Category: Church Street

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.

Meeting:

City Manager Jonathan Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the rules for virtual meetings as they were presented on screen.

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:01:40):

Eric Haven thanked Smith. There was no formal call to order.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:43):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:02:05):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Cary Casey, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie were all present in Clarkston, Michigan.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:02:38):

Haven noted that the most recent version of the agenda was posted this afternoon.

Motion to approve agenda by Wylie; second by Avery.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:03:31):

Chet Pardee:

• • Pardee asked what the real cost of the FOIA lawsuit was to the city. Likely not billions, but likely millions of dollars have been spent. It’s greater than the $2,000 per withheld document that the city officials prefer the public believe. It’s much more than the $160,000 final settlement amount. James Tamm [the attorney assigned to handle the case by the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool – MMLLPP] told Smith in June 2020 that the cost to the city could be $250,000. An even greater total was justified by the Bisios even though they agreed to a lower amount.
  • There was the cost of three trials, ending at the Michigan Supreme Court – judges, court officials, court rooms, and support personnel. What portion of City Attorney Tom Ryan’s $30,000/year budgeted cost for five-and-a-half years and counting? Attorney Mark Peyser’s [the attorney hired by the city to represent the city at facilitation] cost at almost five times Ryan’s hourly rate. Are others paying for the Peyser fee discount provided to the city?
  • It appears that most of the city’s costs are borne by insurers, but who really pays for Ryan’s malpractice insurance settlement of $35,000 and MMLLPP’s insurance payment of $90,000? Citizens pay one way or another.
  • Attorney Neil Wallace said the developers of 148 N. Main spent more than $200,000 unsuccessfully seeking an environmentally sound solution for the stormwater drainage literally over the contamination.  The 10/26/20 council meeting minutes mistakenly say that 148 N. Main contamination is no longer an issue. The Oakland County Road Commission [OCRC] called it “the elephant in the room” in the 3/31/21 meeting with Smith. The OCRC indicated there is no likely environmentally sound solution to stormwater drainage on the Clarkston Road side of 148 N. Main. The developer’s scientist’s map shows contamination clearly under both Clarkston Road and North Main.
  • Michigan government costs included MDOT’s [Michigan Department of Transportation] required engraved “Restricted Excavation” markers and concrete installation costs. Costs of MDEQ’s [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality] (now EGLE) [Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy] Terry Golla’s involvement over several years and her not being able to approve the closure request due to PFAS [Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances] priorities.
  • And the legal costs of Diana [Deanna Olsen] and Ed [Adler] in defending their Waldon and Main property from historical damage charges resulting from cutting the grass too short.
  • MMLLPP attorney costs (was it 15 attorneys?) and staff defending the city in the three trials and numerous filings. And time spent by Cory [Johnston] and Lorry [Mahler] (and costs borne by Robyn [Johnston] and Stu [Mahler]) asking and not getting answers.
  • How do you measure the cost to individuals for time spent wondering why did Tom Ryan withhold the 18 documents specifically requested and why did city officials choose to prolong the agony for all? What is the monetary value on citizen’s time spent asking “why did he?” and “why don’t they”?
  • And time spent by HRC (Hubbell, Roth & Clark) engineers and attorneys answering questions by friends and relatives about their role in the withheld documents. And how do you measure the cost to Sharron [Catallo], Curt [Catallo] and Cara [Catallo], and families, being in the spotlight for more than five years?  And Historic District Commission members caught in the Waldon and Main issue?
  • And the cost of developing amicus briefs by Free Press attorney Herschel Fink, MML [Michigan Municipal League] and other organizations.  Should we be concerned how strongly MML appears to support suppressing transparency?
  • Should we include the cost to be transparent and the cost for resisting transparency?  Smith is usually forthcoming, but the furnace repair classified as Depot Park materials remains a question. What is the cost of more accounting classifications for transparency? It is clear that many of the citizens of Clarkston expect a level of transparency by city officials that is not being provided, including the cost of silence by city officials to questions asked in public comments.
  • Not billions, but likely millions.

Smith said that he had some public comments to read but wanted to respond to a couple of Pardee’s comments:

• • The city has never said that we prefer that the public believe that we are paying $2,000 per document. Pardee did that math. The city never said that. We said that our portion of the settlement is $35,000. That’s it. There are other parties involved, and insurance agencies are paying more for a total of $160,000. That number is correct, but we are paying $35,000. We never said that we were trying to get the public to believe this or imply that we are trying to hide something.
  • Pardee said that the OCRC called the plume the elephant in the room, but that is incorrect. They were referring to the drainage, which they don’t have a solution for. It’s a complicated situation and there are many factors coming into the design of the drainage plan. The issue is how are we going to deal with the stormwater drainage.
  • Smith appreciated that Pardee pointed out that the furnace repair costs should not have been charged to park materials. That was a mistake. The charge should have been under village hall maintenance, which is just a couple of accounts below park materials. They will make a corrective journal entry on that, hopefully tomorrow. It was an oversight.

Smith had two other comments. One was from Jane Jones who was not able to be present, and he will read her comment later.

Smith received a nice letter today from Lilly Johnson. Johnson is home-schooled with her brother and they have been studying the oceans. Johnson watched a documentary about plastic waste in the ocean, and much of the waste is plastic bags. Turtles and other sea animals will eat these, mistaking them for jelly fish. Johnson’s mother went to Africa and saw that little children on the street were burning plastic bags for warmth, and there is a chemical that is released in the smoke that can be fatal. Johnson asked the city council to ban plastic bags from the City of the Village of Clarkston for the sake of the oceans, the little street kids in Africa, and for the earth.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:13:21):

• • CAYA Pinwheels for Prevention (page 4/31 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a notification of a Clarkston-area event called Pinwheels for Prevention. This has been going on since 2016, and it’s a visual that helps us to remember the importance of the work of the Clarkston Area Youth Assistance. They have an event coming up on April 12^th and you can find out more about it by going to www.caya.mi.org. This is a very worthwhile organization, and one that the city has supported from time to time as well.

Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report for March 2021 (Video time mark 0:14:15; page 5/31 of the council packet):

Lieutenant Hill wasn’t online. Haven said that if he’s reading the report correctly, our calls for service skyrocketed for the month of March. Haven would have asked Lieutenant Hill about it if he were on the call, but since he wasn’t, Haven asked Smith to find out the answer. Smith agreed that there was a dramatic increase and wanted to know more about the nature of the calls for service. Smith wondered if it had anything to do with the weather.

