October 11, 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.

[The sound quality was so much better – thank you to whomever was responsible for that! 😊]

[Though I’m still working on the three meetings from August and September, as well as the June 28^th budget meeting that required a FOIA request to obtain, I thought it was necessary to work out of order and provide the informal minutes for the October 11th city council meeting because of the way that that Mayor Eric Haven treated certain members of the public and a fellow council member. I think it’s important to see what Haven is really like when he drops his mask, especially since he’s pushing three candidates for city council. Two of Haven’s candidates are write-in candidates, and these two write-ins mirrored Haven’s language in their own campaign literature. Even though there was no candidate forum on the agenda, Haven’s two write-in candidates appeared to be specifically invited to make “public comments”; one of them said that he’d spent hours writing his speech.]

Agenda item #1, Call to Order

[This was missing from the video; unknown if the meeting was formally called to order. The video started with the Pledge of Allegiance.]

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

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:17):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie were present. Gary Casey was absent.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:30):

Haven asked for a motion to accept the agenda as it had been presented to council for approval.

Motion to approve the agenda by Wylie; second Luginski.

Haven said that he wanted to make a small addition. He wanted to add a small For Your Information right after the approval of the agenda.

Wylie said that she would make a motion to add that to the agenda; second Luginski.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda with a “For Your Information” addition was passed by unanimous voice vote.

New Agenda Item #5, For Your Information (Video time mark 0:01:26):

Haven originally said that this was the time for public comment but noted that he wanted to make his announcement.

Haven said that he wanted to thank the Daughters of the American Revolution for the event that they held in the park on Sunday. Haven wasn’t sure how many people attended, but it was an enjoyable event. Haven had never been to an event in the Lakeview Cemetery before, and he learned a great deal. They had historical vignettes beside many of these family plots in the cemetery. It was very interesting, and Haven thinks that they are going to come and see us one of these days and tell us what they are up to. Haven said that he just wanted to acknowledge that as we begin the meeting.

Haven asked if there were any other For Your Information notices, and there were none.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:02:18):

Haven said he wanted to preface the public comment tonight because we have a closed meeting that involves (unintelligible) West Washington. There are some people here who would like to speak to that. There will be a closed meeting, but this is an opportunity in the open meeting to make your public comments. Haven noted that Mr. Adler had a written request, so Haven invited him to go ahead, and then Haven said that he would entertain any others.

Robert Adler:

Adler said that he’d never been to a council meeting in this room. It’s very nice, it’s much better than a Zoom meeting, and he thanked everyone for their time.

Adler said that he and his wife just returned from Bay Harbor, and he thought it was appropriate. The Bay Harbor was one of the original Chautauquas. Someone from the audience said Harbor Springs. Adler said that Bay Harbor and Harbor Springs are next to each other.

Adler said that they were there at the inn, they were talking about the last time that they were there, and it was 1985. Adler accompanied Gretchen to present the Bayview Inn with a plaque for their hundredth anniversary. She was the secretary of the state historical society at that time. Adler said that they have been involved with the historic movement for many years at various levels.

Tonight, they’re going to have a meeting of the historic commission [Historic District Commission, or HDC] and the city commission [City of the Village of Clarkston City Council], and Adler thought it was appropriate that he was there with his roots of Methodism and the Temperance Society and the fact that the Bayview Inn now has a bar. You can’t sit at the bar; you have to stand. That was the concession.

Tonight, this is a very big issue. The mayor recently had a nice article called “A Very Big Deal,” and tonight, what you’re going to do is a very big deal too. What he implores them to do is to follow the law. What’s very interesting, when Adler went to the State Historic Commission, after the meeting, the chairman told him that Adler must realize that they speak for these inanimate objects that cannot speak for themselves, regardless of the law. Adler said he wanted to say that again. This is the chairman of the State Historic Commission. They speak for these inanimate objects regardless of the law. Mr. Ryan is here [Tom Ryan, City Attorney] to guide you in that area.

Please. Follow the law. And now, he’s an old dog, and like all old dogs, he’s used to eating at a certain time, so Adler said he was going to bid them adieu and thanked the council for their time.

Haven asked if anyone else would like to make a public comment. He said that Adler was very good and precise with his timing, and Haven wanted to remind everyone that there is a three-minute allocation.

Paul Rottarr:

The speaker said that his name was Paul Rottarr, and he is a tenant at 35 Madison Court Apartments. He said that he introduced himself a couple of weeks ago kind of abruptly at the end of a meeting because he couldn’t get there on time. He wanted to make a little bit of a follow up. He doesn’t understand why, as a taxpayer, he has to struggle with getting assistance from the council. He’s spoken to Mr. Smith [Jonathan Smith, City Manager] – he called his office, he can’t say that he spoke with him – over twenty times and plus visited for the four-and-a-half months that he’s been without – to relinquish a little bit, the city attorney mentioned that he wasn’t aware of it. Well, Rottarr made Mr. Smith aware of it, and Craig Strong [Clarkston’s Building Inspector, contracted through Carlisle/Wortman]. The lack of any progression is very disheartening. It makes it difficult. David is a very good friend of Rottarr’s and his neighbor. Rottarr started this thing against the landlord because in the wintertime with all the snow, he couldn’t get out and his caregivers couldn’t get in.

So, once the remodeling of the bathroom – and Rottarr said that he’s probably jumping around – the landlord said in May he would be happy, two weeks, your bathroom would be done, here’s two months for your rent. Rottarr said he mentioned to Mr. Smith, he talked to Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong has been helping. He’s been trying to do what he can. He thinks he’s been put under the bus and Rottarr can see why.

Rottarr doesn’t understand why it takes so much to do so little. Nothing’s been done. Rottarr said his human rights, disability, ACLU issues, it’s like the city is siding with (unintelligible). At any rate, Rottarr thinks it warrants further investigation. Rottarr won’t be here because his lease is up. But for five months, he moved into the city so he could get in here, get a hip replacement, walk around, enjoy the summer. None of that’s happened. Rottarr didn’t know if it was lack of communication. Rottarr said that the city attorney made such praise of Rottarr’s landlord’s choice of attorney, well, Rottarr’s landlord is an attorney, and a doctor, and a cosmetic dentist. So, apparently, the funds have something to do with it, but Rottarr wasn’t going to make insinuations, although he said that he just did, but again, he thinks we need to revisit it.

Rottarr said his lease is up at the end of the month. It’s a shame that tenants have to get to this point where – you know, David has been putting up with this for years. He works, tries to go to work, every week, pay his rent, and to be treated like this, and letting the city council seem to just fester and let it happen, in Rottarr’s opinion, is a travesty.

Rottarr said that more than anything else, it was just a comment. If you have any questions, again, Rottarr tried to tell the city attorney to please contact him. None of that’s been done.

Rottarr still doesn’t have a bathroom and has photographs showing where the asbestos is falling from the ceiling, the water is still on the floor, and the black mold is on the walls. It’s been that way since May 24^th.

Ryan asked if it was true that Rottarr was offered a chance to relocate to – (interrupting Ryan) Rottarr said that wasn’t him it was the other – (interrupting Rottarr) Ryan said that Rottarr was in Unit #4, correct? Rottarr said that’s right. Ryan said that Units #3 and #4 were offered a chance to – (interrupting Ryan) Rottarr said no one contacted him. Ryan said that’s not our information. Rottarr said then Ryan has the wrong information. Rottarr said he would love to see the information that Ryan has because it was never offered to him; he would have taken it. Ryan said he’s not trying to argue with Rottarr, and they were told – (interrupting Ryan) Rottarr said why don’t you sit down with Rottarr outside of the meeting and compare notes because Ryan is wrong.

