July 25, 2022, City Council Meeting

Introduction:

Though public comments can sometimes irritate the city council, there is value to both the council and the public in hearing them. While they can’t eliminate public comments entirely without violating the Open Meetings Act, your city council has decided not to acknowledge public comments during a city council meeting unless the person submitting the comments also appears at the meeting (in-person or electronically) to personally read them. Mayor Eric Haven has also cut people off for exceeding the city council’s arbitrary three-minute time limit (it’s arbitrary because no time limits are required by the Open Meetings Act).

If your public comments were submitted to the council but not read, or if you tried to make public comments but your comments were cut short by the mayor, please email them to clarkstonsunshine@gmail.com and I will include them in my informal meeting summaries either under public comments or under the specific agenda item that you want to speak to.

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

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order:

There was no call to order on the video recording.

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:03):

Pledge said.

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

Eric Haven, Bruce Fuller, Joe Luginski, Laura Rodgers, and Sue Wylie were present.

Al Avery and Gary Casey were absent.

Agenda Item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:37):

Motion to approve the agenda by Wylie; second Fuller.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:00:56):

Haven read the rules for public comment.

Chet Pardee:

Good evening:

Do the residents living on Lower Mill Pond and Parke Lake realize what could be coming their way? If the Miller Road grant is approved the contents of Upper Mill Pond will be shared with those who are downstream due to the 36 inch “equalizer pipe” which will be installed under Miller Road at the cost of $15,000 as previously approved by City Council.

“Fight the Blight on North Main” is both progressing and regressing. The pink house is becoming cranberry with no progress on the red and gray house. The district court will likely become involved. The code enforcement officer is invited to view the Airstream trailer and front porch as furniture storage, recently added after the resident made landscape improvements.

Repairing the seven paver aprons on Main Street is the primary focus of the current capital budget. MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] will require each property owner, public or private, to apply for a MDOT permit due to M-15 rights of way. An electronic copy of the 126-page “Permit Application Guide” has been provided to Jonathan [Smith, City Manager].

Finance Committee membership will need to be replaced after the November election when Al Avery and Joe Luginski are no longer available. Deciding who should be the council members on the Finance Committee will be interesting. A Certified Public Accountant would be particularly helpful. What qualifications should be considered? Perhaps an affirmative answer to “Do you do your own state and federal tax returns, rather than use a tax preparer?” could be an appropriate qualification.

The updated RAMP [Road Asset Management Plan] report providing the assessment of the current condition of the City’s streets must be coming soon.

Haven thanked Pardee and asked if anyone else would like to address council on an item that is not on the agenda.

Patti Gilman raised her hand and asked if she were on the agenda. Haven said yes, 12b, he thought.

No other public comments.

Public comments were closed.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:03:30):

Haven said he didn’t have anything. They are going to talk about Art in the Village later on the agenda, so we have that to look forward to.

Haven asked if anyone else had any For Your Information items.

No additional public comments.

Agenda Item #7, Discussion: Parking Revenue June 2022 (Video time mark 0:03:47):

• • 2022 Parking Fees & Parking Tickets (page 3/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that there is a chart in the packet. It looks like after six months, we are looking at a little over $19,000 in positive cash flow, and he asked if that was a proper assessment. Haven thought it was on the screen, but it looked a little fuzzy. Smith said that’s correct.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about it and also asked if it was just for information.

Pardee said that we are behind the curve. Haven agreed.

Haven said that we are looking at around $20,000 and asked if any of it was spendable. Haven asked if these numbers are primarily anticipated. Smith said that these are actuals. Haven said that he was referring to projected revenue in the budget with an anticipated use thereof, and so far, most of it is curb kind of issues and so on and trying to save the old brick pavers. Haven wanted Smith to tell him whether we spend as we go or not. That was his question as he looked at the numbers. Smith said that we did assume, and he didn’t have the budget with him, that there would be about $20,000 in this year’s parking revenue that could be transferred to the operational budget.

Haven asked if there were any other thoughts or comments from anyone. This is for everyone’s information.

Fuller asked if we don’t typically make around $80,000 a year in the city, and wouldn’t we typically be around half in six months? Smith agreed, and said it is down, no question, year over year, it’s down more than it was pre-COVID. It’s been fairly steady, but it’s just not been super busy. Smith said it is down; he doesn’t know what to say.

Haven said that it’s interesting that there’s an almost parallel between the ticketing, we won’t call it income in this happenstance, but (unintelligible) and the expenses and wages. They’re both $12,000, round number. What are our expenses, $7,800 or around $8,000? That surprised him. It’s called supplies and miscellaneous. Smith said it’s salaries for the parking enforcement officer. Haven said we have wages on another line, right? Smith said (unintelligible) is up above that. Haven said that’s $5,000. Smith said that it’s probably paper supplies and asked Jennifer [Speagle, Clerk] if she knew. Speagle said that there’s paper supplies and also banking fees that we have to pay, that’s on our e-payer. Speagle said that she would have to look at the report a little closer. Haven thought that was an awful lot of money for paper and banking fees. Speagle said that there are other fees. The bank charges us fees. Haven said that the next time they review this, just let them know. Speagle said wages, the phones, we have to pay monthly for the phones. Haven said asked if was for phones to operate – Speagle said yes, to operate the ticketing system. Smith said it’s all cellphone based. Haven said OK; it just seemed like a big number.

Haven said all right, they’ve talked enough. Speagle added that if we have to call them out to do any repairs to the machine, which we did a couple months ago, it wasn’t working correctly, they came out to work on that. Haven said OK (unintelligible).

Agenda Item #8, Sheriff Report for June 2022 (Video time mark 0:07:58; page 4/95 of the council packet):

Haven said that this is the Sheriff’s report, and it’s also in their packet. They are doing a good job; they’ve got a really quiet report here compared to 2021. And citations are down as well. That’s where Haven sees one of the big differentials.

Haven asked if council had any thoughts or comments about the substation report for the Sheriff’s department.

No additional comments.

Agenda Item #9, Discussion: HDC [Historic District Commission] Quarterly Activity Report (Video time mark 0:08:40):

• • Clarkston Historic District Commission 2022 Activities (page 5/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a discussion of HDC [Historic District Commission] reported activity, and Jim Meloche [HDC Chair] is here to bring us up to date. Haven told Meloche that he appreciated him coming and he thanked him for the summary. Meloche said that it’s always a pleasure.

Meloche said that he’s here to report that it seems that the residents of the historic district don’t think there’s a recession coming because there’s a whole lot of work going on right now, significant stuff. Meloche said that he’s happy to see it.

Haven asked if the historic tax credits are helping a little bit. Meloche said he’s sure that’s part of it, but we are two cases ahead of last year in a time that people might be cautious. Meloche thinks that’s a good thing.

Meloche held up his report and asked the council if they’d had a chance to look at it, whether they had any questions, or whether any explanations were required. Meloche said that there’s some interesting cases on that list, large and small, one of which used up almost all that remains of the soil that the residence (unintelligible), and it still got approved by the ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals], which is kind of an interesting turn of events. It had to do with keeping the home livable and marketable, but that’s the decision they came up with and we abide by that. Haven said that the footprint is actually huge on that property (unintelligible). Meloche agreed and said that is the 69 South Main property.

Holding up the report, Meloche said interestingly enough, there are no negatives on here. There are no denials. There are a couple of terminations if you will because no action took place. After 55 days or so, we terminate the application and invite the homeowner to apply again, and in one case, that did not happen. In the second case, it turned out that it wasn’t within their jurisdiction anyway. It was signage for a restaurant name change, 2 South Main, and all they’re going to do is repaint the awning. Meloche wasn’t aware that could be done, but apparently it can.

Meloche said that the rest have all gained certificates of appropriateness and memoranda of administrative approval. On a couple of them, one that carried over from last year, turned out beautifully now that it’s spring and the trees are in full color and all that. Haven agreed.

