Month: December 2021

Posted on

December 13, 2021, City Council Meeting

Note: links to the video recording and the council packet can be found at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted between brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

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

Meeting called to order by Eric Haven.

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

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:21):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Gary Casey, Bruce Fuller, Joe Luginski, Laura Rodgers, and Sue Wylie were present.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:34):

Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Wylie; second Avery.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:00:58):

Haven read the rules regarding public comments.

Wylie and City Manager Jonathan Smith referenced receiving two public comments by email. Haven said that he could read them both.

Haven said that one is from Chet Pardee, and he read the comment as shown below.

Chet Pardee:

Pardee said that he submitted questions to the City’s auditor asking her to comment when she made her audit report, believing that the auditor was a credible resource to city officials.  She chose not to answer the questions when she made her report. Pardee attached the same questions to his public comments of November 22nd inviting Ms. Rodgers and Mr. Fuller to become familiar with the answers.

In the past, the mayor seemed to think Pardee asks financial questions because Pardee needs the answers when in fact, Pardee asks financial questions because the council needs the answers.

Clarkston Secrets [Clarkston Sunshine] quotes the mayor acknowledging the bond millage for infrastructure expenses incurred almost twenty years ago is 5.28 mills. Pardee’s July tax bill was for 4.91 mills. And, yes, the bond existing millage, that represents about one-third of our current total taxes and bond millage, will soon be zero.

In July, Pardee asked the city manager to clarify the fund balance amount assumed when the current budget was approved. The 6/30/21 assumed fund balance presented to the finance committee on 5/11/21 was $429,000. When the proposed budget was presented in the 5/24/21 council meeting public hearing, the assumed fund balance was $196,000. What caused the significant $243,000 change without any discussion with the finance committee? The city manager asked Pardee to provide clarification on his comments. Pardee did so on 8/3/21, including copies of the documents. There has been no feedback from the city manager on the fund balance difference or what appears to be incorrect dates on the chart.

With the audit complete, what was the actual fund balance on 6/30/21? The city has either more or fewer funds than when the current budget was established. It matters because of the current meager capital expense budget of $55,000 is one-fifth of the previous year’s budget. From where will the funds come to repair sidewalks and crumbling pavers on Main Street aprons?

Also, was the American Rescue Plan (ARP) first tranche less than had been publicly communicated? Reference the 9/30/21 September finance document showing $46,200 deposited in the P acct.

With paid parking revenue reduced, the ARP monies will be needed for the matching funds required for the Miller Road repair. Will the second tranche be used to pay for the Clarkston Road at North Main repair, with a similar matching grant, required?

Smith said that he wanted to comment on a couple of Pardee’s comments. Haven agreed. The early fund balance projection of $429,000 was just that, it was a very, very early projection. When they were still getting the numbers together, Smith acknowledged in a meeting, he explained the difference of why that changed. There were several changes, several moving items, and Greg [Coté], our treasurer, corrected Smith on that. So, $196,000 was corrected and Smith made that clear to the city council. Secondly, on the ARP, no, the numbers did not change. Pardee is misreading the treasurer’s report. It was actually $48,200 that they received. Pardee is looking at the net amount because the budget was that they would receive $2,000 in that account. They did in fact receive, in the first tranche, the $48,200 that was promised to them in the ARP. So, everything is on schedule with ARP; nothing has changed there. Haven thanked Smith.

Haven said that there was one other public comment from Cory Johnston, and he read that comment.

Cory Johnston:

There’s a petition being circulated on social media through change.org for a mural in Clarkston to honor Madisyn Baldwin, a former Clarkston student who was killed in the Oxford school shooting. It is in the Village of Clarkston Facebook group if you are interested in reading it, or it can be directly accessed at an address here, petition to paint a mural for Madisyn Baldwin in downtown Clarkston dot chance dot org [the correct web address is: https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-paint-mural-of-madisyn-baldwin-in-downtown-clarkston]. The petition currently has over 27,000 signatures.

The originator of the petition, Daniel Hepler, has apparently discussed this with Mayor Haven and is apparently considering having it at the high school versus publicly displayed in downtown Clarkston. Since any comments by Mayor Haven would have been a personal action versus an official act as mayor, and in keeping with the city manager’s December 2, 2021 communication about the Oxford incident, Johnston thought it would be fitting and proper for the council to consider and address this and any other proposals to honor Madisyn, the other students killed and injured, and the conditions that allow this and other incidents to occur. Please note that his previous email addressed the agenda items for this meeting, while this one is for the public comment announcement section.

Haven said in terms of commentary, he had been in touch with Mr. Hepler, and they talked about various options among which was the high school, and that discussion continues.

No other public comments.

Public comments were closed.

Agenda Item #6, – Recognitions – Rich Little, Frank Schoebel, Bill Basinger & Margaret DaCosta; Recommendations – Kevin Knapp & Robert Sowles (Video time mark 0:07:44)

    • Motion – Planning Commission Appointments (page 4/51 of the council packet)
    • 10-02-2021 Email from Rich Little, Subject: Rich Little – Planning Commission (page 5/51 of the council packet)
    • Undated Letter from Frank Schoebel (page 6/51 of the council packet)
    • Undated Letter from Kevin Knapp (page 7/51 of the council packet)
    • 12-08-2021 Letter from Robert Sowles (page 8/51 of the council packet)

Haven said this was the fun part of the meeting for him for sure because they get to acknowledge people who’ve served magnanimously really in our community. This needs recognition. It’s very, very important. Our little city would not survive if it weren’t for people who wanted to take part in our leadership team.

Haven said they have four of them tonight. They’ve had quite a few of them in recent months. They’ve had a changing of the guard, but they continue to find people who want to serve here. That’s an encouragement to him and he knows to others as well.

Haven said he was going to take them in alphabetical order, but since they have a lady among them, he wants to honor her first, and that’s Peg DaCosta. Haven asked her to stand and thanked her for being there. It’s Margaret DaCosta, but they’ve known her as Peg for years. [DaCosta approached the council table.] Haven said that he just wanted to read it to her:

“When you decided to move from New York City to Clarkston in 1978, it was clearly a classic case of their loss and our gain. Shortly after moving in, you were asked by then-city councilman Richard Weiss if you would consider serving on Zoning Board of Appeals, ZBA. We are so incredibly thankful that you agreed to serve because over the 39 years (Haven said they rounded off at 40), 1982 to 2021, that followed you became the rock on the ZBA, bringing expertise and continuity to the board. When I asked you why you remained on the ZBA for 39 years, you responded ‘since we love where we live, we need to serve our community.’ (Haven said that’s certainly her spirit.) And serve you did. I’m not aware of anybody that has served this community as long as you have. We are the benefactors of your generosity and can’t thank you enough. You recently told me about a case you recalled where the ZBA worked hard to find a compromise solution that would work for both the homeowner and the city. You went on to explain that while such a solution is not always possible, this is the kind of accommodation that you and the rest of the ZBA always sought for your residents. The fact that throughout all the years Clarkston has maintained its unique and beautiful character is proof that you and the board were successful. You’ve been the ideal custodian for our community. On behalf of the rest of city council, and the city staff, and all the residents of Clarkston, thank you for your amazing 39 years of service in the community. We extend our sincerest, best wishes to you for many, many happy years of retirement.”

