By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
LOCKPORT TWP. — In what could be best described as an unproductive discussion that turned at times into an equally-unproductive shouting match between Lockport Township board members and the Three Rivers Public Library director, the township agreed Monday to formally reject the library’s services contract proposal and submit their own proposal to the library’s board.
And for all intents and purposes, given the tenor of Monday’s meeting, it may be the last attempt at a contract offer in what is now becoming yet another proxy battle in the seemingly-ongoing overall war of animosity between Lockport Township and the City of Three Rivers.
Lockport Township’s official offer to the library is for a fixed $20,822 a year in funding, a number that would increase by 2 percent every year of the three-year contract proposal with three months’ notice for termination. One of the few differences between the township’s proposal and the library’s proposal is the percent increase per year, in which the library is offering a 3 percent increase per year with six months’ notice for termination.
The library board is expected to discuss the township’s offer at their next meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 27 at 6 p.m. and decide whether to accept, reject, or continue negotiating.
Discussion about the contract Monday right off the bat became an effort to prove to those in attendance at the Lockport Township Hall that the township’s proposal was better than the library’s, while also criticizing the library’s proposal, slamming alleged actions regarding Freedom of Information Act requests, challenging library leaders for specific information, and floating allegations that the library is “bullying” the township and conspiring with city leaders against the township.
Township Trustee Rick Daniels, who has been the main negotiator for the township on the contract, displayed multiple charts to attempt to explain the township’s position, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the township’s offer would be more cost-effective for the township’s budget by an estimated $200, based on percentage increases over a “$19,326” base number that was different than the correct $19,236 figure reported in the July 12 Commercial-News.
“I just don’t understand what the bitching about our offer is, I think it’s pretty damn fair. In fact, it’s more fair,” Daniels said.
“Our offer was the same to the Nottawa Library as to this library, and this library is saying we’re being unfair. The numbers don’t justify that we’re not being fair,” Daniels said. “We’re not being unfair. When you come into this room, and you say I want to keep the library, this board’s intention was never to get rid of the library. Our intention is to do what’s fair for this board and for you Lockport residents. But we get people coming in, ‘oh you’re being unfair, you’re not doing things right.’”
Daniels then showed a chart with several points outlining the township’s argument for their proposal. One of the points referenced a passage from this publication’s July 12 article about the situation which stated that “However, [Joseph Hamlin, the Library Data and State Aid/Penal Fines Coordinator for the Library of Michigan] added the 2 percent increases Lockport is offering in its proposal could be sufficient enough to meet the 3/10 mil requirement.”
Another point brought up the library’s purchase and renovation of their 88 N. Main St. location, brought up to attempt to prove the library has enough money already in their accounts. Daniels wondered, “Are we just giving to their savings program? What are we doing? They have money, they built and renovated a new library.” An audience member then blurted, “Are we paying for the [Three Rivers] Promise?”
Adding to that, Daniels’ next points included that the township’s representative did not get a vote on the purchase and renovation of the new location, potential discrepancies in the number of Lockport residents registered at the library between the July 12 Commercial-News article and a report from township representative Charlene Zavala, which apparently showed over 300 fewer residents registered, to which Daniels quipped that “if the board was that good, they should be on an election board instead of doing the library.”
Daniels also mentioned that the township submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the library’s financials from 2021-24, to which he said they have not yet received that information.
According to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Commercial-News for information about this FOIA request, the request was reportedly submitted by mail by Lockport Township Planning Commission chairperson Sherrie Nowicki on July 10, the day after the July Lockport Township meeting, directly to the Three Rivers Public Library. Township Clerk Christy Trammell said in an email Tuesday that Nowicki “requested it on her own behalf.”
Three Rivers City Clerk Leslie Wilson, who is also the FOIA coordinator for the city, said in an email Tuesday that she had received a request submitted on Monday morning from Nowicki for the library’s financial records, but did not have any other requests that were either filed or forwarded to her from anyone from Lockport Township regarding the library in the months prior. She said that FOIA requests to the library “would have been forwarded on to me,” and that she’d “be happy to respond to the FOIA if received.”
Wilson added Wednesday, when asked about the July 10 request, that she “just checked with the library as well and they did not receive it either.”
Daniels’s next points included a lack of complaints reported by Park Township about their leaving the Three Rivers Public Library since 2021, their budgeting of $41,644 for library service contracts between both TRPL and Nottawa Township Library in the next fiscal year and over $400,000 over 10 years, and the library’s rejection of $18,000 from Park Township in 2021.
Daniels’ final point attempted to equivalate the timing of the library’s contract proposal and seeming rejection of the township’s June proposal “because it wasn’t in writing” to the timing of a hearing in the lawsuit between Three Rivers Mayor Tom Lowry and the township over a Public Act 425 land transfer agreement between Lockport and Park, as those events just so happened to be on the same day. His attempt was to make some kind of case that because the hearing and the library board’s meeting happened on the same day, it showed that the “library and Three Rivers are the same unit.”
“If you don’t think the library and Three Rivers are the same unit, you’re mistaken,” Daniels said.