Meloche said that he would encourage the council to take a look at some of these things as they are driving. Our successes are to be shared.

Meloche asked if there were any general questions.

Haven asked if the ratio of administrative approvals increased and are you using that tactically (unintelligible crosstalk). Meloche said that it is because it’s springtime.

Haven said that Meloche might want to explain what that is. Meloche said that it’s a concept that has been around for a long time where minor projects are visited by two commissioners and an approval can be done on the basis of two ruling that it’s worth proceeding on. It’s something that Meloche inherited from the prior administration of the Historic District Commission, and he needed to formalize it. At the time, people were getting approval of things from members of the Commission, or the Chair of the Commission, and all of a sudden work got done and then we had to scurry around to get an explanation later. So, Meloche created this memorandum of administrative approval [MOAA], and he might change it (unintelligible). It was an attempt to get documentation, and everything could be looked at. We do have that now, but somebody, and Meloche thought was here and might have been Pardee, asked if a memorandum of administrative approval ever resulted in a certificate of appropriateness. That’s a very interesting concept because Meloche thinks it should. So, Meloche said that what he thinks they are going to do is revisit the last (unintelligible) or eighteen months, revisit those cases, and he thinks that most of them will become certificates of appropriateness with an attached memorandum of administrative approval. But going forward, Meloche thinks what they need to do with the MOAA is call that the process, and the end result is the certificate of appropriateness, or a notice of denial, whatever else we do, because Meloche doesn’t think that any other historic district uses memorandums of administrative approval. Haven said that was interesting and he didn’t know that; so, it’s an advice. Meloche said that they just had no records from three, five years ago. Haven said that they need it. Meloche said that it was just hearsay.

Haven said that he sees our city address is on here too. Meloche said that it is. Haven asked if he wanted to talk about that. Meloche said that it’s the bridge over not so troubled waters. Haven said exactly. Meloche said it’s also the rain garden. Haven gestured and said that you will see it out here, coming in the fall. Meloche said that you may not think that is their purview, but it does add a new feature to Depot Park, and more than anything, they want to make sure that it doesn’t threaten anything else in the park environment that is historical. Meloche said that it was approved. Haven agreed and they appreciated the assistance.

Haven asked if anyone else had any questions.

Haven called on Cara Catallo.

Catallo said that she was on the HDC long before the dates that Meloche mentioned, and she would like to suggest that Meloche speak to someone from SHPO [Michigan State Historic Preservation Office] or from even MHPN [Michigan Historic Preservation Network] because she doesn’t think that it’s within our ordinance for two Commission members to be making decisions. She thinks there’s a reason that there are five Commission members. She knows as a resident and as someone who has a great deal of experience in Meloche’s position, it just feels to her like it’s a little bit dicey to be having two Commission members meeting independently and making decisions outside of an open meeting. Meloche said that isn’t going to continue. What Catallo is describing, and what Meloche just did, is a Band-Aid. It’s an interim step because there was no documentation of things done like this in the past. Catallo said that they never operated like that. Meloche said he’s not trying to involve when Catallo was on the Commission; he’s talking about who was on the Commission between Meloche and Catallo. What Meloche thinks will happen now is two people will look at it and bring it to the Commission at the next meeting, and it will be heard by all five based on that data.

Catallo said that as she’s mentioned at a meeting, she feels strongly that they shouldn’t be meeting independently with (unintelligible) others. She understands site visits, but she doesn’t think they should be discussing the applications until you’re at an open meeting.

Meloche asked Catallo if some of the curse of interacting with a citizen comes off when you have two people there. Catallo said that she’s still concerned about the meeting in private, talking about things that aren’t appropriate, and making decisions outside of an open meeting. Meloche said generally, going forward, decisions won’t be made; they’ll be made with the five. Facts will be gathered (unintelligible).

Catallo said that she would also stress that she thinks it’s important that the Commission adopt a design guideline because she feels as though there’s been some arbitrary decision-making. She thinks that design guidelines, vinyl fences (unintelligible), she has yet to find another historic district commission that is approving vinyl fences and you seem to be approving them rather frequently at this point. And she knows that Meloche went to visit a home in her neighborhood, and you applauded the progress at that home, but there were two things that were done, pouring concrete to create a concrete patio and also a vinyl fence, that wasn’t approved. So, she just feels like having design guidelines would maybe help Meloche stay within the boundaries and also help the community understand what is prohibited and what is (unintelligible crosstalk). Meloche said that Catallo was nice enough after the last meeting to suggest that and sent him three-four good examples. Catallo said right, she did at the meeting. Meloche agreed and said that when he got home, they were there. Meloche said that it’s a great idea, but he just doesn’t have the bandwidth or the manpower to do the scope and scale of that. Catallo agreed and said that she’s sure if he worked with the communities, because she spoke with Ypsilanti today, and they even said that while they don’t have guidelines, they have fact sheets to help community members. But other places would be probably open to the idea of sharing what they have so that you could almost just sort of copy verbatim what they have and maybe adopt other things that you agree with. Meloche said that he saw a lot of information in some of the more bulky ones that was lifted from the Department of the Interior standards. He doesn’t think that we need to revisit all that, do we? Catallo said that she almost thinks that we do, because when you say that something is removable, that’s (unintelligible) putting in an inappropriate material could be removable so it’s OK, but chances are, it’s never going to be removable. That vinyl fence will then become another vinyl fence when that deteriorates, which they do deteriorate, they’re not impervious to time and fading. She just worries that you can’t count on something coming down, down the line, and she also just feels like it needs to be fair all around, like a house on Buffalo needs to be considered as important as a house on Main Street. She knows that they differ greatly, but still.

Haven thanked Catallo for her input. He appreciated it.

Haven called on Gilman who said that she didn’t think it’s been fair any place. You might want to start to do that now, but if you look around the Village and you look at the historic district, certain people get certain things done. It’s never been, and one thing doesn’t set precedent. It doesn’t set precedent. So, this has been an issue not just with this gentleman (gesturing toward Meloche), it’s been an issue for years and years and years, so pointing the finger at him she doesn’t think is the right thing to do.

To Catallo, Meloche said (unintelligible) to keep doing what you’re doing, they do listen, it does make a difference.

Referring to Gilman, Catallo said that homeowner also got a new fence that nobody, you know, approved. The columns didn’t go through the HDC, so it has benefitted her, so that’s great. Gilman said that she’s not trying to benefit anything. Catallo said right. Meloche said that he didn’t catch much of that from the muffled sound. Catallo said so that homeowner actually put up a new fence, or are they columns? Gilmore said she didn’t put any fence up. Catallo said put up stone columns or (unintelligible) columns – interrupting Catallo, Haven said that he thought they were getting off track. Catallo said she knows. Haven said let’s stop the discussion, and if Catallo has some advice or information to give to Meloche, she should do that outside, if she would.

Haven asked if there were any other comments for Meloche.

Haven called on an unidentified man in the audience. The man said just so he understands, the process that they have been using to do the administrative review with two people, what they’re planning and attempting to do is incorporate that into the “application process,” correct? Meloche agreed and said it’s only a problem with the issue arises the day after their meeting. We have to resolve each case in less than 60 days, so we’re going to lose 30 to our next meeting. If we don’t resolve it at that meeting, we’ll lose another 30 and we’ll have to terminate the application. It’s usually a smaller-scale project. It could be anything from re-roofing to well, there was a roofing project that Meloche knows about that turned into a flashing problem. (An unidentified woman said that was her house.) Meloche agreed and said that’s why he’s looking at it. It turned into two of these memorandums, and Meloche thinks that the next time they do it, we’ll revisit that one and do it again. That will come before the five to he guesses to get everybody to weigh in on their decision or change it.

