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 (Video time mark 0:00:03):
Sue Wylie called the meeting to order.
Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:07):
Pledge said.
Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:27):
Sue Wylie, Joe Luginski, Gary Casey, Ed Bonser, and Al Avery were present. Eric Haven was absent.
Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:42):
Motion by Luginski to approve the agenda with one addition under Old Business [Agenda Item #10], adding Item 10b for the 35 Madison Court issue and the documentation that they had. Wylie asked if it was a discussion, and Luginski said yes. Second Casey.
No discussion.
Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.
Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:22):
Wylie read the rules for public comments.
Peg Roth:
Roth stated her name and address. Part of her comments, or what she attempted to say last week but was prevented from doing so, the mayor made reference during last week’s meeting to the HDC [Historic District Commission] not starting lawsuits. When Sue Wylie responded to that, Roth wanted to concur that maybe was so, but what they do is they initiate by instigating that response from people. We all react to their approach. So, when someone feels threatened, their guard goes up. That is the approach the HDC seems to take. If they are challenged, they attack.
A perfect example of this can be seen in the video of last week’s council/HDC meeting. When Sue Wylie merely suggested that maybe it would be a good idea to make a change to the HDC members, the mayor’s entire demeanor changed, not just his voice, but his physical reaction. He was being challenged, and he was angry.
After Roth’s letter in the Clarkston News came out last week, she was contacted and thanked by a few real estate agents for that letter. The comments were that everyone talks about how nasty these people are, but no one does anything about it. Roth said that it is a shame what this has done to the market and reputation of the village. New clients request not to be shown property in the village because they don’t want to deal with those people. Roth just wonders if that’s what we want here.
The goal is not to disrupt the historic nature of this village but rather to make it a welcoming and nice place for people to live. We want new folks to come here, don’t we?
The last comment that Roth said that she had was with respect to what happened during a meeting on Chris Moore’s property where he was threatened by the chair of the HDC. The chair’s response, of course, is that he did not do it. No surprise there. But what else he said was that the mayor was standing right beside him and he will tell us what happened, so Roth would be interested to hear what the mayor has to say.
Chet Pardee (calling in remotely):
Pardee stated his name and address.
I would like to enthusiastically nominate Sue Wylie for the Mayor’s Special Award for Civic Courage. Sue participated in the 27-minute debate on October 11th with the mayor regarding the HDC. Sue was advocating for a kinder, gentler HDC and it was clear the mayor felt otherwise. The six pages of heartfelt debate captured in Clarkston Secrets [Clarkston Sunshine] by Sue Bisio follows my comments. I am choosing not to read the 27 minutes of dialogue because of the 3-minute limitation. But reading it, you’ll get the flavor—and justification for the Civic Courage award.
At the conclusion of the debate, I attempted to offer suggestions for improving the HDC process, but the mayor would not permit further discussion and suggested…well, I am here.
I suggest that the City of the Village of Clarkston mandate the disclosure in any sale listing document for a home in the historic district noting that the Historic District Commission will limit what changes the new homeowner may make in accordance with applicable laws.
I also suggest that the HDC develop a document of “lessons learned” for current owners and potential purchasers of homes in the historic district. This document can use the 93% and 7% survey feedback referenced in the October 11th council meeting and other salient lessons learned by homeowners in legal actions with the Historic District Commission. This information should be required to be provided to potential purchasers, along the recent booklet developed by the HDC, before a purchase and sale agreement is signed.
The Friends of Streets and Sidewalks enthusiastically endorse Paul Angelini, Chris Moore, and Steve McLean for Clarkston Council. They believe that Transparency, Maintaining the City’s Infrastructure and Following the Rules are important to the future of the City of the Village of Clarkston.
[The following italicized text was included in Pardee’s email to city council members]
Excerpt from Clarkston Secrets [Clarkston Sunshine] Summary of 10/11/21 City Council Meeting
Haven asked for discussion.
Wylie said there’s been a lot of controversy about members of the HDC, and Moore brought up some of them just a little while ago. A lot of dissent. A lot of hard feelings. Wylie would like to see some commissioners who are more willing to work with residents to ensure that we can resolve some of our disputes within the community locally rather than so often going to court, going to the state officials to try to get these things worked out. Wylie thought that maybe if we had members who were more willing and able to improve the current process, and with the process of blame to go around. Wylie is on the PC, there’s blame there, she thinks there is blame with the administration, with the HDC there’s blame, but we need to get this process worked out. The HDC needs to be more clear about what is expected from the homeowners, and she realizes that it may not always be (interrupted by Haven’s cell phone ringing). Wylie thinks that it’s unfair and onerous to saddle the homeowners with regulations and hoops and they don’t know what’s going on. Wylie said that we need people who not only protect the city’s interests, but also recognize that the homeowners have an interest, and Wylie didn’t think that all of the current HDC members reflect that kind of attitude. Wylie believes that every decision they make may not be ideal, but they should try to come up with some workable decisions.
Wylie said that someone sent her something today, and she’s going to paraphrase, we need people on the HDC to be building bridges, not be building fences. Wylie does not think that Jim Meloche and Mike Moon are the best people on HDC to work with our city residents in that way.
Haven said that Wylie made a motion, and Wylie said that she did not. The motion was made by Avery with a second by Bonser.
Avery said that in response to Wylie, he agrees that there has to be accountability, certainly, by people who are on the commission. He understands that they get involved in the process after the fact. Realtors sell the homes in the historic district and haven’t told the home buyers that they’re buying a historic home on many occasions. And that puts everybody in a bad position because the homeowners think that they’re free to do what they want to do in their house, which normally they would think that, but also the HDC has a job to do here in the city and that is to enforce our historic zoning requirements. So, of course there’s going to be conflict. Avery feels that Moon and Meloche do a good job. We’re not going to make everybody happy, and we all strive to do better. We need to do better. But understand that we’re talking about people’s homes, and there can be conflict when people are told “no,” so Avery is cognizant of that. With that being said, Avery has talked with Moore a little bit, Moore has sent Avery documents, Avery hasn’t had a chance to go through them all yet and he will, and Avery will address it when he’s got all the information. But in the meantime, Avery thinks that the HDC is doing a good job.
Speaking to Moore, Haven said that in fairness to Moore’s comments, he made a litany of accusations last time, and they were oral. Then Wylie asked for them from Moore in writing and Moore is assuming that there’s no answers to those. That’s presuming (unintelligible). There may be very well answers to every one of those, OK? Just so Moore acknowledges that.
Haven said that he wanted to say this about that group right there (gesturing to the HDC), OK? He’s gotten to know them pretty well over the last five years, OK? He’s watched them in action personally and on the commission, and with some of them, a lot longer than that, OK? Haven knows what these people go through. These are your neighbors, folks, OK? They care. They live here. They don’t do this because they just love controversy, OK? They do this because they care about the structure of this historic district, OK? And they do it according to guidelines that are national ones. Haven said that he’d just written about this, OK? If you doubt it, read it, OK? It’s literally true. It goes all the way back to the federal government, right? They are an adjudicating board. Haven said that Wylie had said that the guidelines are not known. Well, they are known, and Haven said that he and Wylie had talked about this the other day.
