Category: Oakland County Road Commission (OCRC)

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 0:01:57):

Haven said his mike wasn’t on. The meeting wasn’t formally called to order.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:59):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:02:22):

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

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:03:33):

Originally skipped over.

Motion to approve the agenda by Wylie; second by Bonser.

There was no discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:03:10; 0:04:13):

Chet Pardee:

• • The public filings [in the Bisio v Clarkston lawsuit] provide information that begs the question who is managing the lawyers and what role council is playing in what the city’s lawyers decided to file. Have the council members read the public filings that are available for viewing on Clarkston Secrets?
  • There is another lawyer participating with the surname as someone from the downtown Detroit trial.
  • Pardee estimated that the city’s MML representation costs paid by citizens is more than half a million dollars. Is James Tamm [the attorney appointed by the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool to handle the city’s defense in the Bisio v Clarkston lawsuit] still active on behalf of the city?
  • The city approved $14,000 for Mark Peyser [the attorney hired by the city to represent the city at facilitation in the Bisio v Clarkston lawsuit] for involvement in the facilitation, but Pardee read that Peyser did not participate in the facilitation. Is that true? Council will review Peyser’s February invoice and confirm that the costs have significantly exceeded what council approved, once again violating Michigan budget law. How accurate will tonight’s budget amendment be?
  • The public filings show there was an agreement in facilitation for Susan Bisio to accept less than half of the Bisio’s legal costs – $160,000. This was also less than half of the Tamm estimate provided by Smith at the council’s June 2020 budget approval meeting. The filings indicate that $35,000 is the city’s share of the settlement. How can the insurance companies participate now that the settlement has been withdrawn?
  • Peyer’s [settlement] requirements make no sense, seemingly to require the Bisios to agree that the city did no harm and Susan Bisio’s lawsuit never existed.
  • The good news is that the public filings show citizens what is going on in a transparent fashion. The bad news is that the public filings show that the city is once again costing its citizens with poor legal decisions.
  • Pardee thanked Smith for inviting citizens to the Oakland County Road Commission meeting to discuss Clarkston Road repair engineering at North Main and managing stormwater environmental risks at 148 N. Main.

Ryan said that in view of the fact that the Bisio matter hasn’t been finalized yet, he would like to be the public official speaking for and on behalf of the city. To the extent that he can answer Pardee’s questions, he will.

• • With regard to who is managing the lawyers and what role council is playing in what has been filed, the city has hired Peyser as outside counsel to handle this because of Ryan’s conflict. Peyser has advised the city regarding the process that is going on. Hopefully, there will be a settlement in this case but thus far, the settlement has not been finalized because the papers haven’t been signed by both sides. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #1 in the comment section below.] This is common, both sides are still discussing the terms of the settlement agreement. The lawyers are doing their job.
  • Tamm and Peyser filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement based upon the facilitation, it has not been entered yet or finalized. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #2 in the comment section below.] They are hopeful that the matter will be resolved in the near future.
  • Ryan wasn’t clear what Pardee meant by another lawyer participating in the matter. It’s possible that he’s referring to another lawyer from Tamm’s firm, which is larger than his old firm.
  • With regard to the cost of Michigan Municipal League representation costing the citizens more than half a million dollars, Ryan said he doesn’t know that. The Michigan Municipal League has covered all of Tamm’s and Tamm’s firms’ legal costs that have not been paid by the citizens. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #3 in the comment section below.]
  • Peyser was involved in facilitation, and the $14,000 was to bring him up to speed on everything. No one knew what the budget would be for his involvement.
  • Peyser did participate in the facilitation on February 1^st and has been trying to bring this to fruition with Tamm. There will be an invoice that council will approve. No money is spent without city council approval of the budget amendment and the statements. Hopefully, this will be a finalization of the last amount needed. Ryan saw another settlement document go through his email today, but until the settlement agreement is finalized, the matter is not resolved, and the attorney and litigation costs will continue.
  • With regard to whether the public filings show there was an agreement, the city didn’t file that. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #4 in the comment section below.] The public already knows through the city council’s actions a couple of Fridays ago at a special meeting that the city’s share, if the settlement goes through, is $35,000. Ryan leaves it to the “truth and transparency folks” and anyone who wishes to think about it after the matter is resolved if Peyser’s involvement benefitted the city.
  • It’s not accurate that the settlement was withdrawn. There’s been no inappropriate statements or clauses made by Peyser. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment #5 in the comment section below.] Peyser received another draft today and hopefully the matter will be put behind the city and the Bisios but that is to be determined.
  • That’s the update. We don’t have a settlement agreement signed by everyone as of tonight. We’ve been working on it since early February.

Haven thanked Ryan for the clarification and said that those details are important. Pardee thanked Ryan for responding.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:13:57):

No FYI items.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager’s Report (Video time mark 0:14:03; page 3/47 of the council packet):

No questions from the council or the public.