Haven said if he could summarize his perception of this is that it’s an asset to expedite process first for homeowners, so it’s to their benefit, but not to be viewed as a shortcut to the system. (Meloche made an unintelligible comment.) Haven said hopefully, that’s the idea.

Meloche asked if that was it.

No other comments.

Haven thanked Meloche and said that he appreciated his report.

Agenda Item #10, City Manager Report (Video time mark; page 6/95 of the council packet 0:21:37):

Haven said that the next item on the agenda is the city manager’s report, and they have that in their packet. Haven asked if there were any questions or comments for Smith about his report.

Haven said it is interesting to see Melissa Coatta [Hubbell, Roth & Clark, the city’s contract engineering firm] moving on. She’s not been here that long after Gary Tressel. Smith agreed. Haven said so Craig [Strong, Carlisle/Wortman, the city’s contract building and code inspectors] is stepping back from his field work, and Haven understands the reason for that, to be replaced by his son Brent Strong, so Brent has a relationship with Carlisle/Wortman as well – Smith agreed – continuing, Haven said under that jurisdiction there. Haven said he wasn’t familiar with Jeff Shafer. Haven said Smith talked about him being there a long time, but Haven isn’t familiar with him. Smith said that he’s their carpentry inspector, structural carpentry. He’s been doing it for a long time.

Haven asked Smith when we will see our new conference tables, the ones that are coming from CIDL [Clarkston Independence District Library]. Smith said that they will pick them up tomorrow. Haven said that is great. Smith said hopefully, that will work out well. Smith said that they may even consider changing the direction of the tables as well. They are going to play around with the tables and see what works. Haven said that was interesting.

Haven asked if there were any other comments from council.

No comments.

Haven asked if there were any comments from the audience.

No comments.

Agenda Item #11 – Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:22:55):

• • 06-27-2022 Final Minutes (page 7/95 of the council packet)
  • 07-11-2022 Draft Minutes (page 10/95 of the council packet)
  • 06-25-2022 Treasurer’s Report (page 12/95 of the council packet)
  • 07-20-2022 Revenue and Expenditure Report for the Period Ending 06-30-2022 (page 13/95 of the council packet)
  • Carlisle/Wortman, June Invoices (page 23/95 of the council packet)

Haven said he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. The final minutes of the 6/27 meeting, draft minutes from 7/11, and the Treasurer’s report. We consolidate them. If anyone wants to pull anything out of there to talk about, we can, but otherwise we will approve them together and discuss it. Haven said let’s take up the motion first.

Motion to accept the consent agenda by Wylie; second Rodgers.

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

No discussion.

Unanimous voice vote to accept the consent agenda as presented.

Agenda Item #12, Old Business:

Item 12a – Discussion: Election Updates (Video time mark 0:23:40):

Speagle said that she had a little bit of information, and we have our primary next Tuesday. Speagle will be open this Saturday, from 8:00 to 4:00. She’s issued 159 absentee ballots and has only received 80 back, so she’s missing about half of them. The other thing that she would like to relay is you can drop your absentee ballots off at the office during office hours. You can also drop them off in our drop box here by the front door. Please do not drop them off at Independence Township. Speagle will get them eventually (unintelligible). Speagle and Independence Township work together. Anything that we receive as far as election stuff, we get it to each other immediately, but to save time, and – Haven said logistics – continuing, Speagle agreed and said to please make sure you drop them off at this office and not the township.

Haven thanked Speagle for her hard work on this and noted that Speagle showed them the ballot at the last meeting and there are a lot of issues there. Speagle agreed.

Haven asked if there were any discussions or questions for Speagle relative to the election.

Pardee asked if they were going to talk about the November election. Speagle said yes, she can say who has turned in petitions. For councilmember, we have Sue Wylie, Amanda Wakefield, and Mark Lamphear. For mayor, we have Eric Haven and Scott Meyland. That’s who will be running in November’s election.

No additional comments.

Item 12b – Motion: Movie Night Proposal, Pattie Gilman Movie Night Proposal in Depot Park (Video time mark 0:25:41):

• • 06-09-2022 Letter from Thomas J. Ryan, City Attorney, Re: Religious Movie in Depot Park (page 26/95 of the council packet)

Haven said they would move on to the movie, Item 12b on the agenda. We are looking for a finalization. We heard from Tom [Ryan, City Attorney] on (unintelligible) position about the approval of a movie for the park. This is the Story of Jesus for children. That’s to take place on August 17^th at 9:00 p.m. at dark. Gilman’s here. She’s the one who’s sort of sponsoring this and requested that the event take place.

Haven said that he would make the motion to approve the event. They talked about just keeping it simple. They don’t have a motion in front of them, a motion to approve, and he’ll entertain a second so they can discuss. Rodgers seconded the motion.

Haven asked if Gilman wanted to give them a report on what she’s done. He knows that she’s been pretty busy (unintelligible) the indemnification, and you’ve gotten the companies to do the facilities. Gilman agreed and said she has insurance. (Unintelligible.) Gilman said she’s gotten a lot of help from Independence Township (unintelligible). She has the insurance in place from Event (unintelligible), and (unintelligible), which she thinks are from Clarkston, Clarkston area, they are going to actually operate all the equipment for her. So, they are bringing in a 20’ inflatable screen, 5500 lumen projector, blue ray player. She did get the CD for the movie but it’s not blue ray, but they said it would be OK. And then sound system, FM transmitter, generator, professional crew, delivery, set up, tear down, and their own insurance, so all that’s in place. She’s going to get water, juice boxes, premade popcorn from Gordon’s. She sent a letter to the Oakland County Health Department to say that she was going to provide all this food and if they had any issues to let her know, and she invited them. Haven said that was very wise. Gilman agreed. She actually sent a letter to dispatch in Clarkston just to say “hey, we’ve got this movie going on, so if you want to drive past or if you want to come over and look at it, just to make sure everybody’s safe,” so they’ll know that it’s happening on the 17^th as well. Gilman is going to recruit some youth from an area church to help pass out the water and everything that’s there. She may have her son there playing some music. She picked out a couple of songs that she thought were really cool. And she might get those things that break (gesturing). You get one of those, and then we’ll do “This Little Light of Mine, I’m Going to Let It Shine.” So, that’s it.

Rodgers asked for the date and time again. Gilman said August 17^th at dusk, so probably at 9:00 at night, so everybody will get there at 8:30. She is going to do some marketing, put it out on Facebook, Positively Clarkston, Clarkston News, Clarkston Living magazine. It will be blasted, so it will be interesting. And then she’s going to go to churches (unintelligible) promote that it’s coming. So, we’ll see. She doesn’t know what to expect, but it should be a good (unintelligible crosstalk) and hopefully, we’ll get some follow up.

Gilman asked if there were any questions. Speagle said that her biggest concern is that they weren’t told exactly what day it was. Speagle said she asked Gilman a couple of meetings ago to call her and let her know what day – Gilman said she was sorry – continuing, Speagle said because as it is, she blocked the 17^th as open, but we have weddings and stuff that happen during the week too – Gilman said OK – continuing, Speagle said if anybody rents out the park, it’s theirs. Gilman said if she has to change it, let her know. That was an error, she was working on things and emailing you (gesturing to someone off camera, in Smith’s direction) (unintelligible). Speagle said to do an event, Gilman has to go on the website and fill out an application for the event – Gilman said she didn’t know that – continuing, Speagle said to hit send and it comes to Speagle to approve. Gilman said OK. Speagle gave Gilman the website address. Gilman said she can do that. Haven asked if there is a location on there she should look for. Speagle said no, she basically puts all special events under gazebo rental. Gilman said OK, she’ll go do that; sorry.

Haven said that there is a motion and second to approve the event. Speagle said she didn’t know how they want to do this, but normally, it’s $200 to rent. Gilman said OK, that’s fine. Speagle said she just wanted to let her know that too, that secures your spot. Gilman (unintelligible) said OK.