Wylie said no, she said they are not known to the homeowner. [Haven interrupted and tried to talk over Wylie.] Wylie said to the homeowner. [More loudly] Haven said he’s sorry, but again, it’s like going to court and saying I didn’t know that that law existed. You can’t do that, OK? They are well known, they are well published, they are well understood. Anyone who cares enough to come to meetings and watch how carefully these people deal with homeowners. Haven thinks it’s an affront to say that they don’t deal kindly with most people. That’s wrong. Haven told Wylie that’s absolutely wrong. They do. They bend over backwards to deal kindly with people. What happens is people do things and then come back and ask for approval, OK? That’s a problem. (Unintelligible.) And then, after that, they don’t ask them to change it, they ask them to mitigate it, all right? So that’s where we are in this discussion, so Haven wants to be perfectly clear, that group bends over backwards to help people, all right? Haven said he’s personally involved in this emotionally and he doesn’t like the accusations against that board for doing things they’re not doing, OK? They’re being cast in a bad light, and Haven doesn’t like it, all right?
Wylie said that she listened in on a number of the virtual meetings this year, and as others have said and Haven said, she did see a lot of times when they were willing to work with people and help people. But she also heard harsh words, harsh tones being said if they were in disagreement, and Wylie said she’ll be honest with Haven, what kind of sent her over the line was when Moore said that there was a threat to tear down, to bring in heavy equipment and tear down his fence. Wylie thought that was way over the line, and she thought that was way too much.
Wylie’s other issue is, again this is virtual, she sat in on a meeting, there were things said and not said at that meeting, and when Wylie was at the next meeting, they were not in the minutes or they were reported incorrectly in the minutes. Moore refers to this in the notes that he sent us in that email, and he’s right. That is what’s happening. And yes, Wylie thinks they’re good people. She doesn’t know Moon very well; she knows Meloche a little bit better and she thinks he’s a good person. However, Wylie thinks that you can get burned out in a position, and she thinks you start off in this is what HDC does (made a circle with her arms), and then it seems like it’s growing and growing and growing. And (unintelligible) to growing and growing and growing, especially the last few years, is landscaping, fences, and now it’s grown into walls, and Wylie thinks it’s gone way beyond let’s preserve our beautiful town, our historic charming town and the structures, into let’s put in a certain style of fence, let’s not put in a wall, let’s get approval on this wall. It’s just gotten to be way too much. Wylie thinks that the HDC needs to reign it in.
Wylie said yes, there are laws, yes, they’re federal laws, but they have to deal with what’s going on locally, they have to deal with the homeowners. They’re not the only – the city and the HDC aren’t the only ones who have an interest in this. The homeowner also has a lot of interest, and Wylie thinks they need to be heard a little bit more, and let’s get this stuff out of the courts. Wylie wishes she’d put together the costs, the legal costs we’ve had, over the last few years about what HDC has cost us legally. It’s huge.
Wylie said that she was looking through some of her files, and she thinks she may have mentioned this at a meeting. It’s something that she wrote up in September of 2020, and for July and August for HDC legal costs, it was almost a thousand dollars, and that was all on 10 Miller Road and 177 North Main Street. Wylie believes that things have gone up quite a bit since then. Actually, she has a note on 42 West Washington, $14,000 so far and that was over a year ago.
Haven (unintelligible) Wylie doesn’t say (unintelligible) we don’t sue people. Wylie said all right. Haven said they sue us. Wylie said that Haven is making it personal with Wylie. (Interrupting Wylie), Haven said that Wylie is the one who is making a case, OK, what we are discussing here, Wylie is making a case, all right, that the legal costs are expensive. Wylie said yes, they are very expensive. (Interrupting and speaking over Wylie) Haven said that we didn’t incur a single one of them. Wylie said that she thought we instigated it. Haven wanted to know how we instigated it. Wylie said that we are keeping, holding the homeowner’s feet to the fire and insisting that they follow this exact line – (Interrupting Wylie) Haven said that’s what laws are about, right? Wylie said right, but she also thinks that councils and legislatures and administrative people have to take into consideration what’s going on, and – (interrupting Wylie) Haven said they’re causing (unintelligible), OK?
Haven said he isn’t sure where the accusation is exactly other than feelings of lacking (unintelligible) and Haven agrees with Wylie 100% on education issues. Haven said that people don’t know, OK? But ignorance is no excuse under the law, OK? So, there needs to be some understanding of what we are asking our neighbors, who don’t get paid a dime to do this, are doing to protect the historic district, OK? And in our historic district it comes out (unintelligible) as Mr. Ryan said, it is more restrictive than our general zoning, OK? Because the value is in the restriction, OK? But people don’t like it a lot of times and well, therefore you get controversy, right? So, Haven gets it, he gets there’s tension, OK? But let’s not go off on (unintelligible) the messenger on this, OK?
Wylie said that she and Haven had a lengthy telephone conversation the other day, and one of the things that Wylie said to Haven was people who are upset with things going on in the HDC don’t want to get rid of the historical aspects of this town. We want a historic district. We want there to be a historic district commission that will enforce the rules. However, we want them to enforce them a little more relaxed and get out of the landscaping. Wylie wants them to get out of landscaping – (interrupting Wylie) Haven asked Wylie to clarify again, we’re not talking about landscaping, they will admit (unintelligible) about landscaping, they do mitigation of something that has been created without approval, OK? Mitigation of that to help the homeowner so they don’t have to go back and tear it up, OK (unintelligible). (Interrupting Haven), Wylie said landscaping. Haven said no, no, no. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Haven said it was property, really massive alteration. He went to the standards to date. Number one, talks about the site, the sacredness of the site. Number two, and Haven said he could go down the list, there’s four or five of them that have been abused by this, OK? So, Haven agrees with Wylie that there’s lack of information, there’s lack of knowledge which causes frustration, OK? But Haven thinks it’s wrong to hold the people who are trying to, so diligently, maintain and mercifully, Haven said he will say this, because no one has asked anybody to tear down anything, all right? And they’re not tearing it down, OK? Nothing has been torn down. Some things have been mitigated to make them, to improve them. This is going back generations, literally. Haven’s father-in-law (unintelligible) and there were some buildings downtown they wish they could have protected and couldn’t. It got to be too late, OK? But some people do things and then ask for approval after, and that’s not right. That’s not right under any law in this country, OK? So, they’re just adjudicating the law. That’s Haven’s opinion. Haven is saying that to Wylie, person to person, as part of this discussion because he thinks it needs clarity tonight. Haven thinks the accusations in emotional language is unfortunate, OK? Haven doesn’t think it’s accurate.