There were no additional questions.

Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark: 0:15:13; page 6/31 of the council packet):

Haven said people who tune in to the meetings can pull the council packets from the Internet, or subscribe to the meeting agendas, complete with the packets, and have all of this documentation in front of them as we go through it together.

Wylie said that she had the same question that Pardee had about the heating and cooling charge being put under park materials. Below that, there’s a March 17^th charge under park materials for Chemsearch for $291.33. Smith asked if it was on the treasurer’s report. He has an answer for that, and Wylie said that she would wait until they got to the consent agenda.

Pardee asked about the city sign project update. When will we pay for the next stages of the sign implementation and what amount will we owe? A year ago, we had some issues when costs were anticipated and we had to carry some costs over into the next budget year. Smith said that the core sign package was $33,000. We paid $17,000 down last year, and the balance will be due at the completion of the installation. Craig Breeden said that he will be starting the installation on April 19^th, and it will take about one-two weeks to complete. They expect to be finished by the end of April at which time the second payment will be due. As reported, the other cost that will come up if we decide to do it is to replace the other signposts in the city. They are replacing the Welcome to Clarkston sign, the directional signs that are on street corners that say Holcomb, Miller, etc., and if there’s a stop sign. That doesn’t mean that every sign and signpost in the city will be replaced. Parking signs, no parking signs, or must not park on the street overnight in the wintertime signs, those kinds of utility signs, or even street signs that only have a stop sign with no street name on them will not be replaced as part of this package. In that case, we would incur some additional costs and hope that we can gradually replace all the remaining signposts with metal ones over a period of one to two years. Breeden has offered to sell those posts to us at his cost without a dime of markup, and Smith would like to take advantage of that if we can. That’s the only other cost that Smith is aware of.

Pardee asked what the cost would be if we did that. Smith didn’t know that, or the cost per pole, but it makes sense that we would buy some extra posts for accidents and to have some posts for gradually replacing other utility signs in the Village. Smith will bring this to a future council meeting; he doesn’t have the numbers yet.

Haven said that the signs will be a nice enhancement. During the bidding process, ASI Signs came in considerably lower than the other bidders. He’s doing this because he lives in the community and loves the community. We want to thank him for that.

Haven also wanted to note that Andrew Herrmann has now built and installed ten bat houses in the Village park, and we want to thank him for that. It is a wonderful project that he did as his Eagle Scout project. We want to thank and commend him for serving the city in this wonderful way.

Wylie wanted more information on the $2 million plus to rebuild Clarkston Road where it comes up on Main Street. Smith mentioned that if the stormwater drainage is handled, then the State and the OCRC have responsibility. Wylie wanted to know what the city’s responsibility would be, if anything. Smith said that the city’s responsibility is zero because the roadway is owned by the OCRC. Smith has offered to pull this ahead 3-5 years. Pulling a play out of Pat Kittle’s playbook, Smith has asked if we help if it would pull things ahead. We don’t have deep pockets, and it would have to be approved by council, but Smith asked if it would pull things ahead if we were to contribute $10-$20,000 to the repaving and widening of the roadway. They said that it would, so that’s potentially a contribution that we could make, but we aren’t required to do that.

Smith said that the cost on this is extensive, as Pardee noted in his comments. The elephant in the room is the drainage, where do you take it. There are puddles in the road because there is no place for it to go. There is a little drainage ditch next to Morgan’s parking lot that they said would hold nine cubic feet of water. They estimate two, 100-year storms back-to-back, and that could result in a need for thirty-four cubic feet of water. That little drainage ditch could only hold 25% of that. It’s an OCRC mandate that they will not move forward with the road if they can’t solve the stormwater problem. That’s the holdup. There are three to four options. They would like to see the most viable one, which is to connect up with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) storm drains that are currently in place. They stop at Robertson Court and don’t go all the way to Clarkston Road. If MDOT were willing to do that, it would really bring down the cost and make this a viable project, but MDOT doesn’t want to tear down a perfectly good road just to put in a storm drain to help the OCRC. There has to be some discussion. They could put a band aid on the whole project for now and do some repaving without addressing the stormwater. There would still be puddling on the road, but when MDOT repaves Main Street in five to six years, maybe we can get them to extend the storm drain before they pave it. It’s a complicated solution, but the other solutions are not good either. It could be as much as $2 million, depending on which stormwater drainage solution is selected.

Pardee asked if there were any revisions to the M15 roadway or storm drainage. It isn’t in the five-year plan. If they would connect the stormwater drainage that does exist on Main Street, that stormwater drainage ends up in in the sluiceway, and the water under the bridge ends up in Parke Lake. That gets to be a concern from an environmental perspective. We are trying to protect Parke Lake and both the upper and lower Mill Pond.

Haven said that we are extrapolating on Smith’s management report. That’s an issue for down the road, and Smith answered Wylie’s question.

There were no other questions.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:26:17)

• • 03/08/2021 – Final Minutes (page 7/31 of the council packet)
  • 03/22/2021 – Draft Minutes (page 10/31 of the council packet)
  • 03/30/2021 – Draft Minutes (page 14/31 of the council packet)
  • 04/12/2021 – Treasurer’s Report for City Council Meeting (page 16/31 of the council packet)
  • 04/08/2021 – Check Disbursement Report, 03/01/2021 – 03/31/2021 (page 17/31 of the council packet)

Motion for acceptance of the consent agenda by Wylie; second by Bonser.

Wylie asked about the 3/17/21 Chemsearch charge for $291.33 for park materials. What was that for? Smith said while the title sounds ominous, they make a variety of products. A salesman came to the office to talk about a concrete product that can be tapered out literally to a feather’s edge. Most concrete can’t be tapered out that thin or it starts to break up. You have to stop at around ¼” thick, and even then, it’s challenging. Chemsearch offers a product that allows you to taper out, so it’s perfect for getting smooth sidewalks for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) purposes and is an alternative to grinding. There are some places in the park that Smith would like to try this, as well as in town on sidewalks. The material is a little on the pricey side at $291, but it comes with good reviews and Smith thought it would be worth giving it a try going forward. Wylie thought that it would be worth exploring.

No further discussion.

Motion to accept the consent agenda passed unanimously.