(Applause. Haven handed DaCosta a plaque. Someone took a photo.)

DaCosta said not all of them had been on the council for 39 years, but she thanked the council for allowing her to be honored this day because it’s been an honor. Haven thanked DaCosta. Smith asked DaCosta to turn around for pictures. (Someone took a photograph of DaCosta with her plaque.)

Haven said they will now return to alphabetical order.

Haven said this is to Bill Basinger. The text is self-explanatory.

“Dear Bill: Thirty years ago, I vividly remember watching you, Michigan’s Assistant Attorney General, commute to Lansing by day and lead Clarkston into cityhood by night. You and your wife Susan immediately recognized the danger of an expanding township engulfing the pristine village we had inherited with the developers turning shops on Main Street into chain food dispensaries and commercializing our homes into cute boutiques. You knew Clarkston needed the protection of being a self-governing city if it was to remain special. The villagers agreed and voted in 1992 to become the City of the Village of Clarkston. It is said we became a city to remain a village. Our fine city is now 30 years old in 2022, happy birthday Clarkston, thanks in large part to the arduous work and perseverance of William ‘Bill’ Basinger. Bill, as you step down from the Zoning Board of Appeals, your final post, you leave it in good stead with people who faithfully love Clarkston, who will serve its residents and follow diligently in your footsteps. We know you humbly shy away from public acclaim, but we would be massively remiss not to mention your many years of service to Clarkston. I thank you for your vision and accomplishment. On behalf of the rest of the city council, the city staff, and all residents of Clarkston, thank you for your years of service in the community. We extend our sincerest best wishes to you and for many, many happy years of retirement.”

Haven asked everyone to give Bill a round of applause. Haven said Basinger is in Florida. He asked Basinger if he wanted to tune in, and he’s too shy to even tune in. Haven asked how they could get this thing to him, and he said through his son, Billy. So, they will do that, they’ll transmit that to Billy, and it’s hopefully clearly expressed there.

Haven said that next in line, and he wanted to make sure that he did it in order, is Rich Little. Haven asked Little to come up, and Haven will stand and read it to him.

“Dear Rich: It is with great trepidation that we accept your letter of resignation from the Clarkston Planning Commission. For the past four-and-a-half years, you have been a valued contributor and professional leader of the commission, carefully monitoring and managing the development of our historic village. Whether you are chairing the Planning Commission, acting as interim city manager, helping your neighbors, or assisting your wife Vickie on Main Street to maintain the beautiful downtown planters, you’re the real deal, Rich, and we have been incredibly fortunate to have you as an active participant in our community. Rich, you’ve brought sophistication, dedication, and accomplishment to the Planning Commission, taking on challenges and forging solutions as a true leader. We will miss you greatly as you step down, but we know you will constantly support the city’s efforts to be the idyllic community your grandchildren will love to visit. On behalf of the rest of the city council, the city staff, and all the residents of Clarkston, thank you for your years of service in the community. We extend our sincerest best wishes to you and Vickie for many, many happy years of retirement.”

Haven’s next comment was unintelligible.

(Applause. Someone took a photo.)

Haven said last but certainly not least, and he can’t be here tonight either, but they will certainly get this to him, is Frank Schoebel.

“Dear Frank: While I certainly respect your decision, I was saddened to see your recent letter of resignation from the Planning Commission. It seems like yesterday, but I am told that you have been on the commission for twelve years now. The city is so very thankful for everything you and the committee have accomplished in those twelve years. Your role as secretary in particular is noteworthy, preparing detailed and accurate meeting minutes in a timely fashion. Additionally, your positive and common-sense contributions to the meeting discussion and decision-making process have always been something I’ve valued, and I know our residents have as well. Clearly, your shoes will be hard to fill. But your commitment to the city has always extended beyond the Planning Commission. You have been on the Mill Pond Association Board for years and are currently the chairperson, with a focus on protecting this vital resource in our community. Most recently, you joined Clarkston’s new biophilic committee, seeking ways to protect our local environment. We hope you will be able to continue in these capacities. On behalf of the rest of the city council, the city staff, and all the residents of Clarkston, thank you for your years of service in the community. We extend our sincerest best wishes to you and Liz for many, many happy years of retirement.”

(Applause.)

Haven said that these are models for us all, and as we move forward in this community, we’re so thankful for the dedicated service of these people.

Haven said now, but the beat goes on, and so they not only want to recognize these people and their service, but they also want to make recommendations for some as they have stepped down here.

Haven said first of all, he wanted to recognize Kevin Knapp. Haven asked Knapp to stand and thanked him. And, for Bob Sowles. Haven said that the letters are in the packet that they distributed to the council. Haven said he appreciated these men’s willingness to serve. They are bringing them on in the wake of, Kevin in the wake of Rich’s [Little’s] departure, and Bob in the wake of Frank Schoebel’s departure. Haven thanked the men for being here and he wanted council to be able to see them for who they are, for those who don’t know you, and Haven said he gets to thank them in person for their willingness to serve in this exceedingly important position, our Planning Commission. Our future really rests in your hands, and they don’t say that glibly. There’s so much going on in our little town. Some have not recognized that, but this is important, it’s our home, so it’s much more important that we prepare wisely for the future and do good planning, and that’s what’s been entrusted to the Planning Commission over time as Rich has led and others in the past. Haven thanked them for being willing to serve here.

Haven told council that there was a motion in their packet for Planning Commission appointments. (Haven read from the motion.) Haven said he would entertain a motion and a second to accept the above list of nominees and then they will have a discussion and any Q & A they would like to have.

Motion by Fuller; second Avery.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about the motion or if they would like to interact with Sowles and Knapp. Haven asked if they wanted to make a speech. (Laughter.)

Casey said that he’s read the letters of interest and he fully supports both of these gentlemen and welcomes them.

Haven asked if any others wanted to grill them. (Laughter.) Haven said no grilling, no roasting tonight, so they are off the hook. Haven said they have a motion and a second, and if there’s was no further discussion or Q & A about this, it’s a motion, so – Haven asked city attorney Tom Ryan if he could do this by ayes and nays or if they had to do it by roll call. Ryan said it’s preferred as a roll call, so he would take the roll call.