Agenda Item #8, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda As Presented (Video time mark 0:14:33)

• • 02/22/2021 – Final Minutes (page 4/47 of the council packet)
  • 03/08/2021 – Draft Minutes (page 6/47 of the council packet)
  • 03/22/2021 – Treasurer’s report as of 02/28/2021 (page 9/47 of the council packet)
  • 03/15/2021 – Revenue and Expenditure report for the period ending 02/28/2021 (page 10/47 of the council packet)
  • Carlisle-Wortman invoices for the month of February 2021 (page 17/47 of the council packet)
  • Systematic Heating & Cooling invoice dated 03/02/2021 (page 19/47 of the council packet)
  • Howard & Howard invoice for the month of February (page 20/47 of the council packet)

Motion to accept the consent agenda by Luginski; second by Casey.

Pardee would like the record to show that as council approves the consent agenda, they are once again violating Michigan budget law. Peyser’s February invoice exceeds the dollar amount previously approved by council.

Wylie asked that this issue be moved out of the consent agenda because it’s on the agenda to approve later today. Smith said it was but also said that it doesn’t violate the overall department budget which is not overdrawn by making this payment. Smith agreed that the original $14,000 estimate was established before the city knew much of what was involved. As Ryan so eloquently summarized, there are many aspects of the case that are still ongoing. The costs are higher than originally planned but the overall budget has not been violated. There is still money left in the budget for attorneys’ fees. They will have to be replenished because that’s how Ryan is paid, and that’s the purpose of the budget amendment.

Pardee asked Smith if he was taking credit for the shortfall in terms of Ryan’s budget, offsetting the Howard & Howard invoice [Peyser’s firm] with a cumulative total of $20,000 against $14,000 previously approved by council. Smith agreed and said that they are using the established legal fund.

Consent agenda approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business

Item 9a, Discussion/Motion: Short-Term Rentals (Video time mark 0:18:09)

• • 03/02/2021 Letter from Richard and Ben Carlisle, Subject: Short-Term Rentals (page 25/47 of the council packet)

Haven said that Avery isn’t with us and there was a desire on council’s part to have all council members present before taking action on short-term rentals. Since Avery isn’t here, we may decide not to take action, but the item is still here as an agenda item. Smith referenced a discussion that they had this afternoon and said that they may need to table the decision again so that there can be discussion and approval with the full council.

Theresa Fabrizio said she was told earlier in the day that this item would be pushed to a later date. She understood that meant that the discussion wouldn’t happen until all council members were present. Haven said it’s on the agenda, but they weren’t going to take any action unless someone made a motion to do so. Unless that happens, it’s still an agenda item and Fabrizio was free to comment.

Fabrizio said that she had a few people that she wanted to speak on her behalf, but she informed them that the discussion was being postponed. This is frustrating and she wants to have the opportunity for them to talk at the next meeting if the decision is going to be pushed back. Haven said that public comment would be available at that juncture.

Fabrizio said that there have been other council meetings where not all council members have been present, and votes have continued. Haven said he wasn’t at the meeting when the decision was made to table the issue. That doesn’t always happen because the council can vote on any motion as long as there is a quorum. In this case, it was felt that this is a very important issue for the community and all members should cast a vote. Haven said that they also received word from Ryan about the supreme court decision on this issue, as well as Carlisle-Wortman, so the information is before the council tonight. They could act on the issue tonight if the council felt strongly enough about taking action tonight, but Haven thought that the spirit of council was that they wanted all council members to be present. That’s where we are.

Fabrizio said that she thought the issue was voted on before COVID, the vote was to regulate, and it was sent to the Planning Commission. Haven asked Rich Little [Planning Commission Chair] to comment and noted that the council did not vote on the issue.

Little provided the history. In October or November of 2019, the council discussed short-term rentals and asked the Planning Commission (PC) to look at the issue with regard to regulating as opposed to banning them. There are a lot of examples of banning and regulation, so the PC researched the issue and came back to council in January or February of 2020 with a list of recommendations for regulations if that was the way the city council decided to go. That led to further discussions at that point about possibly banning them altogether. In April of last year, Ryan spoke to them about some action in the Michigan Supreme Court, so the PC decided that they should wait because it wasn’t clear if local control would be taken from municipalities. Once the supreme court decision was issued, the council took it up again and talked more about banning or regulation. That’s were we are today. It’s been tabled a couple of times, but as the council said at the last meeting, the council wanted everyone to be there. Since everyone isn’t here tonight, Little assumed the issue would be tabled again. There has been no decision. Carlisle Wortman and Ryan offered some possible solutions from banning to regulation to other things, and that’s the discussion that would take place the night the council decides to vote. That’s the complete history. It’s been about fourteen months of work.

Ryan said that if the council was going to honor the request that everyone be present, then someone should make a formal motion to table this until next meeting so it will show up on the next agenda.