Luginski [whose wife is on the HDC] said that the other thing too is that the HDC deals with many, many, many applicants and cases throughout the year. Luginski believes, and Meloche can correct him if he’s wrong, that the HDC has a 95% approval rating for applicants. So 95% of the time – Haven interrupted and said 93 – Luginski said all right 93% – (interrupting Luginski) Haven said when you look back at the last five years, four years, five years, what is it (someone on the HDC panel held up some fingers and said four years), so 93% approval rating – (interrupting Haven) Luginski said 93%, and he will correct his statement from 95, 93% approval rating, so 93% of the people and the homeowners are coming to HDC are processed and it’s not a problem. Whenever you’re dealing with multiple situations, there’s always going to be some problem ones. That’s just life. It’s not about smooth, it’s not about easy, especially, as Haven said, when things are done before approval is ever even granted or asked for. So, unfortunately, those three, four, five that happen to be problems, there’s seven he guesses out of a hundred, those are the ones that everybody hears about. They don’t hear about the ninety-three that went through the process with no problem. So, Luginski thinks it’s hard, you’re never going to please everybody, you’re never going to make everybody happy no matter what you do. Luginski said he’s been up here twelve years and he knows he hasn’t made people happy all of the time, he gets it. But you do what you think is best for the city, and you have to follow the ordinances and laws. And if the ordinance says you can’t do this, then guess what? You can’t do this. Period. We can’t change and rewrite ordinances just because one person doesn’t like what it says, so Luginski thinks that a 93% approval rating, any politician would like a 93% approval rating. Haven said it never happens.
Wylie said that her guess is probably a lot of them are structural things – (interrupting Wylie) Luginski said regardless, they’re applicants that come with – (interrupting Luginski) Wylie (unintelligible) she gets it. It’s been a while since she’s been to an in-person HDC meeting, but she has been to them and went to a lot of virtual ones, and she was impressed a lot of times. People were willing to sit down and work with the homeowners and help them find architects, workers, and Wylie thought that was very good. But it’s, sometimes, the test is when you get into a touchy situation, and Wylie thinks that some of these tough situations have not been handled very well (Luginski tried to interrupt but Wylie continued), and Wylie’s biggest problem as she’s said right now, is that she’s seen a problem with accurate minutes and she sees a problem with how Chris Moore was handled, especially in that situation where heavy equipment was threatened to come out. Wylie doesn’t see how that is appropriate from a city official.
Luginski said that the only thing that he would make one comment on, and he wanted to paraphrase one of Wylie’s comments so she could correct him if it’s wrong, that we have these ordinances and we should follow them, but we should be, maybe willing to, you know, be more compassionate or whatever the words were. If you do that for one person, guess what, the next person is going to come and say you just made an exception down the street, so I want that exception, and then the next person, it’s a slippery slope (unintelligible).
An unidentified person in the audience said you mean like building the wall, it would be at the previous mayor’s house, that they just built the wall there without any approval so that they built the wall to begin with right at the curb. And the road commission came along and said that can’t go there, it’s got to be back. So, they tore that wall down and rebuilt it. But we’re discussing the fact, is that what we’re mitigating at Chris Moore’s, that we’re talking about the landscaping? Luginski said that they’re not going to go into detail – the unidentified person said we were discussing that (unintelligible; lots of interruption and crosstalk). The unidentified person said is that what we are doing? We’re mitigating this boulder wall, or his limestone wall? Haven said that’s been the discussion, yes. The unidentified person said that’s the discussion, so it’s because it wrecked the streetscape, but two houses down, there’s a complete boulder wall that’s all the way on the whole corner, that there wasn’t any approval for. Haven (trying to talk over the unidentified person) said there’s differences, you know there’s differences, you know there’s differences. The unidentified person asked why there were differences. HDC commission member Luginski said that it’s because one is a natural boulder and the other ones are cut up slabs, it’s the material that’s different. The unidentified person said isn’t it great when you added on to the front – (Haven interrupted and repeatedly tried to talk over the unidentified man); Haven said that we can’t do this here. (Interrupting Haven), Luginski told Haven this isn’t a place for that discussion. (Interrupting Luginski), Haven said that the germane elements of the discussion OK, and he gets that, OK, we’ll have a lot of discussion about this, and there are rules we will follow and all that and we know that we are going to go through a process, and (unintelligible) process, and we will be answering some of the questions, OK for sure, but given this, we have a decision to make here.
Haven said that Avery made a motion.
Moore said that there are a couple of things that Haven can’t deny. (Interrupting Moore), Haven said that they were going to stop the discussion, OK? We can go on all night, and we’re not going to do this, OK? We’re just not going to do this. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) (Talking over Moore), Haven said he was calling it now, he’s calling the discussion, and calling for the vote, calling for the vote.
Moore said that Moon doesn’t type the minutes. (Wylie said something to Haven that was unintelligible.) (Addressing Moore), Haven said please. Moore said but she told us – (interrupting Moore) Haven said to Moore that Haven can’t because – (Luginski tried to interrupt and said that Haven spoke), (interrupting Luginski), Haven said that the discussion was over. Pardee tried to speak, Luginski said Pardee’s name, and Haven said that the discussion is over.
Wylie said that she wasn’t sure if Moore and Pardee had spoken, and Haven can’t cut off comments until each person – (interrupting Wylie), Haven said that he just did, he just did. Luginski said the mayor (unintelligible) chair the – (interrupting Luginski), Haven said he can, OK?
Haven said that there is a motion by Avery with a second by Bonser to reappoint Meloche until 2024 and Moon until 2024 and it’s not a roll call. Ryan said they should do a roll call, so Haven asked Speagle to do a roll call.
Avery, Haven, and Luginski voted yes. Bonser asked if he could abstain, was told no, and then also voted yes. Wylie voted no.
Haven said that the motion carries, and said that the next item on the agenda – Pardee raised his hand and asked if he could have the opportunity to make some suggestions, please, an improvement? Haven said yeah, you can, and please do it in the next public comment, OK? Please do it then, because we could go on and on and we need to kind of keep it concise and Pardee should please respect that. Pardee said that there needs to be a requirement for disclosure – (interrupting Pardee), Haven told Pardee to please bring it up in his next public comment, OK, and they can deal with it in due course, all right?
Bruce Fuller:
Fuller stated his name and street and said he would like to thank the city council for the opportunity to address them. Fuller said he was there to describe his qualifications for candidacy as a member of the council. He said he was not going to review every aspect of his professional career that constitutes his resume, but he would like to identify some aspects of his career that would demonstrate his qualifications to serve on the City of the Village of Clarkston Council.