Casey, Rodgers, Fuller, Haven, Wylie, Avery, and Luginski voted yes. Motion passed.

Haven congratulated Sowles and Knapp and thanked them so much for their willingness to serve. It’s appreciated.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:20:00; 9/51 of the council packet)

Haven said that the report is in the packet. There are three items there, holiday decorations, downtown streetlighting, and holiday office closing. Haven said he wanted to make one comment. As people leave, if they didn’t see it on the way in, they should look at the gazebo out there and how beautifully it’s decorated, but downtown speaks for itself as well. And what Smith is describing here, Haven wanted to thank the DPW (Department of Public Works) who work under Jimi Turner (DPW supervisor), and of course Toni [Smith’s wife] and Smith for their Christmas tree downtown. Thank you for that. Streetlights and so on.

Haven asked if there were any questions about Smith’s report. It’s pretty straightforward.

Smith said he would like to clarify one thing, because it was questioned on Facebook. The holiday office closing, the hours, the dates. Our policy and procedures manual that they went through last month specifies that if a holiday falls on a non-working day, you take the next nearest workday off. This year, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, for example, are both recognized holidays that they give the staff a day off. Since that’s a Friday and Saturday, and the office is closed both of those days, they moved Christmas Eve day off to Thursday, and Christmas Day they moved to Monday, so they are closed Thursday and Monday to recognize the holiday, as well as, of course, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It looks like a long break, but it’s really only two days off. He just wanted to clarify that, that that’s how that works.

[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #1]

No additional discussion.

Agenda Item #8, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:21:56):

    • 11-08-2021 – Final Minutes (page 10/51 of the council packet)
    • 11-22-2021 – Draft Minutes (page 12/51 of the council packet)
    • 12-13-2021 – Treasurer’s Report (page 14/51 of the council packet)
    • 12-08-2021 – Check Disbursement Report, 11-01-2021 – 11-30-2021 (page 15/51 of the council packet)
    • Carlisle/Wortman, November Invoices (page 18/51 of the council packet)
    • Hubbell, Roth & Clark, July, August, and September Invoices (page 21/51 of the council packet)
    • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., November Invoices (page 25/51 of the council packet)
    • Undated document from PSLZ, PLLC (page 29/51 of the council packet)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Motion by Casey; second Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about the consent agenda that is in their packet. Haven said that for people who didn’t know, that’s a consolidation of final council minutes from 11-8, draft minutes from 11-22, and the treasurer’s report dated 12-13-2021. Those are the documents they have, and the council has had an opportunity to review them. Haven said that there is a motion and a second to accept that consent agenda, and this can be done by “ayes” and “nays,” he thought.

All the council members appeared to vote “aye.”

Ryan interrupted before Haven asked if there were any “nays” and said that he thought that the final minutes for 11-8-2021 should refer to whatever action they take on number 9A on the agenda relative to the motion to go into closed session, which is referred to in these minutes but may be corrected by the action taken later tonight. Haven asked if that was enough to simply mention that at this point. Ryan said that he thought that the motion should be to accept the minutes of 11-8 as subsequently amended because he believed that is what was going to occur hopefully in a little while.

Haven asked if Casey would approve that amendment, and he said he would. Wylie said she would second that. Ryan thanked them.

Haven said that they would subsequently amend the 11-8 minutes once they have gone through the reenactment of the closing which is 9A in their agenda, so given that motion and amendment, motion by Casey and second by Wylie, Haven thought they could do it by ayes and nays, which is usually the way that they do it.

There was no additional discussion.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #2.]

Agenda Item #9, Old Business:

Item 9a – Resolution: Reenactment to Go into Closed Session to Discuss Specific Pending Litigation, Kay Valley v The City of the Village of Clarkston (Video time mark 0:24:15)

    • Resolution: Reenactment to Go into Closed Session to Discuss Specific Pending Litigation (page 30/51 of the council packet)

Haven said under old business, interestingly enough, it’s on their agenda here, is the reenactment to go into closed session to discuss specific pending litigation.

Haven said that this is a reenactment, all right? And the description of this is well-written here, so Haven said he would just read the resolution and sort of reconstruct in their mind what transpired when they had this closed session. As it is presented to them, Haven read from the motion – At a regular meeting of the City of the Village of Clarkston City Council, Oakland County, Michigan, held at the city offices in the City of the Village of Clarkston on Monday, December 13, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.” So, they are making this resolution right now, OK? Haven said present are all of us here, absent, there’s none absent, the following resolution was offered by, and they will come back to that and fill in all of these blanks, because they are going to make a resolution here to that effect, to adopt the following resolution. Haven read from the remainder of the resolution with no further inserted comment.

Haven asked for support for the resolution.

Wylie resolved; Rodgers second.

Haven said that they will take a roll call.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Avery said that he was confused. The purpose of reenacting is because we didn’t have a video? Is there a requirement under the Michigan Open Meetings Act that their meetings have to be recorded? Otherwise – (interrupting Avery), Haven said he would clarify for Avery, that he thought that the sequence was wrong. In other words, they closed the public meeting and the announcement and particular information relative to that going into a closed meeting was not in a public session. So, they closed the public meeting and then voted to go into closed session after that. So, the sequence was wrong. Avery said OK. Haven said so now, in public session, they are just reenacting that. Avery said OK, so what’s the reference to the video camera being turned off? That’s the part he didn’t understand. Haven said prematurely. Haven said he closed the meeting apparently and they obediently sort of turned off the video camera before they gave the reason for the closed session. (Avery said something unintelligible.) Haven said the public session was closed. Wylie said that’s how they know. The camera goes off. Haven said that’s how they know on the outside.

Wylie said that’s how they know it did not happen in open session. The meeting was closed, adjourned to go into closed session, and there’s no vote taking place. Haven said that the sequence was wrong. He asked Avery if that was clear, made sense, and Avery said no, but he’ll vote anyway. Haven said he would explain it (unintelligible). Haven said that he knows that Avery is capable of understanding.

Haven said they have a resolution, and a motion to resolve as well as a second. Motion by Wylie and support by Rodgers.

Haven asked if there was any more discussion or questions. He told the council “Don’t ask any more questions, you guys.” (Laughter.)

Rodgers, Avery, Casey, Haven, Wylie, Luginski, and Fuller voted yes.

Haven said that the motion carries, and they would have gone into closed session.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a – Motion: Depot Park Raingarden Footbridge (Video time mark 0:29:57)

    • Motion: Depot Park Raingarden Footbridge (page 32/51 of the council packet)
    • Artist Rendering (page 33/51 of the council packet)
    • Map (page 34/51 of the council packet)

Haven said that is a motion from the Friends of Depot Park (FoDP) for a rain garden footbridge. Haven asked if there were any FoDPs present. Haven said that Steve Wyckoff [Clarkston Schools Construction Tech program] was there. Haven asked those in the audience if they could come up and chat about it; he wasn’t trying to put them on the spot about a presentation.

