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:
Rules for virtual meetings were posted on screen but not discussed.
Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:00:05):
Meeting called to order by Haven.
Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:09):
Pledge of Allegiance said.
Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:28):
Present – Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie were present, and all were located in Clarkston, Oakland County, Michigan.
Haven thanked Wylie for doing a great job running the last city council meeting.
Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:01:15):
No discussion.
Agenda approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:02:24):
Chet Pardee – Pardee expressed concern at the June 22nd city council meeting about having insufficient funds for 2021 capital improvement expenses. Since that time, the city’s financial condition has gotten worse due to the interceptor sewer costs, the East Washington alley stormwater repair, highway expenses, new sign expenses, the FOIA decision against the city, and the legal expenses for the HDC SHPO [Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Office] appeals continue. The current concerns are that the city has not kept up with the Hubble Roth & Clark recommendations for street maintenance and further study in the city. For example, the city was only able to repair half of Miller Road at double the estimated costs. There are 38 cracked sections of sidewalk that remain in pieces. The west portion of Miller Road acts as a dam between the upper and lower Mill Pond. Clarkston road repair is planned by the Road Commission in 2022 at the earliest. Church Street repaving and sidewalk repair was mentioned in the 2020-2021 budget presentation, but no cost or timing has been established. Hot rubber crack fill is not being used consistently to extend the life of streets. Pardee recommended that the responsibility for developing street and sidewalk maintenance and fund plans be given to the Planning Commission. They will be able to understand Hubble Roth & Clark’s street analysis study and recommend street and sidewalk priorities as well as sources for budget shortfalls.
[At that point, Pardee’s audio cut off and city manager Jonathan Smith picked up the comments from a summary provided by Pardee.]
Smith – Pardee recommended that the Planning Commission become the city’s finance committee and that Avery become an addition to Wylie as council liaison, which will enable the council to act as the friends of Clarkston streets and sidewalks. Pardee viewed Smith’s long list of things that he’s working on as a request for help in establishing the city’s priorities, and Pardee is certain that the city council received additional insight about that during the recent closed session with Smith. Giving the responsibility for planning the city’s street and sidewalk maintenance priorities to the Planning Commission will link this activity to the master plan and the capital improvement plan.
No additional public comments.
Public comments closed.
Agenda Item #6, FYI, Retail and Dining Flyers (Video time mark 0:07:14; 4/106 of the council packet):
There are two new documents online that were created by Wylie, Curt Catallo, Eric Lines, and Union AdWorks. Jennifer Speagle updated the website with the retail options. She also pinned them to the city’s Facebook page so that people will see that first. Wylie noted that this was originally Cory Johnston’s idea.
Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report For November 2020 (Video time mark 0:09:21, page 6/106 of the council packet):
Bonser still has a question about traffic enforcement in the Village. He lives on Main Street and sees a lot of cars driving through Clarkston but no traffic enforcement or ticket writing. The traffic seems to be moving fast, and the study prepared by the college student verified that. The Sheriff’s report does not indicate how many people were pulled over. He would like to see more traffic enforcement without having to pay extra for it.
[Initially, the discussion with Lt. Hill was very difficult to hear due to his connection using a Bluetooth speaker.]
Lt. Hill said that the Sheriff doesn’t distinguish between enforcement areas. They know that Main Street is a thoroughfare, and we are getting enforcement. He would rather officers not spend more time documenting things. They spent a lot of time in November just focusing on Clarkston, and other than a small area south of Waldon, there is very little speeding. It is rare that someone goes more than 4-5 miles over the speed limit.
Luginski disagreed. While traffic is slow during rush hour when it’s impossible to go fast, he’s observed the portable signs registering 35-45 miles per hour constantly during the day. Lt. Hill said that while some people speed up when the see the sign, 25-30% of them slow down. The signs help the Sheriff determine the time and place of enforcement. During the walk-around, people thought that cars were traveling at a high rate of speed, but Lt. Hill was confident that the cars were travelling at less than 30 miles per hour, which is the equivalent of 47 feet per second. When you are standing still and watching, this seems like a fast rate.
Haven noted that we will have data in the future. Smith agreed. Luginski agreed that the signs were effective, and he could see people slow down. People hit their brakes all the time near the sign on White Lake near Holcomb.
Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:22:11; page 7/106 of the council packet):
Haven asked about the weatherization grant and asked for examples of investment. Smith said that the County sent out a list of suggested items that they are willing to purchase for restaurants at no charge to municipalities and the chambers of commerce seeking input. These items ranged from an extension cord, heaters, and a $2,000 greenhouse. The supplies are intended to help restaurants expand their capacity by moving outside. The city added some additional supplies to the County’s list, such as hand sanitizer stations, masks, and gloves. We haven’t heard anything from the County, and we don’t know who will ask for what and how much. Haven asked if it was like a grant application, and Smith said it was but without going through the effort of making an application.