Motion to table the decision by Casey; second by Wylie.

There was no additional discussion.

Motion to table the decision passed unanimously. Bonser was recused and did not vote.

Item 9b, Discussion: In-Person Meetings, Update from Tom Ryan (Video time mark 0:26:07)

Haven asked Smith to fill everyone in since he’s been doing a lot of work on this issue. Apparently, the bill is not going to be passed in this session of the legislature.

Smith said that there has been a lot of effort and discussion recently about the ability to continue in-person meetings. Senate Bill 207 was proposed to allow the continuation of no reason virtual meetings. We’ve been operating this way since early last year, but the ability to hold no reason virtual meetings expires next week on March 31^st.

Smith said that there are only a couple of ways to continue virtual meetings. If someone is on council and in the military, that person can call in and participate. If someone is ill and doesn’t feel s/he can safely attend the meeting due to COVID or otherwise, that person can call in and participate. The only other way to extend no reason virtual meetings would be to declare a local state of emergency for Clarkston. Senate Bill 207 was going to extend no reason virtual meetings for 90 days. Smith said they were trying to get confirmation this week if the House would approve the bill if it was approved by the Senate. That hasn’t happened, and it’s not likely that it’s going to happen this week before the legislature starts its two-week spring break.

Smith said that this means that nothing is going to happen by the 31^st as they’d hoped. Unless a local state of emergency is declared, the April 12^th meeting will have to be an in-person meeting.

Smith said that the challenge is that the city still needs to honor the six-foot social distancing requirements between people. Smith measured the conference room and determined that they could accommodate 16 people. There are 7 council members and 3 staff members, so this would allow only 6 members of the public to participate in person. Since members of the public aren’t voting members, they can still call in and provide public input even after March 31^st. Smith was concerned about what would happen if a 7^th member of the public wants to come into the meeting to make a public comment. If he doesn’t let them in, he’s violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA), but if he does let them in, he’s violating the social distancing requirements established by the Michigan Department of Health. The legislature apparently assumes that we have a massive auditorium or space that would accommodate up to 25 people which is all that’s allowed for indoor meetings. We could consider having outdoor meetings, but that may not be allowed due to weather. We are stuck because the Michigan Legislature hasn’t acted to pass Senate Bill 207. The council will at least have to consider a declaration of emergency to avoid violating the OMA or the Department of Health orders.

Kniesc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] asked about the gym at the Clarkston United Methodist Church. Luginski thought that was a great idea and also asked about the library or other alternative venues.

Casey said that he’d heard that the Centers for Disease Control had reduced the distance requirements from 6 feet to 3 feet. Smith hadn’t heard that; Ryan said that was for grade school children.

Smith said that they could look at other venues to see if that was feasible. Luginski said that the council met in other places for months while the building was under construction and doesn’t know why the council wouldn’t consider it for a little while if needed at this point.

Wylie said that she recalled that Monday wasn’t a good day for the library, and it would create an extra burden for the Clarkston United Methodist Church to clean and sanitize after the meeting. Wylie is in favor of declaring an emergency and continuing with virtual meetings because the council needs the flexibility.

Wylie attended the Michigan Municipal League’s (MML) virtual webinar and the problem seems to be the House as they have not committed to look at Senate Bill 207. Their committees still meet virtually, so they are protecting themselves. And, when they get together for a vote, they are in a very large room. We don’t have that option with our small meeting room, even at 6 feet. Wylie said that she knows that they’ve had the discussion before about the extra equipment that would be needed so people outside the meeting can hear. She thought that Smith was doing research regarding how to hold hybrid meetings and what equipment would be necessary, but if we could continue virtual meetings until June, we could save that expense.

Pardee asked if the MML had engaged with the legislature on behalf of municipalities and citizens. Smith said that they had, and they’ve also drafted letters for municipalities to sign and send to their representatives. They’ve done what they can to facilitate these requests. There are a lot of municipalities with small conference rooms and in the same boat we are. Independence Township has a very large meeting room for them to space out comfortably.

Pardee asked if Clarkston sent the MML letter to our representatives. Smith asked if he meant in terms of declaring a state of emergency, and Pardee said no, he didn’t think we had to go that far, but if the legislature thinks that this is going to be an easy thing for citizens and municipalities, perhaps our representatives need to hear directly from us about the difficulties we face. Smith has sent letters to Representative Schroeder and Senator Bayer and both responded that they are looking into the situation.

Little said that if Smith was looking for alternatives to remember that this will affect the PC and the Historic District Commission (HDC). The PC has a meeting scheduled for the first week of April. Little didn’t know if they would have to cancel or postpone the meeting if there are no workable alternatives. Smith said that people can call in if they’re not required to vote and thought it was short-sighted of the legislature who thought that people could call in and listen but not vote. For voting members in small communities who need a quorum, you need to have at least the commission members there.