Luginski asked if Speagle is going to hold the date until Gilman can (unintelligible crosstalk). Speagle said yes. She did some investigating today to see, and she knows what date it is so she can look. Gilman said she didn’t realize she had to do that. Speagle said yes, in order to hold it, it’s in our calendar, people can see, if anybody tries to go in to do another event for that day, it will kick back and say no you can’t. On Speagle’s end, the back side of it, she can see it too. Gilman said OK.

Ryan asked Gilman if she also had a certificate of insurance. Gilman said yes, and Smith indicated that he had one. Ryan said OK and thanked Gilman.

Haven said they would handle this like a regular (unintelligible) and asked for a voice vote.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Gilman and Haven thanked each other.

Item 12c – Resolution: Insurance Competitive Quote (Video time mark 0:31:10):

• • Resolution – Insurance Competitive Quote (page 28/95 of the council packet)
  • Competitive Insurance Quote (page 29/95 of the council packet)
  • 07-01-2022 Binder of Coverage, Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool (page 30/95 of the council packet)
  • Renewal Certificate (page 31/95 of the council packet)
  • Property Schedule as of 07-01-2022 (page 32/95 of the council packet)
  • Additional Coverages & Coverage Extensions, Limits of Liability (page 33/95 of the council packet)
  • Inland Marine Schedule as of 07-01-2022 (Page 35/95 of the council packet)
  • Automobile Schedule as of 07-01-2022 (page 36/95 of the council packet)
  • Crime Schedule as of 07-01-2022 (page 37/95 of the council packet)
  • Position Fidelity Bond (page 38/95 of the council packet)
  • Additional Interests Schedule as of 07-01-2022 (page 40/95 of the council packet)
  • Cyber Liability and Data Breach Response Coverage Declarations (page 41/95 of the council packet)
  • Certificate of Fleet Coverage (page 42/95 of the council packet)
  • Certificate of Coverage (page 43/95 of the council packet)
  • Invoice, Michigan Municipal League Liability & Property Pool (page 46/95 of the council packet)
  • Premium Breakdown as of 07-01-2022 (page 47/95 of the council packet)
  • 05-25-2022 Proposal from Nickel & Saph, Glatfelter Public Practice (page 49/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that this was a resolution on our insurance and a competitive quote; we have it in our packet. Smith agreed. Haven said we saw this earlier.

Smith said he gave an update on this a few meetings ago. John [Johnson] from Nickle & Saph was here and gave you a review of their proposal [Glatfelter Public Practice], and that’s attached to this. It’s further on down, but you have the full proposal in the packet. So, the recommendation here, Al Avery and Smith met, and we had an extensive review back and forth of the two proposals. The price that Nickle & Saph came up with is less than what we are currently paying. It’s not as less when you factor in the annual dividend that we have been receiving for (unintelligible).

Smith said that he and Avery worked together, and this is a schedule that they put together. Smith put it into cells, but it is the numbers that he and Avery talked about. So, on the first line, the property insurance. Glatfelter is less than MML [Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool] by $205. General liability, they’re less by a significant amount, $1,500. On the crime coverage, MML is less, but as noted on the right here, Glatfelter has $1,000,000 of cyber coverage versus just $100,000 for MML. That’s a big coverage difference on the crime (unintelligible). The automobile coverage, MML is less than Glatfelter on that by almost $1,000. Inland Marine, MML has baked that into their general liability, but Glatfelter broke that out separately, so it’s a little hard to compare, but the general liability differences here, you can see if we add the two together, they pretty much net each other out. Public officials’ coverage, errors and omissions, Glatfelter is significantly less expensive than MML. The Treasurer’s bond, that is included in public officials for MML but it’s not for Glatfelter. All total, Glatfelter is over $2,000 less. John gave you a note summarizing their proposal. It was over $2,000 less, but when we factor in the annual dividend that we receive from MML, and MML is a nonprofit, so they are obligated at the end of their fiscal year to return excess funds collected, they return those to the various municipalities on a prorated basis. Over the last five years, that dividend has ranged from $1,200 to $2,000, so about an average of $1,600. Smith said that he took that out, and the difference is still positive in terms of Glatfelter being less expensive than MML, but not nearly as much. About $400 is (unintelligible).

So, based on that, Avery and Smith said that moving away from MML, there are many advantages that come with being part of the MML family, if you will. We still have workmen’s compensation. Workmen’s compensation is not something that Glatfelter even quoted because it’s hard to beat the prices that MML has on workmen’s compensation. So, that’s not included (unintelligible).

Based on that, Avery and Smith feel that we should stay at this time with MML. Johnson is here, and in all fairness to Johnson, on the assessment he put together, Smith would like to give him an opportunity to speak or for you to ask questions of Johnson.

Johnson asked if (unintelligible) was there as well. An unidentified person representing MML [later identified as Brian Steckroth] answered affirmatively. Johnson asked if Steckroth wanted him to go first, and Steckroth said yes.

Johnson said he did provide them with a narrative that is stapled there, and a document that talks about dividends. The main focus that is a hinderance in switching is a dividend. What you need to look at is what’s called the present value of a dollar. This year, inflation has risen by 10%, so if you’re looking at getting $1,600 back at the end of the year, you have to take 10% away from that, which is $160 because as a year goes around and inflation comes through, and now you have to look at the present value. So now, you’re at $1,460 that you’re actually getting. So now we’re saving an extra $160 there up front off. Another thing is, if you’re in a dividend program, they’re never guaranteed. You could have issues because you are in a pool. You do have other municipalities that you have to worry about. You might not have issues, but your neighbors next door, or the neighbors 100 miles away, they could have massive claims where it draws away all that money. Smith said it particularly well. One year, you guys earned $1,200. It just goes to show that those aren’t necessarily given to you as the dollar value there. Initial savings is a huge part of it for you, but another point that was misconstrued on the document there is we’re providing $1,000,000 of cyber liability coverage, and they say $100,000 aggregate. They are only providing you with $25,000 worth of cyber coverage, so essentially, an aggregate is how many times an occurrence goes on. So, you could four occurrences of $25,000 to get that $100,000, where our occurrence is $1,000,000. Understanding that you have switched to an IT company, and you have more protections now on that base, you still are vulnerable. We secure many municipalities, and we have found many errors in the IT department where we have to come in and that insurance is a huge value. To only have $25,000 leaves you in an aspect where he would not want to sit. Now, speaking of that on this stapled narrative that Johnson constructed are two clients at the bottom that we have recently went against the MML, and they procured coverage with Nickel & Saph. One was the City of Algonac, and the other was Grosse Pointe Woods. Both of them did a competitive proposal and they found that our product would be superior, and it would benefit them in the long run by saving the money up front instead of being in a pool category.

So, other than that, Johnson wanted to leave them with two more points. We are offering a payment plan for you, so if financials are in a situation where you don’t want to pay the $14,222 up front, you can pay it in parts of semi-annual, we could do it in a ten-month period for you. And then another feature that is particularly neat is you guys are hosting that event in the park here coming up, and the person that is hosting it had to go to Independence Township to find additional insurance for special events. Nickel & Saph, being an independent agency, can help you with those sorts of things so you don’t have to have this wild goose chase of people going to other townships, other communities, to get that void filled. You have it in-house here. All they need to do is call us up and we can provide competitive quotes. If they choose us, then obviously our price is better, and our product is the same. Johnson said he would leave them on that note, and if they do have any questions, he would be pleased to answer them.

Haven asked if there were any questions for Johnson.

