Clarkston Sunshine

Introduction:

Links to the video recording and the council packet are at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted in brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:00:00):

Laura Rodgers said get started. Yep. [There was no formal call to order.]

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:05):

Rodgers said start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge said.)

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:27):

(To Smith), Rodgers said are you doing the roll call. Smith said yes.

Smith said Sue Wylie is absent this evening.

Laura Rodgers, Al Avery, Gary Casey, Amanda Forte, Erica Jones, and Ted Quisenberry were present.

Agenda Item #4, Approval of Agenda – Motion (Video time mark 0:00:48):

Rodgers said next on the agenda is approval of agenda, and I just wanted to make sure that you all noticed that there was an addition to it under New Business. Item #11A is Pedestrian Safety Downtown, so that might have been added since you saw it at last.

Jones said I’d like to ask a question before we approve the agenda. I know that we have a notice on here under New Business, #11B, the discussion regarding the HDC [Historic District Commission] ordinance changes. Ryan said yes. Jones said and I understand that the report was submitted to SHPO [Michigan State Historic Preservation Office], they came back with two administrative edits, and for those two administrative edits to be approved, there have to be two readings. Ryan said correct. Jones said and that the other thing is until those two readings happen, they can’t technically approve our submission, which would prevent the 19 houses that are now eligible for the state tax credit from getting it. So, it doesn’t change anything else, but is there a way for us to allow the first reading of the ordinance changes that are included in the packet tonight so that we can speed that process along? Because as I understand, the state tax money that is available is a limited pool, and the longer we wait to approve it, the less funds will be available for anyone that does choose to take advantage of that. Ryan said for the agenda to be amended, it has to be unanimous. Jones said okay. Ryan said to make it a first reading.

Quisenberry said do you want to make a motion. Jones said so, I would make that motion to amend the agenda to allow the first reading of the HDC ordinance changes to happen this evening. Second Quisenberry.

Rodgers said so Jones made the motion and Quisenberry seconded it and is it just all in favor. Ryan said ask if there’s any discussion, I guess.

Rodgers said any discussion about that. From the council?

No discussion.

Rodgers said any discussion from –

No discussion from the audience.

Smith said is this a motion or a resolution. Ryan said it’s a motion to amend the agenda.

Smith said a roll call. yes. Ryan said yes. Smith said okay, do you want me to – Rodgers said yep.

Rodgers, Avery, Casey, Forte, Jones, and Quisenberry voted to amend the agenda.

Smith said okay, it’s unanimous.

Ryan said so, B will be a first reading HDC ordinance changes. 11B. Rodgers said yeah. Ryan said okay. So now a motion to approve the agenda as amended would be next.

Rodgers said can I have a motion to approve the amended agenda.

Motion by Jones; second Avery.

Motion to approve the amended agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Rodgers said it’s amended.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:03:40):

[Though public comments can sometimes irritate the city council, there is value to both the council and the public in hearing them. While they can’t eliminate public comments entirely without violating the Open Meetings Act, your city council has occasionally decided not to acknowledge public comments during a city council meeting unless the person submitting the comments also appears at the meeting (in-person or electronically) to personally read them. In the past, members of the public have been cut off for exceeding the city council’s arbitrary three-minute time limit (it’s arbitrary because no time limits are required by the Open Meetings Act).

If your public comments were submitted to the council but not read, or if you tried to make public comments but your comments were cut short, please email them to clarkstonsunshine@gmail.com and I will include them in my informal meeting summaries either under public comments or under the specific agenda item that you want to speak to.]

Rodgers said Item #5 is public comments.

(Rodgers read the rules for public comments.)

Rodgers said are there any public comments.

Rodgers recognized Cara Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said so, I’m just coming to the city with hopes that there might be a consensus that we can stop trapping and killing the beavers and muskrats on Cemetery Lake. I understand that, you know, there was thoughts that there were too many, but I don’t know that there was an official, like, DNR [Department of Natural Resources] number or an account of how many is too many or how many should thin the herd. But I’m not sure what the number is. (To Smith), Catallo said many have been killed so far. Smith said four. Catallo said four beavers. How many muskrats? Smith said nine. Catallo said so, I just feel like, you know, I spoke with somebody today who said there are ways to protect trees. We can do that. That can be done if homeowners are concerned or if you’re concerned about in the park that, it’s a wetland. And I think that the beavers should be, you know, protected at this point. This way the people who wanted them killed got a few, and the people who maybe aren’t on board with this could maybe at least feel like it’s been stopped. But I think before we lose all that nature over there, it’s a good time to sort of stop and recalculate before the trapper comes back. Thank you.

Rodgers said any other public comments.

Jones said when is the trapper set to come back. Do we know? Smith said this weekend. So, this is on my city manager report. I’ll speak to it at that time. Jones said oh, okay, cool. Rodgers said all right. Cool.

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (Video time mark 0:05:46):

Rodgers said okay, Item #6 is for your information, and currently there is nothing under there.

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (Video time mark 0:05:50):

• • City Manager Report, March 10, 2025 (page 3/52 of the council packet)

(To Smith), Rodgers said so next, the city manager’s report.

Smith said okay. Me again. So, on the city manager report, I do speak to the beaver issue. We’ve talked about this previously. The trapper who has done this for many years, very knowledgeable about beaver existence and their behaviors and the quantities. He has estimated there are twelve to fourteen in Depot Park. As I just mentioned, four of them have been trapped. These are not relocating. That’s against the law. He hasn’t touched their hut. That also is against the law. What he’s doing is trapping them underwater, and then he comes and removes them the next day. By law, they have to be removed within 24 hours of the trapping, and it has to be overnight. You can’t do this during the day. You can’t do it up on dry land. There are many restrictions.

Smith said so, we had initially estimated, I think I gave, I think I talked to council in various locations at different times, about trapping half of the estimated twelve to fourteen. So that was going to be six. So, he’s done two weekends, each time getting two beavers each weekend. The first weekend, he got a muskrat as well. The thought was, let him trap again this coming weekend, which would be two more, so that would be exactly six. We have noticed a severe increase, a significant increase, in the amount of gnawing in the park. And the width of the mill race is also noticeably wider than it’s ever been. So, it’s not that they’re not doing anything. They are taking trees down. They’ve taken four memorial trees down, which the city will need to replace. And they are taking down a lot of other trees that we’ve just seen, lose in the park. Even this big poplar out here, this massive poplar, it’s about probably six feet in diameter. They’ve started on that one. Now, we’ve since wrapped the trees with chicken wire, and it’s our hope that that will stop them.

Smith said let me go on record saying, I initially said we should not touch the beavers. I think it’s cool that they’re here. I think it’s very cool that they’re here. I’m glad to see that they’re here. But when they start taking down trees in the park, we unfortunately are put in a tough decision. So, again, the initial thought was, let’s thin the herd, cut it back from twelve to six. It’s going to grow immediately right back again, but let’s just take this one year at a time. So that was the thought. If council wishes to stop this practice, I could absolutely, with a simple text, tell them not to come this weekend. He’s not a bad person. He’s just doing what we’ve asked him to do.

(To Smith), Rodgers said what’s the thought process behind not allowing them to be relocated? Why is that illegal, but killing them underwater is okay? Smith said I’m sorry, I don’t know that. That’s an MDNR [Michigan Department of Natural Resources] rule, and I don’t know the logic behind not being allowed to relocate them. I’m not sure. If there’s some diseases involved, if relocating them can spread the disease, I don’t know. Avery said my guess would be that you can see what happens when they’re in a particular place, and if you move them somewhere that can cause more problems. They don’t want them all over the place. I think that’s probably why. They just don’t want them getting in someone’s pond in their backyard and taking the trees down. And while obviously, we don’t want wildlife to get killed, but people trap beavers all the time.

Jones said and the chicken wire just went up. Smith said just went up a week ago. Jones said okay. Smith said that’s a week ago today. Jomes said alright.

Quisenberry said I think it’s a unilateral regulation of the DNR that nobody can relocate wildlife except them. Avery said I would think, yeah. Makes sense.

Jomes said I know it’s only been a week, have we seen any results from the chicken wire. Smith said we haven’t seen any new trees attacked, no, since we put up the chicken wire. Avery said we’ve got the one there that’s ready to go, so, there’s two, a couple right along the bank that they’re going to take down here in the next week, I would say. And they’re, I mean, they’re in the business of damming it up so that they can create more floodwaters to build more homes and bring more beavers in. That’s their job, and they’re doing their job. But we can’t have that. It’s not the place for it. (Rodgers made an unintelligible comment.)

Jones said so, we’ve got deterrents for future, and we’ve got the trapper set to do his last thing, so I feel like we’re kind of at a no pun intended loggerhead. So, I mean, we’re doing what we can. Avery said yeah, no, I don’t have a, personally have a problem with the fact that we’re trapping them. It’s got to be done, and we can revisit it next spring. I mean, it’s gotten out of hand. This is the first year that they’ve done this at least where we can see it. I mean, they probably were doing it out in the lake. But it’s a problem. It’s unfortunate.