Smith said that we are getting close to installing the speed signs. The poles were approved and installed, and we just need approval from MDOT. The plan is to install the signs and capture data without turning them on. After a week or two, we will turn the signs on and compare the before and after data. Smith expected to get the signs up and running by the Christmas holiday.
Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda As Presented (Video time mark 0:26:18)
-
- 11/9/2020 Final Minutes, page 8/106 of the council packet
- 11/23/2020 Draft Minutes, page 10/106 of the council packet
- Treasurer’s Report for City Council Meeting, page 12/106 of the council packet
- Check Disbursement Report 11/1/2020–11/30/2020, page 13/106 of the council packet
- Thomas J. Ryan, P.C. November 2020 invoice, page 21/106 of the council packet
The consent agenda was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item #10, Old Business
Item 10a, Resolution: Decline the Michigan DNR Grant Offering (Video time mark 0:27:28; page 24/106 of the council packet):
The resolution was titled “Resolution to Decline DNR Grant and to Rescind City Council Resolution for This Project on March 25, 2019.”
Haven explained why he was suggesting that the city decline this grant. We’ve done a lot of work to apply, but things changed after approval and funding. We are not jeopardized from applying for a grant in the future if we decline this one. We didn’t receive sufficient cash from the fundraising campaign to float the cash flow for the project. People donated a lot of time and material, but with COVID and prices and delivery going up, the $20,000 in cash that we had wasn’t enough to support the minimal $32,000 draw that we would need.
Haven doesn’t like turning down money. He has a complete list of everyone who contributed, wants to thank them, and to ask if they would like a refund. They want to pursue some initiatives that don’t have the restraints that we had with the DNR grant. Haven is confident that we have public support and people responded nicely to the project.
The vote on the resolution passed with Bonser voting no; all others voting yes.
Item 10b, Motion: Acceptance of Depot Park Conceptual Plan (Video time mark 0:32:17; page 27/106 of the council packet):
The motion was titled “Friends of Depot Park Site Plan Drawing Approval.”
Haven said that a whole lot of time and effort has gone into defining what the Friends of Depot Park (FODP) want to do in the future. They are looking for an initiative or endorsement from the council to go forward with the conceptual plan, realizing that if any of these things are pursued, they would come back as an individual item for funding. The plan is to fund all items with charitable contributions, not tax dollars. They have $20,000 to start with if everyone leaves their money in the fund, and they hope that everyone can see that they were acting responsibly by rejecting the DNR grant and protecting these funds. It’s important when fundraising to give people the vision.
Wylie had problems with the timing. It’s a bad time to pursue charitable fund raising because many people have lost jobs. Charitable groups are short on funding that help people rather than parks. If we go ahead, she would like to see things on a smaller scale, such as fixing the gazebo. She’s not as much in favor of the pavilions. Avery saw no problem with the timing because people can decide where they want to give their money. He would have liked to have seen more detail, phases, how it will go from beginning to end, and a general cost estimate.
Bonser appreciates what the FODP are doing. He asked for clarification about the gazebo and relocating the path in the back. Where would the musicians set up to play for a concert? Haven said that the gazebo isn’t the ideal place for a band, and the path wouldn’t encumber the audience while watching the band. Bonser had no problem with the path if it doesn’t affect where most people are sitting. Smith said it wasn’t clear how the pathway connects to the gazebo. They were concerned about accessibility under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and they want to be able to have a smooth wheelchair path to the bridge and over the bridge.
Luginski asked if the resolution was just to allow fund raising, with no final plans to approve, that these are just possibilities. Haven agreed but noted that Avery wanted to see a concept. They always wanted a master plan, but no one was able to fund it. This plan came from Hubble Roth & Clark and is the best plan they have ever had. There has been a lot of public interest, and it is a ray of hope during a difficult period. Details would follow and need to be approved by the council, but this is important to encourage the FODP to think, plan, and dream.
Paul (FODP member) said that it’s hard to get costs for these things because people wouldn’t bid on it.
Haven said it’s a bird’s eye overview. These things can be done one piece at a time. They are looking for encouragement and incentive and want to go forward as we can afford things and people are inspired to fund them.
Pardee said he’s not anti-Depot Park but he’s concerned about the council’s priorities. We need to be focused on taking care of our infrastructure and things that already exist. It’s more of a priority issue rather than a spending issue. Haven said that the intent is to allow fundraising. Chet said he was concerned that there will be increased taxes to pay for street and sidewalk infrastructure because the city just doesn’t have enough money.
