House subcommittee hears Mundy Township residents, officials raise transparency, water and land-use concerns about MEDC-backed 'mega site'

LANSING — Residents and municipal officials from Mundy Township told the Michigan House Oversight Subcommittee on corporate subsidies and state investments that state-funded preparations for the so-called Mundy "mega site" lacked transparency, harmed neighbors and risked local water and ecological resources.

Don Ludwig, a Mundy Township resident, said he first learned of the project in March 2023 and that the site — which the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and local partners prepared with roughly $259,000,000 in state funding — remains vacant with no committed buyer or delivered jobs. "We owe it to the people of Michigan, the taxpayers who fund these failed projects to ask tough questions and demand real answers," Ludwig told the panel during a fact-finding hearing.

Why it matters: witnesses and local officials told lawmakers that the Flint Genesee Economic Alliance (FGEA) and the MEDC assembled land and began site work that led to demolitions, tree removal and alleged wetland violations without broad local notice. Witnesses raised concerns about leases, timber proceeds, and whether public funds were routed through private entities. Township officials emphasized limits on their authority, while urging legislative oversight.

What witnesses said

Don Ludwig described community organizing, an online clearinghouse he started in April 2023 and a petition with more than 1,200 signatures asking for a one-year moratorium. He recounted property transactions placed in the name of Maple Hill LLC and said residents perceived "a clear conflict and muddying of public dollars and private individuals." Ludwig also told the panel he observed tree clearing, demolition of homes in Maple Creek Preserve, and that some residents and nearby property owners had experienced property damage.

Chad Young, Mundy Township manager, gave a timeline of municipal and media contacts and said the township adopted an Advanced Manufacturing Overlay District in early 2023 after public notice and required hearings. Young said he entered a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with MEDC in mid‑2022 "to learn as much information as I could in order to best serve my board and community," and that he revoked his NDA after the newly elected supervisor declined to sign one. Young described his official stance as neutral: "My public stance all along has been I am neutral," he told the subcommittee.

Young told lawmakers the site is attractive to developers because of proximity to highway interchanges, a rail line, Bishop International Airport and nearby water, sewer and electrical infrastructure. He emphasized that local zoning changes provide the township discretionary authority to approve or deny specific development proposals and that local boards — not the township manager — would vote on abatements or tax incentives.

Jennifer Staton, Mundy Township supervisor, told the subcommittee she was elected on a platform opposing the mega site and said residents’ top concerns are quality of life, taxpayer protections and water supply. "Eighty percent of our township is on well water," Staton said, adding that SSRP grant terms have allowed as much as 64,000,000 gallons per day and that larger semiconductor plants can use substantially more. Staton said residents worry about impacts to the water table and contamination risks, and she described repeated efforts by residents to seek responses from MEDC and other state bodies.

Legal and program context

Witnesses referenced several legal and administrative frameworks during testimony: the Michigan Constitution (Article IV, §30) was cited in relation to whether state appropriations may be used for private purposes; references were made to the Strategic Site Readiness Program (SSRP) grant used by MEDC; and speakers cited the Freedom of Information Act and Public Act 116 farmland provisions as relevant to approvals and removals of farmland protections.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes (June 25 meeting): Representative Pawetsky moved to approve the minutes; approved by unanimous consent with "Without objection, so ordered." (No recorded roll-call tally in the transcript.)

- Motion to excuse absent members: Representative Berlin moved to excuse absent members; passed by unanimous consent. (No roll-call tally recorded in the transcript.)

Discussion vs. decisions

The subcommittee opened a fact-finding review; no new statutory action or grant reversal was recorded during the hearing. Testimony led to questioning from committee members about NDAs, local notice, water and infrastructure costs, and the role of MEDC and FGEA. Young repeatedly stressed that local approvals for tax incentives or renaissance‑zone style abatements would require explicit township board action.

Clarifying details and points of contention

- State funding figure: witnesses cited roughly $259,000,000 (Ludwig) and $269,000,000 (Ludwig's testimony also referenced the MEDC amount in a later passage); the transcript records both figures and does not reconcile them.

- Water allocations: witnesses referenced a MEDC term allowing up to 64,000,000 gallons per day and an FGEA posting advertising 85,000,000 gallons per day; testimony described semiconductor plants consuming from about 12,000,000 to 90,000,000 gallons per day depending on scale.

- Land ownership and transactions: witnesses said property purchases were placed under Maple Hill LLC (identified in testimony as owned by Tim Herman); specific contract details and buyer identifications beyond what speakers stated were not provided in the transcript.

What’s next

The subcommittee opened the hearing as a fact-finding review and took testimony from three local figures. Committee members asked follow-up questions about NDAs, state incentives, and local impacts; the transcript records no committee votes directing further action other than the formal procedural approvals noted above. Lawmakers and witnesses expressed an expectation that oversight and investigations would continue.

Ending

Witnesses urged legislators to continue investigating the use of public funds and to address community concerns about transparency, environmental impacts and the limits of local authority. The subcommittee did not adopt a final legislative action at this hearing; members excused absent colleagues and adjourned after the testimony and questioning.