Rottarr said that he’s talked to legal aid, he’s talked to the attorney general, they said – his attorney is only authorized for Apartment #3, not Apartment #4. His attorney won’t speak to Rottarr. Rottarr said he can’t speak to his attorney because he’s not authorized. It was never offered; obviously, if it was, Rottarr would have done it. Rottarr has been letting him in every month, three or four times a month, to come into Rottarr’s apartment to look at it.

They just now had a rough inspection. That failed. Four and a half months ago. They should have pulled the inspection in May, when they tore it apart. A rough inspection in October? It should have taken two weeks. It’s the landlord. But no. And Rottarr takes offense to Ryan’s comment. No one has offered it. Rottarr said if Ryan was siding with him, it just supports Rottarr’s – (interrupting Rottarr ) Ryan said Ryan was just telling Rottarr the facts that Ryan has been told by Mr. Strong, who’s our building official, and by the attorney for the landlord. Ryan has not talked to the landlord. Ryan was told that Units #3 and #4 were offered a chance to relocate and declined. Rottarr said yes for #3. Rottarr asked if Ryan could provide such facts so Rottarr can – (interrupting Rottarr) Ryan said he just told Rottarr who told him. Rottarr asked Ryan if he could show evidence that Rottarr was offered something that Ryan is saying, which he wasn’t.

Rottarr said that he knows that this isn’t the forum for this, but he told Ryan two weeks ago that they should sit down and talk, and again, Ryan declined because you’re not – (interrupting Rottarr) Ryan said that wasn’t true. Ryan said he told Rottarr that he was going to make a phone call the next morning, which he did, to find out what was going on. Ryan provided the council with an update from Mr. Strong as to what’s going on and what’s happened. In that outline is that Units #3 and #4 were offered to relocate back in May and declined.

Haven asked Ryan if they can get something in writing to that effect. Rottarr is asking for information he doesn’t have. Rottarr said it wasn’t offered to him, but it was offered to #3. Rottarr knows that because he helped her through that. She moved out July 11^th. Ryan said OK. Nothing’s been done except they work on Apartment #3 and the asbestos falls into Rottarr’s apartment. Ryan said he understands that.

Haven said he wanted to stop Rottarr for now and asked Smith if he would give the council a report next meeting regarding what’s transpired here. Smith said absolutely. Haven said they needed to move along, but he wanted to give deference to Rottarr’s position. Rottarr said that if he would have been given the offer, he said two weeks, we’ll have it done, I’ll comp you two months’ rent for the two weeks inconvenience. That was May 24^th. Haven asked Rottarr to write things down because that will help them. Rottarr said he has all of it, and he was just trying to bring, but he knows if he would have been offered that, certainly he would have taken advantage of it. Ryan said it seemed to him that it would be – (interrupting Ryan) Rottarr said he’s on a very limited income, on disability, and he moved in to have hip replacement in November. Ryan said that Rottarr had said that, and he understands that. Rottarr said if he would have been offered that, he certainly would have taken it. But at any rate, it should be – (interrupting Rottarr) Haven said that he understands, it’s urgent, he gets that, and Smith will follow up and give us a report next meeting on what the situation is, but we need to document everything.

Rottarr said that when he’s gone, at least look out for David because this is what started all this, there’s no place for any of the renters to go to get some sort of recourse for these types of problems. At least address that issue. Haven said that he talks to David on a regular basis. Rottarr said David is his neighbor, but mostly, he’s Rottarr’s friend. Haven said exactly, he gets it.

Rottarr thanked the council. Haven thanked Smith for following up on it.

Haven asked if anyone else had public comments.

Chet Pardee:

Mayor Haven’s recent communications emphasize what is important in Clarkston: authenticity, charm, our brand, and things historical. Unfortunately, these are the very things at risk due to council not acting to resolve the critical issue of city finances. Pardee said he hears no one, and he emphasizes, no one, expressing feelings antagonistic to authenticity, charm, our brand, and things historical.

If it’s true the mayor’s communications only serve as a vehicle to endorse his favored candidates, he does not explain how his favored candidates will protect the critical attributes of the village. Not resolving the city’s financial challenges puts these descriptions and the City of the Village of Clarkston [COVOC] at risk.

Is it understood and can it be explained why one-third of our property taxes pay bond debt from the years 2000 and 2007? Is it understood and can it be explained why the current budget for capital expenses is one-fifth of the previous year’s budget?

When council conducted the city manager’s performance review, did it ask what council could do to support the city employees? Oh, didn’t ask. Oh, never provided the performance review he requested. Never, in five years?

Yes, it takes a mind and a spine to resolve the city’s financial issues. A mind which understands, a mind which considers solutions and a spine to acknowledge and provide the political will to implement solutions. The mind and spine have not been demonstrated by council leadership to protect the authenticity, charm, our brand, and things historical.

Infrastructure repair, beyond Depot Park, is required. Historic does not infer “broken.” Yet, streets, sidewalks, and pavers put the safety of our residents and visitors at risk. The city does not need more place holders or station keepers in council positions. Capable, committed council members with the ability to understand, consider alternatives, and implement solutions to the city’s financial challenges, are required for Clarkston to continue as a City of the Village of Clarkston.

Haven thanked Pardee for his comments. Haven said that he wanted to reiterate what he’d told Pardee in the past, that he really appreciates Pardee giving the council his comments in writing because it helps them assess what he’s saying.

Haven asked if anyone else had a public comment.

Laura Rodgers:

Rodgers introduced herself, said that she currently lives at 58 North Main, and said that she’s running for council as a write-in candidate. Rodgers said that she and her husband Jim have lived in the Clarkston area for more than thirty years and recently purchased one of the historical homes on Main Street at 58 North Main. Three years ago, to be exact, in 2018. They are currently at the end of the process of renovating their home.

Rodgers said that she fell in love with the Village of Clarkston many, many years ago after moving to Michigan. She was drawn to its charm, to its history, and to the small town feel that you can’t get anywhere else around. It is where they chose to raise their two children, attending Clarkston High School and as members of the Clarkston United Methodist Church. Rodgers said that they have been fully engaged in school, in sports, in church, and in the community for our thirty years in the community.

Rodgers said just a little bit about herself, educationally, she graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a nursing degree way back when in 1985, from Oakland University with her master’s in nurse anesthesia, and most recently four years ago from the University of Michigan with her doctorate degree in in anesthesia practice. Rodgers said that she’s currently a nurse anesthetist at Beaumont Hospital where she does her clinical work and work as faculty at Oakland University as a simulation (unintelligible) in the school of anesthesia. She’s also a District II Director for the Michigan Association of Nurse Anesthetists and has done so for the last three years.

Critical thinking is the basis of all of her decision making and it’s an attribute that she’s built on over the last thirty-five years in her profession, and she’s well-respected for her ability to independently and critically think through situations. Rodgers said that she felt that this is a skill and an attribute that will greatly benefit her as a city council person, basing her decisions not on emotion but on evidence-based presentations while collaborating with experts that are in the field that she’d be (unintelligible).

Rodgers said that she’s also a wife, a mom, a friend, and most recently, a grandma and these are the aspects of her life that she covets the most.

Now that she’s moved to the Village of the Clarkston and is nearing the end of the renovation of their home, she’s anxious to get involved in and move back to the little town of (unintelligible). Apparently, there are those that believe that simply by having had to move out of her home for a year for these renovations to take place that somehow, that makes her less in a position to fill the role as a city council person. [See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #1.] This couldn’t be farther from the truth. In the year that Rodgers spent living with her daughter while the renovations and improvements were made to make their house and home safe and preserved, she has come to realize that she missed Clarkston more than ever and is really ready to get back here and give back to the little town that she adores so much.