Smith said okay, so if there’s no further discussion, then we will continue and do two more this coming weekend, and then that will be it for this year.

Smith said next on the tree-cutting ordinance.

(To Smith), Casey said are you going to put chicken wire around other trees as well? Smith said we did about thirty feet either side of the mill race, because that’s their highway, right, is the mill race. So, we’ve just done about thirty feet, because when they take a tree down, their goal is to dam up the river. So, they have to pull that tree back to the river. And so, I think they only go so far away, knowing, they’re smart, knowing that they’re going to have to drag that tree back into the river. They don’t just take it down for the sake of dropping a tree. They take it down, and then they drag that tree back into the water, and then take it upstream, actually downstream, to add to their dam. And it’s been effective. The water’s width has grown just in the last couple weeks. It’s probably grown another three feet. Casey said okay.

Avery said are we going to be able at some point to go down and clear that out. Take a boat down there and fish it out? Smith said we’re talking with the Clinton River Water. I’m sorry. Forte said Blue Heron. Smith said Blue Heron. Thank you. Blue Heron to talk about purchasing, I don’t know the cost of this, a beaver deceiver, which is a pipe that is put into the dam. So, you can cut a V in the dam, put this pipe in, and then you can throw the sticks on, and they’ll come back that night, and they’ll rebuild the dam. But the beaver deceiver allows water to go through without making a water sound. It’s got, somehow, baffles on it. So, the water will go through, but it will not create the sound. And so, they think they’ve done their job. Avery said okay. Smith said and they said, Blue Heron says this is very effective as far as the damming goes. You’ll see the mill race come back down in a little bit. And that’s very effective. So that’s our plan.

Rodgers said so, you can mess with the dam. You just can’t mess with their houses. Smith said correct. Rodgers said and how do you tell a dam different from a house, like. (Gesturing), Smith said the house is very much a hut shape. Rodgers said I see. Okay, I’ve seen those. Smith said you can see that off of White Lake Road. Rodgers said yeah. (Gesturing), Smith said the dam is just truly just this high above the water. It’s just mostly below water. Very interwoven with sticks and mud. Amazing structure.

Smith said secondly, the tree cutting ordinance. So, the planning commission last week agreed to look at other municipal tree cutting ordinances and then return to council with a recommendation.

Smith said finance committee meetings. We have had two so far, and we’ll have a third one this Thursday. And they’re looking at the four increases in cost, the salaries, the attorney cost, the police contract, and the building services contract. So, we’re looking at all four of those and see how the budget would be impacted by this. So, we’ll have some more information at this Thursday’s finance committee meeting.

Smith said and then our shred day. Our first shred day of the year. It’s been several years since we’ve had a shred day. There were only about ten people that came to it. We had our own city documents to be shredded, and we got that done. But for a couple hundred, $300 more, we were able to open it up to the public. And those people that did it were very grateful and thankful that this was made. It’s kind of a small-town thing that we made this available to the public. And the, in total, we shred about 500 pounds of documents. So, it was a great event, and we’re hoping to do it again this summer. It was a very cold day that day, cold and windy last Thursday. So, it was a little challenging, but we hope to do another one this summer.

Smith said so, that’s all I had in my manager’s report. Are there any questions?

No questions.

Smith said okay.

Agenda Item #8 – Sheriff’s Activity Report for January (Video time mark 0:16:29):

• • Oakland County Sheriff Department Monthly Report From Lieutenant Richard Cummins (page 4/52 of the council packet)

Rodgers said okay, Item #8 is the sheriff’s report for February. (To Sergeant Ashley), Rodgers said and I see our fine friend in the back there. Anything you want to talk about or some questions?

Sergeant Ashley said I have nothing to add. It seems the ticket count went up by a couple for February so, but that’s a little bit of an improvement.

Smith said so, for your reference, council, if I can interject, I, on the next two pages, I included a summary of last year. So, you have all of 2024. Sometimes it helps to see all the months of last year and not just the, the February. And then I also included a third page is a copy of Independence Township’s report for 2024. So, you can kind of see how we compared to them. This is relevant when we get into the police contract discussion. It’s important that you see how much our volume is relative to the township’s. So, when we negotiate a contract, I think this helps give you some background on that. I just want to add that those two additional pages are there. It’s not something I’ll do every month, but I thought I’d do it tonight. Forte said yeah, thank you.

Rodgers said the alcohol compliance checks, that four, does that mean that those were just checks or that there were four people that weren’t in compliance? Sergeant Ashley we made sure that the liquor establishments will have their license up. Usually that has to do with they’ll do alcohol stings for places like (unintelligible), you know the liquor stores themselves – Rodgers said gotcha – (continuing), Sergeant Ashley said which we really don’t have anything now since Rudy’s. But we can go in and just check the bars and make sure that they got the license. Rodgers said okay, so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything was wrong (unintelligible) the checks. Sergeant Ashley said no, it has nothing to do with somebody’s not in compliance. Rodgers said okay. Sergeant Ashley said no.

Rodgers said anybody have any questions. Council or public?

No questions.

Rodgers said well, thank you. All right.

(To Sergeant Ashley), Smith said will you stay around. Sergeant Ashley said yes. Smith said we’re going to talk about something else later. Sergeant Ashley said yeah. Smith said yep, thank you.

Agenda Item #9 – Consent Agenda (Video time mark 0:18:53):

• • 02-10-2025 Final Minutes (page 7/52 of the council packet)
  • 02-24-2025 Draft Minutes (page 9/52 of the council packet)
  • 03-10-2025 Treasurer’s Report (page 11/152 of the council packet)
  • 03-04-2025 Check Disbursement Report, 02-01-1025 – 02-28-2025 (page 12/52 of the council packet)
  • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., February 2025 invoices (page 20/52 of the council packet)

Rodgers said Item #9 is the consent agenda, approval of the consent agenda. We have the final minutes of the February 10, 2025, regular meeting, the draft minutes of the February 24, 2025, regular meeting, and the treasurer’s report from March 10, 2025. So, if I could have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Motion by Jones; second Quisenberry.

Smith said I’m sorry, who seconded. Rodgers said Quisenberry.

Rodgers said any discussion from council on anything on these agendas.

No discussion.

Rodgers said no. All right. Do we do a roll call for this? Ryan said yes, please. Rodgers said yes, a roll call.

Jones, Forte, Avery, Casey, Rodgers, and Quisenberry voted yes.

Rodgers said all right.

Agenda Item #10, Unfinished Business (Video time mark 0:20:10):

Item 10a – Discussion: T. Quisenberry Request to Follow-Up on Permit Parking Cost (Video time mark 0:20:13):

• • 09-09-2025 Final Minutes With Highlights (page 23/52 of the council packet)
  • 10-14-2024 Final Minutes With Highlights (page 25/52 of the council packet)

Rodgers said next is unfinished business. And on, #10, is discussion, Quisenberry’s request to follow up on permit parking cost.

(To Quisenberry), Smith said in the last meeting you had asked about this, did we close this out. And so, I thought we had. So, I went back in the minutes and just double-checked for myself to see kind of where we left this. So, in the September 9 meeting, the minutes are attached here, that was the meeting that, as is shown here on a new business, Angela Batten from Real Estate One was here to comment. She expressed concern over the $60 a month permit parking fee. The city manager was asked to prepare a recommendation discussion for discussion/vote in the October 14^th meeting. And then in the October 14th meeting, and (to Quisenberry), Smith said I see you were absent that night, so that might explain why you weren’t familiar with this. In that meeting, we had discussion, and as it’s highlighted here, the discussion talked about possibly changing the paid parking time and/or the fees charged. And in the end, I think it was councilmember Lamphier that really spoke kind of firmly and said, I think the fees are good where they’re at. I don’t think we need to necessarily accommodate. I’m just paraphrasing here from his comments. I don’t think we necessarily need to accommodate everybody’s needs. We did this for a reason, to raise revenue for the city. I think it’s a fair amount. A dollar an hour is not much, and $60 a month for a contractor, he himself is a realtor. And he cited an example where he travels to Rochester, where it sounds like one of his kind of home-based office is located. And he says, Rochester has paid parking everywhere. And I don’t think twice about having to pay $5 or more for parking in Rochester. So, based on that, the council opted to not take any action and said, I don’t think we need to do anything at this point. And that’s where it was left on October 14th. So, I have not done anything further with Batten. I did see her one day out at the kiosk when I was loading paper in the kiosk. And she asked, and I said, well, the council did talk about this and ultimately decided to leave things where they are. And she said, okay, thank you, appreciate the feedback. And that was the end of the discussion.

Quisenberry said okay, I appreciate your follow-up and the fact that Batten was made aware of what the action was. Smith said yep.

Smith said are there any other questions or comments about that. I mean, those of you who are here for that vote, feel free to chime in if you saw things differently. But that’s, I went back and watched the video.

Casey said I think that covers it. At least my thinking was, we cannot accommodate any business that wants to do this. And to me, on parking fees, and what she’s concerned about is people coming in for occasional meetings. They’re not there all the time. Smith said right. Casey said they can pay the dollar an hour. I just, you know, they can afford, I assume they can afford to do that. Smith said if all the brokers that work under that office, right. Casey said yeah.

Smith said initially, Batten was speaking about the two employees of hers, an admin and somebody else, I think a title person, that they are there every day. So, they’d have to pay a dollar, four or five, every day. And Batten herself would. But she was including in her calculations the cost of all of her brokers. If the scenario were all of her 60-some brokers were to come to her office that day for a meeting. Yeah. Casey said that’s good for us, because it’s a buck an hour. Smith said but that’s what Lamphier was speaking to. I do this all the time. I know it’s part of my cost of doing business. Rodgers said okay.

Item 10b – Discussion: Donation of Parking Revenue to SCAMP (Video time mark 0:24:58):

Rodgers said next on the list is a discussion about the donation of parking revenue to SCAMP. (To Smith), Rodgers said I think that’s you again.

Smith said yes, I’m hoping Ryan can help me on this. So, in the last meeting, Emily Ford, who was representing SCAMP, came to the meeting and made a statement that the Roths, the Adlers, are going to be donating on the SCAMP tour, which is sometime in June, I believe, they will be donating 50% of their parking revenue to SCAMP as a charitable donation. And she said would the city consider doing the same for your two parking lots. We talked about it, and ultimately deciding that let’s think about this and come back. So here we are back. (To Ryan), Smith said and in the meantime, I know you’ve investigated this and found that it is in fact illegal for the city to make donations to a charitable organization. Am I saying that right?

Ryan said so, I was taken, I was surprised by the comments at the last meeting by SCAMP, which is a great organization. But I mean, we touched on this, and that’s why I recirculated that memo from I think June or July last year. You know, we cannot take public money and make private donations to charities. I mean, that’s just, we can’t do it. It’s public money. If somebody wants to make it, either the Adlers or their corporation, their private corporation, if they want to make a donation, they can. You know, if they get a deduction or whatever, that’s their business. But like, with the, so, I just want to reiterate that we, as much as SCAMP is a part of the community and does great work, we can’t use public funds for a private entity. And so, if somebody else wants to donate or do whatever, that’s great. But I just, I was surprised by the comments, and so I just wanted to reiterate nothing against SCAMP or anybody else, but we can’t use public funds. Now, you may say, what about Youth Assistance? Well, Youth Assistance is a different thing. They provide us services. That’s a contract. We’re getting services from them for our, I mean, I know that, like it says maybe in the memo, a donation for SCAMP. Well, it’s a donation for Youth Assistance. It’s not a donation. We’re paying them for municipal services that we couldn’t provide for ourselves, but that they provide for us in taking care of the youth of the city. So, that’s a service that’s being paid for by our money, albeit from grant funds from the low income. But we just can’t use public funds for private use. Rodgers said okay.

Quisenberry said isn’t the money that’s being donated to the, you just mentioned the Clarkson Youth. That’s from CDBG [Community Development Block Grants], which is supposed to be a pass-through to us to give to places like that in our community. But they provide a service. That’s not a charitable handout. They’re providing a valuable service to the city, which we can’t produce for ourselves. We can’t provide that service.

Jones said and it’s also two completely different situations. One is a grant application process. The other is a charitable donation request. Ryan said correct. Jones said so, it’s like two totally different things.

Avery said and the hang-up here is that we’re getting the money and then giving it. Now, if we gave a parking holiday, that would be different, would it not? Because we’re not actually donating money to any particular, anybody could park there. Jones said but that falls into, like, an in-kind kind of a gray area. Avery said does it. Ryan said I mean, the request is already out there. Avery said right. Jones said yeah. Ryan said so, I mean, if you’re going to say, well, we’re going to do a parking holiday on X day, which happens to coincide with, I mean, it’s just not, it’s a slippery slope. Avery said I understand.

Avery said I’m just wondering. Because we do that. We have, I know there’s a moratorium in place now, where whoever comes in and wants us to waive the fee to use the gazebo or whatever, and we’ve done it in the past, but we’re not actually taking city funds and handing it to whoever. Is that, you’re just saying it’s a gray area or just don’t do that at all? Ryan said well, right now we’re not doing it at all. Avery said right, but we have. Ryan said well, right, but that, and if you really, you really have to get down to criteria, specific criteria, so that everybody’s treated the same. Avery said I agree. Ryan said yeah. And we’ve never done that yet, and it’s kind of going to be hard to find. I mean, not that you can’t do it, but it’s going to take some work to figure out what the parameters are of that. Avery said yeah.

Jones, said and, well, I was kind of going down the same thought process that you were earlier, like rolling it over in my head, and I realized that it doesn’t, it’s kind of a zero-sum game because SCAMP wouldn’t actually be paying for the parking if the individuals that are going on the house tour. Avery said they’re looking for the funds. Jones said yeah, no, so like – Avery said I understand what you’re saying. Jones said so, yeah. Avery said it’s not like – Jones said yeah. Avery said it’s different. Jones said yeah. But we do have, you know, small business Saturday where we don’t charge for parking. Ryan said yeah. Avery said okay. Well, what does that mean? Is that a problem? Is that, because it’s not specifically a charitable organization, but we are giving a benefit to certain individuals or business owners. Ryan said to the businesses. Avery said yeah. Ryan said not a business, but the downtown community business. Avery said right. So that’s okay? Ryan said well, it hasn’t, nobody’s had an issue with that thus far because it’s for the whole district, and it’s only like a discrete period. Avery said right. Rodgers said and nobody’s really making money off of it. They’re just getting maybe more people to come in. Ryan said well, the city’s losing some parking revenue. Rodgers said right, right. We’re losing money, but we’re not paying. Jones said so, I think there’s like a local precedent with communities on small business Saturdays doing that. So, there’s, I think that is, there’s that for that argument.

(To Smith), Rodgers said so, if we’re not going to give this money to SCAMP, then we have that, we have half of, do we have that money left to – Smith said we already divided it up. Rodgers said we already divided it up. Okay. Smith said you mean the CDBG money. Rodgers said yeah. Smith said yeah, that’s already – Rodgers said that’s already – Smith said we can’t reopen it. Rodgers said got it. Ryan said and SCAMP wouldn’t qualify. Rodgers said right.

No, I was thinking backwards. Smith said yeah, they’d have to be a low-income. Rodgers said yeah, yeah, right, yeah.

Ryan said so, I was just surprised by the ask. I mean, which is, it’s okay to ask. I get it, but just, we can’t do that. Avery said it was creative. I’ll give her credit for that. Rodgers said yeah. Jones said and honestly, some people don’t realize the, you know – Rodgers said the legality of it. Jones said yeah. How do you know? Rodgers said obviously, we didn’t. Jones said yeah. (Rodgers made an unintelligible comment.)

Smith said he did call Ford and let her know that. Rodgers said you did what. I’m sorry. Smith said I did call Ford this week and let her know that, I’m sorry, last week, and let her know that we can’t legally donate to (unintelligible). Rodgers said okay.

Rodgers said all right, any other discussion on, or questions on that.

No comments.

Agenda Item #11, New Business (Video time mark 0:32:34):

Item 11a – Discussion: Pedestrian Safety Downtown (Video time mark 0:32:35):

Rodgers said on to new business. Item #11A is discussion about pedestrian safety downtown. I asked Smith to put this on the agenda. I was in the office this week paying my water bill and asked Smith about the flag, those flags that we voted yes to. And they are on order. You know, I figured probably springtime we’ll get that started. So, we were just having a discussion about now that construction is going to be ramping up and springtime is going to be ramping up and all the problems that we had with pedestrian safety and what to do. What are our next moves? Because we did talk about that at the end of the year, that we need to do something with the county to try to get our point across. Interestingly enough, Saturday morning I found out that Gail (no last name) was leaving Pilates on Saturday morning crossing Washington and Main, shad waited for the walking man, the white walking man to be on, was three-quarters of the way across Washington when a car clipped her, broke three ribs, punctured her lung, and severely injured her arm, and drove away. It was a hit and run. And so, I asked Smith that, you know, I think time is of the essence before somebody gets hurt. Smith also said that, was it today, that you saw a bicycle accident and Honcho hit by a car. So, you know, these things aren’t stopping. They’re just going to get worse. Our traffic is going to pick up now again. I think 75 starts its construction sometime here soon. And I asked Smith if he could, you know, kind of talk to us about our options, what we can do to kind of draw attention. I know that before the county has said that, you know, an incident has to happen or a fatality or whatever, but this was pretty close.

Smith said I do have a document. It’s not in your packet, and I’ll talk about it. But I guess before we even get to that, I guess I’d like to ask Sergeant Ashley if you learned anything about this. I think we’re hearing it’s a hit and run where this woman was hit and the driver took off. Was there a police report filed? Sergeant Ashley said all I know is it’s a light-colored, I believe it was a truck, and they don’t have a plate or anything. They did, I know they canvassed the area looking for any type of cameras, including ones on houses, and nothing yet. Rodgers said wow. Sergeant Ashley said so, not even any cameras around. Forte said that’s crazy. Sergeant Ashley and I don’t think there’s any cameras in downtown here at all.

