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m.

Presiding: Mayor Durand

Present: Councilmembers Blanchette, Rudicil, Swift

Absent: Councilmembers Coffey (Excused), Elmer Trombley, James Trombley 

Also Present: City Manager Workman, City Clerk Bratcher,  Acting Community Development Director  Drysdale, City Attorney Pentiuk

In accordance with Section 6.2 of the City Charter, and at the request of the Mayor, a Special Meeting was called for November 2, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. to discuss:

GROSSE ILE BRIDGE RESOLUTION

Motion by Councilmember Blanchette, seconded by Councilmember Swift, that the Riverview City Council adopt the following Resolution stating the City of Riverview has no objections to the Township of Grosse Ile owning the entire Grosse Ile Bridge, including that part of the Bridge within the City of Riverview.

GROSSE ILE BRIDGE RESOLUTION
At a session of the City Council of the City of Riverview held on November 2, 2006, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverview has been aware of the condemnation proceedings instituted by the Township of Grosse Ile against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company since the filing of the Township’s action on August 1, 2003;

WHEREAS, the reasons stated in the Township of Grosse Ile’s Resolution and Statement of Necessity were brought to the City of Riverview’s attention prior to the filing of that action, and those reasons were believed by the City to be valid, and still are;

WHEREAS, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an Order on October 13, 2006, wherein it reversed the Wayne County Circuit Court and Michigan Court of Appeals and stated that there is necessity for the Township’s taking of the Grosse Ile Bridge by eminent domain, but affirmed dismissal of the Township’s complaint for the reason that the taking of the Bridge constituted extraterritorial activity by the Township of Grosse Ile, which extraterritorial activity involves the City of Riverview; and

WHEREAS, the Bridge almost exclusively serves the needs of the residents of the Township of Grosse Ile;

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in the City Council of the City of Riverview by law:

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Riverview does not object to the Township of Grosse Ile owning the entire Grosse Ile Bridge, including that part of the Bridge within the City of Riverview, for the public uses set forth in the Township of Grosse Ile’s Resolution of Necessity.

Adopted this 2nd  day of November, 2006.

YEAS:  Mayor Durand, Councilmembers Blanchette, Rudicil, Swift.

NAYS:  None

ATTEST:   

   
_________________________
Tim Durand
Mayor

_________________________
Judith A. Bratcher
City Clerk

Carried unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

At this time, Mayor Durand asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the City Council.
No one spoke.

ADMINISTRATION AND ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Councilmember Blanchette, seconded by Councilmember Rudicil, that the meeting be adjourned.

Carried unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m.

______________________________________
Tim Durand, Mayor

_______________________________________
Judith A. Bratcher, City Clerk

http://www.ilecamera.com/stories/102006/web_20061020004.shtml

PUBLISHED: October 20, 2006

Statement of Grosse Ile Bridge Company President Paul Smoke

on the Michigan Supreme Court's Decision on October 13 to Reject

the Eminent Domain Lawsuit of the Grosse Ile Township Board

"I am greatly relieved and very pleased that the Michigan Supreme Court has finally put an end to the Township Board's completely unnecessary, highly counter-productive and very costly eminent domain lawsuit against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company. 

"The Township Board's litigation during the last three years has been an extremely heavy burden for the Bridge Company and its employees.  I want to thank my friends and supporters in the community who encouraged me to defend the Toll Bridge against eminent domain extremism.

"Throughout the duration of the Township Board's lawsuit, the Bridge Company always remained focused on its top priority which is to provide Grosse Ile residents, businesses and visitors with safe and reliable access to and from the island.  The lawsuit, however, was a constant distraction that made the Bridge Company's work much more challenging. 

"I am grateful to the Bridge Company's employees who maintained an unwavering commitment throughout this ordeal to providing customers of the Toll Bridge with the best possible service.

"On a personal level, this lawsuit has been profoundly disappointing.  I was shocked when the Township Board launched this lawsuit in 2003 against the Bridge Company without even the courtesy of first notifying me of their concerns.  They completely blindsided me with this lawsuit.  I decided to vigorously defend the Bridge Company against their lawsuit because I believed it was right to protect the Toll Bridge.

"There is no one on Grosse Ile who cares or knows more about the stewardship responsibilities for the Toll Bridge than me.  My family built this bridge and maintained it for the past 93 years primarily to serve islanders.  It was particularly hurtful that the Township Board chose to attack me personally and distort the truth about my twenty-four year tenure as president of the Bridge Company.

