CLAY TWP., MI — More than three months after Clay Township received the results of a $150,000 second ferry feasibility study conducted by OHM Advisors, the Phase 2 findings have not been released publicly, renewing questions about transparency, payment and a contract that has fueled months of controversy.
Study results and funding questions
The delayed release of the study traces back to a series of closely divided board votes in December 2024 over how to use remaining federal relief funds, setting off public scrutiny that continued long after the deal was approved.
The debate began as trustees weighed how to allocate leftover American Rescue Plan Act dollars, including money held in the water department. At a Dec. 12, 2024 meeting, the board rejected several proposals tied to ARPA funding, including a $60,000 motion involving fire department funds. No decision was made that night on a feasibility study or a $150,000 allocation.
Four days later, on Dec. 16, 2024, the board narrowly approved a 4–3 roll call vote to move $150,000 from the water department into the township’s general fund.
According to the meeting minutes, the motion stated the $150,000 would be moved from the water department into the township’s general fund, that it is “not given to HITA (Harsens Island Transportation Authority), but it will be used for the second phase of the feasibility study,” as required by the Michigan Department of Transportation for a second ferry.
Supervisor Paul Cassidy, Treasurer Jerry Galka, and Trustees Maureen Boury and Brian Campbell voted in favor. Clerk Tanya Hogan and Trustees Jon DeBoyer and Mark Borchardt voted against.
Campbell had voted no on an ARPA-related motion at the Dec. 12 meeting; his yes vote on Dec. 16 provided the fourth vote needed for the measure to pass.
In an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, Campbell said the timing and uncertainty surrounding ARPA funds influenced his decisions.
“One thing is that the ARPA fund that we understood had to be allocated by the end of the year,” Campbell said. “When you take office in mid-November and allocate these funds — how much communication can there be in that period of time?”
Campbell said his understanding of allowable ARPA uses was informed by guidance from the Michigan Townships Association. “It was because of that article I read from the MTA that showed you could actually use it for that purpose,” he said.
Efforts to reverse the Dec. 16 decision failed at a Dec. 20, 2024 meeting, leaving the $150,000 in place.
Contract approval and board dispute
A copy of the contract provided to the Times Herald by a resident and confirmed by township officials, shows Cassidy signed the OHM agreement on Dec. 30, 2024.
In an interview with the Times Herald on Dec. 30, 2025, Cassidy said the agreement was expected to receive board approval.
“It was always going to be ratified. The whole board knew that we were going to sign a contract for the feasibility study,” Cassidy said.
Trustee DeBoyer disputes that account, saying he was not aware the contract had been signed until months later.
In an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, DeBoyer said the first time the contract itself was formally discussed with him was in March 2025, when it came before the board.
When the contract appeared in the agenda packet for a March 6, 2025 special meeting, the copy attached was signed by an OHM representative only, with the supervisor’s signature line blank. In an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, Cassidy said the township “didn’t attach the actual signed agreement.”
DeBoyer said that omission became a flashpoint.
“You put this contract in the agenda, you portrayed it as not being signed or agreed to, but yet you signed this thing,” DeBoyer said. “We later found out you signed this thing back at the end of December. So that was some misrepresentation of what was being presented to the board in the agenda.”
At the March 6 meeting, the board formally approved the $150,000 OHM feasibility study. The motion passed on a 4–0 vote, with Boury, Cassidy, Galka and Campbell voting in favor. DeBoyer and Hogan abstained, and Borchardt was absent.
The handling of the contract has since become a central issue in a recall effort targeting Cassidy. Recall organizers cite the OHM contract as an example of what they describe as improper authorization and a lack of transparency, claims Cassidy disputes.
Public comment that day — and in the months that followed — continued to focus on the contract’s timing, the ARPA funding path and the approval process. At a March 10 regular meeting, residents again questioned why the board had voted on a contract that had already been signed. DeBoyer publicly called for a third-party investigation.
In an interview with the Times Herald on Dec. 31, 2025, DeBoyer said the situation damaged trust.
“Not only was it a violation of the Township policy but it was a major — in my opinion — a major betrayal of the trust,” he said.
“A lot of that stuff was done behind closed doors — some board members didn’t know about it.”
Former Trustee Maureen Boury, in an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, said the township did issue requests for bids for the second phase of the feasibility study and rejected claims that the process was handled secretly.
“There was no closed backdoor deal. There was nobody else to sign the contract with — OHM was the only one that agreed to do the study,” Boury said.
Boury said bid requests were sent under tight deadlines as the newly elected board worked to meet ARPA requirements.
“We had to do it in a hurry because the board didn’t get into it until November,” she said.
She said multiple firms were contacted by email and by certificate of mailing, but responses were limited.
“Three responded — OHM said they would do it for the price and gave all the details of what they would do. Two responded saying no, and the rest didn’t respond,” Boury said.
Audit, payments and release of results
Current Treasurer Beverly Rose, who was not on the board during the December 2024 or March 2025 votes, said she first learned about the contract as a resident when it came before the board in March 2025.
In an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, Rose said approximately $51,000 has been paid to OHM so far and that the full bill totals about $144,000.
She said the township attorney has advised that the contract itself is valid, but Rose has concerns about whether procurement policy was followed.
Rose said she also contacted both state and federal treasury departments but did not receive definitive guidance and was referred to existing online materials. She said the issue will ultimately be addressed through an audit.
“I do not feel comfortable paying that from the ARPA funds until it’s determined that the procurement was done correctly,” Rose said.
Rose said the township’s longtime auditor, UHY, an accounting, tax and audit firm based in Port Huron, is scheduled to start reviewing the issue in mid-January. “They will tell us whether that’s a proper expense or not.” Rose does not expect to have the audits findings until late March at the earliest.
Rose said if the expenditure is determined to be improper under federal rules, the township could be required to repay the ARPA funds.
“If it’s not correct, we still owe — and we owe $150,000 back to the federal government on the ARPA funds misspent,” she said.
Questions over release and public access
Questions about the study’s availability have also focused on when — and whether — the Phase 2 results will be made public.
Rose said she was provided a copy of Phase 2 on a thumb drive but was unsure whether it had been made public.
In a separate interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 7, 2026, Cassidy confirmed the township has received the study results, though he said he was unsure whether they had been posted online.
Clerk Tanya Hogan, in an interview with the Times Herald on Jan. 12, 2026, said the township received the Phase 2 results on Sept. 24, 2025, but they have not yet been released.
Hogan said she does not want to make the decision to release the study on her own and believes it should be addressed by the full board.
She also cited concerns about the township’s relationship with OHM and the status of payment have also factored into the delay.
“I don’t want the township to have a poor reputation with OHM because we could need them in the future,” Hogan said. “I don’t want to publish something that they gave to us when we have not paid.”
Hogan said she is also mindful of potential legal exposure.
“I don’t want the township to be in a situation where they have a potential lawsuit on their hands that we published something that was not paid for,” she added.
Hogan said she believes residents are aware the township has received the study, noting that she announced its receipt during a Board of Trustees meeting after she and received the results in early October 2025.
Meeting minutes show public questions about the OHM contract resurfaced repeatedly for months, with residents continuing to seek clarity on authorization, funding and documentation.
The Times Herald reached out to Jerry Galka, Mark Borchardt, Roy Martin and OHM Advisors for comment. They did not respond by publication time.
Contact reporter Andy Jeffrey at ajeffrey@usatodayco.com.
This article originally appeared on Port Huron Times Herald: OHM feasibility study results still unreleased in Clay Township
Reporting by Andy Jeffrey, Port Huron Times Herald / Port Huron Times Herald
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