(Interrupting Rodgers) Haven said that Rodger’s three minutes were up and asked her to finish.

Rodgers said that what she wants to say is what she brings to this position is a sense of wanting to preserve the small sleepy town that we live in. Rodgers feels that people came – and herself – came to Clarkston because of what it presents. She feels that the commerce in town benefits from what we have in place, and she wants everyone to know that she’s a very independent thinker. She thinks for herself and that has never and will never be a question in her mind and hopefully not yours. So, if you find it in your heart to have a write-in candidate, Rodgers hopes that it’s her, and if you want to spell her name, it’s R-o-d-g-e-r-s. Rodgers thanked the council.

Haven asked if anyone else had public comment.

Bruce Fuller:

Fuller introduced himself and provided his address. He is also running as a write-in candidate for city council. Since he spent so much of his day composing and rewriting this and hasn’t done a lot of writing in a while, he’s going to tell his personal story and his resume.

Fuller said that he was a public school educator for thirty-five years and is now retired, and there’s a lot more to that that he would like to share if they’re interested.

Fuller said he would read from his prepared text because he’s not as adept at public speaking as others are.

Fuller thanked everyone for the opportunity to share some of his thoughts with them. First, Fuller wanted to thank and acknowledge the council for their service to the community. Since Fuller has chosen to compete as a write-in candidate for city council, he has become aware of the competing challenges that the council faces. Knowing that his word selection and comments will be scrutinized, he will try to stick to the composition that he has prepared.

Fuller believes that we live in a beautiful and wonderful community. To illustrate this point, he wanted to relate a story that he’s told many times that describes the different experiences his family had had while living in Royal Oak and what they experienced when they moved to Clarkston. Although they had many nice neighbors in Royal Oak, they experienced (unintelligible), his wife and Fuller as well as his three small children they were raising at the time. Incidentally, both of their homes were on the route to local high schools. While living in Royal Oak, they experienced incidences of vandalism. Every Halloween, they would find (unintelligible) pumpkins smashed on their porch. One Christmas, someone took the initiative to cut the string of lights on their bushes. On another night, three boys decided to cover their front door with eggs. Fuller knows there were three, because he chased them as far as wind would take him. Since they’d had zero interaction with the local teens, they couldn’t imagine why they were getting that kind of attention.

Forward to their move to Clarkston. Soon after their arrival, Fuller was walking downtown by way of Robertson Court. A young man that he discovered later lived at the corner of Main and Robertson Court was approaching him. As they came closer to each other, he offered a cheerful “hello.” Fuller was a little taken aback, and his first reaction was to look behind himself and see if he was addressing someone else. Such a simple yet (unintelligible) moving encounter.

Shortly after this meeting on the sidewalk, it was Halloween. Fuller and his wife took the children out to trick or treat. They turned on the porch light with the pumpkins and placed the bowl of candy on the step in a kind of self-service distribution system. They set out. At that time, the area north of the village was more rural, so many children came into town to trick or treat. The sidewalks of Main Street and Holcomb were packed with costumed children who were walking accompanied by their parents who were greeting neighbors as they supervised their children. Many homes were decorated and brightly lit. Fuller said that he would never forget the home on Main Street where the owners invited the kids into the foyer of their beautiful historic home which they used a tablespoon to dip for pennies from a bowl. In the whole, it was a wonderful sight to behold. When they arrived back home, the pumpkins were lit and intact. The candy bowl was about half full. This experience was the same every subsequent year until the children were grown and no longer wished to be escorted on their rounds by Mom and Dad.

Again, a simple yet affirming experience. To Fuller, this spoke loudly about the character of this community, one that reflected traditional American values of respect, America, and love of place.

Fuller asked Haven how he was doing on time, and Haven said his two minutes were up. Fuller was surprised. He’d spent all day writing and hoping he’d get four minutes and could do a page in one minute.

Fuller said fast forward to what he thinks is essentially the city, and he loves the city. He thinks that all of us do and that goes without saying. Fuller thinks that standing behind the zoning ordinance is essential. The desire of the historic district to preserve our Clarkston heritage is vital to our community. Homeowners in the historic district need timely support and guidance from the HDC, but at the same time, homeowners residing in the historic district need to appreciate the mission as well as the (unintelligible) of historic districts. Fuller understands the challenge of maintaining an old home. Although it’s hard to tell by looking at his current residence by its appearance, it was originally built in the 1870s. These homes are often difficult and expensive to maintain. The HDC’s interpretation of federal laws that govern historical districts must be clearly conveyed to homeowners. It is absolutely essential that interpretations of any (unintelligible) law be worked out between the homeowners and the Historic District Commission before the homeowner makes a significant investment in their home and may not gain the approval of the Commission.

Fuller said he’s said some words here about the commercial district and how wonderful it is. He does not regard it as a food court with a road running through it as someone put on the site Clarkston Secrets web page, and Fuller does believe that (unintelligible). Fuller said he would skip over (unintelligible). [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #2.]

Fuller believes that we need to be proactive and secure (unintelligible) industry, ones that don’t rely on increased property taxes and increasing our tax base by (unintelligible) development that will not enhance our community. He believes that council needs to actively pursue financial support from community groups and businesses and in turn for (unintelligible) recognition for their generosity. Fuller thinks SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments] needs to be pressed (unintelligible) for their fair share of monies (unintelligible) for municipalities with infrastructure legislation, state and federal grants that have proven valuable to our city should be actively pursued. At the request of our mayor, Fuller has made contacts with (unintelligible) office. They have responded positively with offers to work on our behalf and contact the agencies that we’ve applied to for federal grant monies. We need to grow these alliances and government entities to gain their support and regulatory control, and to respond to someone who questioned whether he knows where he lives, he’s lived here for thirty-four years and he voted for the village to become a city. So, Fuller knows that this place is a mouthful, but he does know that he lives in the City of the Village of Clarkston.

Pardee asked if it was possible to ask Ryan to comment on the point of Rodgers’s residency, the duration required in order to be a candidate when he understands she hasn’t been in the house for more than a year. Haven said that it’s a technical detail that he didn’t want to discuss but Pardee will have plenty of opportunity to bring this up. Haven said that they would probably hear about it in Pardee’s comments next week.

Ryan said that his understanding of the law is that as long as your intention is to live in the property where your principal residence is, which he understands is her principal residence, and that there is an allowance if you are renovating and have to move out of the home, but your intention is always to live there, and that’s evidenced by your driver’s license, your voter’s ID card, and your principal residence exemption in the State of Michigan. You only get one, and that is your residence. It’s your intention. If your house burns down, and you have to rebuild your house, just because you’re not living on the property for however long it is, doesn’t mean that’s not your goal, that’s not your intention, to live and have your residence at that location. You don’t have to physically live there if there’s some external factor that’s afoot, as long as your intention is to live there, and that intention is shown by your principal residence exemption, your voter ID card, and your driver’s license. It’s a personal decision to be made which has a lot of indicia of how, where do you want to live and, you know, that’s shown by that (unintelligible), so Ryan said that’s his statement relative to whether or not people have to live in their home if there’s some reason they can’t physically live there for some reason. [See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #3.]

Bonser asked if the city clerk verifies that information. Speagle said yes.

Haven asked the next public commenter to introduce herself.