"I consistently made very expensive investments to improve the Toll Bridge during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s -- long before the Township Board filed its lawsuit -- all of which have all contributed to the span's current excellent condition.  As a result of diligent maintenance and sensible long-term improvements, the Toll Bridge is prepared for the closure of the Wayne County Bridge next year.

"I have always been confident that our legal system would ultimately render a verdict on the Township Board's lawsuit that would protect the best interests of islanders as well as the Bridge Company.  The Michigan Supreme Court's decision finally accomplishes this outcome.  The Bridge Company looks forward to continuing our tradition of excellence and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Toll Bridge in 2013."

About the Grosse Ile Bridge Company

On May 1, 1912, the Grosse Ile Bridge Company (GIBC) was incorporated as a bridge company and Michigan corporation by founding president Edward W. Voigt who was the great-grandfather of current company president Paul J. Smoke.  Between 1912 and 1913, the GIBC financed, designed and constructed the Toll Bridge as the first automobile bridge across the Detroit River between Grosse Ile and the mainland in Riverview (the north end of Monguagon Township at that time). 

Since opening the Toll Bridge on November 27, 1913 (Thanksgiving Day), members of the Smoke family have continuously owned, operated and maintained the span to serve island residents and businesses as well as the entire general public. 

Today, the corporate office of the GIBC is located at 8734 Macomb Street on Grosse Ile while the operations office is located in Riverview near the mainland entrance of the Toll Bridge.  The GIBC employs more than ten employees and numerous temporary workers who live on Grosse Ile and in other Downriver communities.

The GIBC's funding for operations, maintenance and long-term improvements of the Toll Bridge comes entirely from user fees tolls collected from vehicles crossing the span.  No taxpayer funding has ever been used by the GIBC to improve or run the Toll Bridge. 

In fact, vehicles owned by Grosse Ile Township (e.g., ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, Recreation Department vans, Public Service Department trucks, etc...), Grosse Ile schools, Riverview, Wayne County, State of Michigan and most Federal government agencies are not charged the user fee toll to cross the Toll Bridge.  Government-owned vehicles -- the vast majority owned by Grosse Ile Township -- cross the Toll Bridge approximately 1,000 times per month for free.

The GIBC is one of the largest corporate taxpayers in the area.  Each year, the GIBC pays more than $50,000 in taxes to Grosse Ile Township while making another payment of more than $50,000 in taxes to Riverview.

The Toll Bridge handles approximately one-quarter of the vehicle traffic going to and from Grosse Ile each day.  The Wayne County Bridge, located approximately three miles to the south of the Toll Bridge, handles the majority of the island's daily vehicle traffic.

Over the years, the GIBC has received numerous awards from prestigious, national and Michigan-based engineering and infrastructure organizations in recognition of maintaining the Toll Bridge in excellent condition.  As the builder and steward of the span, the GIBC looks forward to celebrating the Toll Bridge's 100 years of continuous operation during 2013. 

For more information about the operations, maintenance and history of the Toll Bridge, view the GIBC's web site at http://www.grosseilebridge.com.

###

(place cursor on the below PDF or image file, and click to download and view)

Michigan Court of Appeals Rejects the Grosse Ile Township Board's Eminent Domain Lawsuit Against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company in April 4, 2006 Ruling

Court Rules that the Township Board Lacks "Necessity" (i.e., a good reason) to Seize the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge

Download GIBCCourtofAppealsopinion.pdf

Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Susan Borman's May 7, 2004 opinion rejecting the Township Board's eminent domain lawsuit against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company

Court Rules that the Township Board Lacks "Necessity" (i.e., a good reason) to Seize the Grosse Ile Toll Bridge

(place cursor on the below Word file and click to download and view)

Download judge_bormans_opinion_2004_may_7.doc

Grosse Ile Township Board's Resolution of "Necessity" Unilaterally Beginning the Township Board's Eminent Domain Lawsuit Against the Grosse Ile Bridge Company

The resolution was introduced by Trustee Kurt Kobiljak, and Trustee Rodger Will offered a second.

The resolution was approved, without public debate, by Trustees Kurt Kobiljak, Rodger Wills, Doug Jones, Leslie Neal, Ute O'Connor, John Raithel, and Leroy Wojewodzic.

It is important to note that 5 of the 7 Trustees -- a majority -- who voted for the resolution on June 9, 2003 are members of the current Township Board.

In order to download the entire "Resolution of Necessity" (partially shown below) please click on the following web link: (http://www.grosseile.com/government/reports/toll_bridge/Resolution_of_Necessity.pdf)

* * *