Emmett Township & Sackrider Megasite: Conflict of Interest Questions That Aren’t Going Away

By Autumn Smith | FAFO Justice | Investigative Report

The Sackrider Megasite proposal in Emmett Township has triggered one central issue that keeps getting louder: Who stands to gain—and who is making the decisions? At the February 12, 2026 Township Board meeting, seen HERE a member of the public put it plainly:

“Also remember, conflicts of interest is a thing… if any one of you own property that is going to be impacted… if you rent a billboard, if you represented a client, if you have a business, that can be construed as a conflict of interest so be very mindful of that.”

That wasn’t random commentary. That was a warning shot about how many different ways conflicts can show up—direct, indirect, or just the appearance of them. And right now, Emmett Township has multiple areas under a microscope.

Ryan Leonard – Realtor + Spousal Business = Double Exposure

Ryan Leonard isn’t just a board member—he’s also in real estate, and so is his wife. Which means: Township decisions can move property values. Property values can move commissions. Commissions can move household income. Add in zoning, infrastructure, and megasite development decisions, and the line between public duty and private benefit starts looking thin fast.Even if everything is technically “legal,” the structure itself raises the obvious question: Who benefits when the market moves?

Dawn McMillon – Adjacent Property Ownership + Family in Clerk Role

Owning land next to a major development is not a minor detail. It’s the kind of detail that matters. Because it can mean: Big property value increases. Better access to utilities and roads. Higher resale or development potential. Or, on the flip side, negative impacts like traffic and disruption. And when a decision-maker owns that kind of property, the public doesn’t have to “assume” anything—they just have to look at incentives.

Add in a family member serving as township clerk, and now you’ve got overlap between governance and administration inside the same household sphere.That’s where perception becomes the problem even if intent is denied.

Dabble VoIP Business phone for less

Get Started - mention FAFO for 10% off

Tracy Myers – Family Land at Stake (Grandmother Ownership)

This one is straightforward: If a close family member owns acreage that could be affected by township decisions, then township actions can still create financial ripple effects.

That includes: Rezoning. Infrastructure expansion. Increased development pressure. Land value spikes.Even if it’s “just a grandmother,” the public doesn’t separate family financial ecosystems that cleanly.

The question isn’t complicated: Does the decision help or hurt family property value?

If the answer can swing either way depending on policy, it belongs under scrutiny.

Jim Juhnke – Zoning Board + Prior Legal Representation+Trustee

Jim Juhnke brings three issues into the same space:

Prior attorney-client relationships tied to property interests.

Current role on the Zoning Board of Appeals.

On the Board of Trustees

That combination matters because zoning decisions are where land value is literally made or broken. Concerns include: Prior confidential knowledge. Past professional loyalty. Ongoing perception of bias. Direct involvement in land-use rulings affecting former clients. Voting and approving matters related to the property.

Even if nothing improper is happening, this is exactly the type of overlap that raises red flags in governance.

Need I.T. Support? Express IT Solutions — Fast & Reliable.

Get Support

Steven Titus – Billboard Business + Trustee + Planning Commission

This one is layered. Steven Titus has billboard business interests near development-impacted areas AND serves in two decision-making roles:

Township Trustee

Planning Commission member

That means he is involved in decisions that can directly affect: Traffic patterns, Visibility and exposure, Road access & Development approvals.

And those are not abstract policy items—they are the exact variables that determine billboard revenue. So the question writes itself:

When township decisions affect your business visibility, can you fully separate business from vote?

Elliot Ure – Planning Commission Chair

Connected professionally as a client of an attorney tied to Sackrider-related interests

Sitting in a role that directly shapes development approvals

That overlap raises obvious concerns about independence.

John Sackrider – Planning Commission Chair

FFS his last name tells on himself…Family ties to Sackrider property interests. Connected to attorney representation within the same network of development stakeholders. When the planning authority overlaps with property ownership and family ties to the project, the system starts looking less like oversight and more like participation.

Zoning + Planning Overlap Reality Check

Here’s the real issue underneath all of this:

You don’t need one massive scandal for conflicts to matter. You just need: Property ownership near the project, Family land in the impact zone,Business tied to traffic or development,Prior legal representation, Roles across multiple decision boards,And financial exposure to outcomes.

Stack that together and you don’t get a single conflict. You get a conflict ecosystem. Nobody needs to prove corruption to raise questions.

Because governance isn’t just about what’s legal—it’s about what can be trusted.

And right now, the Sackrider Megasite discussion in Emmett Township is surrounded by enough overlapping financial interests, family connections, and dual roles that the public is going to keep asking the same thing:

Who benefits when these votes are cast?

And more importantly:

Who is watching the watchers?