Luginski said the PC and the HDC have a smaller group of people who are mandatory, 5 or 6 people versus 10 or 11. He said that Smith suggested that they would be violating the OMA if they don’t allow the 7^th person, but 25 is the limit anyway, so what would happen if 26 show up and we had the space? You can get a pretty basic speaker phone or wireless speaker system to hook up to a laptop so people can call in and everyone can hear. It doesn’t have to be thousands of dollars; it can be done inexpensively. As long as the voting members are there, and there is plenty of room to do it, we aren’t violating the OMA if we allow people to call in and it’s posted; Luginski didn’t know what he was missing. Ryan said that if we are in-person then the public can be in-person. If the council is meeting in-person, then the public has the absolute right to come into the meeting, just like the council. Luginski said that we have capacity issues, but as long as it’s posted, he didn’t see how the city would be in violation. Ryan said that we are living in unusual times, and he didn’t think that folks are going to be so charitable as to understand our limitations relative to the OMA.

Ryan suggested that the council schedule a meeting for next Tuesday, March 30^th, and Smith can look for a different location in the meantime. Maybe the legislature will enact Senate Bill 207 and push things to June 30^th. Right now, we are one of 13 states that are going in the wrong direction, but hopefully with vaccine availability, this will be over by June 30^th. If not, then we can have two resolutions for council on the March 30^th – to decide if we want to declare a state of local emergency based on the pandemic or perhaps Smith will have an update for other options that don’t violate the OMA and will provide an in-person meeting capacity with no more than 25 persons.

Fabrizio was concerned about having a meeting the following Monday. Ryan said that it would be Tuesday, March 30^th. If the legislature adopts Senate Bill 207, then we have until June 30^th, but if they don’t, then there is a decision to make. Fabrizio asked if the decision will be made regarding what to do with the meetings or if there would suddenly be an agenda like tonight. Ryan said that there will be an agenda and one of the items will probably be a declaration of emergency.

Casey asked if the emergency had to relate to COVID or if it could be the negligence of the legislature to pass the bill. Ryan thought that the council should focus on the public health issue and not the legislature.

Fabrizio wanted the council to clarify. Wylie said that if there were a special meeting, it would only be about the future of our meetings. She understood Fabrizio’s concern about short-term rentals, but if the council has a special meeting, it’s a very limited agenda because no one wants another long meeting next week. Smith agreed. Haven hoped that alleviated Fabrizio’s fears. There will be a published agenda that could be anything, but basically, the reason for the special meeting is just to discuss our predicament with virtual meetings. That’s the core purpose, and we don’t usually schedule special meetings unless they are required. Fabrizio asked about Haven’s comment that the agenda could be anything, and Luginski said that’s not how we do it and asked Haven to clarify. Haven said that the point of the special meeting will be to clarify our situation relative to virtual meeting, period. That’s the point.

Luginski asked Ryan if they had to make a decision tonight to hold open meetings or not, or to schedule a meeting to make that decision next Tuesday. Ryan said that maybe the legislature will make a decision on Senate Bill 207 next week, and if they adopt it, we can have virtual meetings until June 30^th. If they don’t, then Ryan’s suggestion is to set up a meeting for March 30^th and the council can make a decision about in-person meetings or an emergency. Luginski asked if Ryan was saying to wait and see what happens next week, and if nothing happens by the end of the week, they should schedule the meeting. Ryan said that the meeting should be scheduled tonight but they could cancel the meeting if the legislature adopts Senate Bill 207.

Haven asked if a motion was required, and Ryan said it was.

Motion to preliminarily set up a meeting for March 30^th to discuss the need for any further action relative to virtual meetings made by Haven; second by Wylie.

Pardee had two points. First, he found the electronic connection to be just fine and didn’t expect that anyone would dispute that. Second, do the federal COVID funds provide an opportunity for council to consider alternate spaces with increased costs? Smith asked if the funds that Pardee was referring to were funds from the American Rescue Plan that they were going to talk about that evening. Pardee said yes, the $90,000. Smith said that the funds could absolutely be used that way because they are predominately geared toward assisting with COVID-related unusual expenses, whether in the past or in the future. Pardee asked if the funds could be used for additional electronic capabilities or other facilities, and Smith and Haven agreed.

Kniesc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] wondered if the date was March 30^th or 31^st. Ryan said he was recommending the 30^th.

Bonser said that there are 31 days in March. Haven said that the 31^st is the deadline that we have to meet.

There were no further comments or questions.

Motion to schedule a special meeting passed unanimously.

Wylie had an additional comment. The MML encouraged people to contact their representatives and senators, which is what Smith told Pardee he had done. They also asked people to reach out to the leadership in the House because they are looking at the bill. Not everyone is in favor of this, but if you are, the best thing to do might be to call the Speaker of the House and the person in charge of the state representatives in the House.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a, Discussion: American Rescue Plan Status (Video time mark: 0:50:43 )

• • American Rescue Plan (ARP), Overview of the plan provisions for local governments in Michigan (page 30/47 of the council packet)

Haven said that this was a discussion of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds that are described in the packet.