Haven said what is proposed as they could see from the motion that has been written for them. (Haven read from the motion). Haven asked for a motion and a second.

Motion by Rodgers; second Fuller.

(Haven continued to read from the motion.) Haven noted that the Historic District Commission (HDC) was going to meet the next night. Haven said they would take the same package to the HDC the next night. In the packet is a diagram. (It was also projected on the screen).

Wyckoff said that the picture was from Jim Breuck, and he asked if their class could put that together. They looked at it a little bit, and fortunately, literally a couple of days after they discussed the project, a gentleman came out of the woodwork and said “hey, you know what, I have a mill, I’d love the kids to learn how to use this mill.” Wyckoff said that they might have a project for it, but the bridge is 24 feet long, and he said no problem, “we’ll cut these 8 x 8 beams.” The kids learned how to do it. He has a pile of logs as big as this room, so the kids can practice, play on it, and be safe. It seems like it would be a great project. They’d put three beams, one on each side, one through the middle, and put the decking down and a handrail. It really shouldn’t take that long, and it would be a great experience for the kids. It will be part of the community. Soon, they are putting up the ice rink too.

Haven said that was wonderful. They really enjoyed working with Wyckoff. It’s been just a pleasure, and to have the kids involved in these things, these are our future citizens. Wyckoff agreed and said just so they know, they put up the walls right here (pointing to the walls in the meeting room). Haven said it was amazing. (Wyckoff said something unintelligible.) Haven said under Wyckoff’s supervision, they did it right.

Luginski said that the only question he had, and with a rendering it’s tough to tell, and they ran into this with the bridge they put up a number of years ago with Bart and Diane Clark who donated generously if he remembers (Haven agreed and said very generously) to get that done and it was ADA compliance. Right? We have to make sure that this is ADA compliant. Luginski said that he knows that this is a rendering, but when he looks at this, it looks like there’s a step up. Wyckoff agreed. Luginski said that we can’t have that from an ADA compliance. Wyckoff said that they have a (unintelligible) teacher at the high school. She’s going to probably try and put a couple of her senior students on this and hopefully take care of that. They have no plans to start this until spring; they’ll be plenty of time to review the plans. Luginski said OK, he just wanted to make sure we do that because we have to make sure that that’s done. Wyckoff said that they don’t want to build it and take it down. Luginski agreed.

An unidentified man in the audience said that the picture is just to give them the concept of the way it looks. Luginski said that’s why he said he knows that it’s just a rendering and it’s not exact, but that’s going to be a concern, that they make sure they do that correctly from an ADA perspective. The unidentified man agreed.

Haven asked if there were further comments or questions.

Avery asked if this was part of the FoDP’s master plan. They presented one to the council a year or two ago. Haven said that was a good question. Haven wanted to know if it was on the chart, and Smith said that it was not on the chart, but it really came about after looking at the individual rain garden. They found immediately that kids were just continuing the way they used to run across there, and now they were running through the new plantings. That was what kind of spurred the thought that they need something there.

Avery wanted to know if they were going to build a fence to kind of keep them from still jumping in other spots. Smith said that in time, the plants will do that for them. The plants will grow in size. Right now, they have some rope kind of extending across the two sides. Avery agreed. Smith said that until the plants are a sufficient size, they might have to keep that rope there right and left of the bridge. Avery agreed. Smith said that they hope that this is a temporary thing until the plants have made their own barricade.

Haven asked if there were any other comments or discussion or questions.

No further discussion.

Haven said it’s just a motion, and they will do a roll call.

Luginski, Wylie, Avery, Haven, Casey, Rodgers, and Fuller voted yes. Motion passed unanimously.

Haven said the motion carried, and he thanked everyone for their hard work. Wyckoff said they were giving their students some (unintelligible). Haven said stay tuned, there will be more. (Laughter.) Wyckoff said he couldn’t wait.

Item 10b – Motion: Rental Housing Certification Program (Video time mark 0:36:40)

    • Motion: Rental Housing Certification Program (page 35/51 of the council packet)
    • 11-19-2021 Letter from Robert Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Rental Housing Certification Program (page 36/51 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a motion relative to a rental housing certification program that they have in their packet described. Haven asked if Craig Strong (code enforcement contractor through Carlisle/Wortman) were there. Smith said that he was present on the phone.

Haven said he would read the resolution and Strong could fill in the details. Haven asked if Michael Radzik (code enforcement contractor through Carlisle/Wortman) was there. Smith said he was on the phone as well. Haven said that was wonderful and read the resolution.

Haven asked for a motion to adopt the resolution before they started the discussion.

Motion by Avery.

Smith said just to be clear, this is just the first step. The thought is that they would need an ordinance change. (Interrupting Smith), Ryan said that they aren’t voting on any money, this is just a motion, they have a proposal to be discussed, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and then come back for any information. Avery said all right.

Smith said that this was just to authorize the Planning Commission to get started on it. Smith said that they would have the opportunity to deny it when they come back if they wish to do so.

Haven said he had a motion and needed a second. Second Luginski.

Haven said there would be discussion. He wanted to know if Strong and Radzik wanted to present now, or how did they want to do this. Haven asked if they wanted to talk to them. They have a two-phase description.

Strong said that the resolution took the words right out of his mouth. This did come about from the last meeting that Strong attended. Smith asked them to put together this proposal that Strong and Radzik did, mainly Radzik, after they found out everything they probably needed to know about the housing stock in the city. Radzik put these two phases together of the up front work that’s going to need to be done and then the second phase is the actual adoption of an ordinance that they put together and also the current property maintenance code. With that being said, Strong will let Radzik kind of run through it real quick. Strong assumed they all had a copy of it. Haven said that it was in the packet, thank you. Strong asked Smith if he was able to get the council a list of the assessing records that they received today. Smith said yes, there is an excel spreadsheet on their desk that outlines the projection, and he underlines the word projection, of what might be the number of rental properties in the city. Strong said that was good, he just wanted to make sure because Radzik is going to refer to those. Strong asked Radzik to explain.

Michael Radzik:

Radzik thanked everyone and said good evening. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2019 American Community Survey, they report about 31% of Clarkston housing units are occupied by people who proclaim themselves to be renters. They don’t know how exactly accurate that is, but that is sort of the baseline, the assumption that they’re making as they move this thing forward. The proposal before council is in two different phases. The first phase has four different tasks.

First and foremost, identify where the rental dwellings are. They are categorized two different ways. One is multi-family rental units, most commonly referred to as apartment buildings or apartment complexes, and then secondly, single-family homes that are made available for lease or rent by the owners. It is not their principal residence, it’s a property that they own and they are using it for investing purposes, to essentially operate a business in a neighborhood by renting it out.