Leah McLean:

Ms. McLean provided her residence address. She said that she didn’t intend to speak, but she (unintelligible). When she renovated their home four years ago, someone approached her and asked her to run for the HDC or the city council. It’s a perfect opportunity to speak because she was approached by council to fill this space, and she said that she would do it. McLean was told that because she didn’t live in her home that was under renovation that she could not. Ryan asked by whom. McLean said that Jonathan Smith told her that. Where did that come from? Smith asked if McLean had filed her PRE [principal residence exemption?]. Ryan asked if it was a new residence. McLean said no. Smith said that you were renovating. Speagle said that she wasn’t here, but from what she was told, McLean’s address was still at her previous address. McLean said that she lived in the village the year before that in a rental home; they had sold their house a year before, a year and a half before, actually. McLean was told she couldn’t, and she decided that she would follow the rules. McLean thinks this speaks to process. The process changes, depending on who’s asking. McLean has had the good fortune, Smith started his stretch with the city the same time McLean became a member of the village, and it would come up in these meetings while they were trying to build and when they were trying to renovate, and McLean wondered how could the process be so inconsistent, whether it’s with the HDC, or it’s with the Planning Commission, or the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals]. We have to have consistent process. It has to be discussed and hammered out. Because if this is true for Rodgers, and she gets to hold a role because this is the process, great, but we can’t keep changing. And that’s what pushes people away from the city – it changes with the wind, depends on who’s asking. McLean said she doesn’t know what truth is. She was then approached for something else, and it was the same thing – you haven’t been here long enough.

Melissa Luginski [HDC] asked McLean what her address was? McLean said it was in the village, but before she moved into her home. McLean said (unintelligible) Washington. Luginski wanted to know if it was near Parke Lake or was it further? Luginski thought McLean was out of the village – is McLean sure she was in the village limits, is she positive? McLean said that she lived at the extension of East Washington. Luginski thought that was the township. McLean said that what she thought was important was – an unidentified person interrupted and asked if it was on Parke Lake, and McLean said it was. Luginski said that there is a part of Parke Lake that is in the township and thought that McLean was on the boundary because the East Washington boundary ends at the cul de sac. (Cross talk, unintelligible.) McLean said that she was beyond the cul de sac, but that also speaks to the fact that she also owned and was paying taxes on a house that was being renovated, so where does that fit. Luginski said it’s the PRE.

Ryan asked where was her principal residence? What address was that? McLean guessed that was a technicality because they hadn’t switched it to her Main Street address. She’d have to look at her license to find out when – (interrupting McLean) Ryan said to let him just say that he knew nothing about this, nobody shades anything, if McLean wants to bring that up, he would be happy to look at it, but there is a part of Parke Lake that is in Independence Township – (interrupting Ryan) McLean said that’s fine and she agrees, but we are talking about her residence on Main Street. McLean said that she just wants there to be process that is clarified on many topics. Ryan said that he just explained that, respectfully, in that it’s your driver’s license, your voter ID, and your principal residence. McLean said sure. Ryan said if she wants to go back and look at where all those were then, and McLean said she will. Ryan said he would be happy to look at it, but nobody is trying to shade anything for anybody.

McLean said she’s just trying to bring it into the awareness. It’s not just this. There are inconsistencies with process in general in the village, within these commissions and boards, and on the council. She’s just calling it into light to say come on, we’re better than this, we can change. Ryan said that there are many people that say that, but yeah, that’s your opinion and that’s understandable, but you know. McLean said that she’s going to imagine that there can be better, Mr. Ryan. Ryan said that there always can be, no question. McLean said absolutely. Ryan said we are trying to do this. McLean said that she just wanted to make sure that we’re consistent and all on the same page.

Haven thanked McLean for the speech and asked if anyone else would like a public comment.

Christopher Moore:

Mr. Moore introduced himself, gave his address, and said he was also a write-in candidate for this year’s election. Moore said he likes storytelling, so he was going to tell a couple of stories. It’s about the last couple years of difficult decisions and ethics and (unintelligible).

Moore said that in his administrative position, he deals with a lot of things. Just a few months ago, he received a phone call from a medical student who he is in charge of, in a physician’s office, and that physician was showing this female women in bikinis, inappropriate photos, and things like that. She called Moore, distressed. Moore pulled her off that physician’s rotation and immediately removed him from faculty. It’s not fun doing it to people in your own profession, but Moore does this frequently. This is his role. He frequently removes people, and it’s very difficult. He knows these people, he knows them as physicians and colleagues.

At a different time, maybe just a few weeks ago, he was working with a resident physician, and a male nurse sexually harassed her to the point where she got physically nauseous, went to the bathroom, and vomited. What did Moore do? Immediately removed her from the floor, she’s not fit to practice medicine. He immediately addressed that nurse, telling him it was inappropriate and then escalated it appropriately to administrators and that nurse gets reprimanded, removed, and fired.

Moore has several partners in the company that he works for. Two years ago, he noted that two of them were having compliance violations and actually abandoned more than a couple of their patients in the emergency department, leaving them. This is a very big compliance and ethics problem. Moore notified the parent company, which is a big corporation, the third largest ER [emergency room] department in the country, and they were reprimanded accordingly. The standard for that is $50,000 fines and firing immediately. They chose to reprimand them and not give them fines.

One year ago, Moore was working the night shift and a gentleman, roughly fifty years old, came in. He’d had surgery two days prior. He came in, and blood was pouring out of his incision. Moore called the surgeon at 3:00 in the morning and said that the patient that he just did surgery on was bleeding to death. This was not dramatic. Truly, the man was pale, no blood pressure, and he’s was going to be dead in about 60-70 minutes based on his blood loss. The surgeon refused to come in. Moore called his friend, a trauma surgeon who handles bleeding problems (unintelligible) and said surgeon, I need you right now, this patient is bleeding to death, you have to come in right now. He said I’ll be there in five minutes. He walked in, in the resuscitation bay, Moore had a surgical kit ready, and the two of them opened the patient’s abdomen, packed it with towels, and sent him to the operating room, saving his life. Moore was the lead physician who removed that surgeon from his hospital, completely removed him, reported him to the state board, and he’s likely not going to be practicing ever again.

Last meeting, Moore gave the council a small talk on misconduct and things like that, and he also sent city council members documents regarding misconduct and falsification of documents. All of these things are from the past five months.

Moore said he was going to challenge the council’s ethics this evening in their duties, roles, and responsibilities to our community. When Moore looked at the agenda, he saw that there were reappointments for Jim Meloche and Mike Moon [for the HDC], and in all honesty, Moore doesn’t know how they ended up on there knowing what Moore has provided the council with.

Moore said he would recap his past two requests, which he doesn’t see anything on the agenda about. A couple of weeks ago, Moore requested a standing report from the HDC to be on every city council meeting to create accountability. That’s the first step in restructuring. The second one was to reprimand those who are responsible for their actions. These are standard administrative duties. Number three, restructure everything – bylaws, policies, procedures, everything. The fourth one was protect your constituents. Don’t allow them to be harassed and pushed around.

Moore asked if there were any questions.

Haven made an unintelligible comment and then asked if anyone else had public comments.

No additional public comments.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:39:58; page 3/26 of the council packet):

Smith said he doesn’t have any other comments beyond what was written in the report.

Haven asked if there were any questions or comments for Smith.

Avery asked for an update on the storm drain. Smith said that he’s received one of two quotes that we were able to find contractors for. The one was $6,700. The second one has not yet been received.

Wylie asked if there were any other updates on the vandalism. Smith said no. The Sheriff has the video of the people that vandalized the bathroom, and they are studying it. Wylie thanked Smith.

Pardee said he had a question about the ARPA [American Rescue Plan Act] funds. Pardee wondered if there had been discussion within the employee group or with council about what will the priority be to use the $30,000 that we received from (unintelligible). Smith believes that the first step is to take advantage of the opportunity that has been offered to us by the National League of Cities. What they will do is they will come in and will work with council to establish some priorities. They will come in, they will document that, and they will go do a search on available grants, U.S.-wide, looking for available grants that will allow us to grow our $48,000 to maybe double or more he’s been told. So, there’s no update at this time. Smith is not the decision maker here; the council will give them guidance on where they would like to focus our use of the funds. Pardee said that the intentions are to get a grant and, in a sense, double this amount. Smith said absolutely, yes.