Smith said that the slides are intended to give the council an idea what this is all about. Everyone has read about the $1,400 that they may or may not be getting, but unlike the CARES funds, there are also significant funds made available to local municipalities for the first time. Michigan will get $10.3 billion in total, and there is a breakdown regarding what the state will keep what the counties will keep, and ultimately, it flows down to the city. We are expected to receive $90,938. That’s a projection and very likely will change. It’s based on $105 per person per the census counts. Smith believed that there are 866 residents, and when you multiply that by $105 per person, you get to the $90,938 [866 X $105 = $90,930]. This is about as uniform as you can get. The schedule shows what is expected, and it’s subject to change, especially for some of the villages and townships. One of the townships includes a small village that isn’t a city by itself, so the township won’t get all the money. This is an early estimate.

Smith said that there are two payments, called tranches, and 90 days from now, we will receive approximately $45,000, or half, and the other half will be paid in approximately 12 months.

There are four categories for which the money can be used. Three of the four are COVID-related.

The first category is to respond to COVID-related public health emergencies and the negative impact on local households, small businesses, nonprofits, etc. It’s intended to help them regain from the hit that they’ve had thrown at them. The MML said to be careful about donating funds to a business or a nonprofit in the community. The ARP includes a lot of funding sources for businesses and nonprofits beyond what the city is getting, so it’s important to make sure that the business isn’t already getting help.

The second category concerns essential workers, whether in the past or going forward. If they have additional expenses because of COVID, this can make them whole.

The third category is probably most appropriate to the city. These funds will allow the city to replenish lost revenue. For example, we closed our parking lots for the last twelve months and lost approximately $100,000 because of that. We could make a case that we should be reimbursed for that lost money, but there are stipulations in the fourth category.

The fourth category allows for infrastructure funding, but only relating to water, sewer, or broadband. The parking money goes toward roads, sidewalks, and parking lots, so this puts the city in a difficult situation. If we replenish our parking fund, we can’t use the money for roads, sidewalks and parking lots because that’s not on the list for infrastructure.

There are more details to come on this. Treasury is responsible for putting together the details regarding what can and can’t qualify as an approved expense within the next 90 days, before we receive the money. It’s not something we need to worry about or vote on tonight. We have until December 31, 2024 to use the funds, so there is no urgency to use them right away.

Wylie said that she was under the impression that the money could be used in three categories, which included the general fund. Smith said that the third category allows you to use the funds to replenish the general fund, but there are expectations that there will be reporting at the end of the program. If we put the money into our general fund, we don’t know if we can take it out of our general fund and use it to pave a road. That’s the clarification that we need.

Pardee said that we are going to have some unbudgeted expense relating to the east alley repairs on Washington and wondered if that would fall within the allowed expenses. Smith said that it could be because it falls within water and sewer and that’s a storm sewer.

Pardee asked about the heaters, propane tanks, and tents that were provided by the county, as well as the concrete safety dividers that are currently in use. Those will require storage and those costs aren’t currently budgeted. Could the funds be used there? Smith said that would be a legitimate use of the funds. Pardee asked if we’ve decided to store these things, and Smith said that we need to have a discussion regarding what to do with these products once COVID ends. Technically, the products that we received from the county are owned by the city. We need to decide if we want to bring them back or if they are best left in the hands of the restaurants. That’s something that the council will need to decide at a future date. We do anticipate bringing the cement blocks back to use for other city events.

Item 10b, Resolution: Budget Amendment (Video time mark: 1:01:37)

• • Resolution – Budget Amendment (page 35/47 of the council packet)

This budget amendment covers a $320 overdraft for election supplies and another $20,000 to be added to the legal fees account, for a total of $20,320. Smith had nothing to add, except to say that there were a lot of questions raised in public comment about the funds for the lawsuit for Peyser and his law firm.

Smith said that we established the $14,000 amount, but we didn’t know what the total expense would be. Peyser provided an estimate for us, and we used that for the initial budget amendment. Peyser acknowledged that after he got into the case, there was much more to be done with regard to research and background. There is a possibility of more work. Smith is hoping for a quick resolution and thinks that it’s a possibility based on news they received today but they don’t know for sure. This is a provisional budget, and they are hoping it’s high. Smith still believes that this was the right decision, and he thinks that it’s one of the best decisions they’ve made in this long litigation. Peyser has done fabulous work, he’s very detailed, and he’s carried much of the weight in finding a settlement that everyone can agree to. It has been money very, very well spent.

Haven said that there was a resolution to consider.

Resolution by Bonser; second by Casey.