Fuller said that he was responsible for the care and education of an average 400 students. Assuming that each student had two parents and/or guardians, the total number of constituents that exceeds the population of our city. Add to that Board of Education members, district administration, and other members of the community. In addition to his duties as a principal, he was paid a salary by the district to oversee federal program funding, which included Title I, Title II, and assistance to homeless communities and their families. Fuller worked with state program directors, accountants, auditors, and a local private school on the implementation of an annual budget that was nearly our city’s annual budget. These programs were tied to district and building improvement plans, which Fuller was instrumental in creating and updating. These documents closely resemble the city’s Master Plan.
Fuller was elected by his colleagues to be the president of the Principals and Directors Leadership Team. During the ten years that Fuller served in this capacity, Fuller and his team negotiated three employment contacts for their group. Also during this time, Fuller was appointed by the superintendent to co-lead contentious contract negotiations with the teacher’s union. This required some creative proposals in order to resolve significant differences of opinion on how district funds should be allocated.
One of Fuller’s major responsibilities was the annual evaluation of over thirty employees. The teacher evaluations alone were each based on five classroom observations which were running records of the teacher’s records of classroom management and instruction performance. Every observation was followed by a face-to-face review of Fuller’s detailed narrative.
In addition, Fuller has written several grant applications, some of them successful, and collaborated with colleagues on several more applications. Fuller has (unintelligible) presentations to businesses and community groups to solicit professional support and funding for his school. Fuller volunteered to chair the elementary mathematics curriculum committee and the science curriculum committee. Fuller worked on completely revamping the mathematics curriculum and the STEM program became a model not only for our district, but for several others which they posted to (unintelligible).
Fuller said that he’s attended and made presentations at countless Board of Education meetings. One aspect of planning which he led brought him before the Board on several occasions to discuss their 21st century learning initiative. Fuller worked closely with parent organizations to direct activities to promote rising outcomes for their students and attended innumerable extracurricular events and suffered public embarrassment in the name of fund-raising for their school.
Wylie said that Fuller was right at three minutes now.
Fuller said in closing, he feels his professional experiences closely resemble those of a city council member and qualifies him to serve on this council (unintelligible) in service to this community.
[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #1.]
Leah McLean:
McLean stated her name and address. She said that she was speaking on behalf of her husband (unintelligible) and read from a prepared statement:
Hello neighbors. My name is Steven McLean, and I am asking for your vote for City Council. I am a twenty-three-year resident of Clarkston and I have lived in the Historic District for the past four years. I am an Emergency Medicine physician and I have served as the Department Chairman as well as on the Medical Executive Committee for the past five years. I am very passionate about improving the care of patients. In my role at the hospital, I have been involved with many committees and process improvement initiatives for the care of patients including the Covid-19 Incident Command Team. I am also Core Faculty for the Central Michigan University Emergency Medicine residency program where we are training tomorrow’s future Emergency Medicine physicians. Finally, I am retired from the U.S. Air Force Reserve where I served our country for four years.
I am married to Leah, and we have four adult children: Sam, Emma, Lily, and Eli. Leah and I adore our quaint historic Village and we are so grateful that we were able to move to Main Street four years ago. It was always a dream of ours to be able to restore a historic home and we treasure the magical energy at 177 N. Main Street. We truly enjoy the ability to walk to town and meeting our neighbors along the way. You can often find me running the sidewalks of the Village or weather permitting, swimming from the Deer Lake beach while training for triathlon races.
I want to see us flourish as a welcoming community that is open, honest, and transparent. I have invested a lot in this community when we renovated our home and now, I am willing to invest my time as I serve on city council. I promise to listen to the needs and concerns of all of our community members. If you have any questions, please email me at stvmclean@gmail.com. I humbly ask for you for your vote on November 2nd. Sincerely, Steve
Laura Rodgers:
Good evening. Last week Rodgers said that she addressed the council and told them a little bit about my background. Rodgers really feels that running for city council must be all about the residents, the businesses, and the values that exemplify our town. It must be about public service after all. Rodgers said that she is convinced that progress can happen in this town if we all carry an open mind. Rodgers thinks it is imperative that together we work to become (unintelligible) and not individually for our own interests. We as residents in this town cannot afford to put our own personal interests ahead of the larger good. The idea of opening one’s mind to what may be different from your own. Well, it’s becoming less and less a societal norm. The desire to just do and then ask for forgiveness has become (unintelligible) of our society. It’s an action that is both nearsighted and self-serving. When this thinking happens, if it invades our town, we all lose. We lose the ability to discuss issues at hand, we lose the ability for progress in the best direction, and we lose the perspective on those issues that are vital to growth and prosperity.
Last week, in a letter to the editor a resident of the City of the Village of Clarkston wrote that Rodgers is unqualified to run for this office that she seeks because she is living away from her principal residence during extensive renovations. She hopes to clear that matter up right now.
On a number of occasions, city attorney Tom Ryan has offered a favorable legal opinion on this matter. However, in the letter to the Clarkston News, another attorney who resides in this town offered an opposing opinion. She suspects that if she chose a third attorney, she would get yet a third opinion. But life is short, so after a bit of research, she is going to go with the city attorney’s opinion. This opinion corroborated with a lot of research done at the Michigan state level by the city clerk, and it says that she is qualified in every way to be a candidate for city council in the November 2nd election. Just to be clear – she has lived in her house for just about two years on North Main Street (unintelligible) before she and her husband decided to tackle some much-needed renovations. Then COVID happened, and there was a shortage of building materials, and tradespeople weren’t around, and her house was temporarily uninhabitable, so she divided her time between North Main Street and temporary lodging. She learned through her research that the law calls this being temporarily dispossessed, similar to people who have fires in their homes and have to move out for fixing up and people who vacation in other spots in the country for the winter, but she checks all the boxes she can assure them for inclusion on the ballot as a write-in candidate for council. She has a voter registration card with her home address on it, she’s listed as a payer of taxes at her principal residence, she has a valid driver’s license with her picture and her home address on it, and she receives all of her mail at this address.
Rodgers said that she will never claim to be a perfect person. She doesn’t want to have anything to do with being perfect.
Wylie said that Rodgers had used her three minutes.
Rodgers said that in closing, she’d like to say that all of this consternation over her residency could have been avoided with a simple phone call from these concerned residents questioning her on her eligibility. She could have then showed them her research, given the information that they sought – (interrupting Rodgers), Wylie said that she needed to cut her off.
[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #2.]
Wylie said that Paul Angelini is the next speaker.
Paul Angelini:
Angelini said good evening, identified himself, and provided his address. Angelini said that he’s running for city council in the City of the Village of Clarkston. He’s been an unofficial resident of the village for about fourteen years, and his involvement goes back to the Clarkston Area Farmer’s Market as a vendor for twelve years, and at Union Joints, and later on, inside of our Rudy’s Market. In 2019, he moved his businesses into 21 North Main Street. It was one of the best professional decisions of his life (unintelligible), and in September of last year, he moved his apartment into downtown, and that was one of the best decisions of his life overall. Angelini said he’s always been attracted to charm and the beauty of our little village, as well as the warm and welcoming community that he was integrated into from an earlier time.