You do that in a couple of different ways. You can obtain from the Oakland County Equalization Office a listing of all of the multi-family buildings that they have in their records in the City of the Village of Clarkston. They reported 14 buildings with a total of 107 multi-family apartment units.

As far as single-family properties go, the County’s baseline starting point to try to determine what may be rented out there is to look at the assessment records in terms of which owners are not claiming 100% PRE, which stands for Principal Residence Exemption. It’s also commonly called your Homestead Exemption. If you’re not claiming homestead, it’s either typically a second property that’s occupied by the owner or in many cases, it could be a rental property. The Oakland County Equalization Office reported that there are only 39 single-family homes in Clarkston that are reporting less than 100% PRE, and they would use that list as a starting point to reach out and contact the owners in an effort to determine whether or not those are rental properties. They would also take a look at the multi-family apartment buildings. A cursory inspection of the exterior, just to see what kind of condition they are in, in terms of property maintenance, which would help give them a handle on the immediacy of having to do code enforcement of the code.

The second task of the first phase is to create a rental property dwelling registration list using all of that data as well as other things. They look online for homes that are being advertised for rent. Radzik did that for a couple of weeks, actually, and he did find one that was advertised within Clarkston. There are other methods they can use to try to locate those and create that registration list.

Once they have that list and have a pretty good handle, or think they have a handle on what’s out there, they would aid the Planning Commission and the council in the development of a rental inspection ordinance along with a fee schedule. This would be 100% supported by fees collected from the landlord. There would be no obligation on the city general fund whatsoever. They would send a draft ordinance as a sample to the city attorney, the Planning Commission, and ultimately to council for their consideration.

They will also request, if the council decides to move forward with this, that they consider adopting (unintelligible) of the International Property Maintenance Code. He reviewed Clarkston ordinances on the website and in Section 150 under Buildings, they adopted the 1996 BOCA [Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.] code of property maintenance ordinance, which was a good ordinance at that time, but BOCA has since gone (unintelligible) and has been replaced across the United States by the International Code Council, the ICC, and the ICC does publish a standard property maintenance code that pretty much every municipality in Michigan uses. Because of that, to be standardized with everyone else and with neighbors, they would request that council consider adopting that 2021 version of that International Property Maintenance Code. It’s a very thick code book, and if they have specific questions, Strong can probably answer them for them. But in a nutshell, the code says whatever building code the structure was built under, you must keep it in good operating maintenance condition. You will not be going into homes that were built under previous codes, say even as far back as the 1940s, 50s, 60s, you will not be going in and asking them to upgrade all of their electrical, and upgrade all of their plumbing to meet the current building code. You would simply say whatever code it was built under, you must maintain it so that it operates properly according to how it was approved. Radzik asked Strong if he was accurate with that, and Strong said that was correct.

Once they’ve gotten through the adoption of the ordinance and the adoption of the more modern property maintenance code, with council’s consent and direction, they would move into Phase 2, which would be implementation. They would like to reach out directly to every single identified landlord, as they do recommend a one-on-one (unintelligible) educational session with landlords to introduce the program, to introduce the set of property maintenance requirements that they would be asked to meet, to answer any questions they may have, and to help give them a comfort level with what they are facing. They don’t want anyone to walk into a scheduled discussion to have the rental property inspected where the landlord has no idea what they are going to be looking at and what’s expected of them. They would like to have educational sessions so that they are fully informed, and they have an opportunity to bring it up to code before they ever get there. That’s the ideal situation.

And then finally, they would systematically inspect all of the rental properties, and any code violations would be cited. They would work with the landlord to get those code violations resolved, and at that point, when it does meet the absolute minimum requirements under the code, they would then certify it for a period of time to be determined by council. Radzik could tell them the standard in Michigan is a two-year certification cycle. Under the state housing code, the State of Michigan says if you do venture into rental inspections, you must inspect at least once every four years, or you can do it more frequently. Most municipalities that have done this and do this have decided on approximately every 24 months, but that’s a decision for city council based on recommendations from the Planning Commission.

The personnel who would be involved in the project, if it moves forward, would be Radzik, Strong, Susan Weaver who is currently the Building Department administrator for Clarkston, and also Stacey Kingsbury, who is currently their code enforcement officer. All four of them would be involved with the project, both in Phase 1 and Phase 2 moving forward.

Radzik said he would be happy to answer any questions.

Strong said that he wanted to go back so that he didn’t misspeak. The only code issues that would be more current than say like an earlier version of a 1970 or prior code that the property maintenance code will require is GFCI outlets around sinks, which is a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter. This is a safety issue (unintelligible) and so is smoke and carbon monoxide detectors which weren’t required back in those days. But they’re not required to be at the same standards as the current code. They don’t have to be in every bedroom, they just have to be on every level of the home, and they don’t have to be hard-wired, they can be battery, or today, we can use wireless too. Strong said he just wanted to clarify that point. Other than that, those three things are the only things that Strong can think of in the property maintenance code that would be different.

Strong asked if there were any questions.

Haven asked the council if there were any questions or thoughts about it. They are just asking to begin the process and the approval would be (unintelligible).

Avery said he thought he was the one who brought it up last meeting because of what was going on with Madison Court, and he thought they didn’t want to be caught off guard with these types of issues that were going on there, so further down the road, that’s why Avery thought it would be a good idea to establish some sort of program, inspection, so obviously, he’s in favor of what they are proposing here. It sounds like it’s not too involved, but it’s important they at least start doing these kinds of things.

Rodgers asked if most cities have something like this in place. Avery said he believed they do. Haven asked if Strong and Radzik heard the question. Strong said a lot of communities do, not necessarily small communities like the City of the Village of Clarkston, but the reason for that is they just don’t have the funds to initiate the program. At Code Enforcement Services, they operate these city building departments, and they are in discussions now with the City of Plymouth and the City of Howell for a rental housing inspection program, but they do currently operate the City (unintelligible) program and have for years. So, to answer the question, yes, most communities in heavily populated areas do; not necessarily the smaller ones.

Fuller said so every person who owns a rental property has to fill out a registration and pay a fee, and if that’s the case, what would that fee amount to. Strong said that would be part of the discussion. What they do is try and keep this revenue neutral, so the taxpayers of the city aren’t paying for this program, it’s actually the property owners that are paying for it. Radzik recently ran some numbers on the monthly cost that would be added to each unit over a two-year period, and believe it or not, it’s very inexpensive. It’s like five bucks a month over the two-year period to pay these fees. So, they are thinking somewhere along the lines of $75-$100 a unit for every two years. If you do that math, it’s really not all that expensive. If they can implement this program for that amount of money, Strong thinks there’s a way to do it, it would benefit all the properties, the property values, and most importantly, the people that rent these places as far as their safety goes. Fuller thanked Strong.