Pardee noted that we’ve spent around $21,000 against the $14,000 budget through February, so we are in a sense $7,000 in the hole as we begin March billing, and we are three weeks into March. Pardee wanted to know if Smith had any idea what the month-to-date billing might be for March. Smith didn’t know, and Casey said we haven’t received the bill yet. Pardee said that Peyser certainly spent time on this within the first three weeks.

Resolution approved unanimously.

Item 10c, Discussion: FODP Report, Friends of Depot Park report to Council (Video time mark 1:06:04)

• • FODP report to Clarkston Council (page 37/47 of the council packet)

Haven said that there is an excellently penned letter by Jim Breuck, who has joined the meeting. Haven said the letter summarizes a lot of work that has been done by the Friends of Depot Park (FODP). The letter was provided in response to a request for a status in writing. They have provided a diagram before, but Breuck has committed it to prose and it’s in the packet.

Breuck said he would be glad to answer any questions, but he thought things were self-explanatory. They wanted to share what the FODP has been doing with the council in terms of achievements and to show the council what the FODP thought the next steps should be.

The FODP addressed things like picnic pavilions, and they are certainly interested in making the gazebo the center of the park. There are a couple of ways to approach that. One is a band aid, to fix it up and make it useable and safe. There are concepts for replacing the gazebo long term. They wanted to make sure that the FODP is on the same page as the council and hopefully the council will agree that they are moving in the right direction. They are continuing to develop plans, get estimates, etc. to bring back to council for approval. They just want to make sure that they aren’t going off in a direction that isn’t tenable or supported.

Wylie said that the letter notes that the FODP plans to install one or two picnic pavilions by early summer 2021. Breuck mentioned initial fund raising – are there funds already and what kind of fund-raising would take place to get the funds to put a pavilion up? It’s March, and early summer is 3-4 months away. Breuck said that the FODP has a little over $20,000 cash in hand from the Department of Natural Resources grant that people contributed to. They haven’t gone back to the donors and asked if they want the money back since we are going in a different direction now, but they do have up to $20,000 for a picnic pavilion. The FODP thought that since people like to name things in memory of someone, they could offer that, or they could break up some of the elements and perhaps etch people’s names on the pavilion as a way of recognizing the larger donors. These would be the next steps as they sort out the best way to approach things, but they don’t want to raise money for something that might not be supported.

Wylie said that someone suggested the idea of naming rights for the park a while ago. She was still curious about the summer timeline. They have to find out if they have the money and get a contract to build it. Breuck said that ideally, people would use a picnic pavilion in the summer, so it would be great to have the first one installed. They have an outline of a location that is closer to the playground area as the first recommendation. Everything is in a sequence, and they can’t do anything unless they are in step with the council. The money is not coming from the city’s budget; it’s raised from the outside, but it will still pass through the city and needs to be approved. They don’t want to spend a lot of time scheming how to raise money if they don’t have the support for the project.

Wylie wanted clarification regarding where the first picnic pavilion would be since she couldn’t find it on the drawing. Breuck said if you are coming across the bridge to where the playground is, there is a concrete slab that was used for picnic tables in the past. It is east of the mill race and south of the playground.

Haven said that it was a poor diagram and noted that full diagrams were previously distributed. There were numbers on the other diagram. Haven couldn’t recall the number for this particular pavilion, but all of the potential pavilion locations were spelled out on the diagram. Haven said that the first one they were thinking about is adjacent to the playground for the parents’ use and it was accessible to the bridge as well. Wylie said that her big concern beyond getting the money is that when she looks at the plans, it just seems like an awful lot of stuff and structures to put into the park.

Luginski asked if there is a possibility to rent the pavilions after we install a couple of them in case a family wants to reserve it for a certain day and time. Smith said that the assumption is that we would do it in the same way as the gazebo rental, which is $200 or $250. We would do the same thing for the pavilions. The gazebo is popular for weddings, but pavilions might be better for a family reunion. They would charge for that and it could generate revenue.

Pardee asked Smith to explain the degree to which Depot Park expenses depend upon the city’s budget. Smith said that they’ve just generally stated that the maintenance of things in Depot Park would be paid for by the city’s operating or capital improvement budget, and new items, such as a pavilion or something else, would potentially be paid for by charitable donations that the FODP have raised. There is nothing written in concrete, but that’s what has been discussed.

Smith said that the gazebo needs new railing and repair on the trim work and lattice. Any of the conditions shown in the pictures would be paid for out of the city budget. But if we are considering replacing the gazebo, then we would have a hard time finding funds for that. In general, since the gazebo is an existing facility that needs repair and updating, the expectation is that this would come out of city funds.

Pardee said that Breuck mentioned earlier that quotations and requests for proposals (RFP) would be sought and asked for clarification – is that an RFP for the FODP or the city’s RFP? Smith said that officially, it would come from the city and it would be Smith’s responsibility to handle that and make sure that all the bids obtained are apples to apples. They are working on this now with our architect, Chris Morgan, who has been doing the work at no charge for the city. He’s been very generous with his time and was a protégé of Jerry Carter who designed the building here. Morgan has been more focused on the gazebo and has been doing some construction drawings that we can use to obtain competitive quotes. We have one supplier that we are talking to and need to get two others engaged to bring this forward to council.

Pardee wanted to know if the RFP would be issued by the city but funded by donations in the case of a new structure. Smith said it would depend; he thinks that it could be funded by the city’s operating funds. We haven’t spent much this year because of the lawsuit and have deliberately put the brakes on any capital improvement expenditures. There is approximately $70,000 in the budget this year for gazebo repair and replacement. They are looking at a whole new approach that could allow us to lower the cost significantly, but Smith didn’t want to get into the details now.

Kniesc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] thinks that if there is a new structure the FODP might want to put that together and then we would vote on it. Haven noted that Kniesc’s comments were muffled, difficult to hear, and asked him to repeat them. Kniesc said that the council would be voting on whether or not the pavilion was allowed to be put in and thought that Smith would be working on private party donations. Kniesc thought we were talking about two different things, the gazebo versus new structures. Haven said that that there is a differentiation.

Ryan said that they were getting off topic. These are specific questions driven by a specific improvement. Generally speaking, we can’t allow someone to put a structure into a city park, no matter who is paying for it, without the city controlling the process because at the end of the day, it’s still a city park. We have to be in charge of what goes in there. It’s our project no matter who pays for it, because we have to make sure that it meets code, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and all that stuff.

Haven said that the FODP is an advisory committee that is interested in additional amenities in the park but they have to bring them to council for approval. If council is in agreement with the direction, as Breuck has tried to spell out here, then the FODP will aggressively be seeking charitable contributions. The approval has to be with council.

Bonser asked if there was any talk of having concerts in the park during the spring and summer. Smith said that’s a good question. He talked with Shaun Hayes at the Chamber [of Commerce] and as of right now, they are planning and have some alternatives that would allow us to achieve spacing. Right now, he’s been told that the outdoor limit is 1,000 people, so with some proper spacing, the concerts could go on. It’s our park but it’s a Chamber event, and Smith is letting the Chamber make the decision. Smith has volunteered to be on the Concerts in the Park committee this year so he can stay on top of what direction they are heading, but it’s too soon to know for sure.

Bonser wondered if the gazebo could be used since it’s in such disrepair. Smith said that the more important concern is for weddings and he’s had brides contact him because the appearance of the gazebo is not what you would expect, especially one section of railing [pictured in the “replace railing” photo]. The FODP has talked about getting this fixed and Smith has volunteered to personally construct the railing section and get it properly screwed in. As far as Bonser’s safety question, Craig Strong has looked at the gazebo and thinks there are no structural issues.

Smith said that we would like to improve the gazebo aesthetically. The appearance will continue to be a problem because the boards are rotting. Strong doesn’t think you will fall through the floor, but the railings giving way is another concern. It’s something that needs to be addressed. There’s only so much you can do to make it last a little longer. It was gorgeous when it was first installed and is very well constructed, but that was almost 50 years ago and even cedar starts to have problems after 50 years.

Haven asked if Breuck’s letter is what the council can expect to see going forward relative to planning and bringing suggestions. More pointedly, in the next go around, he can suggest something more specifically, complete with price tags and suggestions for council consideration. The gazebo repairs would be covered under maintenance, but the committee’s desire is to enhance the desirability and beauty of the park for the community. They just want the council to be clear that they want to move ahead in that direction.

Breuck said that was correct. The whole purpose is to make sure the FODP were in lockstep with the thinking of the council and to know that they are working together. They understand that the council makes the decision regarding what they do and don’t do. They just don’t want to spin their wheels off in a direction that doesn’t have support. They are more than willing to work on these various projects and bring information estimates. They are working with Morgan to get a design that can be quoted. That’s a lot of leg work. They are also trying to do as much as they can to support Smith and take things off of his shoulders. They are looking for an overall conceptual nod. When you are ready to recommend something, for example a pavilion, they will come back with a proposed design, cost, estimate, etc. In the meantime, they will be generating community interest to support it and bring it all together with a concept that they can implement sooner rather than later.

Casey said that it seems that the gazebo is a major part of the park and widely used. Since it appears that we aren’t going to build a new gazebo in time for the season, do we need a motion authorizing the repair of the existing gazebo for the coming summer? Haven thought that would be in order if we intend to utilize this as it has been in the past and would like to be in the future.

Haven said we have a materials estimate for basic repair. He doesn’t know if Smith wanted to hang his hat on the $2,500 that is being suggested with volunteer labor to do it. Smith said that’s correct. Haven said it could be a motion if Casey would like to do it.

Casey began making a motion but Ryan interrupted him to say that there should be a motion to amend the agenda to include an action item, and it has to be unanimous. Haven said it had to be unanimous with the council members present.