Smith said that he wanted to make a comment about the minutes while they were in front of everyone. Smith and Clerk Jennifer Speagle have been talking about the minutes at length, and they talked with Ryan about the minutes at length today. They are trying to provide a middle spot that gives enough detail to tell you what happened, but not with all the he said/she said. There is a little too much detail in the minutes, so they want to make some adjustments. The middle ground is to find out who attended, who voted on what, and what action was taken. The most important thing is the action taken by council and the important discussion surrounding it – but not all of the he said/she said. If there is an important part of the discussion, that’s subjective, but Speagle and Smith will work on that. If, after you review the minutes, you can say that you know that someone made a comment that was important that isn’t in there, then they will adjust the minutes as needed. They are going to focus on the actions taken and the key discussion, but not in quite as much detail as what is in the current minutes. It’s very difficult to maintain that level of detail and very time-consuming for Speagle. We pay more when we put this kind of detail in the Clarkston News. They aren’t trying to hide anything, and they can add anything that council wants in there. Smith thinks that the happy middle ground is the important steps and the action taken without this much detail. Haven thanked Speagle and Smith for their diligence in getting good quality minutes. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #1.]

Agenda Item #10, Old Business

Item 10a, Motion: Short-Term Rentals, Guidance needed for the Planning Commission (Video time mark 0:31:14)

• • 03/02/2021, Letter from Carlisle-Wortman, Subject: Short-Term Rentals (page 20/31 of the council packet)

Haven said that this issue has been tabled a couple of times. He wanted to make a few comments, Rich Little (Planning Commission Chair) is on the line, and Smith had a citizen comment to read. Haven said that we have the benefit of the request of the Planning Commission (PC) for Carlisle-Wortman to give them direction on this very important issue to many in the Village. Haven thought they did a wonderful job, and the report is in the packet for everyone to see. Carlisle-Wortman alluded to the four existing short-term rentals in business right now. Two of them are in residential zoning district R1, one is in residential zoning district R2, and one is in the Village Commercial (VC) zoning district.

Haven said that there are three different proposed directions to go on this that would spawn some discussion, to focus it, and not make it perhaps so random. Carlisle-Wortman said that one of the options is to ban short-term rentals outright from any zoning district in the city; this would be the most austere. Second, we could ban short-term rentals in the two residential districts, R1 and R2, but allow them in other limited districts such as VC. Third, we could allow short-term rentals in VC, R1, and R2 with regulations, and Carlisle-Wortman suggested several different ways of regulating the issues. The three options are helpful – ban them outright, limit them to VC, and then allow them more broadly with restrictions.

Haven asked if Little had any additional comments before the discussion began, and he did not. Little said that the options are in front of the council, and the PC sent it back to the council. The PC will modify the ordinances based on whatever the council decides.

Haven said that was in the summary statements. No matter what the council decides, there will be ordinance work to do. Haven asked for clarification from Ryan regarding whether the present ordinance disallows short-term rentals by omission rather than commission, and if it’s not there, it’s not allowed. Ryan said that was correct. Haven said that establishes the starting point and noted that Jane Jones had sent a letter that she asked to be read tonight.

Smith read Jones’ letter:

• • Jones said that she’d written the council four times about the illegal hotel operating across the street from her home. She wouldn’t restate those complaints and concerns but did have some questions.
  • Why is the council even considering approving this business operating in a residentially zoned neighborhood?
  • If the council approves this, are they as concerned as Jones is about her property losing its value?
  • Why is the council potentially changing a zoning law without first asking the residents of the Village – who are paying the taxes to live in these quaint neighborhoods – to vote on the issue?
  • There has been talk about grandfathering the five short-term rentals that are illegally operating. Why would council reward someone who has knowingly broken the law and cast a shadow on the integrity of the council members? Council would be showing the community that they think it’s OK for someone to be above the law. A district court judge, Judge Fabrizio, the owner and operator of the Airbnb across the street from Jones, and Ed Bonser, a city council member, are two of the five owners. Does council want this reputation? It doesn’t look good.
  • If council approves some Airbnbs to operate within residentially zoned neighborhoods, why would the illegally operating ones be granted this honor? Why wouldn’t council give law-abiding citizens an equal chance to win a lotto-type situation to operate one if they so desire? Perhaps council members are worried that one of these hotels may wind up next to them?
  • When Jones asked Smith two years ago to give a cease-and-desist order to the Fabrizios, she was told that there was no one to regulate how they are operating, to even know if the Airbnb is safe. Who will regulate these places now? Who will control the other nonapproved ones from popping up all over?

Haven wanted to have an orderly conversation with council comment first and then open up the discussion to the audience for comments. Ed and Sharon Bonser are welcome here, and Haven knows that they have a vested interested in this issue. Haven wanted to make it clear that Bonser is approaching this as a citizen and not as a council member, but his comments are as germane as any other citizen’s comments would be.

Avery said that the subject has come up two-three times in council meetings with considerable council and public input. He didn’t have anything more to add beyond what he’d said previously.

Wylie agreed that it’s come before council and Planning. For a long time, Wylie wasn’t sure which way to go. At this point, she’s in favor of the second option, which is banning short-term rentals in residential districts and allowing them in commercial districts. She views the residential districts as solely residential.

Haven said that this was on the agenda as a motion, so whatever motion that they came up with would be considered. It could be one of the three options or a variation, but they needed a motion to carry out the intent of the agenda item.

Luginski asked if this would still go to a public hearing, regardless of what motion the council came up with. Haven said that was correct. Luginski said this only sets things in motion, and Haven agreed. Luginski said it will go to a public hearing, people will be able to come onto the call and give their pros and cons, and then at some point, we will change the ordinance. Whatever the council decides, nothing will change tonight. Haven said that was correct, and the formality will come later with an actual ordinance presentation. The subheading under the motion is guidance for the PC. Whatever is decided tonight will go to the PC for them to clarify and move in the manner that council has directed.

Luginski said that whatever the council comes up with tonight, it will go to Planning, they will put it together, and there will be a public hearing, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t or wouldn’t potentially change whatever is put forward tonight, even 180 degrees. Haven said that is correct, we need to get it to Planning. Luginski reiterated that there would be no final decision tonight. Haven agreed and said that Little and Planning need direction.

Casey said that he views short-term rentals as a positive for the city, so he would be in favor of option #3. He thought that Jones calling these hotels was absurd. This is just a couple of people for a couple of nights or a week or two. They are guests in the city, and they are going to be active in the city, walking around and spending money. This is a positive, and he will support short-term rentals with regulation.

