November 8, 2021, City Council Meeting

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

Agenda item #1, Call to Order:

The meeting was not formally called to order; Mayor Eric Haven noted the time (7:00) and said the meeting would begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:06):

Pledge said.

Agenda item #3, Swearing In Of Council Members (Video time mark 0:00:22)

Haven said that they had some new council members. He asked if Jennifer Speagle (Clerk) would preside over it, and Speagle said that she would.

Speagle asked Gary Casey, Laura Rodgers, and Bruce Fuller to stand, raise their right hands and repeat after her.

Jonathan Smith (city manager) interrupted and asked if Rodgers and Fuller would come up for the “photo op,” and he instructed them where to stand. Casey joined them, and Smith took a photo.

Speagle administered the following oath: “I, [members stated their names], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of city council member in and for the City of the Village of Clarkston, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

Haven congratulated them. (Applause.) The new council members were seated at the council table.

Agenda item #4, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:02:18):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Laura Rodgers, Gary Casey, Joe Luginski, Sue Wylie, and Bruce Fuller were present.

Agenda item #5, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:02:35):

Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Wylie; second Avery.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #6, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:02:57):

Haven read the rules for public comment.

Steven McLean:

McLean said that he didn’t have anything prepared to say tonight, because he didn’t know which way the vote would go until late, but he wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate Fuller and Rodgers on a clean campaign. He hoped they would take this seriously and look out for all sides in Clarkston and not just listen to one side. Hear everybody’s side of the story, and maybe not believe lies that are posted online about people. Again, congratulations. McLean said he should also say he enjoyed meeting both of them. He talked with them a little bit and got to know them a little bit better. He also enjoyed getting to go around town and getting to know a lot of the people in the community as well.

Speagle said that she had another public comment and asked Smith if he wanted her to read it. There was some discussion regarding whether the person was online. (He wasn’t.)

Chet Pardee (read by Speagle):

Good evening. Tonight’s public comments will be brief and to the point. The city manager is required to present the city council, and the city council is required to approve, or not, prior to commitment, expenses greater than $500, or $1,000 in case of emergency. This is a requirement both of the City of the Village of Clarkston and the State of Michigan budget law for municipalities. This includes expenses in the city budget. Contrary to oaths taken and commitments to transparency and following the rules, the city manager and city council have been enablers, one to the other, in violating Michigan law. The State of Michigan budget law is very specific about the need for approval prior to the commitment, not the expenditure itself, for the intended expenditure. The comment was signed by Pardee, and he provided his address.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #7, FYI (Video time mark 0:05:40)

Haven had no items for FYI. He asked if the audience had any information regarding events.

No comments from the audience.

Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:05:49; page 3/95 of the council packet):

Haven noted that the city manager’s report is in the packet. He asked if anyone had any comments or questions.

Wylie asked about the second item, MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) permit compliance. It said it’s a five-year progress report. Wylie wanted to know what would happen if they didn’t progress as they wished. Smith said that there are fines involved if you don’t comply. Wylie asked if they keep track of points, and Smith mentioned that we get extra points for the Mill race clean up. Smith said those helped us show that we are engaging the public, educating the public. Those are important steps that they want us to (unintelligible) process. Wylie thanked Smith.

Haven asked if anyone else on the council had questions or comments.

There were no additional comments.

Haven asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments about the city manager’s report.

There were no additional comments.

Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:06:58):

• • 10-11-2021 Final Minutes (page 5/95 of the council packet)
  • 10-25-2021 Draft Minutes (page 8/95 of the council packet)
  • 11-08-2021 Treasurer’s Report (page 11/95 of the council packet)
  • 11-03-2021 Check Disbursement Report, 10-01-2021 – 10-31-2021 (page 12/95 of the council packet)
  • October Invoices for Thomas J. Ryan, P.C. (page 15/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda, which is a compilation of the minutes of the last two meetings, final and draft, and then the Treasurer’s report from 11-08.

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

Wylie had some questions. She noticed that Mr. Ryan is online (Tom Ryan, city attorney) and assumed that was his picture she saw.

Haven greeted Ryan.

Wylie said it was about Ryan’s bill. The second item under professional services for October 5^th, and there are some other people here at the meeting and maybe they can answer this, was to review correspondence from Mr. Mulvihill re: HDC [Historic District Commission] Study Commission. Wylie was curious why the Study Commission which, as far as she knows, is a study commission. She didn’t think they were making any kind of decisions, so she was kind of curious why they were involved with this. Smith asked if Ryan could hear, and he said that he could.

Ryan said it probably should be study committee, but Mr. Mulvihill had requested, or had found out, that the study committee was looking at 42 West Washington and wanted to know information about that, so Ryan corresponded with him about that. Ryan responded to him. Wylie said so the study committee is a different group of people. Ryan asked Wylie if she remembered when Mrs. Moon spoke to the council, he thought it was three or four meetings ago, alerting to the fact that in January of 2019 prior to COVID, the city council had authorized the formation of a study committee to update the information we have on the historical structures in the historic district – Wylie agreed – (Ryan continued) to see about helping with the prominence of the structures we have and possibly adding new ones within the district boundaries. Mrs. Moon reported about that committee. Wylie agreed. Ryan said it was three or four meetings ago to city council in an open meeting, describing the process and indicating what they had to go through, that they had to look at each house, the architecture, the history, people had volunteered to help, and they were going to try to compile all this information and present it to Lansing in January or so to update our historical district.