Bonser said we can do two things at once, and it doesn’t cost anything to talk. Wylie said that the DPW staff and city manager have a big role in what we do in Depot Park and it takes them away from their other responsibilities. She would like to see approval for small things, such as doing fundraising for repairing the gazebo. This is too much – pathways, pavilions, bathrooms, gazebo, and a boardwalk. She would also prefer to see a schedule.
Jim Breuck (FODP) didn’t want to misrepresent this as a plan or a done deal. They just want a dialogue. Most of the conversation is around prioritizing. They don’t want to fundraise and then try to figure out how to spend it. This plan shows every tree and bench. It’s a big elephant and you have to eat it one bite at a time.
Kniesc had concerns about the title of the motion because it says it’s an approval. Haven thought that was a good point. Luginski agreed that the title of the motion was a problem because it is different than just approving the ability of the FODP to raise funds for improvements. Haven said that it’s not a request for a site plan approval. Bonser said the title of the motion is at odds with the body, and they can’t approve it with the title. Haven was concerned about giving encouragement to the volunteers and those who would want to contribute. Avery was OK with a better worded motion that allows the FODP to do fund raising for the goal of improving the park.
Paul (FODP) asked if they needed to break things down into bite-sized chunks with a proposal. Avery said they could still do a phased approach at some point, but he was personally OK with giving general approval to start raising money. Paul said that’s what they are looking for, and they would still bring priorities to the council with costs, locations, recommendations – then they would raise money for it.
Smith said that the motions are just drafts, and if it’s close to what the council wants, perhaps it can be reworded and approved so that they could get something done this evening. There was some discussion regarding how to reword the motion so that it was limited to allow fundraising. Tom Ryan noted that there would have to be some major changes to the motion beyond the title; he suggested that the council table the motion until January. Smith said that he will rewrite it and bring it back to the council.
Motion to table the issue until January was approved unanimously.
Item 10c, Resolution: Paid Parking & Parking Enforcement (Video time mark 1:08:56; 29/106 of the council packet):
The resolution was titled “Paid Parking and Parking Enforcement.”
Smith noted that paid parking was initiated in 2018, there was a full year of paid parking in 2019, and then we suspended paid parking and parking enforcement on May 11th through December 31st due to COVID issues. Paid parking was implemented to incentivize turnover and to raise revenue. The money raised has been dedicated to roads, sidewalks, and parking lots.
Indoor dining restrictions are currently scheduled to last until December 20th but could last longer than that. Once the restrictions are lifted, we expect the restaurant patrons to return and parking demand will surge. Smith thought this would be a good time to consider restarting paid parking and parking enforcement. He proposed tying the restart of paid parking to the time when the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) lifts dining restrictions.
Bonser noted that the parking lot is still heavily used. Smith said that it is used during the day by retail customers but it’s pretty empty in the evening.
Bonser asked if there was a COVID-related reason that the kiosk shouldn’t be used. Smith said that they could be more diligent about cleaning the keypad, but patrons can pay for parking using a phone app that so they could avoid touching the kiosk.
Bonser asked if there was a downside to resuming paid parking the second week of January no matter what is going on. Smith said he was just trying to find a rationale that made the most sense. Since we don’t know what date would be good to suggest, he thought it could be tied to MDHHS action. Wylie liked that approach. Avery said that restaurants probably won’t go back to full capacity for three to six months. It’s nice to get the revenue, but we want to encourage people to come back; perhaps we could look at this again on the first of February. Bonser noted that would give the council two more meetings to consider the issue.
Haven said we are going to gauge it by the activity of the restaurants, and we can vote up or down for the moment. Wylie suggested amending the motion to put a date on it rather than leaving it tied to when the indoor dining restriction ends. Luginski thought that was a good point, but if we don’t pass something, the paid parking and parking enforcement will begin as of January 1st.
Avery suggested amending the resolution to February 1st. Wylie suggested February 15th, because that will give the council three meetings before the suspension expires. Ryan noted that there were two parts of the motion that would need to be changed to February 15th.
Revised resolution passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #11, New Business
Item 11a, Resolution: Acceptance of the Financial Audit for the 2019-2020 Fiscal Year (Video time mark 1:22:27; page 30/106 of the council packet):
-
- Audited Financial Report, page 31/106 of the council packet
The resolution was titled “Acceptance of the 19/20 FY Financial Audit.”