Luginski thinks that the slippery slope is allowing short-term rentals in R1 and R2 and leaving it wide open to everybody. There are five today, ten two years from now, fifty three years from now, and there is no end to how many homes could be short-term rentals. While this is all subject to change based on a public hearing, if we do that, we need a limit. The precedent has been set, we’ve talked about it at the PC, and other communities have established a limit based on the size of the community and the number of homes. Limiting the number makes sense; unlimited is a very slippery slope. Haven thought that was an important point.

Casey said that he wasn’t referring to the number of short-term rentals. He meant that we only have a few people coming in, or a family, but he could support a limit on the number.

Haven said that once we get to option #3, that’s where the regulation options kick in, some of which would be number, spatial, and various things. It becomes more complicated at that point, but it may be more pleasing to the overall solution.

Avery said that perhaps Ryan could speak to this. The supreme court said that municipalities have the ability to exclude them from residential areas, but if we open the door and allow them in residential areas, Avery wasn’t sure how firm a footing we would have to limit them. How do you make the decision? How do you enforce that? If someone doesn’t make the cut, what’s going to stop them from going to court and saying that they were wrongfully refused the opportunity? We need some sort of formula to nail that down, and it would be difficult to come up with an arbitrary number. Avery tended to agree with Wylie, that residential areas are for residential homes. If you open it up to commercial, then what’s the next business that wants to come there? It’s a Pandora’s Box if we open it up.

Ryan thought that Avery had a good point. If the council goes in that direction, the PC will need to show the legislative history of this and explain the uniqueness of our situation in Clarkston. It’s half of a square mile, we have a historic district, we have limited zoning ability, and we are limited in size. Ryan thought we would have a much better chance if we did our work to show why we are limiting the number of short-term rentals to whatever number it is. It’s not impossible; we just have to do it correctly. Ryan thought that we had the factors to head in that direction if the council wanted to go there.

Haven said that how we articulate it is important down the line. Ryan said that it can’t be an arbitrary number. It must be based on the facts and circumstances that are relative to our situation here in the city.

Kniesc asked if we needed a motion. Haven said that he wanted to hear from council and then have the benefit of hearing two-minute responses from the callers. We need to limit the callers to two minutes, but they will have the ability to influence council. Then we could come back.

Haven said it looked like we are leaning to option #1 or #3 and asked Ryan if the council could take one or the other as a starter to be voted up or down and then go on to the second to get through the process simply. But before we make a motion, Haven thought we should hear what people have to say.

Kniesc agreed but had a couple of points. He thought that option #2 and #3 were at issue. With regard to option #2, Kniesc thought that with the tightness of the city, it doesn’t feel like there is an R1 or an R2. It’s more of a big melting pot of zoning, and he likes that. Option #2 doesn’t really make sense to him. When the council discussed the issue with the apartment that is within 400 feet of his house, R1 and R2 doesn’t really make sense to him. Kniesc said he was in favor of option #3.

Haven opened up public comments.

Sharon Bonser said that she had four things to say:

• • The carriage house that they rent has been rented for as long as anyone can remember as a short- and a long-term rental, long before they purchased it in 2000. In all their years of renting, they’ve never had any complaints.
  • The carriage house is unique in that it is an accessory building on their property. It is one of the oldest properties in the Village. They are physically on site; greet their guests; and provide them with local resources for restaurants, groceries, and parks. These families frequent our quaint downtown.
  • The third point combines the previous two. The history of the carriage house being rented, and its uniqueness being an accessory building – since there is no ordinance, why can’t it be grandfathered?
  • In terms of property value, they have spent a tremendous amount of time and money renovating the yellow house in front. They have taken a lot of care to maintain both properties in a beautiful, historical fashion that really adds value and charm to Main Street.

Theresa Fabrizio:

• • Fabrizio wanted to respond to Jones’ comments. She is across the street and Fabrizio knows that they have different opinions on this. Jones just doesn’t want Airbnbs. That’s totally understandable, and everyone has a difference of opinion.
  • Ryan talked about this not being clear in the bylaws or the ordinance, and they have taken a lot of measures to make sure they are renting for 30 days or more. Most of the people that they’ve had since 2019 have been long-term stays, beyond 30 days and some up to 90 days. She was updating Smith for awhile but stopped doing that because they kept getting longer stays, and she wanted to clear the air on that.
  • They aren’t illegally running a hotel. The city has yet to define short-term rentals. They don’t know what the number of days are, and it’s hard to say they are doing something contrary to the ordinance when it’s not defined. Fabrizio doesn’t know what a short-term rental is. The Carlisle report was outstanding, nonbiased, and informative, and it doesn’t clarify what a short-term rental is, so how would they know what that is? They have tried very, very hard to have long-term stays that would fall under traditional rental stays.

Smith said that Fabrizio had gone over two minutes.

• • Fabrizio said she was just trying to counter what was said, but she would want a short-term rental any day of the week. They’ve lived next door to long-term rentals with transient people every day. The city has over 33% rental in the overall plan that is not regulated in any way. You have a chance to have some properties that are regulated that you have control over.
  • The people that come and stay are families and not partiers. Fabrizio began to read something from a recent tenant, Lissa, who has been there for a few months.

Haven interrupted. They were trying to be fair to everyone. Haven asked if Fabrizio could just summarize the nature of the letter. As Luginski said, it’s not final tonight and Fabrizio will have due process as she’s had in the past. It’s not fair to others who are limited to two minutes, so please wrap it up.

Lissa Weissman said that she is Theresa Fabrizio’s tenant and would provide comments; Haven said she could do so. Weissman has been in Michigan for six months. She is a Californian trying to decide whether to locate, and having a short-term rental available in this wonderful, historic city where she can walk downtown has been amazing. It’s afforded her the chance to look around southeast Michigan and see where she wants to reside and buy a house. She’s been here since the end of January and will be here through the end of the month, if not longer. This has given her the opportunity to get to know Michigan better, and she’s decided that she wants to live here. Haven thanked her for the comments.

Bonser spoke as a member of the public. After the public hearings approximately fourteen months ago, the PC recommended regulating short-term rentals. The Carlisle-Wortman study stated that short-term rentals with regulations was a viable option. It’s been mentioned that the State of Michigan has been encouraging tourism as we recover from the pandemic, and recent public comments have stated how short-term renters often become supporters, vendors, and investors in the Village of Clarkston. Bonser thought that the council should approve short-term rental regulations with a simple and manageable requirement that short-term rentals must be a minimum of three-six nights. This would alleviate the strains of tenants coming primarily to party, something that Bonser thinks is an anomaly. The regulation would also make the focus for longer-term, family-oriented tenants. This option gives owners of furnished rentals and families looking for an affordable space the flexibility to rent inside the Village. Bonser believes that an overall short-term rental ban is a regulatory overreach that is unneeded. If the council decides to ban the short-term rentals, the restriction will ultimately hurt our community and the family members that come to visit.