Fuller asked how it would cost the City of the Village of Clarkston $1,000,000 in a cyber-attack, or half a million dollars. Johnson said that there’s actually a couple of different ways. One specific to a recent event was somebody sent a phishing email to have their bank account changed, and the person was completely legit, Huntington Bank account, log in here to get your password changed, it’s time to change it. The person went ahead and did that. Sadly, it was a phishing thing, and when they changed the password, it says give me the old password and type in the new password, thus providing that person with the old password. They went in, they grabbed the money out of the bank account, and badda bing badda boom, that’s where your $500,000 goes, that’s where your $1,000,000 goes. And that’s the cyber liability coverage for you. So, it is possible, it did just happen in a community roughly about six, seven months ago, and the first thing they did is call Nickel & Saph and say hey, can you provide cyber liability coverage in excess of what we have right now, we said yes, and now we procure coverage for them.

Haven said that we were hacked three, four, five years ago. Smith said about three years ago. Haven said it wasn’t a pleasant experience, but he thinks MML came through for us in that respect. Haven didn’t know if it was above committed coverage. Johnson said yes, but at the time, your coverage then shrank, Johnson believes, but he could be wrong, but the MML representative could clarify. Steckroth said it did not. Johnson said so your coverage is still the same at $25,000. Haven said it was a very interesting event to go through for a small community at that juncture, and all the law enforcement people advised us to just simply honor the request and to minimize the loss, and it was covered by MML, and we came out with something like $13,000 exposure as a city.

Smith said that was a ransomware incident where they basically locked down our server, encrypted all the files that were on the server, and demanded that we pay a ransom or they wouldn’t give us the decryption filter. Conventional wisdom was don’t pay the ransom, these are mean people, but in the end, they felt this was our best option. So, we did pay the ransom, MML covered that cost with the exception of what Smith thought was a $500 deductible, they paid the ransom, and we did get all of our files back. They did come through and give us the decryption code, so in the end, it was a successful event, a successful transaction, but it was nonetheless, we lost about four days of productivity. But if we had not paid the ransom, we could have lost files back to our last backup which was months ago, although we acknowledge that at that time, we weren’t doing full backups like we are now. Johnson said he remembered Clarkston had to get the County involved as well. Smith agreed. Haven added the Sheriff. Johnson said it was pretty extensive. Smith said so now, we have daily backups, weekly backups, and we have a new firewall that’s been put in place that’s been far more protective than the previous one.

Haven asked if anyone else had any other questions. Luginski said he wanted to make a comment. As Haven knows, maybe not everybody here does, that’s what Luginski does for a living. He sells cybersecurity software to large enterprises in the world, so he’s very familiar with this. His company is probably number one or number two in cybersecurity software. He only handles large accounts, Fortune 500 companies, so it’s a little different scenario as far as support and what they have in place in the city, but it’s a real threat. The bad guys are bad, and the bad guys aren’t getting any dumber, OK? They’re getting smarter and smarter. And everybody in this room, if you think you’re protected, you’re not. None of us are. The bad guys have our social security numbers, the bad guys have our addresses, they have our birthdates. They may not have used it yet, but they got it. At some point, everybody is going to get hacked, in some way, shape, or form. So, the insurance is good, but more important than insurance is what do we have that’s security to not getting hacked at that level. Ransomware and phishing attacks usually come through emails primarily, that’s where phishing attacks come from. Ransomware is a different story. There’s a lot of software out there, not just what his company sells, it’s not a plug for his company at all because our city isn’t even big enough for us to do, but firewalls are not sufficient. They’re good, but a firewall is like taking a knife to a gunfight with the bag guys. So, Luginski thinks beside whatever decision we make here, we need to evaluate what we have in place for security, for cybersecurity.

Haven asked Luginski what he thought the evaluation would show, what kind of decision do you make at that juncture. Luginski said do we have enough, do we have it right. There’s a lot of companies out there like he said, small, medium size businesses that would be more than what we have. Lugniski doesn’t know what we have, so he can’t answer exactly what it would show, but a lot of companies, and you would be surprised how many large, global, multi-billion-dollar companies that he deals with have firewalls. And they’re like well, we have a firewall, and to the bad guys, that’s just like peanut butter. They go right through it. They don’t care; a firewall is nothing to them, right? And then all of a sudden, these multi-billion-dollar global companies are being held for billions. And they want bitcoin. That’s what these hackers want. They want bitcoin. And they’re asking for however big the company is, the equivalent bitcoin number that kind of resembles what their annual revenue and sales are. And you’d be surprised how many of these multi-billion-dollar global companies don’t have it, he can’t say the ones they’ve done and the ones that they are doing, because he just can’t say that in public, but you would be surprised.

Haven asked Smith if liability is what’s recouping what’s lost in our files, basically. Our money is in a fiduciary’s institution. It’s there. It’s not cash. It’s what does it cost to rebuild the system, and we have double backups is what Smith is saying now, right? (Smith nodded.) Haven said we do one backup of our system, so you have to hack both of them, that’s the idea. Luginski said that’s child’s play. Haven said OK. Luginski said he’s just telling Haven what he sees every day. Haven said so what it comes down to is insurance, basically that’s what you’re talking about here. What does it cost to rebuild the system? Luginski said insurance, you know, never pay the ransom. We should have never paid it. Never, ever pay a ransom. Johnson said because then they know that you will pay it. Luginski said paying the ransom is like taboo. Never pay a ransom. They tell all their multi-global, you know, don’t pay. We’ll fix it. We’ll take care of it. Right? Now, things have changed. Luginski thinks he was mayor, he thinks, when that happened. Someone from the audience asked why he paid the ransom. Luginski said that he was outvoted, but regardless. Haven said that our advisors told us to pay it. Luginski said that times have changed. What people thought and how it was looked at five, six, and even ten years ago has totally changed now in the industry. So, you know, you’re going to have other people who say you should pay the ransom, and that’s a debate you can have all day long. We tell our clients to never pay. Luginski thinks the insurance is important, but there’s a lot of insurance that doesn’t necessarily help either. Haven said it comes down to the fine print too of the policy, he gets that. He understands that it’s just marks on paper but how does it play out. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Haven said that Ted (no last name given) had his arm up a minute ago, and you were head of Homeland Security for Oakland County for a while. What would you do? Ted said that it was prior to even mentioning the ransomware that Smith mentioned. He wanted to make sure that was covered in the cyber security coverage, ransomware, because it is amazing how quick they get in and how like you said, insurance is good, all the protection you put in your system as far as firewalls may keep out the medium smart people, but they aren’t going to keep the really smart ones out. It just continues to grow, and the amount of ransomware (unintelligible) millions of dollars dealing with that. And it’s amazing how many will pay it. You might be done with it; hopefully they will move on to somebody else.

Haven said that what surprises him is that we’re so small, why pick us? Johnson said he can answer that right now. There was just an article listed not too long ago, 42% of small businesses are being targeted because of the lack of protection. (Haven made an unintelligible comment.) So, obviously, they are still going at the big companies and everything like that, but they are targeting the small companies because they realize that they don’t have the protections in place, or they don’t have the reimbursements available in place, for those. Luginski said this is another statistic – 93% of all attacks come through email. That’s where they come through, so if we don’t have an email security system, we should probably look at that. Because 93% of all attacks come through email, whether it’s phishing, malware, all kinds of different email security breaches that happen, businesses that provide continuity breaches that happen through email. And it’s simply because people, you know, as you said, a person clicked on it, gave them the password or whatever, or even emails that don’t even ask for that, they just look like it’s good and you click on it and open it up, and all of a sudden, pop, they’re in, they’re in your system. That’s where Luginski thinks that we need to look more strongly too into what we have there. That’s separate, and Luginski knows that they are off the track a little bit as far as what this discussion is. Haven said it’s a nice discussion.

Johnson said just to finish this up and obviously to give the MML an opportunity to speak as well, we would love to link up with the vendor contracts that you have and assure that the contemporary language is implemented in there as well to make sure that you guys are protected on those fronts. Normally, everybody gets the ideology, yes, you have to have your attorney look at it, but they forget about the certified insurance counselor insurance guy over here that will read your policies and procedures that are in place and make sure that you guys have the proper verbiage in there, additional named insured, hold harmless agreements, waivers of subrogation, and those sorts of things.