Rana Emmons discussed the highlights of the financial audit for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. This was the highest level of audit opinion possible with nothing bad to report. Haven thought it was an encouraging report, and it was especially interesting to see taxable real estate going up. This underscores that Clarkston is a great place to live. Thanks were extended to everyone for assisting with the report.
There were no questions.
Resolution to accept the report passed unanimously.
Item 11b, Resolution: Oakland County Designated Assessor Interlocal Agreement (Video time mark 1:30:34; no resolution in the council packet):
-
- Interlocal Agreement for Oakland County to Approve the Designated Assessor for the Period January 1, 2021 Through December 31, 2025, page 72/106
- 6/9/2020 Department of Treasury letter, “Overview of Audit Process and Designated Assessor under Public Act 660 of 2018,” page 81/106
This is a motion to designate David Hieber as the designated assessor.
Ryan discussed the motion. We have had Oakland County as our assessor for many years. David Hieber is the main assessor in Oakland County, so under a new 2018 law, we have to designate him, even though the County agency is our assessing agency. We need to approve and resolve to allow the mayor and the city clerk to sign on behalf of the city.
Resolution passed unanimously.
Item 11c, Resolution to Concur in the Rules and Regulations concerning Industrial Pretreatment Program as Adopted by the Great Lakes Water Authority [GLWA] (Video time mark 1:33:30; 86/106 of the council packet)
-
- GLWA’s Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP), Updated Rules, page 87/106 of the council packet
The resolution was titled “Resolution of the City of the Village of Clarkston to Concur in the Rules and Regulations Concerning Industrial Pretreatment Program as Adopted by the Great Lakes Water Authority.”
Haven said that this was a resolution to comply with the GLWA rules; isn’t this just boilerplate? Ryan said that we are in the GLWA system. We don’t have any industrial use, but since we are a member, our contract requires that we approve their rules. There are 89 pages of industrial waste rules that don’t apply to us; Smith and Speagle have a copy of the rules if anyone wants to see them. All client communities have to adopt the GLWA rules by resolution.
Resolution passed unanimously.
Item 11d, Motion: Historic District Study Committee Appointment (Video time mark 1:35:36; page 99/106 of the council packet)
The motion was titled “Historic District Study Committee Appointment.”
This is a motion to appoint Emily Blakowski to replace Steve Himberg on the historic district study committee.
No discussion.
Resolution passed unanimously.
Item 11e, Motion: Approval of the 2021 City Council Meeting Schedule (Video time mark 1:36:44; page 100/106 of the council packet with meeting dates attached)
The motion was titled “2021 Meeting Schedules.”
No discussion.
Motion passed unanimously.
Item 11f, Motion: Cancellation of the December 28, 2020 City Council Meeting (Video time mark 1:37:33; 104/106 of the council packet)
The motion was titled “Cancel the December 28, 2020 City Council Meeting.”
No discussion.
Motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 12, Resolution: Closed Session (Video time mark 1:38:31; 105/106 of the council packet):
The resolution was titled “Resolution to go into Closed Session to Discuss Specific Pending Litigation.”
Haven said that Michigan Municipal League attorney James Tamm has recommended a closed session to discuss the status of the Bisio versus the City of the Village of Clarkston lawsuit and to discuss next steps.
Ryan asked someone to read the resolution. Haven didn’t have a complete resolution, so Speagle read the resolution out loud. The meeting closure is based on MCL 15.268(e) – to discuss trial or settlement strategy in connection with the lawsuit because having the discussion in an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigation or settlement position of a public body.
Haven said we aren’t adjourning, just going into closed session. Ryan said that they would need a resolution to come out of closed session, then go into open session, and then they would need a motion to adjourn at that point. Speagle noted that the resolution states that the closed meeting would start after the open meeting is adjourned. Ryan said that would need to be corrected and a 2/3 vote would be required.
Haven said that the meeting would resume and adjourn after the closed session.
Resolution passed unanimously.
[Note: the published agenda included Item #13 (Motion: Adjourn Closed Session); Item #14 (Motion Resulting from Closed Session, Recommendation from Attorney James Tamm regarding the Bisio v City of Clarkston lawsuit); and Item #15 (Adjourn). Following the vote on Item #12 to go into closed session, the city disconnected all calls into the virtual meeting from the public and terminated the video recording. Therefore, no member of the public was able to observe the meeting once it reconvened or to hear any council votes or discussion during the open session. It’s not a stretch to suggest that this conduct violated the Open Meetings Act, and it would have been better to leave the virtual meeting room open and allow the members of the public to wait online to hear the open meeting once it resumed again if they wished to do so.]
Resources:
- Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3325-CityCouncil-12-14-2020-v1/vod.mp4
- 20201214 – City Council Agenda, Final