Pardee said that he recalled that Carlisle-Wortman didn’t want the situation to bring additional costs to the city and suggested that the impact be revenue neutral. Pardee is interested in understanding what the cost of the regulations would be, depending on the path chosen. He recognized that we have a code enforcement process that hasn’t been very active, though the next budget will make a proposal to put more code enforcement processes in place. Pardee told the council about a couple of residents at the end of North Main that Pardee believed haven’t been regulated from a code enforcement perspective, so code enforcement costs need to be considered in whatever is approved. Pardee also saw an opportunity for revenue generation that should not be overlooked; when you travel, you are spending 20% of your motel stay on taxes that go to the location where the hotel is. We identified that parking could provide revenue and we used that for a couple of years prior to COVID. We are going to miss that revenue in the budget year.

Weissman wanted to comment on the revenue side, such as shopping in the Village. She bought a car in Clarkston that added to the revenue stream for our taxes, and she wanted to point that out.

Haven closed public comments.

Haven said that he wanted to point out that the Carlisle-Wortman report divided rentals into three general categories – those with a primary residence where the owner remains in the dwelling; a short-term rental where the owner is not present during the stay; and nonowner occupied and not the primary residence of the owner. If we move away from a total ban, we will get into these descriptions that the PC would help sort out and come back to the public in terms of an ordinance. Haven invited a motion around options #1, #2, or #3.

Kniesc made a motion to allow short-term rentals in VC, R1, and R2 with regulations, or option #3 on the report. Haven confirmed that Kniesc was proposing option #3 without any qualification. Casey seconded the motion. Haven wanted to know if Kniesc was proposing #3 as written, which opens the door to all regulation options. Kniesc said that was correct.

Luginski said that he knows that this has to go to Planning, but he wants to limit the number of short-term rentals that we have in the city. It’s not a regulation that is on #3 right now, but he thought we needed to look at that. He knows that it’s been done and that there is some precedent set in being able to limit the number of properties that we have in the city. It’s a horrible analogy, but to Avery’s point regarding who gets it and who doesn’t, it’s like a liquor license. There are so many allowed based on population and other criteria, and if there were only three of them and you were the fourth person, you don’t get one. We should look at this similarly. If we allow X number, whatever that number is, and there is some precedent set on limiting short-term rentals based on the number of homes and the size of a city, Luginski didn’t think that we set ourselves up for a problem. He’s OK with three, but we need to limit the number of properties that could be short-term rentals.

Kniesc said that he would amend the motion and asked Ryan if there is some sort of algorithm or formula to use, similar to parking spots – square footage for offices, etc. Ryan said that we would have to match that to our unique circumstances – our size, historical structures, etc. We would have to work up a good legislative history for whatever the number is.

Casey said that they were getting too specific with too many details. The potential number is a task for the PC. Then it will come back to council and there can be further discussion about the number. Luginski agreed with council not coming up with a number; he was just saying that should be included as one of the regulations or criteria for allowing short-term rentals in R1 and R2. The PC should come back with a recommendation of the number of properties based on our size. Haven said that can be a qualifier. We can say that there is no reference to a number in the array of potential regulations or limit the suggested regulation relative to geography or distance between. That’s really the only thing that gets close to what you are talking about. Ryan said that since this has been kicked around for a while, if a limiting number is of assistance to the council’s thinking, then it should be communicated to the PC, even if no one knows what the number is. Haven asked if that could be put in a motion, and Ryan said yes.

Haven asked if council wanted to limit it at this juncture or let Planning do their work? Kniesc thought it would take time to figure out a formula but doesn’t know what the formula is. He would be happy to work on it but imagines that there would be some kind of limiting factor that would be calculated with a formula.

Haven asked if Kniesc was changing his motion. Kniesc didn’t know if he needed to change it but would do so if it made people feel better.

Luginski asked about the Carlisle-Wortman document and #3, section D. Smith said that the top section concerned the registration and licensing program, and D is the last category, requiring monthly reports from hosting sites to be filed. Luginski said that he thinks that there should be some specific language there that limits the number of short-term rental properties. This is where the PC needs to do the work; Luginski didn’t know the number and doesn’t want to pull one out of the air. Kneisc agreed but wondered if that should be part of the motion right now. Luginski said that if it wasn’t, then it’s not part of the criteria.

Jeff Schloff interrupted the meeting and said that he had connectivity issues earlier. Haven said that we already had the time for public comments, but he would allow Schloff a minute to speak. Schloff said that he is an owner of one of the existing Aribnbs at 69 Main Street. They’ve owned the property for 1.5 to 2 years now. They originally bought it to move in, then it became a short-term rental. It’s been a great experience all around, but he wanted to make a couple of points. They aren’t making a million dollars off these things; they just want to have some passive income and keep the properties up to code. They are nonexempt, and the taxes are significant. They haven’t made a dollar in the two years that they’ve owned the property; every dollar has gone back into the property, both internally and externally. This year, they are planning on painting and cleaning the property even more. It’s a real asset to the city. He could go over story after story of families from Clarkston coming back to Clarkston and having grandparents, parents, and kids stay. It’s a really good feeling, a good feeling type of story, and a big asset to our great community. Haven thanked Schloff and said that he was one of the property owners.

Haven asked Kniesc if he wanted to amend his motion. Kniesc said he would amend the motion to add on a specific direction to the PC to determine a calculation to limit the number of short-term rentals allowed in the Village. Casey agreed to the amendment. Luginski said that works to get the language in there to take a look at this.

Wylie said that she wanted to reiterate again that she’s not in favor of option #3. She’s in favor of option #2. One of the reasons that she’s opposed to option #3 is that we have strict zoning laws in the city. There is a big difference between residential and commercial, even if some people may not see it. There are many things that we don’t allow in residential areas that are only permitted in commercial areas, and Wylie thinks that short-term rentals should be one of those things. The city has a long history of trying to maintain the sanctity of residential communities and we should continue to do that.

Pardee said he wants to correct a misunderstanding. Haven said we are past that. Pardee said that no income to the city comes from spending in the city. To repeat, no income comes to the city from spending in the city.