Main Street America, small town America, is America proper. The early settlers that came to America brought with them their architectural traits and their building (unintelligible) which you see reflected across small town America. It’s in small town America where we have communities grow and thrive, and he sees that here in the village, which is why he decided to (unintelligible) here as a resident.
As a member of city council, Angelini supports our historic district and continue to help this environment grow and thrive, as well as supporting the business district integrated into the historic district. He stands for transparency in our city government, as well as fiscal responsibility. All of these things which cannot be overstated. And truly, again, this place here, this village, is the microcosm of the macrocosm, because what happens here in our city government, in our village, you see reflected on a bigger scale on the federal level. But we have the power and control to change things here. We’re one community. We’re one community and we should all come together as such and be unified together with one vision and make Clarkston the best place for all of the residents of today and for those of tomorrow.
No other public comments.
Agenda Item #6, FYI
Rotary Annual Beer, Wine, Spirits, and Food Tasting (Video time mark 0:18:07; page 4/42 of the council packet):
Wylie said they have a save the date for October 2021. This is the Rotary Club of Clarkston’s Annual Beer, Wine, Spirts, and Food Tasting. It’s from 6:30 to 8:30 at Clarkston Bordines Nursery. There’s a number of restaurants that are participating, $45 in advance, $55 at the door, and you can contact any Rotarian. If anybody wants a phone number, it’s 248/625-4244.
Clarkston Independence District Library (CIDL) Trunk or Treat (Video time mark 0:18:41; page 5/42):
There’s also a Trunk or Treat Boo-A-Palooza free family event, games, trick-or-treating, cider and donuts, and a food truck on October 29th, 6:30-8:00, at the Clarkston Library parking lot.
Anthem Advisors of Raymond James Shred Party (Video time mark 0:18:57; page 6/42 of the council packet):
There is a shredding party. Anthem Advisors of Raymond James is hosting a shred party on October 30th from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for everyone with documents that they need to have shredded in a secure manner. You can bring personal documents. The event is free and open to the entire community. It will take place in the lower parking lot off Depot Street behind their offices located in the 20 West Washington Building in the Village of Clarkston. Wylie said if she’s correct, it’s the parking lot that we are on. Speagle said yes, it is. If you have any questions, you can call Anthem Advisors at 248/620-8469.
Clarkston Farm & Garden Club 2021 Holiday Greens Sale (Video time mark 0:19:48; page 7/42 of the council packet):
Wylie said that the Clarkston Farm & Garden Club are having their 2021 Holiday Greens Sale. They have roping, wreaths, and cemetery blankets. The pickup is Saturday, November 20th from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. For sale through Monday, November 8th. You can order online at clarkstongardenclub.org. You can visit them on Facebook also.
Oakland County Animal Control 2022 Dog License Fees (Video time mark 0:20:16; page 8/42 of the council packet):
Wylie asked if the animal shelter was part of the FYI, and Speagle said that it was.
On September 29th, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners passed their general budget for 2022-2024, and there is an increase for dog licenses. One year for a spayed and neutered dog has gone from $10.50 to $15.00. Male/female [not spayed or neutered?] is now going to be $25.00. Spayed/neutered – seniors $14.00. Male/female, and Wylie thought this meant unspayed and unneutered, $23.00 for a senior. And if you’re delinquent, the price goes up. You can also do three-year licenses.
Speagle said that just to add to it, they should be getting the 2022 licenses. Wylie asked if we had them this year, and Speagle said we did, but they forgot about us last year. They normally drop them off mid-December, and they can start selling them then. Wylie said that she thought you could get them without paying a delinquent fee up to June 1st. Speagle agreed. Wylie said that licenses will be available probably after December 1st. Speagle agreed. Wylie said that they would be available at city hall, Monday through Thursday.
Wylie asked if there was anything else for FYI; there were no additional items.
Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report for September 2021 (Video time mark 0:21:44; page 9/42 of the council packet):
Wylie said that this was the Sheriff’s report for September 2021 there for everyone to look at. She asked if anyone had any discussion or anything they wanted to bring up.
No discussion.
Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:22:15; page 10/42 of the council packet):
Wylie said the report was in the packet. She asked if anyone on council had any questions or would like to make any comments.
Wylie said that she would like to make one comment. It was something that she asked Jonathan [Smith, City Manager] before the meeting, about the Holiday Lights Parade. She said that they have been contacted, it’s going to be December 11th, and Wylie thought they usually start around 6:00. Smith said that they would have some information next meeting. Wylie said that people have been asking already because people like to start making their arrangements.
No other comments.
Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:23:05):
-
- 09-27-2021 Final Minutes (page 11/42 of the council packet)
- 10-11-2021 Draft Minutes (page 13/42 of the council packet)
- 10-25-2021 Treasurer’s Report (page 16/42 of the council packet)
- 10-20-2021 Revenue and Expenditure Report for the Period Ending 09-30-2021 (page 17/42 of the council packet)
- Carlisle/Wortman, September invoices (page 23/42 of the council packet)
Wylie asked for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented.
Motion by Avery; second Casey.
Wylie asked if there was any discussion from council.
No discussion.
Wylie asked if there was any discussion from anyone else.
No discussion.
Motion to accept the consent agenda as presented passed unanimously by voice vote.
Agenda Item #10, Old Business:
Item 10a – Election Updates (Video time mark 0:23:48):
-
- November 2, 2021 Election Update (page 25/42 of the council packet)
Speagle said that she sent out 323 absentee voter ballot applications. She received 170 of those applications back, sent 170 ballots out, and 81 of those 170 have been received so far.
Speagle said that she had some timelines:
10-18-21 was the last day to register in any manner other than in-person with a local clerk for the November election.
10-19-21 to 11-2-21 you can register with the local clerk with proof of residency, in-person only.
10-22-21 at 4:00 p.m. was the deadline to submit declaration of intent forms. Our write-in candidates are Chris Moore, Bruce Fuller, and Laura Rodgers.
She would like to add to what Rodgers had said earlier. Speagle personally called the State of Michigan Elections Division and spoke with Charmya and explained the complete situation to her. She stated that Laura Rodgers has been a registered voter since 2018, her driver’s license states that it’s 58 North Main Street as her address, all her mail is sent to that address, and more importantly, her personal effects are located at 58 North Main Street, and once renovations are complete, she will be living back at that address. It is no different than if a person spends a few months out of the year down in Florida, Arizona, our snowbirds, or they had to temporarily move out due to unforeseen circumstances like house flood or fire. 58 North Main Street is the Rodgers primary address. She is qualified to run as a write-in.
On 10-25 today, a public accuracy test was completed at 2:00 p.m. No issues. Everything was submitted to the county. All that came back, everything is fine with the machines.