Haven asked if there were any other comments about Smith’s city manager’s report. There were none.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:42:13):

• • 09-13-2021, Final Minutes (page 4/26 of the council packet)
  • 09-27-2021, Draft Minutes (page 7/26 of the council packet)
  • 10-11-2021, Treasurer’s Report, prepared on 10-7-2021 (page 9/26 of the council packet)
  • 10-6-2021, Check Disbursement Report from 09-01-2021 – 09-30-2021 (page 10/26 of the council packet)
  • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., invoices for September 2021 (page 13/26 of the council packet)
  • 10-07-2021, invoice from Ottman’s Advance Asphalt (page 17/26 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a motion to accept the consent agenda, which is in the packet. It’s the treasurer’s report, final minutes from 9-13, and the draft minutes from 9-27, and the treasurer’s report from 10-11.

Wylie made a motion to accept the consent agenda; second by Luginski.

Haven asked if there were any discussion. Since he’d heard none, Haven said that all in favor should say “aye.”

Pardee said that he had a question about the disbursements, that there was a total of a million seven in disbursements. It’s a big number. Wylie asked Pardee what he said. Pardee said he was looking at the treasurer’s report for the city council meeting dated 10-11, and this is a listing of the disbursements that have been made since the last time that we made disbursements and it shows a grand total of a million seven [$1,751,366.50], which seems like a very big number for a city that has an operating budget of $900,000. Pardee said he really had two questions. One, is all that extra money really going to pay bonds? And do we have a bank account that accommodates this amount of money? Smith said he couldn’t respond to that directly, would have to look into it, and get back to Pardee. It does seem like a very large amount. This is the payment of taxes to the Township, so Smith will have to research that and get back to Pardee. Haven asked if Smith could report that to the council next meeting, and Smith said he would do that.

Haven asked if there were any other comments, and Pardee said he had one more. On the second page of the detailed listing of the disbursements, $968 exceeds the $500 limit we have for expenditures without council approval. Dues and Conferences, $968, cardmember service. Pardee wanted to know if this is how we paid to attend the Michigan Municipal League conference? Smith said that this was the fee for the Michigan Municipal League conference. Smith and Haven talked about this, and in the interest of time, this did not make it to council, but Pardee is right, it is over the $500 limit. Pardee said that there were other expenses that Smith and Haven would have incurred over the two or three days they were there. Smith said there were, but they were much smaller than that and well under the $500 limit. Pardee asked if those would be on the report somewhere, and Smith said that they will be.

Haven asked if there were any other discussion.

Ryan said he didn’t think they should leave it out there. This clearly shows that these are tax collections to either the Clarkston Community Schools or the Oakland County Treasury because tax collection day was September 14^th. So, there was $127,000 to the community schools, $127,000 to the Oakland County Treasurer, other community school tax collection of $330,000, $425,000 to the Oakland County Treasurer, so most of this money was pass-through collections from the city treasurer through our tax collections to the schools and to Oakland County. Haven said that the treasurer’s report shows that. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Ryan said that we are just a collection agency. It has nothing to do with our budget or how much is in our bank. It’s all pass-through money, in and out. Haven agreed.

Moore said that there was a $1,200 charge in the documents that he sent to council last week. It was for (unintelligible) consult fee for the HDC. Moore read through the last five years of HDC minutes the other night, he found where the budget approval was done to extend the HDC budget, and it said very specifically that the architecture company was going to be contracted for specifically new builds and additions to houses. It was $1,200. Moore didn’t think that it was brought before council for approval, so it was also used for not an addition to a house.

Haven said that was opinion, but he appreciated Moore bringing it up. Moore said that it’s from the minutes; it’s not opinion. Haven said he couldn’t speak to it but let’s make a note of it.

Haven asked if there was any other discussion about the consent agenda.

Haven said hearing none, there’s been a motion and a second, Wylie moved and Luginski seconded, all in favor say aye.

The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business (Video time mark 0:47:42)

Haven said that there is no old business.

Agenda Item #11, New Business (Video time mark 0:47:44)

Item 10a – Motion: Halloween Hours in the Village (Video time mark 0:47:45)

• • Motion – Halloween Hours in the Village (page 18/26 of the council packet)

There was some discussion about finding the documents in the packet.

Wylie made a motion to once again set the trick or treating hours from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Wylie said that they’d changed the hours last year from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. to allow people to be socially distant and spread out because of COVID, and she was making a motion that they do that again this year as is stated in the motion in the packet. Haven asked for a second. It’s for social distancing. Avery second.

Avery said he likes 6:00 to 7:00 (unintelligible crosstalk). Wylie said that these are kids that are not vaccinated and it’s a different situation. (More unintelligible crosstalk.)

Haven asked if there were any further discussion. Wylie said that she liked it last year. It started earlier, it was later out, and by 7:00 no one was coming around. Wylie said that last year, it was on Saturday but didn’t know what day it was this year. Wylie said she doesn’t have little kids. Avery said they love to pass out candy.

Haven asked if they really wanted to discuss this any further. Since there was no further discussion, Haven asked for a voice vote.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Haven said it will be from 5:00 to 7:00.

Item 10b – Motion: PC, ZBA, HDC Appointments & Renewals (Video time mark 0:50:11)

• • Motion – Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Historic District Commission Appointments/Renewals (page 19/26 of the council packet)
  • Chart, Board/Commission Appointments (who appoints, who confirms, term length, nominee requirements), page 20/26 of the council packet)
  • Resume, Derek Werner (page 21/26 of the council packet)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept this proposal as it has been given to them on the document.

Wylie asked if Haven was doing the whole thing at once. Haven said that they were doing it all at once unless Wylie wanted to break out something. Wylie said that she would like to break out HDC.

Wylie made a motion that the council separate out the HDC nominations; Avery second.

Haven asked for discussion. Avery asked what Haven wanted to discuss. Haven said the motion and second to break it out like they would a consent agenda item, he guessed.

No discussion.

Ryan said that they needed to take a roll call.

Avery, Bonser, Luginski, and Wylie voted yes. Haven voted no.

Haven said OK, we will separate it out. Let’s take Planning Commission (PC) and the ZBA first.

Planning Commission Appointments (video time mark 0:52:05)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept those nominees.

Avery made the motion; Luginski second.

Wylie said that she assumed she couldn’t vote on this, and Haven said probably not since she was listed there.

Ryan said unless they wanted to do the PC first and split Wylie out so that she won’t have to vote on that but can vote on everything else.

Haven said they would do the PC by itself without Wylie voting. Avery said they could vote on Derek [Werner] and then Wylie, and Wylie can’t vote for herself.

Haven asked for a motion for Werner alone.

Bonser made the motion, second by Luginski.

Haven said there was a motion and a second for Werner alone.

No discussion.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Haven asked Ryan if they need a roll call, and Ryan said no.

Motion passed unanimously again by voice vote.

Bonser asked if Werner was present, and he was pointed out in the audience by Haven and Wylie.

Werner said he didn’t know all of them, so he thought he would come in case there were any questions. He said he served on city council years ago and had two stints on the PC. When Haven called and asked if he would be willing to fill an opening, he said sure. Haven said that was great. Bonser asked where he lived, and Werner said he gave his address and said he lives at the corner of Holcomb and Washington.

Haven asked if there were any questions for Werner. There were no questions. Haven thanked Werner.