Luginski, Casey, and Kniesc voted yes on Kniesc’s motion. Avery, Haven, and Wylie voted no. Bonser was recused. The motion did not carry because the vote was tied.

Wylie made a motion that the council go ahead with option #2, banning short-term rentals in R1 and R2 but allowing them in other districts such as VC. Motion seconded by Avery.

Avery wanted to add that the PC should put some sort of language together that would allow the currently operating Airbnbs a certain amount of time to be able to wind down, perhaps three to six months. He didn’t want to cause too much of a hardship. Haven thought that was a good point, and Carlisle-Wortman referred to this as “amortization” in their report. Wylie agreed to put that in the motion and thinks that the PC should come up with a number.

Luginski asked if the regulation considerations in option #3 would be part of option #2. Wylie said that we could regulate the short-term rentals in the VC area if we choose to. Right now, there are no short-term rentals in the commercial district that she knows of. We could limit the number, how far apart they are, and add regulations regarding fee collection and monthly reports. All of the things that are mentioned are possibilities for regulation in any short-term rental in the commercial district. Luginski wanted to understand – the table in option #3 would be part of option #2? Avery said that’s correct as it would relate to Airbnbs that would operate in the VC zone.

Casey was concerned that some of the existing short-term rentals that have been in operation for literally decades would be put out of business in what seems to be a short period of time – he’s totally against that. The carriage house on Bonser’s property has been rented at least since the late 1960s/early 1970s. Casey’s sister rented it in the 1970s, so he knows that it has been in existence for a long, long time. Avery said that no one is saying that they can’t rent their property; they are saying that they aren’t allowing them to rent it on a short-term basis. They always have the option to rent on a long-term basis, and the PC will help to define what short-term versus long-term is. It’s only the nature and length of the rentals that’s being considered here. Wylie agreed. Luginski thought that was a good point. No one is saying that the rentals have to stop. It’s what is short-term versus long-term and we need to define that.

Wylie recalled from her work on the PC that the State of Michigan defines short-term as 30 days or less or under 30 days, so what the Fabrizios are doing may not be a short-term rental. They are not saying that people can’t rent their property as a long-term rental.

Haven said that we are moving in a direction of more stability. We need to do more work in terms of rental properties overall. There are a lot of rental properties in the Village, and they are trying to get close to being better at governing.

Haven said it’s a motion for #2 with amortizing to be determined by council for existing units, and to Theresa Fabrizio’s point, defining what is a short-term rental. Was this feeling a little better to council? Were they ready to vote or is there other discussion?

No additional discussion.

Little asked that the motion be restated before the vote.

Wylie said that it was taken directly from Carlisle-Wortman – banning short-term rentals in the R1 and R2 districts but allowing them in other districts such as VC, with an amortization schedule to allow the existing short-term rentals to phase out their short-term rental business.

Luginski, Avery, Haven, and Wylie voted yes. Kniesc and Casey voted no. Bonser did not vote. Motion carried.

Item 10b, Motion: Church St. Continued Closure, Recommendation from Planning Commission (Video time mark 1:23:42)

• • Recommendation from the Planning Commission (PC) to City Council Re: Continued Outdoor Dining on East Church Street Until July 7, 2021 (2 Months) (page 25/31 of the council packet)

Haven said this was a motion on recommendation from the PC to extend the time of the continued outdoor dining on East Church to 7/7/21. He asked Little to explain.

Little said that the council had passed a motion some time ago to close Church Street through 5/2/21. At that time, we thought that COVID would be much diminished, and we would have a more open playing field. As you know, Michigan is having issues with COVID, hospitals are full, and there are other facts that Little didn’t want to talk about. The republican legislature is working on a bill that would say that the current levels of positivity that we have might reduce indoor dining from 50% to 25% to even 0%. With that in mind, the recommendation is to extend the closure to 7/7/21. The reason for that date is that the 4^th is a Sunday, and the 5^th is a holiday, and that would give them time to clean the street up, re-mark and re-stripe it, and get it ready for open traffic. It’s also part of the recommendation that they have agreed to take down the Quonset (large) tent and go back to outdoor dining as it was last fall. This is a simple two-month extension, and hopefully by then, the vaccines will outrun COVID and the world will look a lot brighter.

Haven made a motion to accept the recommendation from the PC and get it on the table. Luginski seconded the motion to continue the existing outdoor dining and all the facilities that are included until 7/7/21.

Casey asked if they needed to include that Honcho’s large tent needs to be taken down by a certain date. Little asked if 5/2/21 was OK and thought that was in the documentation that he’d sent.

Kniesc said that it says the first week but not 5/2. Little said that 5/2 is a Sunday, so they gave them the first week to give them Monday or so to take it apart. It’s a big structure with a lot of nuts, bolts, and screws, so they are giving them some leeway that first week.

Haven said that the large tent is to be removed the first week of May 2021. Little said that was correct. Haven said that was what was on the table, and Casey said that was fine.

Kniesc said that he was good except for #3. It’s been closed for awhile, he hasn’t heard a lot of complaints, it’s slowed down traffic, made the city more walkable, and it’s been an improvement in the Village. We’ve talked about making a permanent plan for that. Kniesc said he personally wouldn’t like to see Church Street reopened. There haven’t been a lot of complaints about traffic patterns being disrupted. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #2.] Maybe we don’t need to decide right now and strike that from the recommendation and talk about it later.

Little said that they kicked that around in the PC and they are going to discuss it at the May meeting. The discussion would be could we close it, put in brick pavers, a fountain, benches, and trees and make it a park for every person, every business, and a centerpiece of downtown. They aren’t ready to talk about it and they don’t know the sentiment of the people in the Village about that.

Haven said that would be a big deal and HDC (Historic District Commission) approval would be required. Kniesc thought it would be cleaner if we don’t have that and doesn’t know if that needs to be in the motion or not. Just to keep it cleaner. The motion is to keep it closed until 7/7/21, but he’s fine either way.

Curt Catallo thanked the PC and the council for being so proactive in trying to help guide Clarkston businesses through the unthinkable, because it was unthinkable when they first took the recommendation of the city and closed Church Street. It’s kind of unthinkable that they are likely going to be leaning on Church Street to help them get through June, and they would like to thank the city and the PC for being so proactive and understanding. These are unusual times and call for unusual actions. Allowing them to use Church Street for this long has kept their business and their people employed through the pandemic. With regard to #3, it was always their intention to take the circus out of town long before July, but it’s their intention to take the circus out of town and return Church Street to the state they found it in. If #3 is just that East Church Street is restored to operable condition on or before 7/7/21, Catallo did tell the PC that they would be happy to leave their blocks and barricades up as the city decides if it wants to operate as a community space going forward. They know that come 7/7/21, they will be return the property to the city restored and ready to reopen.