Radzik said that he could provide some background based on his personal professional experience. Prior to coming to work with Code Enforcement Services and Carlisle/Wortman Associates, he retired this past summer from Ypsilanti Charter Township in Washtenaw County. He spent 19 years there. He was administrative director and he (unintelligible) their building, planning, and code enforcement department. Now that is a much larger jurisdiction with 56,000 residents and well over 10,000 rental properties between apartment units and single-family homes. He can tell them that the program was started there back in 2007, and there was a fair amount of anxiety, both among the elected officials and among the landlords in the community in terms of what this would bring. And he can tell them after 12 or 13 years of operating that program prior to his retirement, it was almost universally positive over time, meaning there was a lot of positive feedback from residents in neighborhoods who owned and lived in their homes, because the rental properties on the block were compelled to do minimum upgrades to maintain those properties, and he’s talking everything from the maintenance of the exterior of the property in terms of its curb appeal and how it looks, the maintenance of sidings, gutters, roofs, and grass and so on and so forth. So, they felt as though it helped stabilize, and in many cases, it helped their costs in their neighborhood when they went to sell their home because that rental property down the street that may not have been cared for as well as it should have been was now being cared for and it did not play a negative part in the value of their own home. So, they had very positive feedback from most homeowners. Over time, the landlords reported that the first (unintelligible), they cited thousands and thousands of code violations, but by the second time they came through several years later, very, very minimal, and over time, they found that the landlords felt as though it was actually to their benefit because the properties were maintained very well, and they did hold tenants accountable for certain things that they were reasonably to be held accountable for, so the landlords appreciated that as well. So, those were kind of their experiences, and as Strong said, when you look at it over a two-year certification cycle, the cost to the landlord, if they choose to pass on those costs to their tenant, range somewhere between $2.50 and $85.00 per month, depending on the costs and the fees that are charged.

Radzik said he just completed a study for the City of Howell where he looked at 12 different comparable jurisdictions including Wixom, Brighton, and many others in the area, and that’s what it boiled down to. So, the landlords who might complain and say well, these costs are going to be a burden, I’ll pass them on to my tenants and the rents will go up, council will know in advance and council will know if it comes before them for consideration approximately what the increases might amount to.

Luginksi said that he mentioned $75-$100 per unit, and he knows that’s just a guesstimate, when they say per unit, if he owns an apartment building and has ten apartments, is each apartment considered a unit? Radzik said that with apartments, they also have to include the common areas, so there will be fees for common hallways, laundry rooms, and especially mechanical rooms – that’s where they find the most code violations. The other thing would be the exterior. So, there would be a common area, there would be an exterior, and utility room on top of each individual unit. They have to be able to identify the location of the violation in the system. Clarkston really doesn’t have any major complexes; there’s just apartment buildings like Madison Court. There’s another one right down the street from Madison, which he believes is on Madison as well. They’re not really complexes, they’re just buildings. Actually, the Madison situation doesn’t even have that. They don’t have common hallways. All these units have their own mechanical unit. The other thing that they probably always do and require, there will be an extra expense to the landlord for an HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) certification of the heating plant, so that’s a furnace. They want to make sure that that’s certified by an HVAC specialist that it’s not spewing out carbon monoxide, doesn’t have a cracked heat exchanger. Those are the types of things to look at. It’s mostly life-saving issues. Luginski thanked Radzik.

Wylie said they are just looking at whether the Planning Commission can do some research and recommendation, she thought they could probably easily move on. If they have more questions, they can ask the Planning Commission about it when they either recommend it or don’t recommend it. Haven said that’s true, this offers up an opportunity here. He asked if anyone had anything else.

Haven noted that an audience member, Cara Catallo, had something to say. Catallo said she was wondering if it would include Airbnbs, or if it might be something worth including, whether or not they are operating in the community. She knows (unintelligible) it would seem like if it’s a matter of public safety, it seems like that would fall under that same umbrella. Haven asked what their thinking was.

Smith said short-term rentals, they brought an ordinance before the council. The last step in making that ordinance official is to post the ordinance in the paper for two weeks. They have held off on doing that because the State of Michigan was, what they were told, was any day the legislature could vote on this and supersede everything that they have voted on because they would trump us. So, they’ve been deliberately holding off on doing that final step of making short-term rentals. They will recall they voted to only allow short-term rentals in the commercial district, not in the residential. If that would happen, the one or two short-term rentals that remain in the city would have to stand down their operations within twelve months. So, that is the next step on short-term rentals. They hope, there was just a meeting on this today, they hope that by the end of the year, hopefully, the legislature, the house passed it, the Michigan House passed it, the senate is deliberating it right now and is deliberating, deliberating, so they are hoping by the year end they will pass it or not. So, if they do not pass it, then Smith thinks that they go on and complete the finalization of the city’s ordinance, which means putting it in the paper for two weeks, and that gives the city the final step in passing the ordinance. Now, what Catallo is asking for in the meantime, should they include short-term rentals in this long-term rental proposal, and they could do that if they wish and that could easily be something the Planning Commission could add to their ordinance as a backup, so it’s not just long-term, it’s all rentals.

[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #3]

Avery said he would tend to agree with that, that’s how they need to go with it. If they’re building a unit as a rental unit, either short or long, it should be subject to the same safety procedures and issues that long-termers have. Strong agreed.

An unidentified woman said that it would also include the bed and breakfast then. Wylie thought that was under hotels. Haven said he didn’t know; they would have to apply it when it comes time to do that. Avery said they would look at it. Haven said just like the short-term rentals; they will figure it out when they get there.

Haven said he gets Wylie’s point with regard to drawing this to a conclusion right now, and council just has to decide if they want them to proceed with definition for them.

Haven thought there was a charge for this, for the excellent memo and getting it to a place where they bring it to the council. Haven asked if they were saying they have to adopt it to get coverage, $125/hour on their part, once they adopt it, to cover their use of it, but what does it cost to get there? Wylie said they are just doing research now. Smith said just doing research should be no cost. Haven said no costs? He didn’t understand no cost for research. Smith said that the Planning Commission is going to do all the legwork with the help of Strong and Radzik. There would be no cost in doing that.