Daniels said if the library rejects the township’s offer, the option would be available to the township to walk away from the table.
“If the Three Rivers Library turns us down, we have nothing, and regardless to say, we need to walk away,” Daniels said. “That’s my opinion.”
TRPL Interim Director Erin Zabonick attempted to defend the library’s position, claiming that the numbers Daniels presented were not true. Daniels then quipped back, “Then you get with the paper. I got them from the paper.” This then devolved into both people raising their voices, trying to be heard over each other, and after Township Supervisor Mark Major tried to stop the two from getting louder, Daniels quipped again, “You had your public comments. This is ours.”
Major then allowed Zabonick to “tell him what you want to say,” to which Zabonick said that, “you are spreading false information, and the numbers are incorrect.”
“Why? Because they’re coming out of the newspaper?” Major then replied.
“Not at all; if you pull the state aid, and it shows the taxable value year of 2022 is $19,236. That first number was incorrect,” Zabonick said, referencing the typo in Daniels’ chart.
Major then was the one raising his voice, saying to Zabonick, “When have you ever provided us with that information?” Zabonick said Hamlin and another person had sent it to the township.
Daniels then asked Zabonick what the library’s savings account is at now, to which Zabonick said that had “nothing to do” with the situation. Daniels was incredulous as this statement, while adding that “We’re here to protect Lockport residents.”
Major then asked Zabonick if she is a “representative of the city.” Zabonick replied, “We are not them,” with Major then pointing out the library has city residents on their board and they get a vote. Zabonick said that’s because the city “pays 100 percent,” and that the townships don’t get a vote because “they don’t pay 100 percent of the 3/10 mill,” noting that Fabius does and they get a vote.
That comment set off at least one gasp in the township hall, and Major then asked, “Why do we not get a vote when that’s what we’ve been doing?” Zabonick then replied, “Because it was never done properly,” without any further explanation. Another set of incredulous reactions from the gallery ensued, while Zabonick added that there are “legalities” behind that.
Daniels then asked how much money the library would lose if they dropped out, to which Zabonick said, “I’m not worried about that. I’m more worried about the patrons.” More exasperated reactions from the board and the gallery followed, with Daniels adding that that was one of the main complaints in meetings the township had with the library in the past.
Zabonick then yelled out “You guys just don’t – nothing I say you believe.” Daniels kept pressing Zabonick for how much was in the library’s savings and how much they would lose if the township left, and Zabonick said the township can get that information from the financials, to which Daniels reiterated that they had not heard back from their FOIA request.
In the end, Zabonick said the township, with their actions, was “telling your residents wrong information.” Daniels then criticized the library for informing their patrons about the Monday meeting, as well as the prior meeting, where some patrons in the township spoke during public comment about the library.
“I’m telling residents you brought people in here to bully us. You send out these emails saying, ‘The Lockport Township board, over $200, is willing to leave.’ That’s what these people told us last meeting,” Daniels said. “These people, I looked them in the face, and we told them we were offering $20,822. You seem to forget to put that in your texts and emails and phone calls. We’re not shortchanging.”
Zabonick then said it goes by the township’s taxable value, to which Daniels said they didn’t want it to go by taxable value.
“We want a base so we can figure it out every year in our budget that we can figure out how much we have to give,” Daniels said. “We don’t want to wait for somebody to tell us a number and that number keeps going up every year. We have a responsibility to the township residents here, and when you’re bringing in people saying that we’re not being responsible, I take offense to that.”
The conversation continued.
“When you tell us you want to negotiate, but then say, ‘it’s this or we walk-‘” Zabonick said.
“It is. Because why? Because we offered the library the same. In our eyes, we see the library in Nottawa and the library in Three Rivers as the same,” Daniels replied. “We’re giving in 10 years, almost a half a million dollars. If you can’t live off of that, and we get no vote, then it’s time for you to go.”
Zabonick then stated her opinion that there should be a vote taken on a ballot about whether or not the township should contract with the library, a suggestion later echoed by someone else in the audience. At that point, Major said, “I don’t think we’re getting anywhere.”
Later, Library Board Vice President Vicki Wordelman accused the township of being angry at Three Rivers “over other things,” and that “the library gets the blunt of it all and it’s the kids and those that use the library are the ones being sacrificed.”
“You all are the same,” Daniels replied.
The Commercial-News reached out to Zabonick to clarify her objections with the township’s arguments, but did not hear back before press time Wednesday evening.
In the end, the board agreed to send their offer to the library, but did not take a formal roll call or voice vote on the measure.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
The library board is far from independent from the city. The city used them a way to fill a large empty space downtown that was probably the worst possible spot with limited parking and massive costs to renovate. Sadly the grifting by the city is like a mini Trump White House.
Like the billions sent to Ukraine under Biden?
Like the shady dealings of Joe and his son’s plush placement, funneling money.
Lockport Township Board wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars of our township money on legal fees going after it’s own citizens and fighting court battles that cannot be won. Why all the fuss over $200 a year difference for something that actually benefits our community? PRIDE GOETH BEFORE THEIR FALL!