Little said that for the public record, if there is any other business, restaurant, or merchant in town that has an idea about dealing or getting through COVID and doing something different, the PC is absolutely open to having those discussions with them. They welcome anyone who wants to come in the door and ask for help during this difficult time.

Haven said that he wasn’t sure of the relevancy, but he noted that we were pursuing a social district; he didn’t know about the overlap of these two events and whether there is any relationship to that. He asked Wylie to speak to that regarding the initiation of the social district and what it looks like relative to East Church.

Wylie said that she just got an email today and knows that Shane Collier is on the call. He’s working on some things from a Union Joints perspective. Union Joints are the only people who ever really entered into any work with us on doing this, and they are working on putting signs together. The idea is that once the weather warms up, something will happen. There is nothing going on during the winter, but she thinks it will crank up once the weather warms up.

Collier said that they are definitely eager to get the social district going. As Wylie said, the weather is improving, and the sooner they can get things moving, the better it is. Collier said that there has been some back and forth on the signage and things that they want to provide for the city. He thought that they needed to hammer out a couple of details, and once that’s done, unless there’s something he doesn’t know about, he believed that the social district would be ready to open. Wylie said that’s how she sees it. They just need to hammer out a few details. Signs and cups are the last thing that needs to be determined.

Haven said that it’s 4/12 now, and he’s thinking that the social district may become a reality in April. Wylie said that she’s been in other communities, such as Saugatuk, where they have a social district and there is nothing going on. The weather isn’t nice enough, and there’s not enough business to see people wandering around with drinks. It’s not like we are the only people who aren’t doing anything. Haven said the businesses will certainly benefit from this once it gets going.

Haven asked if the council was ready to vote to reopen Church Street on 7/7 with the stipulations that were spelled out in the PC recommendation.

The motion passed unanimously.

Item 10c, Resolution: Resuming Paid Parking (Video time mark 1:36:20)

• • Resolution – Paid Parking and Parking Enforcement (page 27/31 of the council packet)

Haven said that this was a tangential issue in the form of a resolution to resume paid parking. He won’t read the whereas clauses which are dates and tracking history, but the resolution is that we resolve that paid parking in the Washington and Main parking lot will resume on 5/1/21, and parking enforcement throughout the city will also resume on 5/1/21.

The resolution was made by Casey; second by Bonser.

Luginski asked who would enforce this in terms of making people following the rules – do we have people? Smith said that there were a number of them – Don Davis and Mike Cascone. Lugniski said he was thinking of Don Davis and asked who would take their place. Smith said that last year, we hired Lisa Patterson and Mike Cascone. Those were the two who were working when we turned it off, and both of them have shown an interest in resuming when we’re ready. Smith noted that their salaries are paid out of the parking revenue fund, so it’s self-funding in that regard.

Bonser asked if they have the authority to write tickets, or are they just reminding people? Smith said that they have the authority to write parking tickets but not moving or any other violation because they aren’t the police.

Haven asked about other dates that relate to 5/1/21. It sounds like the social district might open before 5/1, and there is the reopening of Church Street on 7/7/21, which is two months later. Theoretically, the resumption of paid parking could be coincidental with the 7/7/21 date, but we have a proposal for 5/1/21 which is coincidental with the social district opening. Haven thought this was germane.

Casey thinks it’s past time to reopen paid parking, so he supports it earlier rather than later. Wylie said that when she first read the resolution, her initial thought was no, it’s still too early, until she read the city manager’s report stating that the downtown is busy, parking lots are full, and streets are full of parking on Friday and Saturday – is that true? Smith said that it was his casual observation that Thursday, Friday, and Saturday have been busy from around 5:00 to about 9:00, which seems to be the peak period. Smith hasn’t done a data analysis. It’s all casual observation, and he doesn’t know about Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday used to be big nights.

Wylie wanted a little bit of feedback from any restaurant owners. Curt is on the call. She didn’t want to hurt the businesses and felt like they are probably not even breaking even and maybe July would be a better date.

Catallo said he would be happy to answer the question. He does think that Union Joints has been the most vocal about parking, and the only ones who have chimed in about parking, but he does agree that it’s early. He would like to know what other municipalities are doing. Municipalities across America stopped parking meter enforcement and paid parking. It would be interesting to know what Oxford, Rochester, Birmingham, or Grosse Pointe are doing and whether they have lifted it. Catallo thought Wylie’s instinct was correct that they are far from recovery now. He was concerned that people would be taxed with paying for parking or paying a parking ticket for a violation. These people aren’t living the way they lived in 2019, and we shouldn’t forget that. The other issue is whether the people who are enforcing it are trying to get the same amount of meat out of fewer fish because they have a pot to fill. Catallo thought that the issue is that if you are one minute over, you are going to get a ticket because there are less fish to catch. That’s his concern with enforcement once parking comes online. Catallo said that he always says that they work as hard as they possibly can work to create a parking problem, and they would love to have the parking lots full again where enforcement is viable, but he does think it’s early and would love to know what other municipalities are doing. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #3.]

Smith said that we haven’t tracked what other municipalities are doing. We do know that Milford has reopened and doesn’t know if they ever closed. He didn’t know about Lake Orion. They were closed and he doesn’t know if they are open or not. To use a phrase that we used when we were approving paid parking, we are not Rochester or Milford, nor do we want to be. We have our own unique requirements, and this fund has been key to funding things that otherwise would have to be paid by taxpayers – roads, sidewalks, and parking lot maintenance. It’s important to keep in mind that if we don’t have revenue, we have to put off maintenance for some of those items or ask that taxpayer money be used for those items and forego something else that we would like to do in the city. That needs to be considered as well.

Catallo said he understood and had a question for the city manager or Pardee because he is interested in this kind of thing. Are there any funds available to municipalities to make up for lost revenue from parking? Unless you are participating in the shared state revenue that works with regard to the sales tax that has declined, and property taxes haven’t changed because of COVID, but are there any funds that would allow the city to make up funds by not having paid parking? Smith said that the American Rescue Plan (ARP) does that, and we know that in round numbers, we are going to get $47,000 in 2021 and another $47,000 in 2022. Those monies are intended to replenish funds that were otherwise lost due to COVID.