Haven said when they said that this would fall under the regular retainer, nothing is free. Wylie said that they are trying to get our business, so they’re not going to charge us for that. Radzik said that the way they have drafted the proposal is under Phase 1, that’s the initial work that they are going to be doing, and certainly, the Planning Commission can do a lot of it. They’re only going to bill for every hour that they work in total, and it’s (unintelligible) $2-$3,000. The rest of the work under Phase 2, that’s going to be coming from the actual inspections, the registrations, right? Smith said that it depends on how the Planning Commission structures it. Radzik said the Phase 1, which would get them up to the point of ordinance adoption, fee schedule adoption, and property maintenance code adoption would all be covered under a not-to-exceed $3,000 hourly rate. Once it was adopted and the program would be implemented, all the fees and costs would be passed on to the property owners. Haven said hourly rate of $25/hour not to exceed $3,000 for the project. Radzik agreed; the hourly rate won’t exceed $3,000. Haven said that the way they have it stated is $25/hour not to exceed, the total aggregate not to exceed $3,000. They get that. So, really there is money involved. They can’t turn a blind eye to that. They are authorizing some work to be done, for sure. Smith said that would be for primarily writing the ordinance wording. Radzik said for everything that is laid out in Phase 1, but the Planning Commission can do a lot of the legwork and save the city money, they certainly are going to be available to help out, and they aren’t going to nickel and dime the city. Haven said they weren’t implying that. That’s not the point. They are just trying to figure out what’s the exposure here, what’s the max exposure.

Ryan said that relative to Radzik and Strong, he appreciated their presentation, as he understands the motion, that there’s no money being spent. This program is going to go to the Planning Commission to discuss what Strong and Radzik, the pros and cons of doing this, and if the Planning Commission feels it has merit, they’re going to bring a recommendation back to the city council to approve this agreement under Phase 1 and Phase 2. That’s why he says there’s no money involved now. There will be in the future if they go forward, but to Wylie’s point, the Planning Commission is going to talk to them about this, discuss the pros and cons, maybe adding Airbnbs in also, and then it will come back to council to vote on whether or not they want to enter into this agreement for Phase I or not. Haven said they are in a development stage, and there won’t be any exposure to the city right now. Ryan said exactly. Haven said OK, that’s the understanding then.

Haven said they have a motion in front of them that they probably should turn into a roll call. Haven asked if there was any additional discussion.

No additional discussion.

Haven said that they are going to put the Planning Commission to work if they agree.

Casey, Wylie, Rodgers, Haven, Fuller, Avery, and Luginski voted yes. Motion carries.

Item 10c – Motion: Waterford Bank 1/2 Marathon November 13, 2022 (Video time mark 1:07:22)

    • Motion – November 12, 2022 Waterford Bank Half-Marathon (page 39/51 of the council packet)

Haven said this was described in the packet and read from the motion.

Haven said that they have given the city lots of lead time, and that’s good.

Haven noted that there was no attachment regarding the referenced road closures, not that it matters, but Smith is going to take care of that.

Ryan said they should also add, and he thought that Angels’ Place has included it, a certificate of insurance, the city should have it, and he knows that it’s a year away, but the council should also include in the resolution or the motion that the bank provide a certificate of insurance with the city named as an added party insured. Haven agreed. That’s typical for the city, but if they want it in the motion, they need to make that clear.

Wylie said that she would make a motion with the addition of insurance included; second Avery.

Haven said that there’s a motion and a second with the insurance description. He asked if there was any other discussion.

No additional discussion.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 10d – Motion: Angels’ Place Race (Video time mark 1:09:16)

    • Motion – May 14, 2022 Angels’ Place Race (page 40/51 of the council packet)
    • Angels’ Place Race Map, One Mile Fun Run/Walk Course (page 41/51 of the council packet)
    • Angels’ Place Race Map, 5K Course (page 42/51 of the council packet)
    • Angels’ Place Race Map, 10K Course (page 43/51 of the council packet)
    • 2021 Angels’ Place Race Sponsors (page 44/51 of the council packet)
    • Certificate of Liability Insurance (page 45/51 of the council packet)

Haven said that the next one is the Angels’ race, and that’s on May 22nd of 2022. Smith said that it was on May 14th. Haven said OK, that’s a change. Haven read from the motion.

Haven noted that they’d included a map.

Haven said that they needed a motion for this.

Motion by Avery; second Casey.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Ryan said that he would just indicate that they have provided a certificate of insurance. That should be just noted for the record so that they are not treating anybody differently, that there is a certificate of insurance with the city as a named party insured, additional party insured.

Haven asked Smith to include that wording in the future as normal, that way they won’t have to revisit it separately each time.

Ryan thanked Haven. Haven thanked Ryan.

No additional discussion.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Item 10e – Resolution: Large Truck Plow Repair (Video time mark 1:10:58)

    • Resolution – Large Truck Plow Repair (page 46/51 of the council packet)
    • 11-26-2021 Parts Quotation, Truck & Trailer Specialties (page 47/51 of the council packet)
    • 03-22-2018 Drawing (page 48/51 of the council packet)
    • Brochure, Underbody Scraper (Page 49/51 of the council packet)

Haven said it’s a resolution, an expenditure, for a truck blade or something like that and asked Smith to describe it to the council.

Smith said coincidentally, he talked recently talked about some of their woes on truck maintenance, most recently with the tires on the small truck that needed replacement. Now, they are talking about the big truck that has a large underbody scraper. That truck was purchased in 2014 and is starting to show some age. Jimi Turner, our DPW director, is a very talented maintenance man. He knows just about anything. He was stymied by this. This scraper would not go down. The hydraulic pressure was not pushing the scraper down. It’s like a big door hinge, and there’s a pin, so it looks like you have a door hinge pin. It’s like a pin was frozen. He tried everything he could to push this down. At the beginning of the fall, they realized they had to take this to a specialist. The company that specializes, and there’s only one, it’s a Monroe brand underbody scraper, and there’s a territory, and the authorization to work on this is very controlled by Monroe. So, Truck and Trailer Specialties out of Howell is our closest branch. Turner took the truck to that location, and they too could not get the blade to go down unless they took the controls off and turned the hydraulic pressure up way higher than it should ever be allowed to go. Then they could get the scraper to go down, but they did not feel comfortable leaving it at that high level of pressure because other things start breaking, your hydraulic hoses start breaking a leak. So, they have put together an estimate of what they feel is necessary to make this operational again. They do have to replace that hinge pin and several other components to make it operational again. They have put together an estimate of $5,069 [$5,069.13], and as Smith said, they are the only company that can fix this. They cannot take it to a competitor.

Haven said they have the money in the budget and Smith has given them a breakdown of where it will come from. Smith said to be honest, they didn’t budget $5,069 for a scraper replacement. They had no idea that this was coming, but they did know that maintenance was always due, so they put maintenance in there. Smith said he’s pulling from three different budgets to cobble together $5,069. They’re all dump truck related budgets, but they’re in three different areas. Smith pulled them together. It is all appropriate expenditure, but it’s a lot. Of course, they don’t like to encounter this.