This Friday, by 5:00 p.m., electors may obtain an absentee voter ballot via first class mail, and electors may submit a written request to spoil an absentee ballot and receive a new ballot by mail. That is the state deadline. Because mail runs a little slow, she would ask that no one wait until the last minute for a ballot to be mailed to them.
On the 30th, this Saturday, Speagle will be open from 8:00 to 4:00 for all voting needs – absentee ballots, registering to vote in person, any questions, spoiling ballots, getting new ballots.
On 11-1, by 10:00 a.m., electors who have returned their absentee voter ballot may submit a written request in person to spoil their absentee voter ballot and receive a new ballot in the clerk’s office.
On 11-1, by 4:00 p.m., electors may obtain an absentee voter ballot in person in the clerk’s office. Electors who have lost their absentee voter ballot or not received their ballot in the mail may submit a written request in person to spoil their absentee voter ballot and receive a new ballot in the clerk’s office.
Tuesday, 11-2, is election day. Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. All absentee ballots are due back to the office no later than 8:00 p.m. Speagle would ask that people not wait until 8:00 p.m. to bring in their absentee voter ballot.
Speagle asked if there were any questions.
There were no questions.
Item 10b – Discussion: 35 Madison Court (Video time mark 0:27:50) [Added by Luginski as a new item to the agenda]:
Wylie noted that this was a new item that was added to the agenda. Wylie said that they’ve received some information in the packet that she thought became available tonight. She said that everyone on council got several emails from Mr. Rottarr .
Rottarr came to the podium and said that he lived at 35 Madison Court in Apartment 4. He apologized for any redundancies; Google doesn’t like to play with other people sometimes. Wylie said that David Delasco – (interrupting Wylie), Rottarr said that he also lives at 35 Madison Court in Apartment 5. Rottarr said that this pertains not only to his apartment but the overall atmosphere at 35 Madison Court, from snow removal where he couldn’t get access from his caregivers in February to the ice buildup that went on. Rottarr said that he knows that there is an ordinance, and he thought it was 903 for obstruction of sidewalks. It’s true, and even in the lease it says the landlord shall maintain – (interrupting Rottarr ), Wylie said she wasn’t asking him about that. Rottarr said it’s funny because it got no attention. Delasco couldn’t get out to go to work, and his caregivers couldn’t get in to take care of him.
Rottarr did a survey. He questioned all ten tenants. There are ten apartments. Nine of the ten responded. There are 40% disabled, 55% over age 60 or 70, but it came down to the conclusion, he sent it to (unintelligible), the landlord (unintelligible), so he knew what Rottarr was doing. And then he filed complaints with the city, pulling service requests, and all those nice little photos Rottarr sent to the council pertaining to Apartment 4.
Rottarr said that he’s there on behalf of Delasco and all the other tenants as well. Rottarr said he needs to make that clear because when Rottarr’s lease is up next Monday, the landlord expects Rottarr to vacate. One way or another, Rottarr has to get another apartment because he needs some of these documents to be proven and shown, but that’s a different issue. The things Rottarr sent to the council pertain to his living conditions, and the apparent, he doesn’t know why the council’s attorney seems to find one source of information to suffice for the truth because Rottarr has never been contacted for relocation by anybody. Bob Kostin finally contacted Rottarr last week with a notice to quit, which coincides with Rottarr’s last day, October 31st. So, that’s where they are.
Rottarr told Delasco he could sit down unless he wanted to give Rottarr some support. Rottarr said he wasn’t running for city council, and they need to get a three-minute clock. He’s just saying. Wylie said this was discussion and they didn’t have a three-minute clock. Rottarr said he was just bringing that up. It doesn’t hurt to see where they stand far as the three minutes go.
At any rate, Rottarr said that he was just trying to get a handle on what’s going on because he’s talked to the attorney general who says the city should be able to handle this. They’re not going to get involved yet. Rottarr has talked to three different attorneys – one is a mold specialist, one is a disability specialist, and one is a personal injury specialist. They’ve yet to get back to him, and Rottarr isn’t there yet anyway.
But the fact that the living conditions that seem to be only Rottarr’s concern is appalling to him. You guys are public servants. You serve us. We’re the voters. We’re the taxpayers. Rottarr wanted to know why he can’t get any help. Why is it that if somebody says something, you take it for God without verifying the facts. Two weeks ago, oh, he promised you this, you didn’t take it. Rottarr said that he’s never been promised anything. Rottarr said he got two months free rent while he’s out of a bathroom. That was May 24th through June 10th. This is October 25th. Rottarr said he’s still in the same position that he was on May 24th. You guys make violations, and you don’t follow them up. Rottarr’s question is why.
Smith said that there is a lot of history here. They asked Craig Strong, the city’s building official, to put together a synopsis of all the steps, a chronology of all the steps that he has taken. Smith said that he knows that it hasn’t progressed at the speed that Rottarr would like it to, and Smith understands that Rottarr is living in these conditions that Rottarr doesn’t want to go on another day. Smith said that they have done what they can as a municipality. This is, as Rottarr knows, a very small municipal office. There are five employees in the entire city, and they just don’t have the resources. As the attorney general said, let the city handle this. This is not the City of Detroit, the City of Lansing, or Ann Arbor where they have huge staffs. It’s Smith. Smith doesn’t have the ability to be getting into legal issues with and between a renter and a landlord and taking that ground. All Smith can do is enforce the building code. So, Smith has been working with Strong to do just that – enforce the building code, and Smith believes that Strong has done that. Again, not at the speed that Rottarr would like it to, but they are making sure that things move along – (interrupting Smith), Rottarr said since May 24th nothing has been done. Rottarr said that they did finally get the raw permits for the plumbing and electrical, the rough but not the finished because the walls aren’t up, but that’s all that’s been done. And they get access whenever they want. From day one, Rottarr has given them access.
Smith said that they have been in contact. This has moved very slowly, but they have been in contact with the landlord and his attorney, and Smith thinks this is the first time they’ve run into this. It’s going very, very slowly, but Rottarr can see that Strong is elevating, now giving them fourteen-day notices that this has to be done in the next fourteen days. Rottarr said that was done by Rottarr calling Strong – (interrupting Rottarr ), Smith said that there are things that are happening. Granted, with COVID, and the availability of contractors which Rottarr has to acknowledge is a challenging time. Smith said that he’s not trying to defend Rottarr’s landlord, he’s just trying to take the middle of the road. Smith said Rottarr has to acknowledge that it’s difficult to get contractors at this time.