Haven said he thought there was a motion and a second from Bonser and Luginski.

[I don’t think there was a motion and a second to appoint Werner to the PC, though there were two votes to consider Werner alone and separate from Wylie. It was quite confusing.]

No discussion.

Vote to appoint Werner to the PC passed by unanimous voice vote.

Haven asked for a motion for Wylie.

Motion by Avery; second Haven.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about Wylie.

Pardee raised his hand, and Haven asked if Pardee was objecting to Wylie. Pardee said no, but he did object to the process. Apparently, there’s not a chart somewhere that tells us what is being formally approved. Haven said it’s in the packet. Pardee said no, that doesn’t tell him anything about clock, what dates do various people on the commissions – Haven said that there is a chart in the packet, and it is on our document here that says motion for PC, ZBA, HDC. It’s on there, and the dates of their tenure which would be starting now, will run three years, through June 2024.

Pardee said he was asking a question about process. Is there a chart that someone can look at to tell them when the next appointments will be made. Smith said, yes, we have that. Pardee said that’s that chart (that Haven was holding). Pardee said OK, but it’s not public. Smith said that it’s public information, but it’s not in the packet. Pardee said that all he’s thinking is that it helps communicate that a position will be opening and maybe people are interested in being nominated. Also, it looks like we’ve missed some dates. You’ve had some gaps. Haven said that it takes time to get confirmations, so he asks for Pardee’s forbearance a little bit, doesn’t think it’s big, people are already in positions (unintelligible).

Haven asked where they were, and noted that Wylie had been nominated. Haven said that there had been a motion and a second and asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Motion to appoint Wylie to the PC passed by unanimous voice vote; Wylie abstained.

Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments (video time mark 0:56:41)

Haven said they would now look at the ZBA. He thought they could do it together.

Scott Meyland to replace Scott Meyland though June 2024 and Sharron Catallo to replace Sharron Catallo through June 2024.

Haven asked for a motion.

Motion by Avery; second by Luginski.

Haven asked if there were any discussion.

Bonser said so basically, these should have been voted on in June 2021? Haven said that their term was up at that time. Haven said that’s not to say that we shouldn’t do it as soon as we can. It takes time to sort it out. Haven said that he thought he learned in July that these things were up to Pardee’s point.

Motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Historic District Commission Appointments (video time mark 0:57:41)

Haven said the HDC was next and asked if the council wanted to take them together or separate them. Wylie said she wanted to separate them.

Haven said OK, he would take them in order.

Haven asked if they needed a motion and second to split them up, and Ryan said yes, if that’s what somebody wants.

Haven said yes, somebody wants it, so OK, is Wylie moving that?

Wylie moved to split up the HDC nominations. Haven said that it dies for lack of a second, so the nominations would be taken together.

Haven said Jim Meloche to replace Jim Meloche through June 2024; Mike Moon to replace Mike Moon through June 2024.

Wylie wanted to begin the discussion but asked if anyone had moved to nominate them.

Motion to nominate Meloche and Moon by Avery; second by Bonser.

Haven asked for discussion.

Wylie said there’s been a lot of controversy about members of the HDC, and Moore brought up some of them just a little while ago. A lot of dissent. A lot of hard feelings. Wylie would like to see some commissioners who are more willing to work with residents to ensure that we can resolve some of our disputes within the community locally rather than so often going to court, going to the state officials to try to get these things worked out. Wylie thought that maybe if we had members who were more willing and able to improve the current process, and with the process of blame to go around. Wylie is on the PC, there’s blame there, she thinks there is blame with the administration, with the HDC there’s blame, but we need to get this process worked out. The HDC needs to be more clear about what is expected from the homeowners, and she realizes that it may not always be (interrupted by Haven’s cell phone ringing). Wylie thinks that it’s unfair and onerous to saddle the homeowners with regulations and hoops and they don’t know what’s going on. Wylie said that we need people who not only protect the city’s interests, but also recognize that the homeowners have an interest, and Wylie didn’t think that all of the current HDC members reflect that kind of attitude. Wylie believes that every decision they make may not be ideal, but they should try to come up with some workable decisions.

Wylie said that someone sent her something today, and she’s going to paraphrase, we need people on the HDC to be building bridges, not be building fences. Wylie does not think that Jim Meloche and Mike Moon are the best people on HDC to work with our city residents in that way.

Haven said that Wylie made a motion, and Wylie said that she did not. The motion was made by Avery with a second by Bonser.

Avery said that in response to Wylie, he agrees that there has to be accountability, certainly, by people who are on the commission. He understands that they get involved in the process after the fact. Realtors sell the homes in the historic district and haven’t told the home buyers that they’re buying a historic home on many occasions. And that puts everybody in a bad position because the homeowners think that they’re free to do what they want to do in their house, which normally they would think that, but also the HDC has a job to do here in the city and that is to enforce our historic zoning requirements. So, of course there’s going to be conflict. Avery feels that Moon and Meloche do a good job. We’re not going to make everybody happy, and we all strive to do better. We need to do better. But understand that we’re talking about people’s homes, and there can be conflict when people are told “no,” so Avery is cognizant of that. With that being said, Avery has talked with Moore a little bit, Moore has sent Avery documents, Avery hasn’t had a chance to go through them all yet and he will, and Avery will address it when he’s got all the information. But in the meantime, Avery thinks that the HDC is doing a good job.

Speaking to Moore, Haven said that in fairness to Moore’s comments, he made a litany of accusations last time, and they were oral. Then Wylie asked for them from Moore in writing and Moore is assuming that there’s no answers to those. That’s presuming (unintelligible). There may be very well answers to every one of those, OK? Just so Moore acknowledges that.

Haven said that he wanted to say this about that group right there (gesturing to the HDC), OK? He’s gotten to know them pretty well over the last five years, OK? He’s watched them in action personally and on the commission, and with some of them, a lot longer than that, OK? Haven knows what these people go through. These are your neighbors, folks, OK? They care. They live here. They don’t do this because they just love controversy, OK? They do this because they care about the structure of this historic district, OK? And they do it according to guidelines that are national ones. Haven said that he’d just written about this, OK? If you doubt it, read it, OK? It’s literally true. It goes all the way back to the federal government, right? They are an adjudicating board. Haven said that Wylie had said that the guidelines are not known. Well, they are known, and Haven said that he and Wylie had talked about this the other day.

Wylie said no, she said they are not known to the homeowner. [Haven interrupted and tried to talk over Wylie.] Wylie said to the homeowner. [More loudly] Haven said he’s sorry, but again, it’s like going to court and saying I didn’t know that that law existed. You can’t do that, OK? They are well known, they are well published, they are well understood. Anyone who cares enough to come to meetings and watch how carefully these people deal with homeowners. Haven thinks it’s an affront to say that they don’t deal kindly with most people. That’s wrong. Haven told Wylie that’s absolutely wrong. They do. They bend over backwards to deal kindly with people. What happens is people do things and then come back and ask for approval, OK? That’s a problem. (Unintelligible.) And then, after that, they don’t ask them to change it, they ask them to mitigate it, all right? So that’s where we are in this discussion, so Haven wants to be perfectly clear, that group bends over backwards to help people, all right? Haven said he’s personally involved in this emotionally and he doesn’t like the accusations against that board for doing things they’re not doing, OK? They’re being cast in a bad light, and Haven doesn’t like it, all right?

Wylie said that she listened in on a number of the virtual meetings this year, and as others have said and Haven said, she did see a lot of times when they were willing to work with people and help people. But she also heard harsh words, harsh tones being said if they were in disagreement, and Wylie said she’ll be honest with Haven, what kind of sent her over the line was when Moore said that there was a threat to tear down, to bring in heavy equipment and tear down his fence. Wylie thought that was way over the line, and she thought that was way too much.