Rodgers said well, that’s the other thing we were talking about. Like, maybe put, maybe there should be, you know. And does the police, like, when there’s an accident like that, is there a mechanism to let the city know that that has occurred? Sergeant Ashley said we can. I mean, I don’t know if there’s specifically that, you know, if it’s happened down here that we have notified them before, but we can try and do that at least, you know, shoot you an email. Avery said or put it in the report. I mean, if you put a notation there, a pedestrian injury accident or something, have a column for it. Hopefully it stays zero, but that would give us a heads-up. (Jones made an unintelligible comment.) Sergeant Ashley said okay, we can do that too. Avery said and then if we need more information we can get it. Sergeant Ashley said yeah. I was just hearing about it today, so – Avery said yeah, I didn’t know anything. Forte said yeah, me neither, and I’m right down there all the time.

Forte said is there a way for us to run, like, is there a specific code. I was looking at the codes in your report when you were – Sergeant Ashley said I’ll have to get back in what the specific code is for a PI [personal injury]. Hit and run I’m sure it’s a CLEMIS [Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System] code. I’m sure I can – Forte said could we run that for the last, like, I don’t know, five years. Sergeant Ashley said I can run it, yeah. I can try to do it tomorrow and get with Smith and see.

Rodgers said because this kind of just serendipitously happened. Like, I was at Pilates on Saturday morning. My instructor, it was her mom that it happened to. Somebody was leaving and said, hey, how’s your mom? And I was like, oh, what happened to your mom? And she said, oh, she got hit by a car yesterday. And, you know, it was a hit and run. Oh, what happened to her? Well, she broke three ribs and punctured her lung, and her arm is swollen.

It’s, like, three times the size. She’s in excruciating pain. And I’m like, wow. (Avery made an unintelligible comment.) Rodgers said and so, then I shot Smith an e-mail, and Smith’s like, I didn’t know anything about it. Like, I just kind of feel like the police came, she was taken away in an ambulance. Somehow somebody in the city should know about that.

Avery said I assume it was somebody turning off of Washington onto Main or vice versa (unintelligible). Rodgers said I’m not exactly sure of the, but it sounds as if she was just three-quarters of the way through, and just like I have experienced myself, nobody waits until you get all the way across. They’re in too big of a hurry, and I think he probably clipped her, you know, at (unintelligible). And she was a little lady. But, like, we, like, I think Forte’s request is pretty legit. Because how many others did that happen to? We don’t know about it, right? Because there’s no mechanism to tell us, like, this is what’s going on. So, it’s hard to go to the county and say this has happened, you know, 54 times in the last twelve months, if we don’t have any information.

Forte said and even if we don’t have a death, like, if there is, like, I mean, one is one too many. Like, I’ve thought about, like, when I’m making that, when I’m walking with Alice, like, how many times a car has tried to get in front of us. And I’m like, what if I had her just a foot in front of where you pulled out? Like, it’s crazy. Like, at a minimum, I think we should run the report, and then we should get a quote for cameras. Like, because those people should be prosecuted. Like, I’m sorry, but that is messed up. To hit a little lady and then drive away. What is wrong with you? Like, come on now. Like, and if the cameras make people pause even for a second, like, that second could make or break that person getting hit. Like, I don’t know. So, I don’t know.

Avery said I wouldn’t be averse to cameras because I think it would help the sheriffs investigate. But we have cameras everywhere, and it doesn’t make me drive any different. We’re so used to it now – Rodgers said I know – (continuing), Avery said that I don’t know that it even clicks in your brain. Like, well, if I turn now, you know, they might catch me on the cameras. Or if I don’t stop there, they’re going to get me. Forte said you’re not the person we’re worried about. Avery said no, but hey, I’ve collected on that corner. I don’t know what can be done there. I mean, it’s a stoplight. It’s got walk signals. There’s a crosswalk. You know, the state’s not going to do anything for us. What else can we do? Well, even if there’s a fatality, what are they going to do? I mean, there’s already a light. I mean, what else can you do in that corner? Nothing. I think there’s things we can do on the crosswalk on Main that goes across to Honcho and Kevin’s place. I think we could clear out a couple of parking spots so that it’s clearer for people driving. You can see that there’s a pedestrian there ready to walk out. I think that’s a problem there. I know we want to squeeze as many parking spots as we can. And there’s a lot of folks that are pedestrians. We see them all the time that cross Main Street, not at the crosswalk, then almost get clipped. It happens every day. I don’t know how much we can really stop it from happening. But we can certainly provide the police with more resources to, after the fact, right? I mean, I used to, like for the Rotary Club, we’d be out there collecting all down on Main Street. Whew. People would run around that way all day long. All day long.

Jones said and I think, and I apologize because this is going to get a little broad stroke, because we know that the issue does not start at Washington and Main. It starts right back there at the I-75 interchange. And so, when you notice the way that that speed trickles down, right, from 55 to 40 to 30, it’s all pretty close. It’s not terribly well signed. And I also, I’m going to take the heat for this, and I don’t care. I think that 30 is way too fast for this portion of Main Street. So, knowing that it is a city, county, and state, what could be done about looking into lowering the speed limit coming into town?

Smith said we can ask. MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] has previously said in order to lower the speed limit, they’d have to do a speed study. And that, they will warn you, could actually backfire. If the average speed driver is 35 or 40, they might say, for throughput reasons, we actually recommend you not decrease it, but actually increase it. So, we’ll be very hesitant. Jones said it starts at 40, because like, the 55 to 40 to 30 is such a close, like – Rodgers said it’s 50 yards of each other. Jones said yeah, and also because the radar on the 30 mile an hour sign starts picking you up pretty far back, so I know when it’s like, okay, here’s where, like, the braking needs to start and things like that, so, it’s just like, I know there are smarter people than me that go to school for these sorts of things and whatnot, and I get that there’s statistics and all that, but I know that a little bit of statistics, a little bit of real world experience and whatnot, it kind of adds up to getting to the answer that people are looking for. So, I’m just going to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Rodgers said well, I think we did do a study. (To Smith), Rodgers said didn’t we do a study on Main Street. The problem was, is, that it showed that it probably wasn’t very fast because the whole standstill for three hours from 4:00 to 7:00 was included in that. So, when you average it out, you know, I took my dog out at midnight the other day, and there was a semi going down, he had to be going 65 miles an hour. I mean, he was flying.

Sergeant Ashley said well, I did that study of you guys not too long ago where they put it on Main Street, and that goes by hour. Rodgers said yep. Sergeant Ashley said and it goes by hour. Rodgers said yep. Sergeant Ashley said and so they could at least get – Rodgers said they could factor that out. Sergeant Ashley said yeah, I think there was only one car, like, three in the morning that was doing 60, but I don’t have that with me. I know everybody’s got a copy of the thing. Rodgers said right, you gave that. Sergeant Ashley said so, you can at least take a look at that, and, you know, sometimes people see those and see how fast they can go also. (Jones made an unintelligible comment while Sergeant Ashley was speaking.) Avery said yes. Sergeant Ashley said so, but for the most part, I mean, I think the speed was pretty – Avery said it really was – Sergeant Ashley said it was in line with – Jones said yeah – Sergeant Ashley said the posted. That’s the unfortunate part because you get one incident, and it’s, you know, how many thousands of cars? That was even amazing, I, surprised me how many came down Depot for the two weeks or whatever we had. Rodgers said 4,000 cars. Sergeant Ashley said 22,000. Rodgers said 22,000. Sergeant Ashley said it was 22,000 cars that cut through Depot in a nine-day period or something.

Jones said I would be interested if they threw another one of those speed signs up, if they would throw it back by Clarkston Road, like Clarkston Road and M15, because accounting for that 4:00 to 7:00 slow-down bottleneck, I just know that I see a lot of shenanigans at Clarkston Road and M15. Sergeant Ashley said north or south. Jones said both. People kind of see that as like a boundary, right? Like almost like a start line or finish line, depending on which way they’re going. And some people don’t even see that red light sometimes. So, yeah, shenanigans.

Quisenberry said as I recall working with MDOT, the lowest I think the state can set the limit is 25. So that’s the best that they could do. Jones said yeah. No, I mean, I get that. I just like, again, just considering the spacing of where the 55, 40, 30, and I am just saying that I would like it to be 25 on that section of Main Street. And I know that people will throw things at me, but I’m just, you know, in an ideal scenario.

Rodgers said you had mentioned that you put some stuff together that – Smith said right. So let me just go through these couple slides that I have here.

Smith said first of all, as shown here on the screen, is kind of a standard solution, if you will, set of solutions for pedestrian crossing. One is the crossbars, the ladder that goes across. That should be in a reflective tape, not just painted on, because paint just doesn’t last that long. So reflective tape, the ladder bars.

Smith said the yellow diamond, or pedestrian crossing sign, and usually has an arrow below it just to point down to the crosswalk. Just make it very clear that this is a crosswalk. And that’s on both sides of the street. And what they’re showing here is the crosswalk signs on the double yellow line in the center. We have done that, as you know, at Depot Road, at Main Street and Depot. But we have not done that at Washington and Main where there’s traffic lights. It just doesn’t fit there because of the left-hand turn lanes. So, we’re doing that. The other thing that you see in this picture is the parking is set back from the crosswalk. Avery was saying that a minute ago. It’s important to set that back.

Smith said I think this next diagram doesn’t really show it either. But setting that first parking spot back. And I think Washington and Main, that would probably be the single most improvement we could make. I’m sorry, Depot and Main. The single largest improvement we could make would be to eliminate the four spaces closest to the corner. Especially on the north side of Depot. So, one in front of Kevin Harrison’s and one in front of Honcho. Those are the ones where people are stepping out and you don’t see them. I’ve had this multiple times. I don’t see anybody until I’m right up there and I have to really screech to a halt to stop in time. Not that I’m going that fast, but they just kind of pop out behind that first parked car.

Casey said if you’re going north, it’s easy to see. If you’re going south, it is difficult. Smith said yeah. Casey said and I always slow down to about 15 miles an hour when I go across there. Smith said Casey was absolutely right.

If you’re going north, it’s not a problem. It’s the southbound. So that is something that we should look at.

Smith said the other thing I’ll point out in this photo on the right is what they call sharp teeth. Those are like, those are the yield signs painted on the ground. So, it’s like a yield sign. It doesn’t say yield on it, but it’s just to bring your attention to the upcoming crosswalk.

Smith said another thing, and this is something I proposed to MDOT, was this pedestrian activated crosswalk sign. It’s solar driven. You can’t see it in this picture, but around the perimeter of this pedestrian crossing sign are lights that will light up. The solar powered unit power stat makes that possible. So, the button at the bottom is pushed, and then the lights come on. Rodgers said is that like in the center of the road? Smith said no, this would be on each side. You’d have one on each side of the road. Avery said yeah, if you’ve seen it in Sashabaw, they have something like that by the hospitals or the medical centers or wherever. And that thing, if someone presses it, it doesn’t happen very often, but that thing lights up all the way across the road. You cannot miss it when someone’s crossing. Smith said this one is not that big. I know MDOT has told me time and time again it doesn’t warrant that, but a small one like this, where it’s just the lights around the pedestrian sign are flashing. Just a light flash, just to bring it to the driver’s attention that there’s a crosswalk and somebody’s pushed the button, and they want to cross. Avery said yeah. Smith said I think it would be dramatically effective, but – Avery said I think it would be in combination with removing that parking space, so people can see it coming southbound. Smith said as you see there, the price is $6,300 a piece, so it’s not cheap. But the bigger thing is MDOT has just said flat out no to this.

Forte said what’s the consequence if we just do it. Avery said they’d make us take it down. Smith said they’d probably make us take it down. Quisenberry said civil disobedience. Forte said what if I put it up. Casey said they won’t let us do this, this sign thing. Ryan said what if you don’t put it in the right-of-way? What if you move it back a little bit from the sidewalk and put it so it’s not in the right-of-way, so it’s not MDOT’s jurisdiction? Smith said I can ask him about that question. Ryan said I don’t know what the right-of-way is in there, but if it’s not in the right-of-way – Casey said then it might not be effective.

Rodgers said I’m just curious as to if the city was willing to pay for this, why they wouldn’t want a safety feature in our city. That’s the kind of answer that I don’t understand. I can’t get it through my head. If we are willing to pay this, somehow get the money for it, why do they care? Smith said I gather it’s their standard. It’s just not in their standard, and now they’ve deviated from their standard, and other communities might say, well, you did it in Clarkston. why can’t you do it here. Rodgers said and why not. Like, if the other cities want to pay for it, why not? It could potentially save somebody from disaster or death. Ryan said probably because they don’t feel it meets their, it wasn’t warrant-, it’s not a safety hazard to them because of the statistics which they keep. So, and their job is to keep traffic moving. I mean they want it to move safely, but they, you know, they would see this as an impediment to that, although – Avery said and you’re infringing on their jurisdiction, and they’d have a problem with that. We’re on their turf. We’re not even supposed to have the crosswalk that we have out there with the sign. Forte said let’s do it. Avery said but we did it, and they kind of let it go. Smith said they have said we’ll leave it, but they don’t like that either. Just that thing sitting on the double yellow line. Avery said yeah.

Smith said some other ideas. One is this. This is, you embed this in the asphalt, this below-the-road asphalt. You probably haven’t seen that. There’s one in use at an airport where it just flashes. Same concept. The pedestrian pushes a button. Instead of being up above the road, it’s down in the road. It’s just a different take on that.

Smith said and then I just put together some items just to talk about here real quickly. One starting point would probably be to conduct a pedestrian walkability audit. This is probably something Hubbell Roth & Clark [HRC] would initiate for us. They come out, and they’re going to look at the data. SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments] has a whole ton of data on pedestrian and vehicular traffic that they keep and they build over time. So, I’m sure HRC would work with SEMCOG on that.

Smith said secondly is prepare, once you have the audit done, prepare a pedestrian safety action plan. That would be just kind of an A to Z, here are all the things that we would like to do at the various intersections or roads in town.

Smith said then some kind of more physical things. Install high visibility reflective tape. The ladders, we haven’t been replacing them annually, but to get the most visibility, they should be replaced annually. After that, they start to get weathered and start to tear off. So, replacing those more frequently would help.

Smith said and then next, high visibility pedestrian crossing sign. So, this is just not the flashing sign, but just a standard pedestrian crossing with the arrow down. But something I’ve seen in other communities, you’ve probably seen it yourself, there’s another add-on below. It says fines doubled. We have to work with the Oakland County Sheriff on this, but somebody that gets a violation in that for just not coming to a stop for a pedestrian, the fines could be doubled. We have to work on the legal aspect of this to make sure that we have the authority to double the fines. But I think it’s just another thing to get the driver’s attention.

Smith said next is pole-mounted pedestrian activated crosswalk lights. That’s the one we were just talking about. There’s some other examples around town. Or the in-ground crosswalk lights.

Smith said then we talked about cameras. The idea of putting cameras, at least one camera at the Main and Washington intersection and one at the Main and Depot intersection. They could be connected to our system. We’d probably have to get some kind of booster that it could talk wirelessly all the way to that location up there. Have them solar-powered with wireless connectivity to our camera system here. Just like our cameras around the building, and even this one in here, they’re all tracked for 24 days. So, that is something to think about. It would give us the ability to go back and look at an incident. You might say, well, does that help security? Maybe not by itself, like how you brought it up. Would that make a difference? You could, in theory, put another sign, just like the add-on I talked about for fines doubled. You could put surveillance cameras monitoring this intersection or something to that effect on that second sign. Just, again, to let drivers know that you’re being watched, you know, and watch your P’s and Q’s.

Smith said next on here is remove, we talked about this, remove the parking spots closest to the crossings, particularly those ones at Main and Depot. That would cost us two parking spots. I don’t think, as Casey pointed out, I don’t think we have to do the ones over on the HealthQuest side, but on the Honcho/Kevin Harrison Homes, I think eliminating those first two spots on both sides would give pedestrian visibility a big increase.

Smith said high visibility, no turn on red. The accident that occurred here, I see this all day, every day. You walk up there and it’s just like that no turn on red sign, which at Washington and Main is on all four corners. And the only way I will step off the curb is if I look right in the driver’s eyes and make eye contact with them. That’s the only way I’ll do it. But visitors to our town don’t know the dangers of this. Naturally, the white walk man is on, so I feel safe in crossing the street, but we know that can be dangerous, and it was in this case.

Avery said yeah, but a no turn on red doesn’t change that because they’re stopping at the light anyways. People that are crossing to go east across to get to the other side of the road wait for it to turn white for the walk sign and that happens when green for Washington hits. So, they are legally turning, they’re just not watching or they’re trying to – Rodgers said beat the system – Avery said beat the pedestrians. Smith said yeah, that too, but I’ve seen on a red light they still turn. Avery said there shouldn’t be anybody crossing there though when that’s going on. If you’re sitting in Washington and you try to turn right on the red, nobody’s crossing there because it’s green for Main Street. Rodgers said no, they’re crossing where it’s red. They’re crossing in front, and the guy pulls out and hits them or makes that right-hand turn. So, Washington, Main, person. The light turns red. This guy is supposed to stay here. This person starts to walk across Washington or walk, I guess, along Main Street. Avery said they’re crossing Washington, yes, I get that. Okay, I’m thinking more of Main Street. I’ve seen it a lot more in Main Street where people are in the right-hand turn lane in Washington, the turn to go south on Main Street. And there’s people at the corner there to try to get across east, across Main Street. And they start to walk and then the people here are trying to beat them to the punch. And they take off before people get into their cars. Rodgers said yeah. Jones said and we’ve already gotten no turn on red signs, I know. Smith said no turn on red signs are there. My point here is a high-res – Jones said high res – (continuing), Smith said like whatever they call it, a fluorescent yellow with black print on it. So just make it pop a little bit more. And the fines double sign add-on below is another thing. And then the shark’s teeth was my last recommendation.

Smith said so, these are just something I put together today, honestly. I’m sure there’s a lot more that we could look into.

(To Sergeant Ashley), Rodgers said I think we do here, I think, and I’m sure it’s all about ability and staffing and all of that, but I don’t really feel like people feel like there is a police presence here. Thank God we don’t really need that, right? But now that we don’t have our own little police guys to police it, you know, I don’t see police cars a whole lot here. And that’s just a comment. Maybe they’re here when I’m not looking. Quisenberry said I do. Rodgers said but do you see them a lot. Quisenberry said I see them. Forte said they’re following Quisenberry around the city. Quisenberry said I see them up and down Waldon and driving up and down.

Rodgers said because it just worries me. It’s like none of these guys ever get caught. That’s what we need is for some of these people to actually have a repercussion, but they don’t. And it’s hard to fix stupid. You know, it’s just, you can’t. Quisenberry said (unintelligible) you can’t fix stupid. Avery said yeah, you can’t stop everything. Rodgers said you can’t. Avery said but to Smith’s point with this stuff, I don’t think people are doing it with ill intent. Rodgers said mostly no. Avery said they’re just not seeing people or they’re not paying attention. And if you have signage or lights or something that brings them out of their phones so that they’re paying attention when they make their turns.

Quisenberry said I think the most proactive thing that we could do that you’ve mentioned is eliminating those two spots north of Depot. That’s probably going to be huge. But that addresses the Depot/Main Street one, not necessarily the other. And I also like the idea of that no turn on red being more visible. Because people just do it. They just come up to it and they just think they can turn on red because they’re allowed to, but they’re not. Making those two points, I think, will go a long way. Avery said again it would be the state, you could do a hanging no turn on red sign up there. Rodgers said across the street kind of thing.

Sergeant Ashley said I will say that when I was in traffic in Rochester, the exit ramp to westbound 59 onto northbound Rochester, there are no less than three no turn on red signs and people will still turn on red. So, it’s, yeah, if people get in a hurry, that’s, they’re not paying attention to anything except is the traffic clear. Quisenberry said that’s where you go make your quota. Smith said were you referring to a light up sign. (To Quisenberry), Rodgers said what are you talking about. Smith said I’ve seen intersections when the light is red for this traffic. There’s also a light-up sign that says no turn on red. Avery said yeah, the arrow has that. Smith said and then when the light turns green, that of course turns off. Avery said yes. Something like that. Or just a hanging sign. Sometimes you see it in the middle and it’ll say no turn. But we have the left turn sign there, so it would have to be to the right of the sign, or the signals, but something that just hangs there and says no turn on red. Smith said I can talk to him about that. Avery said yeah, see if we could put something like that. (To Jones), Smith said sorry. Jones said oh, no. We’re good.

Forte said so, like, what do we need to do to move forward. Can we just like start with those parking spots tomorrow? Like, how does this work, like? Smith said we, I’d have to talk to MDOT, because it is on their roadway, but they have allowed us to do the parking lot spacing in the past, so I don’t think they’ll have an issue. Either we could have our contractor do it or Jimi [Turner, Department of Public Works supervisor] could do it. It’s just yellow hash marks across those spots. Yes, we’ll lose two parking spots, but I think the value, you know, outweighs the two parking spots that we lose.

Smith said some of these other things we can look at from a budgetary standpoint to see what we can afford, but some of these are no cost or very small cost. Changing the signs out to a more visible version. I’d like to look into the fine zone, because I have seen those in other communities. I’d like to look into those to see if those are something that legally we can put on a signage.

Forte said do you need anything from city council now to keep you moving. Smith said I don’t think so. Let me, I’m going to have to get some costs, because if I do bring something to you, it’s going to be because I need money, and so I’ll put a resolution together for that.

Forte said thank you for putting this together. Smith said it’s just a starting point. I think it’s probably long overdue. We have discussions. I agree. Sergeant Ashley, if you could pull, I’d say, for the last two or three years, whatever, personal injury, accidents. Sergeant Ashley said accidents, yes. Smith said and that’s good data for us. It would also help me potentially with MDOT to make an argument for getting their support. I love that, I definitely, pursue the idea of Ryan’s is could we set them back a little bit out of the easement and maybe get allowance to put these up. But I think we have to do something. We don’t want to be sitting here after a fatality and staring at each other saying, why didn’t we do something?

Michael Moon said I have a quick question. This audit of pedestrian safety, what intersections would that involve? Not just, I would suggest not just downtown, but also at Clarkston Road, because my own experience is that Clarkston Road can be also very risky. Smith said very risky, absolutely. Avery said well, I’m assuming if he pulls the data, it’s just going to note that there was one in the jurisdiction that may not have the location, right? Sergeant Ashley said well, it’ll probably have the location. Avery said oh, okay, that’s cool. Sergeant Ashley said I can look that up. Avery said yeah, look for it.

Smith said yes, I think if you’re referring to this walkability audit and starting in on that with SEMCOG’s help, I think we would look at all, Waldon, Church, Church/Depot, Washington, Clarkston Road, Miller. Look at all five of those. They all have their danger points, but I have to say that Depot and Clarkston Road is right up there with some of them, but Depot and Washington are the two big ones, but Clarkston Road is not far behind. Avery said yeah, they come in hot in there, that’s why. There’s more pedestrians, obviously, downtown than there are at Clarkston Road and the north end of town.

Rodgers said anybody else.

No additional comments.

Rodgers thanked Smith and said appreciate it. Smith said okay. That’s a starting point. We’ll need more of a follow-up. Rodgers said okay.

Item 11b – Discussion: HDC Ordinance Changes (Video time mark 1:05:21):

• • Ordinance No. 118 (Clarkston Historic District Ordinance), Redline Copy [Note: The document in the council packet was not the version that was approved as a first read at the March 10, 2025, city council meeting – the correct version was distributed at the council meeting to council members only, a copy was not provided to any member of the public at the meeting, and the version considered by council was never posted online for the public to review as promised by the city manager.]

Rodgers said next on the agenda is a discussion or first reading now of the HDC ordinance changes. (To Ryan), Rodgers said do I read this whole thing. Ryan said no, no. This is, this is the, there are just some discrete changes.

The first is that the commission is run by SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office], who is not referred to in our current ordinance, but will be changed to refer to that said the Bureau. So, as stated by Mr. Moon, Dr. Moon, I think when they reported about the quarterly report from the HDC, they’ve got this Memorandum of Administrative Approval, which means the written approval of an application for time-sensitive projects that do not require a building permit for work and that is appropriate and does not adversely affect a resource. And parentheses, for example, roof repairs.

Ryan said so, this last proposed charter amendment was taking issue with the fact that the HDC was not warm and friendly, and this was something that they came up with to try to help people along to cut down time between meetings or whatnot when there’s something that can be done that’s a minor thing that doesn’t involve any of the standards for historical preservation that would move the process along so it would be helpful to the homeowner in a particular situation and not violate the ordinance under the standards that they have to follow. So, this would be added as a definition in the amendment of the ordinance. Everything else under definition up to that point stays the same.

Ryan said and the only other thing is where it used to say Bureau for the Historical Bureau, now letter T is SHPO, means the state, Michigan State Historic Preservation Office. So, that’s the entity that should be in the ordinance. That’s the entity which we report to, but for some reason it’s always been the Bureau, and so that’s just updated so it’s current to what it should say for the ordinance.

Jones said and just to follow up, for the record, the Memorandum of Administrative Approval has been brought before the city council. You brought that up with the city council whenever we went through the last results. Ryan said quarterly report. Jones said so, that’s, again, nothing new, just so that it’s, again, just nothing new. It’s all stuff that’s already been discussed.

Ryan said and then section, so then section, these are the only changes. Then section 401 under A, again, it used to say Bureau, but this is a following procedure to establish approved by SHPO. Again, updating the ordinance to the correct entity that their body reports to, and that also occurs in the E, transmit copies to SHPO, et cetera. Again, that’s just a change to update where it should be.

Ryan said then in section 601, and Doctor [Moon], this is what I had put in. I don’t know if you caught that – Michael Moon said yes – (continuing) Ryan said but, and so we’ll need to run that by SHPO also. But see, this talks about there are standards that can be adapted that are, you know, for issuing for minor projects. And this is then we put in 11, this would be an addition. We talk about what we can do about there, for issuing a certificate of appropriateness, which is the main goal for somebody to get on a big project, get a certificate of appropriateness or a notice to proceed, or a Memorandum of Administrative Approval, which means a written approval of a permit application. Then this just fleshes out the definition of what a Memorandum of Administrative Approval is. So that gives the HDC the authority to use this memorandum. So, it’s not just in the definitional section, but it also shows up in the body as something that they can do relative to their approvals that don’t go to a full review. So, again, it’s to be user-friendly.