Wylie said that’s the group of people that she assumed Ryan was talking about. She’s just wondering why they’re involved in anything legal right now. Isn’t Mr. Mulvihill the lawyer who is involved with 42 West Washington. Ryan said he is. He was curious as to what was going on with the study committee and anything to do with 42 West Washington and wanted the information about that. Wylie said so it’s at his request, he’s looking at what they are doing and that piece of property. Ryan said that was correct.

Wylie said she thought she’d figured out the answers to her other questions.

Haven asked if council had any questions or comments about the consent agenda.

There was no additional discussion.

Haven asked if the audience had any questions or comments.

There was no additional discussion.

Motion to accept the consent agenda as presented passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #10, Old Business:

Item 10a – Election Update (Video time mark 0:10:49)

• • Canvass of Votes Cast (page 20/95 of the council packet)
  • Certificate of Determination (page 24/95 of the council packet)

Haven asked if Speagle wanted to give a report, and she said that she would do a wrap-up on the election.

Speagle said first and foremost, she wanted to thank Toni Smith, Cara Catallo, Evelyn Bihl, and Jonathan Smith for helping that day. It was a crazy, long, busy day. Speagle also thanked Eric Lines for helping them stay fed. She also wanted to thank the residents and everyone who ran for their patience in waiting for the county to certify the votes. With an election like this and 450 write-ins, it is best, and it is recommended by the county that it be given directly to the county and have them do the votes. If she were to give you official numbers and they came back with even one off, it would not fly. So, it’s just easier and Joe Rozell from the county, he runs a tight ship there and that’s what he wants. He wants even 50 write-ins, he wants you to (unintelligible).

So, the number of voters was 322. Speagle said she knows that a lot of them saw this already. 159 in-person and 163 absentees. They know the numbers. Gary Casey was 188, Laura Rodgers 172, Bruce Fuller 163, Steve McLean 156, Paul Angelini 132, and Christopher Moore 110.

It is certified already. Speagle ran down to the county today at 4:15 to grab the certifications. If there are any questions about the election, feel free to call her or ask her right now. She will say that there was a question. There were 450 write-ins, and only 444 approved write-ins. So, there were a few questions on that. What that means is if someone writes in there “none of the above,” that’s part of the 450 but you can’t count that. If someone writes in a candidate’s name as a write-in but they’re an actual candidate, they cannot be counted; they’re not an approved write-in. So, if someone were to write that candidate’s name in, and they’re not the write-in but an actual candidate, it cannot be counted, and we had three of those. There’s no missing five votes; it’s just five votes that could not be counted because they were not valid votes.

Haven asked about a notation that said that there were zero absentee ballots. Speagle said that is actually because we count absentee ballots here in this office. Haven said so, they didn’t review them. Speagle said they do. They’re part of the 322. In other municipalities that have numerous precincts, they have actual absentee ballot, they have their own, like Independence Township, Speagle wasn’t sure exactly how it’s run, but they have their own absentee ballot board that’s in the township that’s sequestered all day and they are doing thousands of those absentee ballots. We have one precinct. All the ballots get pushed in through our tabulator. We don’t have an extra absentee tabulator; it all gets tabulated together. There is a very intensive process in place, so nobody sees whose ballot is whose, none of that. We’re not allowed to see any of that, and we don’t see any of that. We don’t know who voted for who.

Speagle asked if anyone had any questions, or if anyone has any questions in the future, feel free to give her a call, shoot her an email, and she will answer any questions.

Haven thanked Speagle and the team for their help.

Item 10b – Resolution: Planning Commission Recommendation for Site Plan Reviews (Video time mark 0:15:32)

• • Resolution – Planning Commission Recommendation for Site Plan Reviews (page 26/95 of the council packet)
  • 10-14-2021 Letter from Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Single-Family in Historic District Site Plan Review Amendment, marked up copy (page 29/95 of the council packet)

Haven asked Rich Little (Planning Commission Chair) to address this item.

Little welcomed Casey back and congratulated the new council members.

Little said he was there to talk about site plan reviews. He said he will be brief. He’s sorry if it’s confusing because it likely will be. Right now, the Planning Commission (PC) is involved in site plan reviews for everything in the city – village commercial, multi-family, single-family, all those sorts of things. That change was made for single-family residences in March of 2019, shortly after they finished the planning for the Master Plan, and there were several projects where they wanted to be part of it to push things along, to try to build out some empty lots and other things. So, they inserted themselves into the site plan review. If you don’t know what a site plan review is, it’s simply somebody wants to bring in a plan for a project to build a garage, a new house, or tear something down, whatever comes up. So, it comes to the PC. That decision was approved by the council on March 11, 2019. Before that, the PC was not involved in the historic district at all. That was a major change that happened.

Little said what he’s there tonight for is to ask the city council for approval for that draft language that they have and the direction to make an ordinance change. The ordinance change would take the PC out of all site plan reviews for just single-family residences, both in the historic district and not in the historic district. So, what would actually happen in that case is a person would come to the city and say I want to do a new house, or garage, whatever, something bigger than 500 square feet. They come to the city and would meet with Craig Strong and Jonathan Smith, the building department and the city manager. They take them through it. They would see if there are any variances that they have to have. So, they would go to the ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals). They would ask if they are in the historic district. If they are, they go to the historic district, and they do a site plan. If it’s not in the historic district and they have no variances with this change, it’s going to go directly back to the building department and they’ll take them through the right steps, issue the right permits, follow them through the whole construction project, and finish it out. That’s what the vast majority of other cities do in this state, and Little thinks there’s only one city in Oakland County, Huntington Woods, where the PC is involved in single-family residence site plan review.

The PC would still be involved in everything else – village commercial, multi-family, apartment buildings, whatever it turns out to be. They would not be in single-family residential. Little thinks the goal now is to reduce the confusion for people, because there are times when the building department, the HDC (Historic District Commission), and the PC have different viewpoints, or see the same thing differently, and Little thinks they wind up taking residents around a loop sometimes and it’s not fair. So, Little is asking the council to make us like everybody else. And if council approves this, they will take this language, go to a public hearing as they do for any ordinance change, come back to the council for a first reading and a second reading, and council will get a chance again to take a look at it. So, this is just like giving the green light to move on in this process.

Little said that’s all he had.

Haven said this is a resolution. Haven said that he would read the resolution and ask for a motion to adopt it, a second, and they will do a roll call vote. (Read the resolution.)

Resolved by Avery; second Wylie.

No discussion.

Avery, Haven, Rodgers, Fuller, Luginski, Wylie, and Casey voted yes. (Resolution passed.)

Item 10c – Discussion: 35 Madison Ct. (Video time mark 0:20:43)

• • 09-30-2021 Email from Craig Strong to Tom Ryan, Copy to Susan Weaver [Code Enforcement Services] and Jonathan Smith, Subject: 35 Madison Ct. #4 (page 32/95 of the council packet)
  • 09-07-2021 Letter from Craig Strong, Code Enforcement Services, to Brian Donlon, Subject: 35 Madison Unit #4, Village of Clarkston (page 33/95 of the council packet)
  • 10-06-2021 Email from Susan Weaver, Code Enforcement Services, to Craig Strong, Copy to Jonathan Smith, Subject: 35 Madison #3 & #4 (page 34/95 of the council packet)
  • 03-08-2021 Letter from Code Enforcement Services (unsigned) to Brian Donlon, Subject: 35 Madison Court, Clarkston, MI 48346 (page 35/95 of the council packet)
  • 05-28-2021 Notice of Violation and Order to Abate from Craig Strong, Code Enforcement Services, to Brian Donlon, Subject: 35 Madison Court Apartments 3 & 4, Clarkston, MI 48346 (page 37/95 of the council packet)
  • 04-07-2021 Laboratory Results, IMS Laboratory (page 38/95 of the council packet)
  • 05-26-2021 Asbestos Report Summary, Home Mold Laboratory (page 42/95 of the council packet)
  • 10-28-2021 Email from Diana Donlon to Robert Kostin, Subject: Eviction, Hand-Written Note “Forwarded to Tom Ryan” (page 44/95 of the council packet)

Haven asked Craig Strong (Carlisle/Wortman building inspector) to give them an update, stating that there was a nice description in their packet.

Strong thanked the council for having him, and he congratulated the new council members. Strong stated his name and said he’s been the city’s building official for a few years now.

Strong asked if the new members were aware of the situation. Strong knows that it’s been brought up the last couple of meetings.

No response.

Haven asked Strong to review.

Strong said he didn’t know if he needed to go back to through the whole – (interrupting Strong), Haven said he didn’t think he needed to, just a generalization if he would.

Strong said Paul (Rottarr) is sitting here, Unit #4, at 35 [Madison Court]. Strong met Rottarr in March of this year when they received a complaint from another tenant in Unit #3 regarding the possibility of some mold. Strong and Smith visited the site. They actually did a full inspection of the exterior of the building just because they were there, and they did meet with the tenant in #3. Strong took pictures of what looked to be mold, but they didn’t know the status of the mold at the time. While they were there, they met Rottarr. Rottarr showed them his bathroom, which also had some black mold in it. Nothing at this point had been tested.

Strong sent out an inspection notice, a corrections notice, to the owner for the property to get a few things fixed. Number one, one of the biggest things was their dumpster enclosure needed repairing, and that has since been done. At that time, they didn’t know the extent of the mold situation. As a building department and building official, mold is not in their codes. They don’t test for molds. That’s strictly the health department, but Rottar took it upon himself to have the mold tested.

Strong wanted to back up a little bit. The owner was notified, so the owner sent a company in and they actually demo’d Rottarr’s unit. Once they did that, they removed all the drywall with the black mold on it. Some insulation fell out of the ceiling. It’s vermiculite, and there’s a possibility with vermiculite that it has asbestos in it for fire protection. So, knowing that, Rottarr, who has a background in construction and knows what he’s doing, elected to have both the vermiculite and the mold tested. Those results came back, and Rottarr sent them to Strong. Strong was concerned, obviously, and Strong basically notified both parties that they should leave, and they both decided to stay.

So, Strong wrote a letter to the owner on the 28^th basically advising him of the situation and noticing him of the violations and an order to abate. So, the owner in turn tried to find contractors, and eventually he did find a company that would come in and do the work. They pulled a permit. At first, they found out that they’d demo’d Rottarr’s bathroom without a permit, so they (unintelligible) for that. Eventually, they did get a permit in August, and now they’ve been working on it.

So, Rottarr’s frustration has been just the lack of anything occurring at that site, but the city doesn’t really control that. We issue violation orders. If we have to eventually, we go to court, but the courts haven’t been real receptive, especially earlier this year, to any types of these cases with COVID, so that probably would be a waste of time.

So, here we stand today, permits on both Units #3 and #4, rough inspections were completed last week on both units. Strong assumed that work on Rottarr’s unit would have continued on with drywall after that point, but Rottarr told Strong tonight that there isn’t any. They haven’t done anything yet, but that’s really out of the city’s hands.

So, this is where we’re at now. Unit #3 is vacant. She did move out, and Strong believes that was a couple of months ago. Rottarr said it was on July 11^th. Strong said that as he understands it, Rottarr is still there. Rottarr said he is in the process of moving and got a new place a couple of weeks ago.

Strong said that in the end, these units will be repaired, and they will be abated. Strong asked if the attorney for the owner was present, Bob Kostin. Smith said he couldn’t attend.

Strong said the owner, Brian Donlon, hired a local attorney, Bob Kostin, who Strong has been working with since early on. Kostin has been working with the owner to try and get this whole situation resolved. Obviously, it hasn’t happened fast enough for the tenant, and Strong understands that, but he’s not sure at this point if there is anything else that they can do.

Haven told Rottarr that he was offered the opportunity to leave. Rottarr said no, he wasn’t. Rottarr said that there are two misstatements. One, he was never offered, and two, he did not ask for the first mold study. The first mold study was on April 7^th in Apartment #3 only. Rottarr said that had nothing to do with him, and he didn’t even know that it was going to get done. So Clean Incorporated did it at the behest of who, Rottarr can’t tell you. And no, Rottarr was never offered. Apartment #3 was offered; Rottarr was never offered. Obviously, Rottarr didn’t want to stay there. He would have moved immediately. He just didn’t have the funds until recently to relocate. Rottarr didn’t know how Strong got that, because Rottarr was never offered, and there’s no documentation to support that.

Strong said that’s what he was told by the attorney who represents the owner, and it made total sense to Strong because the offer was made to #3, why wouldn’t they make it to #4. Rottarr said that’s the question. Rottarr never talked to Kostin until two weeks ago when he gave Rottarr the fourteen-day notice to quit prior to the fourteen days at the end of his lease, which is a moot point. The lease is up.

Strong said that Rottarr elected to stay in that unit knowing that he had asbestos there. Rottarr said that disability pays $794 a month and he has to accumulate three or four months rent before he can move. Rottarr said he doesn’t have the funds sitting in his account. So, Rottarr had to take his rent that was in escrow and use that to move. It couldn’t happen in May or June, because those months were the first two months. So, it’s about finance and about predicament. But it’s also about misstatements.

Rottarr asked Strong who did the mold quality test in Apartment #3, because that’s very important for Rottarr’s next few questions. Strong said he was assuming it was Rottarr. Rottarr asked why would Rottarr do it, he’s in Apartment #4, Strong just said it was Rottarr that was Apartment #3. Strong said #4. Rottarr asked Strong about the mold study in Apartment #3; that’s the one Strong is referencing. Strong asked what difference it made. Rottarr said it would make a difference because Apartment #3 is a separate unit, although there is a shared common wall in the bathroom and the kitchens, of course, but if you do a mold study in Apartment #3, and you see a small amount of mold and paint, maybe lead-based, chipping, then Apartment #4 gets torn apart but you don’t do a mold study in Apartment #4. There’s a lot greater exposure to the mold.

Strong said that building departments don’t do mold studies. Rottarr said that Strong said that Rottarr did an Apartment #3 mold study. Strong said that Rottarr gave Strong the reports. Rottarr said that if Strong read them, it was ordered by Charlie Green, the maintenance person. Strong said so, the owner paid for it. (Unintelligible cross talk.) Strong said OK, but once he got the reports, he acted on them. He sent out the notice of violation and order to abate.

Rottarr said that Apartment #4 never had a mold study done. Rottarr did it on his own a week ago, and he got the results. (Haven said something unintelligible.) Rottarr said that he did it just before he moved. Rottarr had to clean everything, because when the asbestos fell in May and then in August and September, when they were working in Apartment #3, it falls on the bathroom floor because it’s just loose blown-in insulation. So, when it fell, Rottarr decided to get an air quality test because he’d been sick every month. He’s had eye infections and so on and so forth, irritations. As Rottarr said, until recently, he didn’t have the funds because as Smith asked him so eloquently two weeks ago, why didn’t you move. Well, the money isn’t there when you’re on disability.

Haven said generally speaking, the general condition of that building is, and they are talking about two apartments only, and if there’s two, Haven wondered if there’s more, and he’s a little bit concerned about the overall condition of the building. Strong said that they did call out a few things about the exterior of the building that have been addressed. Overall, the exterior of the building is in good shape. Haven said that the interior is the issue and wanted to know if the mold was caused by leaking. Strong said he thought he mentioned earlier that the problem is that these bathrooms don’t have exhaust fans. They’re not required by code because they have operable windows. Folks don’t want to open a window, especially in the wintertime, when they are taking a shower. So, what happens is that moisture just sits there, and it ends up as mold.

Rottarr said that Charlie Green, the maintenance guy, said that he usually just paints over, he had the video, he just painted over the black mold and that’s what he told Rottarr’s neighbor in Apartment #3. But it had been reoccurring, because when the walls were pulled out of Apartment #4, you could see layer after layer had black mold as well as the studs. When they pulled the drywall, Strong said that they pulled all that out and sprayed it, the black mold, which is the bad stuff that showed up in Rottarr’s [apartment] in March and he thinks in Apartment #3 before that. Rottarr did a mold study recently to see what’s been making him sick.

Haven said he’s glad Rottarr is leaving. Rottarr said he would give the city council a copy because they should know. Haven said that this is awareness. Rottarr did a survey before, back in March, with the snow problem for Dave [Delasco] and everyone couldn’t get in and out and Apartment #3 had problems, Rottarr did a survey of all of the apartments. Nine out of ten responded. Of the ten, at least four of them mentioned mold. Black mold. Haven said (unintelligible) for sure. Rottarr said he gave it to Brian Donlon in March. Rottarr sent it to him before he did anything else.

Avery said that Strong said that once Strong issued the order of abatement, that’s all he could do. Strong agreed. Avery asked what he would need, because there’s got to be more that they can do. If we issue an order and they – (interrupting Avery), Strong said they can do enforcement, if they do nothing at all, they can take them to court and get a court order, but it never got that far. Avery asked why not, why didn’t it get that far. Avery said he thought he knew the answer, which is well, it’s COVID, and we’re having a hard time getting contractors, so we cut them some slack. Is that basically what happened? Strong said obviously, they like to see things go faster than they have. In Strong’s opinion, this is ridiculous that the owner let this go on for as long as he has.

Strong said that Tom Ryan (city attorney) was involved in this pretty much from the get go, and Strong kept Ryan abreast of what was happening. Once Donlon hired the attorney, it made Strong feel better because now he had at least somebody, and apparently Ryan knows this attorney real well; Strong felt a little more comfortable that things were going to move along a little faster. The last time that Strong talked to Mr. Donlon, he explained to Strong that the company that he hired, he wasn’t getting the response that he wanted, and he asked Strong if he could pull the permits as the owner of rental property and find somebody on his own than the company that he contacted. Strong said that by law, he can’t do that. Strong would be willing to do that, but something happened with the company and all of a sudden, they started working again.

Avery said that he’s looking more from a procedural or structural standpoint. How can we stay ahead of this, instead of having to have someone come in here, like Rottarr, and alert us to the fact that these (unintelligible) are in the shape they’re in. Do we have ordinances on the books that allow Strong as the building department to make periodic, yearly inspections of the units to make sure that they’re habitable? If not, then we need to get one on the books. Strong agrees, we don’t. Avery said all right, that’s where they need to start, because when something like this happens, we’re up here going well (Avery shrugged). We don’t have a million apartments in the city. We’re small. Strong said that they do a lot of rental housing within their company, they do a lot of those inspections where they have communities with the ordinances, and they can help with the ordinances if that’s what the council chooses to do. Strong said that they are getting ready to do a program right now for the City of Howell, so they know how to set them up, so if the city council is interested, they can get going here. Avery said that what he’s looking for from Strong is something that maybe he wants to put in the memo or whatever, to know what we have and what we don’t have, and what other municipalities have that work, and give us just a brief memo, this is what I see, and this is what I think needs to happen and we can address it, because Avery doesn’t know. Avery doesn’t do landlord/tenant and apartment complex law, so he doesn’t know what needs to happen.

Strong said that the city has the actual ordinance in place for the code, the violations, and that’s the International Property Maintenance Code. The city has adopted that. Rottarr said that’s 108, isn’t that part of the code, unsafe structures in the code. Strong agreed. Strong said that there’s also – (interrupting Strong), Rottarr said that there’s a bunch. Strong said that the one that he’s thinking of is unsafe condition, and that would be Rottarr’s case, and that’s what Strong cited.

Strong told Avery that yes, it’s doable. Avery said that he wants something in place. We don’t have a lot of apartments in town to contact, so you can get to it once a year or whatever so that we don’t get what we’ve got here. Strong said OK, understood.

Rottarr said that he just wanted to add to that. In June, the company Anytime Restoration was the one that did the demo May 17^th-24^th in Rottarr’s apartment. When Rottarr talked to them in June, they were ready to go but Mr. Donlon didn’t want them to do it because he wanted to wait until Apartment #3 moved out, and then in July, they were ready to go again. The workers were there. Rottarr can tell them because he spoke to the company’s director. Rottarr said emphatically, he was never offered the chance to move. He would have. Who would stay in this? Trust him, he’s had four antibiotics. Rottarr said that this was all predicated on the fact that the snow removal wasn’t being done, which his friend Delasco can’t get in and out, his caregivers can’t get in and out, and that’s where a lot of this came to fester, but that needs to be addressed as well. Those with disabilities, their voices need to be heard somehow.

Haven said that Rottarr may have done this already, but his comments and recommendations provided help them, so they catch all this. It sounds like there’s a gap between health department and (unintelligible) mold and other things like that so that’s helpful. Rottarr said that Strong really has been trying, no question about it. Some of the facts he got were maybe not as he understood them, he thought they were correct, but he always has been pushing really hard. He’s as mad as Rottarr is.

Haven thanked Rottarr for bringing it to their attention, and he’s sorry for the delays. Rottarr said that as long as they move forward in a positive direction, he thought that’s the only thing they can do at this point.

Smith said that he wanted to point out that Kostin did provide a letter from the owner that says they did offer. Avery said at this point (unintelligible). Strong said that he’d like to say one thing. Strong has been working with Rottarr since March. Rottarr has never lied to Strong, so Strong doesn’t know what he said/she said, but he can certainly understand Rottarr’s side of it.

Haven said that the proactive inspection part would help us a lot, to Avery’s point. Strong said that this is exactly the reason why communities go to that system, because they get these kinds of complaints, and their hands are tied because they don’t have the authority to go in. Haven told Strong that if he sees other things like this that need to be fixed, please let the council know. Strong agreed.

Agenda Item #11, New Business

Item 11a – Motion: Zoning Board of Appeals Nomination (Video time mark 0:38:49)

• • Motion – Zoning Board of Appeals Appointment (page 45/95 of the council packet)
  • 11-05-2021 – Letter from Anne Clifton to the City Council of the City of the Village of Clarkston, Subject: Zoning Board of Appeals Opening (page 46/95 of the council packet)

This is a motion for a ZBA nomination, and Haven wanted to make this motion himself. He wanted to nominate Anne Clifton, who is here. (Haven waved and said hi.) He asked Clifton to come up so that they can at least say hi to her and can see her, for those who don’t know her.

Haven said that Clifton has written a wonderful letter which he thought summarizes her past experience and her desire to serve, and they are so happy that is the case. Haven said that there is a case pending before the ZBA right now, so it’s timely. Haven said that Clifton will be replacing Bill Basinger, whose shoes will be hard to fill for sure, but nevertheless, with them altogether, it’s a great team.

There is a motion in front of them. Haven asked if Clifton would like to say anything and was not trying to put her on the spot at all. Clifton said no.

Haven asked if the council had any questions for Clifton.

No questions.

Haven thanked Clifton.

Haven said that he would make a motion to nominate Clifton; second Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Avery, Wylie, Rodgers, Haven, Casey, Fuller, and Luginski voted yes. [Motion carried.]

Clifton told Haven that she needed the information for the pending issue. Haven said that Smith would be doing that; trust him, Clifton will be in the loop for sure.

Speagle said that she’d like to swear Clifton in right now. Haven agreed. Speagle said she’d like to start the practice of doing that at the meetings because it’s harder to get them after. Haven agreed.

Oath administered: “I, Anne Clifton, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the office of zoning board of appeals in and for the City of the Village of Clarkston, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

Haven congratulated Clifton. (Applause.)

Item 11b – Resolution: Acceptance of the 20/21 Financial Audit (Video time mark 0:41:47)

• • Resolution – Acceptance of the 20/21 FY Financial Audit (page 47/95 of the council packet)
  • 08-20-2021 – Letter from PSLZ PLLC, Certified Public Accountants (page 48/95 of the council packet)
  • Audited Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 (page 53/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that the next item on the agenda was the 2021 financial audit and Rana Emmons. We always see her smiling face periodically throughout the year, our auditor.

Emmons said it’s nice to be in-person and see everyone. Haven said exactly. Emmons congratulated the new council members and said welcome.

Emmons said her name is Rana Emmons, and she’s a partner with PSLZ. It’s her pleasure this evening to present the council with the audited financial statements for the City of the Village of Clarkston as of June 30, 2021.

The State of Michigan requires the village to have, the city to have, an annual audit performed by an independent auditor third party, and that’s her, her firm.

Haven said that it’s in the packet and they also have a bound version in envelopes that are on the desk [council table]. Emmons agreed. Haven asked Emmons to walk them through it. Emmons said that she would just start out with a few highlights and then will be happy to address any questions, concerns, or anything like that from the council.

Rana Emmons:

Starting off with the city’s largest source of revenue, which are the property tax revenues. Every year, the city has to roll back its operating millages based on the Headlee Amendment. So, the city did have a .0952 decrease in the property tax millage, however, the city’s property tax revenue actually increased this year because taxable values increased. We all like to see that. We all like to think that our properties are worth more than they were the year before. That resulted in a 3.8% increase in taxable values this year. They really like to see that, and that is very much in keeping with surrounding communities. Certainly, Oakland County pretty much leads the pack on increases in taxable value. So, the city had 3.8%. The year before was 2.3%, just to give them an idea of how much better things are now a year or more in. That resulted in just under $20,000 extra in property tax revenues over the year before. 3.8%.

The city did use up $86,000 of general fund, fund balance this year, but they had projected to use $208,000 per the budget. So that’s because primarily the city didn’t transfer as much to the capital project fund. It wasn’t necessary due to projects. The city really had a handle on the costs, so that allowed the city to come in well under budget.

Building permit revenues decreased $7,000 this year. That’s kind of an indicator of the activity going on in the village, people putting on additions, that type of thing. So, the permit revenue was down a little bit.

State shared revenue. That is distributed to the city from the State of Michigan based on sales taxes and income taxes that they collected that year. That’s kind of also an indicator. That was up 4.2% this year. That only resulted in about $3,700 to the city, but any increase is definitely a positive after our pandemic year.

The city did come in under budget by $34,608 in the general fund. The general fund did transfer out $64,000 to the capital improvement fund for various projects.

The sewer fund had a net loss of $79,000 this year, but $99,000 of that was due to an assessment by the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor, and Oakland County passed on a bill to Independence Township, which passed on a bill to the city. The city did pay that in full so that hit the bottom line this year. It was a one-time thing. It’s not a recurring thing.

The parking fund had a decreased revenue this year of $64,911 and the city had an ending fund balance there of $4,700 in the parking fund. Emmons wanted to point out that in 2020, the city also had a decrease in revenue in the parking fund of $51,000 from the year before. So over two years, that’s $117,000 less that the city didn’t bring in. Emmons certainly understands that those were decisions that council had to make. It was a very difficult time for the businesses. Emmons just wanted to tell them how that hit the bottom line in numbers.

The capital outlays, the biggest capital outlay this year, of course, they finished up the building, but primarily it was the driveway/parking lot of city hall that was left over for finishing this year. They installed street signs, and there was paving of North Holcomb from Washington to Miller.

The city did pay down the debt. $228,000 in principal in debt this year which they also like to see, and no new debt for the city.

The city has two general obligation bonds remaining, the 2007 bond will be paid off next year. So, the year that we are in right now. The city is paying off one of the bonds. That will leave the city with one remaining, and that will be paid off in 2024, so two years from now.

Haven asked for the amounts of those, the balance on those. Emmons said that there is $75,000 left on the 2007 bond, which we are paying in the year we are in right now, and then there they have $478,000 on the one that will be maturing in 2024.

Emmons said she would stop there and asked if anyone had any questions or comments.

There were no questions or comments.

Emmons said that the debt millage, the city does levy a debt millage for those two general obligation bonds. The city levies that based on the amount of millage necessary to that year’s principal and interest on those two bonds. So, a year from now, they would have levied for both of them this year, the year they’re in right now, the July 1^st tax bill, and the next year it should go down a little bit because there will only be one bond remaining.

Haven asked what the mills were for the two bonds. Emmons said that right now, it’s 5.2829 mills combined for the audit year. So that probably came down a hair in July. (An unidentified person said it did.) What just came out in their July 1, 2021 tax bill will just be a hair lower than the amount that Emmons just gave them. Haven reiterated that it was 5.28 mills.

[See Clarkston Sunshine comment #1]

Emmons said overall, a very good report. Of course, the city did receive the highest level of audit opinion possible, which is an unmodified opinion, meaning no disclaimers, no exceptions, and nothing bad to report to them this evening.

Haven said that he knows that Emmons has helped them a lot through the year. Luginski said for many years.

Haven asked if Greg Coté wanted to add anything. Coté said that he wanted to say that the city encountered some headwinds last year. Of course, that was the pandemic and the lawsuit, but generally, it’s a very good report card. As Emmons alluded to earlier, the two core accounts, the permit fees and the district court revenues were off, but overall, it was a very, very good year for the city and Smith and Coté did a good job of managing expenses. He also wanted to give a shout out to Evelyn (Bihl) and Jennifer (Speagle) as well. It was a good team effort.

Haven asked, between the two of them, if they saw anything the city ought to be looking out for as far as they can see (held his hands up like a telescope). Emmons said that really, the two things that she wanted to point out to them that were significant are the drop in the parking revenue, but if that’s reinstituted, she doesn’t see any reason why that’s not going to bounce right back. And the other thing is that the debt millages are significant, over 5 mills, that’s going to be coming down and they’re paying off debt within two years, which is really a very positive thing. They accomplished this addition [looking around city hall] with a magic wand of sorts because it came out beautifully and the resources that they tapped in order to get this done with very little cash flow. That’s a team effort on multiple levels. So, congratulations, that is – (interrupting Emmons), Haven said it’s a twenty-year repayment to ourselves, right? We have to charge ourselves interest. Emmons said that’s correct. Haven thought it was 3% or 1%. (An unidentified person, Coté(?) said very low.)

Emmons said that one of their goals this year was to get this to council earlier than they have in the past, and just because of a multiple of (unintelligible) but we really, again, team effort, with Treasurer Coté, Smith, Bihl, and Speagle, you know, this wouldn’t be possible without all of them and all of their effort.

Haven said that’s great to hear and thought that we were going to do this next year. Weren’t they going to delay the report? Smith said that they said that they needed more than three months. They extended it to six months. It used to be three months and they extended it to six months, which is the end of the year, but they were able to beat that. Emmons said that they are still trying to get it as quickly as they can.

Haven asked if there were any thoughts or questions from council for Emmons.

No discussion.

Haven asked if there was anything from the audience. While Emmons is here, if there are any questions, now is a good time to do that.

No discussion.

Haven thanked Emmons for coming. Emmons thanked for the help with the report. Haven said that they appreciate her very much. Emmons thanked Haven.

[Note: the resolution to accept the audit didn’t occur until the discussion about the closed session in the next agenda item, Item 11c.]

Item 11c – Resolution to go into Closed Session to Discuss Specific Pending Litigation, Kay Valley v The City of the Village of Clarkston (Video time mark 0:52:14)

• • Resolution to Go into Closed Session to Discussion Specific Pending Litigation (page 93/95 of the council packet)

Haven said that they were going to be going into closed session. Haven said he was going to let Smith read this, this resolution to go into closed session, because he’s a little bit new at this language, Smith is more familiar with it than Haven is, and Haven asked a question about it earlier.

Smith said so, there has been a pending lawsuit that’s been in the process now for about six months as Smith recalls. Ryan is on the line too and can probably answer some questions. So, the attorney from the Michigan Municipal League [Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool] has been working with the attorney for the plaintiff and there’s been some negotiations going back and forth, and we are now at a point where we think we have a very reachable settlement proposal that they would like to talk to council in closed session about. This motion is just a motion to go into closed session where the attorney that Smith believed is here, Kevin [McQuillan] from Kerr Russell [the firm funded by the Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool] is here to help them with any questions that council has relative to this case, and Ryan will be on the phone as well.

Smith said that what this motion is (Smith read from the motion). Smith corrected the time in the motion to 7:52.

Haven said his question was relative to whether they were going to close the regular meeting. Smith said no. Haven said that the agenda says that they have to come back, OK? Smith said yes. Haven said so, immediately following before the adjournment of the regular meeting, they’re going to have this closed session, right? Smith said right. They will close the open session, they will go into closed session with just the council and the attorneys, and then they will return to open session to vote on anything because as they know, they need decisions and votes and discussions, though discussions can happen in closed session, but any votes or decisions must be made in an open public session. Smith said that they will return, and if people are willing to stick around on the front porch, they can let them know that they can come back in, but that will be after they’ve had a chance to talk about it. Haven said in closed, session, OK.

Wylie said that they technically aren’t going to adjourn. Haven said right. (Unintelligible cross-talk between Haven and Wylie.)

Speagle said that they had to vote on the resolution to accept the financial audit. Smith said that they do have to accept the audit. He asked if (unintelligible) was still there. Haven said good point. Speagle said there is a resolution in there stating to accept the audit. Smith said they aren’t approving it; they are just accepting it. Haven said accepting it, he thinks that’s right, good point.

Haven said that they didn’t take the roll call on acceptance. Speagle said no.

Haven asked for someone to adopt the resolution to accept the financial audit.

Wylie made a motion to adopt the resolution [to accept the financial audit]; Luginski second.

Haven thanked them for the reminder and asked if there was any further discussion.

No further discussion.

Haven, Fuller, Rodgers, Casey, Avery, Luginski, and Wylie voted yes [to accept the financial audit].

Avery asked if there was anything else after they take care of the closed session. Haven said they would adjourn after they come back. Avery said right.

McLean said that before they closed the session, he wanted to ask, since he ran on transparency. This is the second meeting in a row where they are going into closed session. He knows that Smith read off the state statute. If they could give for people that are watching and for people who are there, why are they going into closed session if there’s a specific client/attorney privilege, whatever that is. Avery said he could give it; it’s to discuss settlement. In public, the other side will know what they are talking about so it really kind of defeats the purpose. They did that in the Bisio lawsuit because the Bisios would sometimes be sitting out there in the audience, that kind of, you know what I mean? If they’re talking about how to defend a case, or go forward, and they’re sitting here listening to us do that. Haven said that’s the reason for a closed session. McLean said he was sure there was, but people want to hear the reason. Haven said it’s to discuss specific pending litigation. McLean said it puts things in your head like why are they closing it? Haven said OK, that’s the reason.

Haven said they were going to close the session. He asked people to leave and said they could rejoin the meeting at the end.

[No motion was made to go into closed session and no roll call vote was taken to close the session  during the open meeting as required by the Open Meetings Act.]

Item 11d – Return to Open Session (Video time mark 0:57:49)

Haven asked if there was anything they needed to do before the resolution.

No discussion.

Item 11e – Kay Valley Lawsuit Settlement (Video time mark 0:57:52)

• • Resolution – Kay Valley Lawsuit Settlement (page 95/95 of the council packet)

Haven read from the resolution.

Avery resolved; Casey second.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Luginski, Rodgers, Wylie, Casey, Avery, Fuller, and Haven voted yes.

[See Clarkston Sunshine comment #2.]

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 0:59:39):

Motion by Wylie; second Luginski.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3609?channel=2
  • 11-08-2021 – City Council packet