Wylie’s other issue is, again this is virtual, she sat in on a meeting, there were things said and not said at that meeting, and when Wylie was at the next meeting, they were not in the minutes or they were reported incorrectly in the minutes. Moore refers to this in the notes that he sent us in that email, and he’s right. That is what’s happening. And yes, Wylie thinks they’re good people. She doesn’t know Moon very well; she knows Meloche a little bit better and she thinks he’s a good person. However, Wylie thinks that you can get burned out in a position, and she thinks you start off in this is what HDC does (made a circle with her arms), and then it seems like it’s growing and growing and growing. And (unintelligible) to growing and growing and growing, especially the last few years, is landscaping, fences, and now it’s grown into walls, and Wylie thinks it’s gone way beyond let’s preserve our beautiful town, our historic charming town and the structures, into let’s put in a certain style of fence, let’s not put in a wall, let’s get approval on this wall. It’s just gotten to be way too much. Wylie thinks that the HDC needs to reign it in.

Wylie said yes, there are laws, yes, they’re federal laws, but they have to deal with what’s going on locally, they have to deal with the homeowners. They’re not the only – the city and the HDC aren’t the only ones who have an interest in this. The homeowner also has a lot of interest, and Wylie thinks they need to be heard a little bit more, and let’s get this stuff out of the courts. Wylie wishes she’d put together the costs, the legal costs we’ve had, over the last few years about what HDC has cost us legally. It’s huge.

Wylie said that she was looking through some of her files, and she thinks she may have mentioned this at a meeting. It’s something that she wrote up in September of 2020, and for July and August for HDC legal costs, it was almost a thousand dollars, and that was all on 10 Miller Road and 177 North Main Street. Wylie believes that things have gone up quite a bit since then. Actually, she has a note on 42 West Washington, $14,000 so far and that was over a year ago.

Haven (unintelligible) Wylie doesn’t say (unintelligible) we don’t sue people. Wylie said all right. Haven said they sue us. Wylie said that Haven is making it personal with Wylie. (Interrupting Wylie), Haven said that Wylie is the one who is making a case, OK, what we are discussing here, Wylie is making a case, all right, that the legal costs are expensive. Wylie said yes, they are very expensive. (Interrupting and speaking over Wylie) Haven said that we didn’t incur a single one of them. Wylie said that she thought we instigated it. Haven wanted to know how we instigated it. Wylie said that we are keeping, holding the homeowner’s feet to the fire and insisting that they follow this exact line – (Interrupting Wylie) Haven said that’s what laws are about, right? Wylie said right, but she also thinks that councils and legislatures and administrative people have to take into consideration what’s going on, and – (interrupting Wylie) Haven said they’re causing (unintelligible), OK?

Haven said he isn’t sure where the accusation is exactly other than feelings of lacking (unintelligible) and Haven agrees with Wylie 100% on education issues. Haven said that people don’t know, OK? But ignorance is no excuse under the law, OK? So, there needs to be some understanding of what we are asking our neighbors, who don’t get paid a dime to do this, are doing to protect the historic district, OK? And in our historic district it comes out (unintelligible) as Mr. Ryan said, it is more restrictive than our general zoning, OK? Because the value is in the restriction, OK? But people don’t like it a lot of times and well, therefore you get controversy, right? So, Haven gets it, he gets there’s tension, OK? But let’s not go off on (unintelligible) the messenger on this, OK?

Wylie said that she and Haven had a lengthy telephone conversation the other day, and one of the things that Wylie said to Haven was people who are upset with things going on in the HDC don’t want to get rid of the historical aspects of this town. We want a historic district. We want there to be a historic district commission that will enforce the rules. However, we want them to enforce them a little more relaxed and get out of the landscaping. Wylie wants them to get out of landscaping – (interrupting Wylie) Haven asked Wylie to clarify again, we’re not talking about landscaping, they will admit (unintelligible) about landscaping, they do mitigation of something that has been created without approval, OK? Mitigation of that to help the homeowner so they don’t have to go back and tear it up, OK (unintelligible). (Interrupting Haven), Wylie said landscaping. Haven said no, no, no. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Haven said it was property, really massive alteration. He went to the standards to date. Number one, talks about the site, the sacredness of the site. Number two, and Haven said he could go down the list, there’s four or five of them that have been abused by this, OK? So, Haven agrees with Wylie that there’s lack of information, there’s lack of knowledge which causes frustration, OK? But Haven thinks it’s wrong to hold the people who are trying to, so diligently, maintain and mercifully, Haven said he will say this, because no one has asked anybody to tear down anything, all right? And they’re not tearing it down, OK? Nothing has been torn down. Some things have been mitigated to make them, to improve them. This is going back generations, literally. Haven’s father-in-law (unintelligible) and there were some buildings downtown they wish they could have protected and couldn’t. It got to be too late, OK? But some people do things and then ask for approval after, and that’s not right. That’s not right under any law in this country, OK? So, they’re just adjudicating the law. That’s Haven’s opinion. Haven is saying that to Wylie, person to person, as part of this discussion because he thinks it needs clarity tonight. Haven thinks the accusations in emotional language is unfortunate, OK? Haven doesn’t think it’s accurate.

Luginski [whose wife is on the HDC] said that the other thing too is that the HDC deals with many, many, many applicants and cases throughout the year. Luginski believes, and Meloche can correct him if he’s wrong, that the HDC has a 95% approval rating for applicants. So 95% of the time – Haven interrupted and said 93 – Luginski said all right 93% – (interrupting Luginski) Haven said when you look back at the last five years, four years, five years, what is it (someone on the HDC panel held up some fingers and said four years), so 93% approval rating – (interrupting Haven) Luginski said 93%, and he will correct his statement from 95, 93% approval rating, so 93% of the people and the homeowners are coming to HDC are processed and it’s not a problem. Whenever you’re dealing with multiple situations, there’s always going to be some problem ones. That’s just life. It’s not about smooth, it’s not about easy, especially, as Haven said, when things are done before approval is ever even granted or asked for. So, unfortunately, those three, four, five that happen to be problems, there’s seven he guesses out of a hundred, those are the ones that everybody hears about. They don’t hear about the ninety-three that went through the process with no problem. So, Luginski thinks it’s hard, you’re never going to please everybody, you’re never going to make everybody happy no matter what you do. Luginski said he’s been up here twelve years and he knows he hasn’t made people happy all of the time, he gets it. But you do what you think is best for the city, and you have to follow the ordinances and laws. And if the ordinance says you can’t do this, then guess what? You can’t do this. Period. We can’t change and rewrite ordinances just because one person doesn’t like what it says, so Luginski thinks that a 93% approval rating, any politician would like a 93% approval rating. Haven said it never happens.

Wylie said that her guess is probably a lot of them are structural things – (interrupting Wylie) Luginski said regardless, they’re applicants that come with – (interrupting Luginski) Wylie (unintelligible) she gets it. It’s been a while since she’s been to an in-person HDC meeting, but she has been to them and went to a lot of virtual ones, and she was impressed a lot of times. People were willing to sit down and work with the homeowners and help them find architects, workers, and Wylie thought that was very good. But it’s, sometimes, the test is when you get into a touchy situation, and Wylie thinks that some of these tough situations have not been handled very well (Luginski tried to interrupt but Wylie continued), and Wylie’s biggest problem as she’s said right now, is that she’s seen a problem with accurate minutes and she sees a problem with how Chris Moore was handled, especially in that situation where heavy equipment was threatened to come out. Wylie doesn’t see how that is appropriate from a city official.