Motion to change the agenda by Haven; second by Bonser.

Motion to amend the agenda passed unanimously.

Casey made a motion to authorize repairs to the gazebo so that it can be used this summer. Haven asked Casey if he wanted to add a not to exceed amount. Casey said he’d heard $2,500 but that seemed low; perhaps it could be a not to exceed amount of $4,000. Luginski seconded, but said it should be a resolution, not a motion. Haven agreed that it should be a resolution because we are spending money.

Bonser said that the presentation slide noted $2,500 for materials but wondered if that was just for paint, or materials and paint? Breuck said the estimate is for more than paint and includes lumber for the railings. Bonser asked Breuck if $2,500 or $4,000 was more appropriate. Breuck said he thought that the $2,500 estimate seemed optimistic, especially given the way that the price of lumber has skyrocketed. They aren’t trying to spend more money than they have to, but the suggestion of no more than $4,000 is probably appropriate. They have people who are willing to do the work so this is something that can be done fairly quickly.

Kniesc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] asked if the FODP was doing the work. Haven said yes. Smith said that they will work together with the FODP and get the work done. It will all be done by volunteers and the cost is strictly for materials.

Resolution passed unanimously.

Breuck wanted to know if there would be a motion before they leave the topic. They are looking for direction from the council – is there agreement on what they are proposing or is there some other direction the council wants to go? Haven said that maybe they do need to formalize something in terms of accepting Breuck’s direction. He thought it would come in the form of something specific, mapped out with a direction and costs, so once we get there, there won’t be any negatives for the direction. Is anyone saying no, stop, don’t do this?

Pardee said that from a magnitude perspective, the last slide talks about two alternatives to the pathway, a $16,000 and an $1,800 alternative. He was trying to figure out which one council was supporting. Breuck said that there are two elements. One is the 700 lineal feet, and that’s all new boardwalk, an additional pathway to improve the ADA-compliant access to various parts of the park, the playground, and the height of the bridge to take it back to the existing path. The other portion is fixing and recapping the current path. They aren’t asking for approval for money, but the concept is to add some additional pathways to improve accessibility for everybody in the various parts of the park. The ability to raise funds would determine what they go after first or second. They would certainly come back to the council on a project like that with a more finite design. Maybe it would be done in chunks with a portion now and a portion six months or a year from now for another portion. Pardee said that the current capital improvement plan includes a pathway extension or addition, and perhaps that’s where the $16,000 proposal would fit. Perhaps Little and Wylie can comment on that; Wylie didn’t recall.

Ryan said that this was on the agenda for a discussion item only. Avery is not here tonight. Ryan appreciated Breuck’s work, but this was only for discussion. This is going to be sliced and diced a lot of different ways and every project will have to come before the council. If the council wanted to amend the agenda to approve the overall concept, that’s fine, but this was a discussion item only with the information provided. Haven said that point was well taken, and that’s why he didn’t set it up for a motion unless someone wants to go there.

Kneisc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] said that we already visited this topic a couple of weeks or a month ago and came to the same decision.

Casey said we are going to improve the gazebo by repairing it, so he supports this.

Kniesc [comments were muffled and difficult to understand] said that the pavilion is a different structure. Haven agreed and said that the pavilion will have its own proposal.

Haven said in keeping with what Ryan said, it’s a discussion item unless someone wants to make a specific motion to adopt the proposal that Breuck has made in generalities and in anticipation of specific proposals to come forward.

No motion was made.

Haven wanted to make a motion to adjourn the meeting and was reminded by several council members that there was an additional agenda item to discuss. Luginski said that the 4^th of July issue is on the agenda; Haven didn’t have a copy. Clerk Jennifer Speagle and Smith said that it was added late.

Item 10d, Discussion: Fourth of July Parade (Video time mark: 1:43:08)

Smith said that Kniesc asked if we could talk about this issue. The planning for the 4^th of July parade has started. Speagle spoke with Joette Kunse who has been running the parade for the last couple of years with the assistance of the Optimists, or maybe under the direction of the Optimists, and her feeling was that this was on hold. Speagle said that she was under the impression that they weren’t going ahead with the 4^th of July parade this year because of the crowd it draws. Speagle also called and left a message today for Kathy Novak, president of the Optimist Club, asking her to let us know where things stand. Kunse is waiting for word from Novak. Smith said that there are a lot of groups involved – police, fire, and parks and recreation – but it’s really an Optimist event. Smith thought that the limit for an outdoor gathering is 1,000 people, but he believed that there could be 5,000 people drawn to this amazing event. Speagle noted that it would be very difficult to socially distance.

Haven asked if there were any other agenda items, and Smith said that there were not.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:46:02)

Motion to adjourn by Casey; second by Wylie.

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3404-CityCouncil- 3-22-2021-v1/vod.mp4
  • 20210322 – City Council packet