Smith said that this dovetails into his previous discussion, as he mentioned coincidentally at the outset, that they need to start thinking long-range about what they want to do. Do they need a truck of this size, because if something goes wrong, you just need a cap on your tire, it’s like five bucks, but everything on this truck is massively expensive, so they need to keep that in mind as they look at their options for possibly a smaller truck to replace this big truck, which is now seven years old. Smith said with that, he would answer any questions.

Wylie asked if it was inoperable now as far as a plow. Smith said as far as the plow goes. The rest of the truck looks just fine. In fact, they didn’t leave it there. They brought it back because they needed it for salting last week. So, it works fine as a salter, but it’s just that the plow doesn’t work.

Rodgers asked if it was our main plow. Smith said it’s our main plow, but the front plow on what they call the small truck, which is still a medium duty truck, works just fine for roads. It might take a little bit longer than the big truck, but it works just fine, and it’s actually more maneuverable, just more agile to get into tight spaces. Rodgers asked if in a snowstorm if both of those trucks come out, or is it just one or the other. Smith said yes. They use the big truck for the roads and the small truck for parking lots. Rodgers said so if they didn’t put this new blade on, and there was a snowstorm, or when there’s a snowstorm, the roads aren’t going to get plowed as quickly or the parking lots won’t. Smith agreed. Rodgers said so they need to have two of whatever it is that we choose. Smith agreed. As he said the ultimate proposal would have two small trucks. They don’t require the big CDL [Commercial Driver’s License] license that is required to drive the big truck. If they had two small trucks with front blades and both DPW workers were out at the same time, it would actually get done faster that it does today. So, it would be cheaper and would actually be done faster with two guys out plowing the roads at the same time. But, right now, to answer Rodgers’ question, yes, without this repair, it’s going to slow down road plowing significantly.

Fuller said that so it’s a matter of like a timeframe, whether you buy this 2500 truck to plow, or whether you do this, and if they adopt this proposal, then Smith is still bringing $5,000 on this and then turn around and sell this truck and buy a different truck. Smith said that on the surface it may sound like wasting money, but they are improving the resaleability of this truck (Casey was speaking at the same time as Smith, and his comments were unintelligible). Smith thought it was necessary to fix this, anybody buying this big truck is probably wanting to use it for either snowplowing as we do it or road grading, it’s an excellent road grader for gravel roads. So (unintelligible) operational, and if we tell them that the plow doesn’t work, they might take $10 or $20,000 off the price of it because they don’t know what’s wrong with it.

Rodgers said that the bottom line is right now, we only have one truck. Smith said we only have one big truck. We have a little one that we can use, but it will take a lot longer to her point.

Smith said he’s not jumping, he’s just mentioning the possibility of buying another truck, but he’s not jumping there right now because that’s going to take some time to do all the analysis, bring back the financials for approval. That might be a three, four, or five-month steady project to bring a new truck purchase proposal to them. Right now, Smith is just suggesting that they have to do this improvement, or this repair. He thinks either way, even if we sell this truck, he thinks they are going to want this repair done.

Luginski wanted to give a little context, briefly, about the truck. When they purchased that truck, so there was a grant that they got for that truck, and the reason they went with such a large one over what they had before was because when they get especially heavy snows, that truck is able to have a (unintelligible) into it, and it would be hauled away, and so there’s a need. They didn’t just buy this massive truck because they wanted a big truck, you know. There’s an actual need for that truck, so he knows they’re talking down the road. He’s not sure that getting two small trucks is the right answer. He knows it’s more expensive, but again, they bought this truck, and they got a grant that paid for the vast majority of that truck, so it didn’t really cost us that much to get it. So, yes, the repair costs are a little higher, but there’s a lot of uses that they can get from that big truck. So, when it comes time for that, they just need to keep that in mind. Smith agreed, and said they’ll talk about the pros and cons of having a big truck at that time for sure.

Haven said that the snows have been more minimal in the last few years, haven’t they? He remembers the days of Mike [Speagle] loading that big truck, but they haven’t seen that in quite a while. Luginski said that the day they get rid of that big truck, they’re going to get tons of snow.

Wylie said that she would make the motion for the resolution to authorize the city manager to contract for this new underbody scraper in the amount of $5,069.13 as broken down into each of those budgets as stated in the resolution; second Luginski.

Haven asked if there was any more discussion.

No additional discussion.

Luginski, Rodgers, Wylie, Casey, Fuller, Avery, and Haven voted yes. Resolution passed.

Item 10f – Motion: Cancellation of 12-27-2021 City Council Meeting (Video time mark 1:20:15; 51/51 of the city council packet)

    • Motion – Cancel the December 27, 2021 City Council meeting (page 51/51 of the council packet)

Haven said that he thought this was their favorite motion throughout the year for cancellation of the city council meeting that would otherwise have been held on 12/27/2021.

Motion by Luginski; second Avery.

Haven asked for discussion.

No discussion.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Haven said motion carries; Merry Christmas everyone.

Smith asked if someone named Paul [no last name provided] wanted to say anything about the Angels’ Race. Paul said no unless they had any questions. Smith said that Paul was there from the Angels’ Race. Haven said thank you. Smith said that council gave the approval, so they are good to go. Paul thanked them. Smith said he didn’t know if he was there when they were talking. Paul said he was.

Fuller said he didn’t know that he was there and wanted to ask a question. Paul said sure. Fuller said that they talked about closing down Main Street at two different points for five minutes. Paul said five to eight minutes. The 10K runners will run fast, and it’s a smaller group, and then the 5K group will be a little larger and may be ten minutes, but it’s always the southbound, it’s not the northbound. Paul has worked with the Oakland County Sheriff for the last twelve years. It’s their fifteenth year. The last two years were a virtual race, but prior to that, it’s been twelve years working with the Oakland County Sheriff and it works very smoothly. It’s minimal disruption there.

Jennifer Speagle (City Clerk) said that technically, when she calls MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) to close this, she will do it for a half hour to an hour. She will request an hour, but that doesn’t mean that it will be closed for the full hour, that’s just because you just don’t know what’s going to happen during the race. You can’t guess at how fast or how slow people are going to go, so she normally requests an hour for it to be closed, but as soon as everybody’s through, the road opens.

Haven asked if there was anything from the Lieutenant Hill. He said no, it runs pretty smooth. They’re there early enough, and like he said, they judge things in (unintelligible) closures, and should minimize the amount of inconvenience to the citizens.

Luginski said that as a resident of Main Street and there’s a few others here, they can close it all day. (Laughter) It would be perfectly fine with him. (Unintelligible comments and laughter.) Luginksi said it’s the same route that they’ve always had, and it’s never been an issue, so it’s fine.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:23:06):

Haven said he said Merry Christmas prematurely; he’s so sorry. They need a motion to adjourn.

Motion by Wylie; second Rodgers.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.

Resources: