LANSING -- Any resemblance between Monday night's Lansing Township Board meeting and a public hearing last Friday night was purely coincidental.

The meeting was held in the same place with many of the same people present to discuss the same topic.

That's where the resemblance ended.

The township board voted unanimously to rebid a wastewater improvement project. The new bids will be received sometime between Jan. 23 and Jan. 28, 2003.

"Will these bids be less than the current ones were and will that mean we residents will have to pay less of the project costs?" asked Merle Bonnes.

"Hopefully, that's what will happen when we rebid the project," said Harold Boverhuis, township board chairman.

Forty-two years ago, the residents rejected a wastewater improvement project,that would have brought municipal water and wastewater treatment services to the village.

Village resident Glen Wollschlager said, "It would have cost us $250,000 in 1960."

The last estimates for the work today were $1,458,000 for a water system and $1,865,000 for a sewer system.

According to the township board chairman, the township has received a commitment of a $651,000 grant from the Rural Development Corporation and a $280,000 loan, plus a $527,000 Small Cities Development Corporation grant.

The $1,178,000 in grants would reduce the total estimated project costs to $2,145,000, not including the rural development loan.

However, the engineer's earlier estimate for the work put the township's share of the costs at $1.2 million, or almost one-half less. That's when residents' anger overflowed like a faulty septic system.

Boverhuis recommended rejecting all bids and asking for new bids written with cost-savings in mind. They would include raising the gravity flow collection system by five feet and dropping the depth of the stabilization ponds by two feet. In addition, using a synthetic liner will also save money.

"There's no way we can make this project work at these bids," said Roger Levy, vice chairman of the township board. "I don't think we have much choice."

Levy then made the motions to reject the original bids and to seek new bids with amended specifications. The third board member Elmer Akkerman seconded both Levy motions and all three board members voted "Aye."