Haven thanked Johnson. Johnson thanked council for the opportunity. Haven said it was an enlightening discussion.

Haven recognized Pardee for a question for Johnson. Pardee said he thought that we’ve had the most activity in errors and omissions in terms of claims and amount, and it’s the area that has the biggest gap on the comparison chart. Pardee said he was looking at Johnson’s page 31. It talks about public officials and management liability, and it says the premium is $1,750. Johnson agreed. Pardee said when he gets to public officials on the chart, it says $4,132. Johnson said he would have to look at his document, but what that coverage is, is two-fold. It’s a separate and distinct tower for you, and each one of our liabilities are towers, so if you have a claim in that category, it’s not going to erode or take away from the available money in a general liability fund, which is like a slip and fall or property damage to others. So, this is your errors and omissions for all board [council] members and for the policies and procedures that are set in place to handle your employees as well. So, if you guys have discrimination, harassment, slander, libel things, those sorts of natures, that’s where that category defends. The dos and do nots of the public officials and the protection in place for the employees. Pardee said again, the city has had the greatest level of activity and claims in that area, point one. Continuing, Pardee said and then also, the biggest difference on the summary chart happens to be public officials’ errors and omissions, and as though you are $3,600 less than. Johnson said correct. Pardee said when he is looking on this detail (holding a document), he sees a number that is $1,750, on page 31 – Johnson agreed – continuing, Pardee said he’s trying to figure out, there must be some additional premium. Smith said it’s the excess liability (unintelligible), down a couple rows (unintelligible). Johnson said that falls into the category of all liability, so you break that out and divide it by your general liability, your law enforcement, and then the additional. Johnson apologized for not quite getting the question.

Smith said that Johnson initially said that he’d reached out to four different insurance companies. Johnson agreed. Continuing, Smith said that only Glatfelter would take us. Johnson agreed. Smith said that Johnson told them that the other three were concerned with their excess claims, but we just really had two claims in the last few years. One was the lawsuit, and the other was the cyberattack. So, these other three companies would not even quote it because they were concerned with our claim rate. Johnson said correct. So, what a company does is they take the amount of premium that they feel they could provide to you, which is an annual cost, and they utilize your last five or six years of history. And based upon that, they calculated five years of annual premium, and five years of claims, and they see a number. Normally, companies like to stay away if it’s above 60%. They won’t be competitive. The reason we obtained these other accounts necessarily, one particularly was a lack of coverage like we are providing here right now for the cyber. They had a high, high claims ratio. Our premium price was just as good, but our coverage was better. So, sometimes companies do shy away, and they aren’t available to provide you with those proposals. Glatfelter, with the competent information that Johnson was able to provide them through the management side of having a new IT company, was able to diminish that claim and was obviously able to provide an ample amount of coverage while being better priced.

Smith said his question is whether it’s possible a year from now Glatfelter could do the same assessment. Smith assumes they do this every year for their clients. Johnson said that it depends on how your claims are. As Johnson stated earlier, you get a dividend based on how well the claims are for the pool. So, hopefully, everybody in your pool does well. They looked at your claims, they felt as though $14,222 was competitive and was workable for what they feel as though needed to be protected here for you. So, when you do work in a pool area, you don’t just have to worry about yourself. You’ve got to worry about everybody else as well. When you are working with Johnson, the only thing that you have to worry about is your claims in particular. Johnson would not recommend going out to bid every year. More or less, Johnson doesn’t want to waste Smith’s time, he doesn’t want to waste the board’s [council’s] time, he knows everybody’s time is precious. Johnson would recommend that if they are going to do it, maybe go three years, to check five years. Prices do change year to year, but Johnson recommends on an insurance side, three to five years.

Smith’s point was that could go both ways. Johnson agreed and said that it could be a positive, it could be a negative. Smith said if we have a lot of claims – Johnson said which you do – continuing, Smith said but my neighboring communities don’t, that’s a scenario where it helps me to be part of a pool. Johnson agreed. Johnson said within the last two years, you haven’t had any claims, so that would essentially be a bigger benefit for you because now you’re worrying about the big guy next door having all those claims and you know, you’re not earning that much back on the dividend where you’ve got to worry about the present value of the dollar on top of that, where it diminishes every single year because, and Steckroth could correct Johnson if he’s wrong, but Johnson is pretty sure the MML dividends are based on a three-year back rated, or is it yearly. Steckroth said it’s five years. Johnson said you have to wait five years to obtain a dividend. Steckroth said that’s 100% of the dividend. The first year you get a portion, and every year you get a portion, until your fifth year and then you’re 100% for a new member. Johnson said so from 2021, you’ll be earning that 2021 dividend in 2022? Steckroth said no, he’s talking about for a new member. They get a portion of the dividend each year, rather than the full five years. When you’re talking about a dividend overall, they look at the pool overall every year as far as that surplus that is returned to the members. Johnson said per year, so we’re just looking at a one-year present value. You don’t have to do the compound interest rates for five years, three years, which if you were, that would be an exponentially greater loss in dividend value, not just one year.

Haven thanked Johnson and said that he thought he’d like to move on to MML and hear what MML has to say. Haven said that he would say that MML has done well by us on these two incidents we talked about, both the lawsuit and our cyber-attack. Haven and Smith thanked Johnson. Haven said we’d hear from the pool now.

The MML [Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool] representative introduced himself and said his name is Brian Steckroth. Steckroth recently took over our area. The other account executive who served as a sales manager retired as of July 1^st and Steckroth took over her position. He’s been with the company for 25 years.

Steckroth said that one big difference is that MML does not have an aggregate for their liability lines, so the liability limit that you see there is per occurrence. Without having an aggregate, you could have five, ten, or however many occurrences that all hit the $5,000,000 mark every year, and we’ll pay them all with a zero deductible. That includes your public officials, and the auto, and the general liability.

Steckroth said as far as the cyber liability goes, it is $100,000 aggregate, and it is $25,000 ransom or extortion coverage whatever you want to call it. However, in your packet, there is a breakdown as far as the limits go and there is more than just the extortion coverage that is included. They help you (unintelligible) for our cyber coverage, they help you get up and running as quick as possible, they do any kind of fraud monitoring for the residents or anyone whose information was (unintelligible), they help you provide information to the media and that sort of thing.

A couple of other things. As far as the two members that left that he [Johnson] mentioned, they did not go with the Glatfelter program. They were another company that they work with, one of which declined you. You do have a 44% loss ratio with us which we consider very good. Anything over 60% is a concern, but in the Pool’s history, they have only non-renewed two members, and that was because the members were unwilling to work with the Pool to avoid claims that they already had paid out. All of our claims adjusters are here in Michigan. They’re familiar with Michigan governmental immunity, and that’s why you have the dividend consistently for the past fifteen years, because governmental immunity is rather strong, and our adjusters know what they can and shouldn’t pay.

Haven asked Steckroth how many municipalities the MML represents. Steckroth said 483. Haven asked if they were all in Michigan. Steckroth said yes, because that’s all they do is Michigan.

Steckroth asked if there were any questions.

Ryan said since it’s been bandied about, do we have a high claim – Steckroth said not really. Ryan said and our public officials, we’ve had the lawsuit, we’ve had the ransomware, we’ve had maybe one or two trip and falls on the city streets, but otherwise, we haven’t had any other lawsuits. Steckroth said no, you’re not considered high risk. Steckroth said you are at 44%, so we consider that pretty good. Ryan said he just wanted to get that, we’re not a risk of some company, you know, we’re going to break somebody. Steckroth said exactly. Ryan asked if claims were made at MML. Steckroth said a five-year occurrence form. Ryan asked what is Glatfelter? Johnson said it’s claims made the whole way through. Ryan said OK, so what happens if you switch, and it’s an occurrence that occurs before we switch, who gets it? Steckroth said whatever company was on at the time of the occurrence. It’s only when the claim is made, assuming there’s a party. Johnson said then you would have to have tail coverage for that, which is why they don’t like to work with claims made. Ryan said right.

Haven said he’d like to understand Steckroth’s percentages. When you refer to 44% that you say is good, that’s 44% exposure relative to premium, is that what that ratio, and 60% would be bad? Steckroth said 60% they would look at as a little concerned. They would send loss control out and review your claims and help you and make suggestions where you can – interrupting Steckroth, Haven said again, that’s claims versus premium. Steckroth said that is correct. Haven said so it’s a percentage of premium that we’re talking about. Steckroth agreed. Haven asked if 44% was good. Steckroth said yes. Haven said that was interesting.

Fuller said that Smith said that MML covers worker’s compensation, and that kind of surprised him because his experience is that it doesn’t cover with that. It covers worker’s compensation, but Fuller just doesn’t know much about it because he’s never been involved in it. Steckroth said that there are two separate programs. The MML worker’s compensation program and the MML property and liability pool. They’re both separate funds, they’re both member-owned non-profits. Steckroth said that they have written the Village of Clarkston’s worker’s compensation for many, many years. There are all kinds of companies that write worker’s compensation out there. We have some of the best rates in the state of Michigan, and that’s why nobody can really touch our worker’s compensation.

Fuller asked if that cost is rolled into your proposal. Steckroth said no, it’s two separate pieces. You renewed that July 1^st as well, and as a matter of fact, this policy was renewed on July 1^st as well. You have a copy of the policy and everything, and the policy is in full force (unintelligible).

Fuller said so, comparing apples to apples, the worker’s compensation piece isn’t part of this discussion at all. Steckroth said that’s correct. Smith said that they left it out so it would be apples to apples. Fuller said OK. Smith said because Glatfelter acknowledged that they could not compete on that, so they just left it off and Smith understands that. So, we just left that out of the comparison altogether.

Fuller asked if you could do one without the other with the MML? Steckroth said yes, because they are two separate programs. Fuller said OK.

Luginski said Steckroth just made a comment about this policy renewed July 1^st. So, are we locked in for a year? Is this a moot point? Luginski said he doesn’t understand. Steckroth said technically it is, because it is a pool, and these are twelve-month policies. If you vote to leave the program, then the other program would have to backdate to July 1^st. Johnson said that they are more than willing to do that. He’s spoken to their underwriters, and they have accepted that process. Luginski said OK.

Steckroth asked if there were any other questions.

No further questions. Haven thanked Steckroth.

Haven said that they have a resolution before them. He didn’t know if they were ready for it or not (unintelligible). Haven said he would entertain one. We propose that we adopt this resolution.

Ryan said that they are missing two people tonight. It has to be four votes, four affirmative votes. He didn’t know if it was fair to vote. You need four votes. Haven said it’s a big decision. We have four votes. Ryan said they had five people here. Haven said right; we do.

Haven said he would make the request. Again, if we don’t get any motion to adopt this resolution, we’ll move on.

Rodgers asked if they could table this until the next meeting. Haven said they could. Rodgers said that she kind of feels like she has to kind of absorb all this. Haven said that’s why he said he didn’t know if they were ready.

Wylie said she would make a motion to table this until the next meeting. Second Rodgers.

Johnson said that Glatfelter will have to politely decline their official offer for this fiscal year if you are going to table for next year. Backdating for over a month and a half is not feasible in the insurance industry for municipalities. You have a renewal date for a particular reason. Going forward, we made an exception to be polite and as courteous as possible to all board [council] members for this process. Johnson is more than willing and apt to come through next year and see if Glatfelter will again produce a premium for you for your consideration, but Johnson will have to politely bow out and let you stay with the Pool if you are going to decide to table it for the future. Haven said thanks for letting them know.

Steckroth said that’s what he was going to ask, because typically, no company will backdate over 30 days, so he was going to bring that up.

Haven said it’s a confidence factor then. We are short two members tonight. So, we have a motion and a second to table the selection. Ryan said well, except he thinks that what both of them are saying is that he doesn’t know even if the League [MML] is not going to wait until next month. As far as they’re concerned, we’re a member of the League for this year, correct? Haven said yeah, we’re past that (unintelligible). Luginksi said (unintelligible) but tabling it to him is basically just agreeing with what this resolution is, right? Because they’ll back out anyway. Wylie said yes. Luginski said so if we table it, that’s the vote. Haven agreed. Luginski asked if he was missing something. Ryan said except the resolution wouldn’t pass, so if you’re going to take an affirmative action (unintelligible crosstalk). Luginski said right, it means we do nothing, which means we just stay as is. Wylie and Rodgers agreed. Ryan said except that we need to take some official action, which we haven’t done yet. We have to do that in the month of July apparently. Haven said but tabling is an official action, right? Ryan said sure, but don’t we have to sign documents with the League? Rodgers asked doesn’t this just automatically renew unless we do something. Steckroth said they got a bind order on May 12^th to go ahead an issue the policy. Luginski said so we could postpone it until next year versus tabling it until next meeting. (Haven made an unintelligible comment.)

Smith said we’ve already paid the premium. Luginski said tabling it does nothing. Wylie agreed. Pardee asked if there is a need for a resolution. Ryan said that there is one prepared. Luginski agreed.

Haven said that he has a motion and second to table, which is moot, he guesses. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Ryan said unless the motion is withdrawn. Haven said that’s the offer that he can make to Rodgers and Wylie – do you want to withdraw your motion? Wylie said she would withdraw her motion.

Wylie asked if they had anything. Ryan said that there’s a resolution in the packet. Wylie said nobody has actually (unintelligible crosstalk). Ryan said no.

Wylie said that she would put forth this resolution as written in the packet; second Fuller.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Luginski said to just make sure that it’s clear what the resolution is saying that we’re voting on. This is to basically stay with the MML and not make a change. Wylie said correct. Luginski said so if we pass this resolution, that’s what we’re doing. Wylie said that’s correct. Luginski said that he just wants to make sure that everyone understands.

Smith said that if they want to add the condition that we re-quote this with Glatfelter next year as Johnson suggested, that’s fine, we can put that in as additional words into the resolution. (Haven made an unintelligible comment.) Luginski agreed.

Haven said that there is a resolution in front of them. A motion to adopt the resolution, a second to adopt the resolution. Haven asked if there was any further discussion.

No further discussion.

Luginski, Rodgers, Haven, Fuller, and Wylie voted yes. The resolution passed.

Everyone thanked Steckroth and Johnson.

Agenda Item #13, New Business

Item 13a – Resolution: Oakland County Assessing Annual Contract Renewal (Video time mark 1:14:53):

• • Resolution – Oakland County Assessing Services Contract (page 80/95 of the council packet)
  • 05-18-2022 Letter from Oakland County Management & Budget Equalization Division, Re: Renewal of Contract for Assessing Services with the City of the Village of Clarkston (page 81/95 of the council packet)
  • Contract for Oakland County Equalization Division Assistance Services with the City of the village of Clarkston (Real and Personal Property Services) (page 82/95 of the council packet)
  • 07-14-2022 Letter from Thomas J. Ryan, City Attorney, Re: Renewal of Contract with Oakland County Equalization for Assessing Services (page 94/95 of the council packet)

Haven said we have a resolution for Oakland County Assessing. Haven asked if it was basically a renewal contract. Smith said yes. Haven said he thought they’ve been doing it since our founding. The resolution is in front of us.

Haven said he would entertain a motion to adopt this resolution.

Motion by Luginski; second Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

Haven said (unintelligible), Mr. Ryan your name is on this. Ryan said yes, we have to have an assessing function as a city, and Oakland County, as he said in his memo, does an excellent job for smaller communities. They are asking for a price increase this year, but they’ve done assessing as indicated since we’ve been a city. They do an excellent job. They give a lot of support to us. Luginski agreed and said they’ve always done well. Haven said 4%. Ryan said and they’re raising the price. Haven agreed.

Haven said all of our properties are assessed every year, right? He gets a letter from the assessor for an SEV [State Equalized Value] or whatever. Smith said they have algorithms that do that. Haven said it’s automatic in a way, you know, it just spits it out. But when you look at per property, and you’re talking about new assessments, is that basically what, so what’s our exposure here on this? Smith said that they take the time, they look at changes, namely sales. They’ll look at sales, and that might be an exception to what their algorithm suggests. Haven said right, sure. Smith said if the neighbor’s house sells for $800,000, then theirs is assessed even at market value, or $400,000, then it might trigger the need to reevaluate the whole street or the whole neighborhood, so that’s what the Oakland County Assessor does.

Haven said so we pay for the algorithm as a baseline, right, and then above that for any special or new properties. Haven asked what that number was last year. He has no idea what that number is. Smith asked if Haven was asking how many they reassessed. Haven said what’s our total. We’re going to pay a bill here, right. Smith said it was $8,000, and he thinks it goes up to $8,120 or something this year. Haven said OK. Smith said it’s not a big increase. Haven said he didn’t understand the magnitude.

Haven said they have by Luginski a motion to adopt this resolution, second Wylie. Haven asked if there was any further discussion.

No further discussion.

Pardee asked if we needed to amend the budget. Does the dollar amount approved for Oakland County exceed what’s in the budget? He sees (unintelligible crosstalk between Pardee and Haven). Haven said $100. Smith said we will have to amend the agenda [budget] even though it’s only a hundred and some dollars. We will have to do a budget amendment.

Haven asked for a roll call.

Haven, Luginski, Rodgers, Fuller, and Wylie voted yes. Resolution adopted.

Item 13b – Motion: Boards and Commissions Appointment Renewals (Video time mark 1:18:13):

• • Motion – Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Historic District Commission Appointments/Renewals (page 95/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a motion for board and commission appointments, and they are specifically for Planning Commission, Bob Sowles, this is a renomination; Zoning Board of Appeals, Ann Clifton and Gary Casey; Historic District Commission, Bob Hauxwell. There are four and only three commissions.

Haven said he would entertain a motion to reappoint.

Motion by Wylie; second Luginski.

Haven said it’s a motion to reappoint these public servants and asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

Item 13c – Discussion: Historical Society Art in the Village Update (Video time mark 1:19:07):

Haven said he assumed this was Smith’s item. Smith said yes.

Smith said Art in the Village is an annual event in Depot Park. It’s the main fundraiser for the Historical Society. If you didn’t know, Smith is the president of the Historical Society. So, this is its big fund raiser. We have some minor things that we do throughout the year, some education things that we have donations for, but this is our big fundraiser. It funds all the operations of the museum. The board is not paid of course; these are volunteer positions. Our museum director, which happens to be Smith’s wife Toni, is paid. She runs the museum. But it also pays for our educational programs. So, we go out into the schools, we help fund educational second grade educational books on history. Our mission, if you didn’t know, is about conveying the history, educating our community on the importance of Clarkston’s history.

It’s a very important role. People often confuse the Historical Society with the Historic District Commission. They have two entirely different goals, objectives. They are not in any way connected. The Historical Society is a 501(c)(3) and it relies on events such as this to fund its operations. During COVID, we were able to get a $10,000 grant, and that was hugely helpful to our board because during COVID we did not have an Art in the Village. For two years, we did not have an Art in the Village. Last year we did, and it was very successful, and we changed up the formula a little bit if you’ll remember. In addition to the normal artists that are over on this side of the park (gesturing), we went down the pathway and had what we call our market area. It was like little pop-up shops if you will, vintage and market. And we also had a food court with some food trucks and other food vendors. It was hugely successful. Even during the tail end of COVID, we did, it wasn’t our best year, but it was one of our better years and Smith thinks that was attributable to the fact that we had so many different types of vendors here. Not only the traditional artists that everybody loves, make all their things by hand, nothing imported from China, it’s all hand-made, and then we had the new vendors in the market area. We’re going to do that again this year and even further expand it. We have just a huge number of people applying to be in the show. So, we have over 100 vendors already and there’s still over two months until the show, so we expect that number to even grow a little bit more. Smith thinks we can only handle about 120 tops. We’re already at 105, so Smith thinks that we may get very close to that max capacity.

Smith said that his reason for putting this on the agenda tonight, was two reasons. One, was to give you that update, that things are going strong with the Historical Society, this is our annual fundraiser, and we are going to do this again this year and hope to have good success for it. The second reason Smith is coming here tonight is they know we have waived the fees, the park rental fees, for other non-profits. We almost do that universally for all non-profits. The Historical Society has never asked for that and has paid that in recent years. In light of everything that’s going on financially, we felt a need to ask the council to give that same consideration to your own historical society, in your backyard, they are going to stay here, they were raised here, they’ll stay here. They would like that same consideration, to waive that park rental fee of $200 (amount confirmed by Speagle) so that they may have a successful event.

Smith said those are the two reasons he’s here tonight. He guesses the latter requires a motion or a resolution. It’s not in the packet. He didn’t want to presume that they would do this, so he didn’t put a resolution form in the packet, but he’s asking council (unintelligible).

Haven said he would move to resolve. Ryan said it’s on the agenda as a discussion, but Ryan thinks what Smith is asking for is the sense of council and then he’ll bring it back with an appropriate resolution at the next meeting. Haven asked how they express that. Luginski said you could smile. (Laughter.)

Smith said we have time. Haven said to bring it back formally. Smith said he could bring it back to the next council meeting as a resolution to waive the park rental fee. Haven said good and thanked Smith for the update.

Rodgers said she’s heard only good things from last year. It was a major uptick from what we have had (unintelligible). Smith and Haven agreed. Smith said that there are still a lot of artists out there, but that kind of marketability of that has fallen off somewhat. Smith thinks that COVID certainly brought some attention to doing things internally, doing things at home, and making things, but artists in general, you know, making potholders or something, or candles or something like that, a lot of that’s gone away and you just don’t find those artists doing that kind of work anymore. Woodworking has really died off. Jewelry making has gone up. We have a lot of jewelry makers that applied, but a lot of the other mediums are dying off. So, we’re having trouble. That’s why we expanded to this marketplace, vintage antiques. It really blew up last year in a good way. Haven said Smith reads the market well. Smith agreed.

Wylie said she would like to make a comment and doesn’t want to be the bad guy here. So, one of the reasons that she thinks they’ve waived the $200 fee for the other groups is it’s not a money-making opportunity for them and they probably don’t have much money. But you guys are making money. Smith said we don’t make money at the end of the year. We reinvest all of our money. Wylie said she means this event is a money-maker for you. Smith said well, yeah, sure, but it funds the museum for an entire year. Wylie said she understands, but to her, it is different. It’s a different kind of event, it’s not just a hot dog party, or a movie night. Haven said Wylie gets a chance to vote. Wylie said it’s there for a different purpose. Luginski said when it comes back next time as a resolution – interrupting Luginski, Haven said you get a chance to vote one way or the other (unintelligible crosstalk). Wylie said she understands, but Smith wanted a little feedback and there’s some feedback.

Haven asked if there was any more feedback. Haven said you guys are appreciated, for sure.

Agenda Item #14, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:27:18):

Motion by adjourn by Wylie; second Rodgers.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about this.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:  Clarkston City Council- July 25, 2022
  • 07-25-2022 City Council packet