Catallo asked if the calculation of lost parking revenue allowed the city to get the grant. Smith said that the ARP was designed to support local municipalities. It’s not a grant; it’s an allocation of $105 per resident, and we have 800 or so residents. This equates to $90-$91,000 or something like that. They want you to use it for areas of the budget that you’ve lost out on because of COVID, but then they added a challenge – that the money is not intended to be used for infrastructure except for water and sewer lines and broadband.

Casey and Bonser voted yes; all others voted no. The resolution to reinstate paid parking failed.

Haven asked if they wanted to change the date or just move on.

Bonser wanted to know what happens when this expires. Haven said it was extended to this point, and Smith said that it expires today. Kniesc said that we needed to make a different motion, and Haven said they could do that. Luginski said they should do it, or it goes into effect tomorrow.

Wylie made a motion with the 7/7/21 date. Avery seconded the motion and wanted to make it clear that we will continue the suspension of paid parking until 7/7, matching up with the same date that we open up East Church Street.

Bonser wanted to know if it had to be unanimous. Haven said that it’s a resolution because it involves money. Ryan said that it only requires a majority vote of four to pass. Haven asked if Ryan was interpreting this as revenue, and Ryan said no.

Kniesc asked if they wanted to line this up with a council meeting. Wylie said there was a meeting on 7/12/21 and suggested making it 7/13/21. Casey asked why it needed to coincide with a council meeting, and Wylie said that it allows the council to decide before the deadline expires if they want to change it. Bonser asked why the date was in July – couldn’t they do this in June? What if something miraculous happens and our parking lots are full? We are going to potentially lose a month of revenue. Wylie said that someone could make a resolution at a June meeting to open paid parking up at that time.

Wylie changed the effective date of the motion to 7/13/21; Avery seconded.

The motion passed, with Bonser and Casey voting no.

Agenda Item #11, New Business

Item 11a, Solicitation Request, Jeff Cicirelli from Cicirelli’s cleaning service is requesting permission to hand out flyers and demo equipment for future cleaning and equipment sales in the City of Clarkston (Video time mark 1:52:46)

• • City Council Agenda Item Request from Jeffrey Cicirelli (page 28/31 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a solicitation request and asked Ryan to comment. Haven thought this would have to go to the PC for ordinance work.

Ryan said that he didn’t understand what was being requested and asked Smith to have the requester send something to review because he wants to use city streets for solicitation for flyers. Ryan was concerned after reading the bullet points that he may want to set up and use another business’ property to show some of the items that he’s trying to sell. Ryan thinks we should hear more about what is being asked and ask Lieutenant Hill to weigh in on having someone out in the street. We’ve allowed other uses, but they had to utilize yellow vests. Out in the street is different than being on the sidewalk, so we should probably be added as an additional named insured on the business’ general liability policy in case something should happen during the solicitation. This is different than going door to door; this is actually being out in traffic. Ryan isn’t sure he understands what’s being requested, especially with regard to the component about bringing equipment and having people pull off and look at equipment for sale in some undetermined spot in the city after they are solicited on the street.

Haven thought that we passed this point years ago with Amway, Fuller Brush, and Kerby vacuum cleaners, but apparently our ordinances don’t speak to that solicitation piece. We would need some help from Planning on this. Haven asked if Ryan was saying that we don’t have an ordinance against solicitation. Ryan said that people are allowed to solicit, and we do have a solicitation ordnance where solicitation is allowed, but people have to register. We can’t prohibit solicitation, but this is kind of a hybrid. It sounds like a solicitation and a sales situation relative to having equipment that could be nearby to show someone who is interested after being solicited.

Haven was surprised that we had this sort of ordinance on solicitation, but he hasn’t seen this sort of knocking on doors salesmanship. Avery said that it’s mostly people selling magazines for whatever organization they represent which is usually a charity. When it’s on the street, it’s usually the Lions or the Rotary fundraising for a particular weekend. Avery thought it sets a dangerous precedent to allow someone to be out on Washington and Main taking about vacuum cleaners – who is next? Luginski said the only other situation is a tree trimmer – what are they trying to sell? Cleaning services for what, homes?

Wylie didn’t understand what this was. He’s talking about standing in the street and trying to stop people to get them to buy his service or equipment. It’s a slippery slope – do we want someone out there every day of the week selling things? She doesn’t. Wylie wanted to know what they need to do to make this person go away and register to hand out his flyers door-to-door.

Avery said it’s one thing to knock on your door and sell services but another to stand out in the street and try to solicit people. This is a bridge too far.

Haven said he would make a motion to send this to Planning for sorting out. Maybe he can come and present to Planning and they can come back with some sort of brief characterization of where we are. Little said he has a strong feeling that if they send it to Planning, Planning will send it right back.

Casey said that the Rotary and the Lions were mentioned regarding fund raising, but they are charitable organizations, and this is a for-profit business. That is a distinction. Avery said that the volunteer organizations are doing it for a very limited number of days, a weekend, or whatever. This guy wants to do this 365 days a year.

Ryan said he would rather not get involved in the for-profit or charitable situation. He thought that this is an open-ended request, and the other requests have been approved for a definite and discrete period of time. The flaw in this request is that it seems too open-ended and not defined enough relative to what kind of permission we would allow. If the request could be refined to show limits on it, then maybe it’s something that council could consider.

Haven asked if we should ask them to come back with something more focused? Ryan said yes, in time and nature.

Bonser wanted to know if they could make a motion to deny this. Ryan requested that Bonser say that he is sending it back and asking the city manager to follow up with the applicant to have him narrow the request to something more reasonable and with more time constraints so you can decide whether to approve it or not. Avery asked if it should be tabled, and Ryan said that they could, but we need to get more information.

Wylie moved to table the issue; second by Bonser.

Motion passed unanimously.

Item 11b, Resolution: Mental Health Awareness Month (Video time mark 2:01:49)

• • 02/02/2021 Letter from Oakland Community Health Network and Draft Resolution Re: Mental Health Awareness Month – May 2021 (page 30/31 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a request from Oakland Community Health Network to declare May as Mental Health Month.

Resolved by Wylie; second by Avery.

Haven said that it’s a resolution, and he read from the resolution provided.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 2:03:27)

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording: http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3422?channel=2
  • 20210412 – City council packet