Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant commission orders edits to capital plan; removes explicit Weitz Woods map references
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing dominated by concerns about a proposed path through Weitz Woods, the commission directed staff to remove or edit specific pages of the 2026–2031 capital improvement plan that showed a southern pathway through the woods and return a revised CIP for adoption.
Mount Pleasant — Following a long public hearing on the proposed 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Plan on May 27, the City Commission directed staff to revise three pages of the draft CIP to remove references and an explicit map showing a proposed pathway through Weitz Woods and return the edited plan for consideration on June 9.
The CIP presentation by Director Lauren Pavoloski outlined projects across multiple funds, with a focus on 2026 work and future years. Among the projects listed in the parks fund was a potential $2.1 million item described in the packet as “GKB pathway connections.” Pavoloski told the commission that the GKB pathway entry currently in the CIP is a possible plan and that staff planned further work sessions and alternative routes later in the year.
The public comment period on the CIP was dominated by Weitz Woods. Dozens of residents said the woods are a designated nature preserve and urged the commission to remove any plan for an asphalt path through the forest. Speakers described the woods as a sanctuary used for birding, student field trips and quiet recreation and said paving would disturb wildlife, cause erosion and introduce invasive species. Several residents proposed alternative routes that use existing streets and sidewalks to connect to island parks and the Mid‑Michigan Pathway.
Commissioners debated whether leaving a map or language in the CIP that showed the southern route would create public expectation that the city had committed to constructing a trail through Weitz Woods. Commissioner concerns centered on clarity of communication and the CIP’s role as a planning and budgeting document. Several commissioners noted that staff had already been asked to develop alternative routes and that including an explicit Weitz Woods map in the CIP could be misleading.
Commissioner [motion sponsor not specified] moved to direct staff to revisit the CIP and edit pages 38, 39 and 41 to remove references to the proposed pathway through Weitz Woods; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The commission confirmed staff will bring the revised CIP back for formal consideration on June 9, the statutory adoption deadline.
What the motion does: The commission did not cancel or reallocate funding in the CIP; instead it removed specific references and a map that members said could suggest a fixed plan to construct a pathway through Weitz Woods. Staff said the GKB pathway project remains in the CIP in a general form and that the specific routing will be developed via the alternative‑route work the commission requested.
What comes next: Staff will prepare an edited CIP packet with the referenced pages revised and present it for formal adoption at the June 9 commission meeting. Staff also will continue to develop alternative pathways and bring those options to the commission for review later in the year.
Residents and the commission agreed on one point during the meeting: the issue will return to public view for additional review and public comment before any construction would be approved or funded.