Luginski said that the only thing that he would make one comment on, and he wanted to paraphrase one of Wylie’s comments so she could correct him if it’s wrong, that we have these ordinances and we should follow them, but we should be, maybe willing to, you know, be more compassionate or whatever the words were. If you do that for one person, guess what, the next person is going to come and say you just made an exception down the street, so I want that exception, and then the next person, it’s a slippery slope (unintelligible).

An unidentified person in the audience said you mean like building the wall, it would be at the previous mayor’s house, that they just built the wall there without any approval so that they built the wall to begin with right at the curb. And the road commission came along and said that can’t go there, it’s got to be back. So, they tore that wall down and rebuilt it. But we’re discussing the fact, is that what we’re mitigating at Chris Moore’s, that we’re talking about the landscaping? Luginski said that they’re not going to go into detail – the unidentified person said we were discussing that (unintelligible; lots of interruption and crosstalk). The unidentified person said is that what we are doing? We’re mitigating this boulder wall, or his limestone wall? Haven said that’s been the discussion, yes. The unidentified person said that’s the discussion, so it’s because it wrecked the streetscape, but two houses down, there’s a complete boulder wall that’s all the way on the whole corner, that there wasn’t any approval for. Haven (trying to talk over the unidentified person) said there’s differences, you know there’s differences, you know there’s differences. The unidentified person asked why there were differences. HDC commission member Luginski said that it’s because one is a natural boulder and the other ones are cut up slabs, it’s the material that’s different. The unidentified person said isn’t it great when you added on to the front – (Haven interrupted and repeatedly tried to talk over the unidentified man); Haven said that we can’t do this here. (Interrupting Haven), Luginski told Haven this isn’t a place for that discussion. (Interrupting Luginski), Haven said that the germane elements of the discussion OK, and he gets that, OK, we’ll have a lot of discussion about this, and there are rules we will follow and all that and we know that we are going to go through a process, and (unintelligible) process, and we will be answering some of the questions, OK for sure, but given this, we have a decision to make here.

Haven said that Avery made a motion.

Moore said that there are a couple of things that Haven can’t deny. (Interrupting Moore), Haven said that they were going to stop the discussion, OK? We can go on all night, and we’re not going to do this, OK? We’re just not going to do this. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) (Talking over Moore), Haven said he was calling it now, he’s calling the discussion, and calling for the vote, calling for the vote.

Moore said that Moon doesn’t type the minutes. (Wylie said something to Haven that was unintelligible.) (Addressing Moore), Haven said please. Moore said but she told us – (interrupting Moore) Haven said to Moore that Haven can’t because – (Luginski tried to interrupt and said that Haven spoke), (interrupting Luginski), Haven said that the discussion was over. Pardee tried to speak, Luginski said Pardee’s name, and Haven said that the discussion is over.

Wylie said that she wasn’t sure if Moore and Pardee had spoken, and Haven can’t cut off comments until each person – (interrupting Wylie), Haven said that he just did, he just did. Luginski said the mayor (unintelligible) chair the – (interrupting Luginski), Haven said he can, OK?

[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #4 🙄]

Haven said that there is a motion by Avery with a second by Bonser to reappoint Meloche until 2024 and Moon until 2024 and it’s not a roll call. Ryan said they should do a roll call, so Haven asked Speagle to do a roll call.

Avery, Haven, and Luginski voted yes. Bonser asked if he could abstain, was told no, and then also voted yes. Wylie voted no.

Haven said that the motion carries, and said that the next item on the agenda – Pardee raised his hand and asked if he could have the opportunity to make some suggestions, please, an improvement? Haven said yeah, you can, and please do it in the next public comment, OK? Please do it then, because we could go on and on and we need to kind of keep it concise and Pardee should please respect that. Pardee said that there needs to be a requirement for disclosure – (interrupting Pardee), Haven told Pardee to please bring it up in his next public comment, OK, and they can deal with it in due course, all right?

Agenda Item #11, Historic District Agenda For Joint Meeting 10-11-2021 (Video time mark 1:18:09):

• • Special Meeting Agenda, Historic District Commission (page 22/26 of the council packet)

Haven asked for guidance from Ryan. Ryan said that Haven needs to allow the HDC now to open their meeting, even though it’s set for 7:30 – (interrupting Ryan), Haven asked if that’s what 10 is. Ryan said it’s going to be a joint meeting, so at 8:17, they should call the HDC meeting to order. (Unintelligible crosstalk about opening the HDC meeting).

[Note: the HDC members were not identified in a manner that was visible on the video recording. Only four members were sitting at the table, and three of them were wearing masks so it was difficult to tell who was speaking.]

HDC meeting was called to order by Rob Hauxwell and asked if everyone had the chance to look at the agenda. Ryan told them to take a roll call. Hauxwell identified himself, Melissa Luginski, Mike Moon, Jennifer Radcliffe were present, and someone said that Jim Meloche was also present.

Hauxwell asked if there were any comments on the agenda. There were no comments.

Ryan asked if there was a motion for the agenda. An unidentified person moved, someone (Radcliffe?) second. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Haven said he would love a resolution (opposing? unintelligible) public comments.

Ryan said to have public comments.

Hauxwell opened public comments.

No public comments.

Agenda Item #12, Resolution: To Go Into Closed Session To Discuss Specific Pending Litigation (Council) (video time mark 1:21:30)

• • Resolution To Go Into Closed Session To Discuss Specific Pending Litigation (page 23/26 of the council packet)

[Note: Agenda Items #12 and #13 were reversed; the HDC motioned to go into closed session before the city council.]

[Referring to the HDC], Ryan said that it was passed by more than 2/3, and now we go back to the city council for a resolution to go into closed session to discuss specific pending litigation outlined (unintelligible).

Motion by Luginski; second Avery.

Ryan asked for a roll call vote.

Haven, Wylie, Bonser, Avery, and Luginski voted yes.

Ryan said it passes by more than 2/3, so at this point, the open meeting is closed, and Ryan would appreciate it if everyone exited the chamber, thank you.

Agenda Item #13, Resolution: To Go Into Closed Session To Discuss Specific Pending Litigation (HDC) (video time mark 1:19:56)

• • Resolution To Go Into Closed Session To Discuss Specific Pending Litigation (page 25/26 of the council packet)

Ryan said that they could make the first resolution since they are meeting to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation, regarding the same motion for the council, Lehman Investment Company LLC versus the City of the Village of Clarkston, a municipal corporation and its Historic District Commission, Case No. 21-186123-AA, pending in the Oakland County Circuit Court, Honorable Nanci Grant, pursuant to the Michigan Open Meeting Act, Act 267 of 1976, Section 15.268(e) Closed Sessions; Permissible purposes, Section 8(e) to discuss with its attorney a settlement proposal.

Ryan said that the resolution must be adopted by 2/3 of the HDC and someone needs to resolve that.

Someone resolved, someone seconded.

Ryan said there needed to be a roll call vote. Hauxwell asked for all in favor, and Ryan said no, a roll call vote.

Luginski, Moon, Radcliffe, and Meloche voted yes. [Unclear if Hauxwell voted.]

Agenda Item #14, Return to Open Session (Video time mark 1:22:13):

[There was a wooden board in front of Wylie, with the display facing away from the audience.]

Ryan said we are now back in open session.

Agenda Item #15, Adjourn: HDC

[There was no motion to adjourn the HDC meeting on the video recording.]

Agenda Item #6, Adjourn: Council (video time mark 1:22:15)

Haven asked for a motion to adjourn.

Avery made the motion to adjourn; Wylie second.

No discussion.

The motion to adjourn passed unanimously by voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3586?channel=2
  • 10-11-2021 City Council packet