(To Ryan), Rodgers said and where are you putting that. In 601? Ryan said just in 601.11. The underlined language is the addition. That’s the change of the ordinance. I hope you all have that. Smith said we don’t have any change redlined for section 11. Ryan said well you should, because I (unintelligible crosstalk). So, I’m sorry. Avery said 11 is a brand new paragraph, correct. Ryan said I’m sorry. Avery said 11 is a brand-new paragraph added. Forte said no, it’s just a line. Ryan said I’m sorry. You should, you all should have had this. Forte said so, in 11 after he was talking about after appropriateness, the word appropriateness, the fourth line. Ryan said you’re all looking at the whole ordinance, which is great. I just sent the amendments because we don’t need to look at the whole ordinance. We’re just changing four sections of the ordinance. The definitional section, the 401 section, the 601 section, three sections, and under, so, (to Smith), Ryan said they don’t have that? Forte said no. Ryan said so if you look at 601.11, it says, can we run a copy of this? Smith said sure. Ryan said I mean, I’m sorry you don’t have it, because – Jones said well, I’ve got it, it’s just not redlined. Ryan said well, it should have been, I mean – Forte said no, it’s not in there right now. Ryan said it should – Smith said it’s not in there. Ryan said see, you should, I sent it, and you should all have it. I’m sorry. Forte said that’s okay, it happens. A human – Ryan said well, no, but I mean, you know, you had to have the whole ordinance, which is fine. But I just sent you, we don’t need to repeat the whole ordinance. We’re just changing certain sections, those three sections. Jones said yeah, I was trying to (unintelligible crosstalk) – Ryan said so, let me get you the language. I’m sorry if you don’t have it, so – Avery said I don’t know if we have it or not. We’ve got a paragraph there on what’s different in 11. Ryan said you should have this. Jones said you don’t have the right paper. It is in this copy. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Casey said well, I’ve got it. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Avery said I’ve got it. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Rodgers said yeah, we have one, but it’s not – Ryan said no, it’s not the changes. Yeah. So, it’s a change to 11. Jones said yeah. Ryan said and all of this is – Forte said we’re having a reading today where you read it to us. Ryan said but what’s in there – Avery said absolutely – Ryan said the fact that it was taken, it doesn’t have to do with this. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Ryan said because it’s not just a definition, but it’s also an action that the HDC can take, which is supposedly going to be beneficial to the property owner.

(Smith returned with copies that were distributed only to council.) Ryan said yeah, thank you very much. Forte said yeah, thank you. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Jones thanked Smith. Ryan said kind of like a third grade, take one and pass it on. Forte said yeah. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Ryan said so, this is 601. You know, it shows three. We’ll just change that because that’s SHPO. Again, that’s the first change. That’s the only change in that one. And then 11, the underlying is additional language referring to the Memorandum of Administrative Approval. And it’s just an action that can be taken by the HDC, if appropriate, under certain limited circumstances. It just gives them the authority to do that. Then there’s a repealer clause, a saving clause, and effective date. So, we’re only changing those three sections to add SHPO to put in this Memorandum of Understanding in the definitions and in the body of the ordinance, and that’s what we’re doing, to update the ordinance.

Rodgers said so, just a question. Ryan said yeah, of course. Rodgers said this terminology, Memorandum of Administrative Approval, one of our citizens said that that is illegal for HDC to use that terminology. Is it or is it not? Ryan said well, no, we’re going to find out. They, they’ve, SHPO has approved it, the language. That was, that actually, in the charter amendment that did not pass, specifically there was a point in there about saying that we could not use that. They used this language about Memorandum of Administrative Approval. That was specifically prohibited in the charter amendment, which didn’t pass. And so, I’m just going to ask, we’re going to run by SHPO because now it’s put in the body of the ordinance. They’ve approved the concept of it, so we’re going to make sure they approve it in the body, and then we’ll be okay. But they have approved the concept of it, SHPO has. Rodgers said SHPO has. All right. Ryan said and we’ll just double-check that. Rodgers said okay.

Rodgers recognized Michael Moon for a comment.

Moon said can I make a comment. The, this language, a Memorandum of Approval or whatever, is not rare or unusual. It’s used in the state government, and it’s present in the state code. So, it’s not like we plucked this from out of nowhere. It is used in the state memorandum of whatever for administrative purposes. It’s something that is – Ryan said we just need to send this to SHPO to make sure they see it, okay? Moon said yes. Ryan said because it needs to be, it wasn’t, what you brought forward was great because it put it in the definitional section, but it’s got to be in the action section. That’s all we’re trying to do.

Forte said before we go forward, do you have this document that you can share on your screen so, this is in the recorded meeting. Smith said no, I do not. Forte said okay. (To Ryan), Smith said well, is this the version you sent me, this – Ryan said yes, I sent you two versions. I sent you the one, the changes, one without the changes and one with the changes. Forte said can we just make sure this is in the online – Jones said packet. Forte said yeah, afterwards. Smith said yes. Forte said okay, just so we catch everybody who is – Smith said for the first reading.

Avery said I just want to make sure we’re doing this in the right order, right. If SHPO hasn’t officially approved it, should we wait? Should we not wait until SHPO officially approves it, or do we need to approve it? Ryan said well, this is, we’re not approving it. This is just the first reading. Avery said right. Ryan said this is just an introduction. Avery said okay, we’re not – (interrupting Avery), Ryan said SHPO has already approved the language of the Memorandum of Understanding. They’ve already approved that language. They just need to see this in the ordinance. We’ll follow that with SHPO, and hopefully by next meeting we’ll have their okay because it should be, as the doctor said, it should be standard. I just want to put it in the body of the ordinance for an action item. Avery said okay. Ryan said okay. Avery said we’re not voting on it tonight. Ryans said no, no. We have to read it a second time. Jones said we have to read it a second time. Avery said okay. Quisenberry said next week, when we do the next meeting, we have the second reading. We can have a new one of these with the new document in it and probably an approval from SHPO saying that it’s fine. Right. That we’ll be able to then use to pass the second. Ryan said right.

Rodgers said okay. Anything else? Any other concerns?

Ryan said that would constitute the first reading, unless anybody else has any questions. The SHPO changes, the language changes, and you know, the memorandum changes. Forte said okay, thank you. Ryan said so, we’re not going to change the whole 18-page document. We’re just going to change specific sections of the document. Jones said swapping out bureau for SHPO. Ryan said right. Jones said adding that in. Ryan said thank you. Thank you for your time. Yeah, and for Dr. Moon and the HDC working on this, so. Avery said thank you. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Item 11c – Discussion: Independence Township Intergovernmental Agreement for Police Services (Video time mark 1:17:38):

• • 03-06-2025 Memorandum From Tom Ryan, City Attorney, Re: Inter-Governmental Law Enforcement Service Agreement (page 38/52 of the council packet)
  • Proposed Intergovernmental Law Enforcement Service Agreement Effective January 1, 2025 (page 40/52 of the council packet)

Rodgers said okay, moving on. Discussion on Independence Township Intergovernmental Agreement for Police Services, so – (to Ryan), Smith said so, I put your memo in here. This was an open (unintelligible) memo. Ryan said right. Smith said just summarizing what you’ve been working on. And it’s clear that we need some more time to work with the township on some of the clauses in the agreement. Ryan said yes, sir. That’s my opinion. Smith said so, the agreement, the draft agreement that was submitted from the township is attached here. It is here. But we feel that there are some changes needed, and therefore we’re not asking for approval tonight. We’re just bringing an update to your attention. Avery said okay.

Ryan said and you see they want to change the (unintelligible), they want to change the formula to a percentage of, well, again, again, no offense. Because the County Board of Commissioners in December or whatever, right at 24, said, okay, communities that use the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department are going to have to pay more. And with quite a significant increase, right? Yeah. So, the townships are kind of caught off guard, but okay. So, we have an agreement that we’re allowed to be a subset of the contract with Independence, which normally they don’t do, but they authorize. The county allowed us, the board allowed us, to piggyback or be part of Independence Township. So, you know, Mr. Phyle came to Smith in maybe, what, early February or something? Smith said it was, yeah, early February. Ryan said and said, you know, we need more money. Because we need to pay more money. So, they’re planning this percentage, which is different than what we have now. Right now, we’re, under our current contract, you know, we’re supposed to only be assessed under our real estate value, but it was, you know, the same as what Independence did. But now they’re going to have to raise their rates on their own citizens. So, they want to go to this percentage model for the next three years. Quisenberry said 2.72. Ryan said pardon me. Quisenberry said 2.72. Ryan said correct. Of whatever the value, the amount is. They’ve estimated, well, they know what the amount is for this year, and they’ve estimated for ‘26 and ‘27 what the cost is going to be, and it’s going up. Quisenberry said 9 and 9. Ryan said yeah. From 15% to 9 and 9.

Quisenberry said one thing I noticed also is in the, in their disclaimer that if we overpay them, they don’t pay back. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Quisenberry said but I also saw that they’re going to now bill us monthly, and we just need to make sure we have some solid information of what 2.72% of their contract is so that we know what our liability is and broken down by the month. Ryan said I think that’s what Smith’s going to talk to them about, because right now we pay quarterly. Do they really want to do monthly, I mean – Smith said yeah, it’s kind of a nuisance. Casey said is that a deal breaker? Smith said no, it’s not a deal breaker, but it’s just a nuisance. But we will ask, to Quisenberry’s point, we will ask that the algorithm be spelled out right on the invoice. That was not happening in the past, and there was no way for us to check it. So, under this new, we want to see, okay, first of all, how is 2.72%, how did you reach that number? Secondly, I’ll apply that to your overall number. I’d like to see a copy of your overall number that you were billed by the township, and then just carry out the math to show what we owe.

Avery said well, are they, I would assume the contract with Independence Township is for a set amount each year. Smith said yes. Avery said so, we’ll know what the 2.72 breaks down to. There’s no, it’s not a fluctuating number. Quisenberry said as I understand, not totally, because we’ll know what the township’s bill is from the county for the year’s service. But reading this, it appears that the township might be adding a little something onto that for their administrative costs and some other costs that they have internally as a percentage of what they have, what they’re billing their people. Avery said they’ve never done that in the past. Smith said no, they haven’t, and there is a clause in here for that. Avery said right. Smith said they initially show that as 0% – Avery said right – (continuing), Smith said but the clause is there – Avery said right – (continuing), Smith said so it could be applied at a later date. Avery said I didn’t read the clause. Does it say they have the ability to change it after we sign the contract? Ryan said well, it says it’s going to be, there’s an administrative fee, and then it says $0. Avery said I’m good with that. Ryan said but there, then the sentence continues, though. That’s right above the clause that says if we overpay, it’s shame on us. So, I don’t know why they put that in there. Avery said well, I do.

Rodgers said this is going to be an ignorant question. Why do we go through that? Like, why don’t we just do it ourselves? Ryan said more money. Avery said economy of scale. Smith said just so, economy of scale. It would cost more. Rodgers said it would cost more. Quisenberry said tremendously more. Avery said and we’re kind of a small fish, and I don’t think the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department wants to negotiate with 800 people. I guess they would if they had to.

Smith said the other challenge is that they’re on, their fiscal year is a calendar year. Our fiscal year is July 1 through June 30th. So that’s why we’ve been caught off guard in the past, that mid-year, which is the start of their new fiscal year, January 1, we’re getting a bill increase. And we’re like, wait a minute, we’re locked in. Our budget was approved all the way through June 30th. But it’s always been a challenge. So, to the extent that we can do this 2.72% times each of these three annual numbers that they’re agreeing to give us now, I think ‘26 and ‘27 were estimates based on that 9% average increase. It might be 8, it might be 10. I don’t know. So, it’s just something we’ll have to watch. And, again, I’d like to see the algorithm right on the invoice before we push this. But we have some work to do on this. We think, Ryan and I think we can get this done in the next two weeks and bring it in three weeks. No, two weeks. On the 24th would be our next meeting.

Ryan said so, I just want to clarify this non-refundable stuff, which doesn’t make it, you know, that seems unfair. And then the language of (c) (unintelligible) is, in addition to the proportionate cost share of law enforcement costs, Clarkton shall pay a monthly administrative fee to an Independence Township of $0 per month for the purposes of covering administrative costs overhead. Well, if it’s zero, why is it even in here? Rodgers said right. Avery said I don’t know, but I like the number. Ryan said well, right, but – Avery said I mean, it nails us down, nails them down. I read it as, well, you can’t go ahead and change that then for the next three years. Ryan said but that’s not to say the next year they might say, well, this has cost us X amount. I mean, it just shouldn’t be in there, that’s all. If it’s zero, it shouldn’t be in there. Avery said but it right, I guess. Yeah. I mean, either way. Ryan said yeah, I know. Avery said yeah (unintelligible.)

Quisenberry said last fall, when we were trying to get our money from Independence Township, and I was at the board meeting in Independence Township when they took a vote on whether they’re going to pay us back or not and whatever, there were several other trustees on the board that commented that Clarkston is getting a better deal than their own residents because their residents are being assessed this fee and that was not factored into what they were charging us. So, he said, what we need to do is the next time we do this contract up, we have to make sure that we put in there something that makes it comparable to what we’re charging our own residents. Avery said they’re charging our own residents an administrative fee. On a contract that – (interrupting Avery), Smith said their, the residents were being charged on both real property and personal property. Avery said right. Smith said and us, they were only charging on real property. Avery said okay. Smith said not a huge number, but still adding in personal property meant that their residents technically were paying more than we were. Avery said but they, we did the formula here. But they, now they’re not even using that as a formula. Smith said yeah. Avery said now it’s just whatever they’re paying, we’re paying at 2.72% of that. Ryan said right, and not to complicate this further, but so we do have an existing police and fire agreement right now. Right. This will take care of the police. We still got to figure out what’s going on with fire. I mean, because they’re breaking it out. Avery said there was one at one time. Ryan said yeah, no, it is right now. The current contract is the same for both. So, we got to figure it out. Quisenberry said shouldn’t we have a separate fire contract. Jones said we will have to now. Ryan said we’re going to have, yeah, right. Jones said we should negotiate on the same thing. Ryan said currently, the contract is police and fire.

Avery said is there a reason why Phyle didn’t just put them together. Smith said well, I think he’s still thinking he’ll use the old algorithm for fire. And because, as he says, there’s nothing wrong with fire. We’re not out of sync with the cost. So, as you know, we can change the fire. Ryan said well, we have to deal with that. Ryan said but they are intertwined. So, when you pull one out, you end up changing them. Ryan said so, we got to get that figured out. If it’s the same, then fine, you know.

Ryan said in this new contract, I’ve forgot to say that the current agreement is terminated for police services. And this was starting January 1st. This is what we’re using.

Rodgers said all right. So, you’re going to bring all this back to us at the next meeting. Smith said that’s the goal. Ryan said stay tuned.

Item 11d – Resolution: Extension of Contractual Clerk Agreement (Video time mark 1:27:55):

• • 03-10-2025 Resolution – Contractual Clerk Agreement (page 47/52 of the council packet)
  • Amendment to Hire Contractual Clerk Assistant Through April 30, 2025 (page 48/52 of the council packet)

Rodgers said all right. Onward. To resolution, extension of contractual clerk agreement. I’m going to read this first.

We’ll get a motion, second, and then we can talk about it.

(Rodgers read the resolution and clarified how to say Guillen’s name.)

Resolution by Forte; second Avery.

Rodgers said any discussion from council.

Avery said I’ll just say that I and, Quisenberry and I are on the finance committee. We’ve met a couple of times. We are working our way through the mechanics of how we’re going to address this. We have a meeting on Thursday. I feel like we’ll probably get some sort of final consensus from the committee, and then we’ll hopefully be back in front of you here in the next few weeks for some kind of resolution one way or the other. I’m not that excited about extending and that we don’t have it finished off yet, but we want to make sure we do it right.

Rodgers said any comments from the public.

No comments.

Rodgers said I guess we have to do a roll call, right. Smith said okay.

Jones, Quisenberry, Rodgers, Forte, Casey, and Avery voted yes.

Rodgers said all right. Smith said it passes.

Rodgers said before I ask for adjournment, does anybody else have anything they want to talk about tonight.

Quisenberry said yeah. I want to ask one thing of the other council members. I was urging volunteers to be a part of the city attorney search committee, and I’m just running into some time constraints, and I know Avery’s on it and Jones is on it. Is there anybody else that wants to be on it? If you do, then I’ll step down. If not, I’ll make it work.

Forte said when do you guys meet? Quisenberry said we haven’t set anything yet. Avery said sometime this week we want to have our first meeting to just kind of lay out what we need to do. Jones said so, we’re flexible.

Casey said I’ll do it. Quisenberry said great. Rodgers said so Casey’s going to take Quisenberry’s spot. Quisenberry said yep. Forte said wonderful.

Rodgers said all right. Thank you.

Ryan said want to do a motion on that, maybe instead of just putting it on the record.

Rodgers said yeah.

Motion by Forte; second Jones.

Quisenberry said I’ll third. Avery said and remove Quisenberry. Forte said and remove Quisenberry. Jones said oh sorry, yeah.

Motion to replace Quisenberry with Casey on the attorney search committee passed by unanimous voice vote.

Rodgers said all right. Passes.

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn Meeting (Video time mark 1:31:36):

Jones said I’ll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second Jones.

Motion to adjourn the meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.

Rodgers said great. Meeting is adjourned at 7:11. Avery said check your email. Rodgers said 8:31.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 03-10-2025 city council packet