Smith said that they are making baby steps and as long as they see some progress, they are hesitant to come down and squash them with some kind of legal action if they are making progress, and they feel that they are. Again, not to Rottarr’s satisfaction because Rottarr is living there. Smith said that this is another question – why is Rottarr living there? Smith said that Rottarr has some obligation of his own to look after his own health. Smith doesn’t have the wherewithal as the city manager – (interrupting Smith), Rottarr said it’s because he’s on disability, $800 a month doesn’t go very far. Smith said that he understands that – (interrupting Smith), Rottarr said he’s saving his money, but Smith asked. Smith said he understands. Rottarr said why is he living there? Because he has to, he doesn’t have a choice. Wylie said Rottarr didn’t have to yell. Rottarr said that Smith knows this – (interrupting Rottarr ), Smith said if Rottarr found this place for $800 a month, Rottarr could find others. It’s not the last resort, and Smith is saying that Rottarr has an obligation to protect his own health.
Wylie said that there was something mentioned at the last meeting. She thought that Ryan mentioned that Rottarr had been offered a hotel. Ryan said that’s true. Wylie said that Rottarr says he was not. Rottarr said he was never offered it. Ryan said that Strong, the building official, told Ryan that happened. Rottarr said that’s incorrect, Apartment 3 did. Rottarr said that he knows the facts. Apartment 3 did, but Rottarr didn’t.
Smith said that he researched this, and he talked to two different people on the dentist’s side and one said absolutely, you were offered, and the other one said absolutely not, you were not offered. So Smith has heard both sides of that, so he doesn’t know whether Rottarr was offered a deal or not, but they did say that you – (interrupting Smith), Rottarr said he would have gone – Smith continued and said that Rottarr was given two months free rent, and then since then, Rottarr has not been not paying rent, and Smith says he assumes it’s because Rottarr is putting money into an escrow account (Rottarr agreed). Smith said that if Rottarr could show that to them, that Rottarr is putting money in escrow, then they should be satisfied. That’s why Smith understands they are evicting Rottarr at the end of the month because – (interrupting Smith), Rottarr said that he just explained that his lease is up at the end of the month. They are not evicting him.
Rottarr said that Rottarr’s lease says that the landlord has to make repairs. Rottarr sent Smith the lease. Item 13 says he has to make repairs in all quickness as possible, and the rent is not paid while that happens. Rottarr said that’s a dispute between him and the landlord. But, you see, none of the work has been done until ten days ago when they finally brought in an electrician and a plumber to tear out stuff because it did get inspected. But this is five months after they tore it apart, so that’s progress? Rottarr told Smith he really doesn’t understand. He doesn’t think that you build a house, and it takes ten years. Smith said he doesn’t like the speed.
Rottarr apologized to the council. He’s in pain, so he does get a little bit aggressive. It’s just that when Rottarr sees false information and he doesn’t understand how the council can take one side of the story. There are two sides to a piece of paper. It’s the same with a story. Verify, validate, before you insinuate. That’s all he’s asking. And yes, Rottarr will take care of it, but he just thinks that council needs to take some responsibility for lack of action. Rottarr has been living with asbestos. He has a bag of it that he gets thrown down that’s 2% asbestos. Rottarr said he thinks that’s his three minutes.
Wylie said that the hotel seems to be a problem. It seems like they ought to be providing proof that he actually was offered a hotel. Rottarr agreed. Wylie said that there should be an email, a text, something that shows that. Because really, if they don’t have that proof – (Rottarr said something that was unintelligible). Wylie said that they saw the pictures and they were disgusting. Wylie didn’t understand how Rottarr can live like that. Rottarr said he goes to Deer Lake whenever he can. He can’t go every day because some days, he’s just not able. He’s not physically able, but he goes to Deer Lake Athletic Club to shower. That’s where he goes for $35 a month.
(Wylie and Rottarr were talking at the same time.) Wylie said honestly, she doesn’t know – Rottarr said he just found a place – Wylie said something about progress. Rottarr said that he just found a place, he’s just gotten a new lease, which he’s been trying to do. Again, he has to take whatever he has coming in every month and then send it to escrow and then he uses that as the new place. Rottarr pointed in Smith’s direction and said he knows that too and he just acts like Rottarr told him (cross talk between Rottarr and Smith, Smith said something about escrow, Wylie asked Rottarr to please don’t (unintelligible)). Rottarr said that the point is that the information isn’t getting to the city council appropriately. Rottarr thinks there is a filtering process.
Rottarr said that his big concern is that when he leaves, Delasco and the others, there’s a tenant that’s 80 years old. His wife fell in the parking lot a number of years ago. Wylie said that Rottarr had talked about that, and she appreciates the fact that Rottarr is speaking up for other people. Rottarr asked where they will get help when he’s gone. Rottarr is staying in the area. He’s going to be in Clarkston. He’s still going to be voting. Rottarr didn’t want the lease since day one, he’s had infections every month. Eye infections. Who would put themselves through that? This isn’t the principle, this is the financial. And it is principle. He has bags of asbestos in the bathroom that falls from the ceiling – would you want to live there? There’s black mold on the wall – would you all go to the bathroom there? Rottarr hasn’t let anybody use his bathroom. It’s a place to sleep, but what kind of a place is that?
Wylie said that two weeks ago, he was here. Smith said that he welcomed ideas on how Smith, as one individual, am going to solve this entire building problem. Wylie said she didn’t think he could; it has to be done legally. Wylie doesn’t know what the process is. Give the guy a violation. He’s not doing what he said he would be doing. This has been five months. Rottarr said that they aren’t enforcing the violations. On May 28th, Strong gave them a notice to vacate and abate. What good is it when they don’t comply?
Rottarr said that he’s said his piece. He’s sorry. He doesn’t mean to be so aggressive, but this is a sensitive matter, and it bothers him that the council is not getting all of the information, and if they are getting all the information and this is how they decide, then they need to be replaced because this is not how you treat people. Rottarr said he doesn’t mean it personally; he’s just saying they need to take the people that they are overseeing seriously.
Wylie thanked Rottarr. Wylie asked for any ideas. Ryan said that Strong is the building man, he knows what’s going on, he’s following the process, it’s unfortunate what’s happened here. Ryan said that they were told about this other living arrangement, whether, you know, that’s one thing. Number two is because, not to make excuses, it’s difficult getting contractors, especially back in that period of time. Things are starting to unfreeze now, but they were all frozen up back then, and it’s gone slowly, but it’s, everybody is having a hard time getting contractors and material. That’s no excuse.
Wylie said that to her, the hotel is the one thing, Mr. Rottarr – (Rottarr walked to the podium) – Rottarr said shouldn’t that be for the judge to decide once you get him into court about the violation, let him say, OK, it’s because he’s got contractors. Rottarr said that’s all his statement was.
Wylie said that to her, the hotel seemed to be a big issue. If they can’t prove that he was offered a hotel, then Wylie would say that he wasn’t offered a hotel – (interrupting Wylie), Avery said (unintelligible) the speed here, it’s been a long time, he understands COVID, he understands Strong, we’re trying to be nice, but obviously, this stuff has been going on for years. A place doesn’t get to this condition through COVID. This is something that should have been identified much quicker, and we should have been more aggressive for lack of a better term in trying to get this guy to – (interrupting Avery), Wylie said that they wouldn’t have known what the interior was like until someone said something about it. Avery said for sure, but we knew at least in May, and we are now just giving out these warnings and we’re trying to work with this individual. Ryan said that we sent him a notice in May. Avery said right, and we are still at the notice stage. Five months, and it’s like, come on. He can get contractors. He may have to pay a little bit more. If it was important, if his ass was on the line, he would have people there.
Smith asked Ryan if they needed to take legal action against them, and sign up for legal costs, because we’re going to have to take him to court to get some action, faster action, what are our options. Ryan said that our building official is setting us up for the district court, which will be cheaper than going to circuit court, but that’s not going to happen quickly. You know, it has to be scheduled. Or we could go to circuit court and file a lawsuit, a civil lawsuit, which would be expensive, and then we’re going to have to get a hearing in front of a circuit judge. So, it seems like even though it’s taken too long that things are starting to happen over there. Ryan thought that they should let this fourteen-day notice go forward and let’s see where they are after the end of that period of time, by the next meeting, and see what the status is then. It doesn’t happen quickly.
Wylie said that it almost seems like this is all an effort to get Mr. Rottarr out of the apartment. He’s going to be gone by Sunday, and then they fix it up for the next tenant. Wylie said that’s not our – (interrupting Wylie), Ryan said apparently, Mr. Rottarr’s lease is up anyway naturally, so that’s unfortunate, but Ryan’s suggestion is let’s see what this fourteen-day notice that Strong has filed brings them. It seems like we have contractors now, things are happening. Ryan doesn’t think, on this hotel thing, he doesn’t think that Strong would say something that he wasn’t sure of, so if they all want a little more information about that, that’s fine, but you know – (interrupting Ryan), Avery said (unintelligible) at this point. Ryan said right, unfortunately. Avery agreed, whether he did or didn’t. Ryan said that his suggestion is that they wait this fourteen-day period and see what happens. That will get them to the next meeting and then let’s see what the status is at that point on the contracting and the rehab.
Rottarr said that the only comment that Rottarr has in closing is if Strong is sure of it, that makes Rottarr leery. Strong can’t be sure of something that never happened. Then competency becomes a question. He’s a very good building inspector. Rottarr said it’s been five months, the same thing, permit complaint. The permit was issued September 9th or something, the other apartment, number 3, was vacated July 11th. He said two weeks in May. He told Rottarr on May 17th that Rottarr gets two weeks for his rent, for two weeks while the landlord tears it apart because Apartment 3 wouldn’t do it. She would not relocate. Rottarr’s point is that he said go ahead and do it. That’s what bit him ever since.
Rottarr would have been gone and none of this would have been an issue because he would have left, but his friends would still be residing there. You can get people to help you. You can get a council support group, people that are interested in donating their time like they do with the historic. There are people that live here that want to see this a better place. Rottarr has been in Waterford since ’58, and Clarkston, Independence, Springfield. This is why Rottarr wants to get another house, but not if it’s done like this.
Wylie thanked Rottarr. Rottarr said he wanted to say thank you for taking the time for him and adding him to the agenda.
Wylie asked if anyone wanted to say anything else.
Bonser asked if there was a way for a building inspector to go in and just condemn a building and say look, there’s asbestos, which is pretty bad stuff in this building, we need to condemn this building. Bonser asked if they could go that step? Ryan said it’s a pretty serious step, depending on how broad the issue is. If this is isolated to 3 and 4, that’s one thing. Rottarr said it’s insulation between the floors, is where the asbestos resides, vermiculite. Bonser asked if our building inspector would make that decision. Ryan said he could, yes. Avery said it is ultimately council’s decision but based on recommendations. Ryan said he could make the recommendation. Rottarr said if he didn’t tear the ceiling out, downstairs you would never see the vermiculite or be subjected to the asbestos. The black mold is another issue, but yes, you would never see the asbestos if they hadn’t torn the ceiling out in 3 and 4. Bonser said that he wouldn’t want to live there.
Casey said that he agreed with Ryan that they should wait for fourteen days for the next meeting and see what progress has been made, because the reality is, a lawsuit would be fine, but they are not quick, so it’s not going to be the silver bullet that some people may think. Rottarr said that just know if they don’t follow up with their threats, people will ignore the beginning. He’s had seventeen violations – (interrupting Rottarr), Wylie said sorry, please, to Rottarr .
Wylie asked Luginski if he had a comment, and he didn’t. Rottarr said he will go, he said goodbye to Delasco. Rottarr said knowing where he has to go, Ms. Wylie, thank you for the evening, see you in two weeks.
Wylie said that this is a discussion item. There is no motion or anything, so she thought they are letting it go as it is right now. Ryan said that things are happening though. The point is, probably later than they should, but the building officials are on it, then let’s see if it bears fruit or not. If it doesn’t, then they can do something else, but they can’t get in the middle of a landlord/tenant issue either. That’s not their responsibility.
Wylie said that she realizes that there is no way that they could have known probably what happened between, there was a couple month gap when Mr. Rottarr showed up two weeks ago. Wylie thought between that until sometime in May or June that was the last time that they heard it and assumed it was handled. Ryan said he was surprised when he came two meetings ago because that’s when he got involved again and followed up with Strong. Ryan thought things were moving apace. Casey asked if Robert Kostin was still involved, and Ryan said he was. Casey said that maybe we can get some information from him, and Ryan said he’s discussed with him, yeah.
Smith said he would plan on bringing this back at the next council meeting as an agenda item. Smith said he could bring Strong to a meeting, and if there are others, such as Bob Kostin, that they want in the meeting if they want to hear their side of the story. As they have said, there are two sides to every story. Smith can bring in Kostin, or the owner himself. We can make the request, but Smith didn’t know if he would come, the owner himself to come in, the landlord, and see if there’s some additional information. Avery said no. Smith said that they are talking about going to a lawsuit, yes you do need to, right? Ryan said not necessarily. Avery said it is what it is. They can look at the pictures and see that it needs to be fixed. He couldn’t imagine the landlord or owner of the building is going to come in and say what’s the problem? It looks fine to me. Of course he knows it’s crap, and he knows he needs to fix it, Avery would hope. Avery thinks that they need to put administrative pressure on the best they can. Avery doesn’t want to file a lawsuit. That costs money, but we also have an obligation to ensure that our ordinances are being followed, and if they’re not, then we need to follow through.
Smith said that he agreed, but he’s just saying that having all the information is important as well. Avery agreed. Smith said it was a very one-sided story. Smith has nothing against Rottarr, he understands his pain and the situation he’s in, and that’s why they originally stepped up to help. Avery said that we do have the other side. They know, and we had Strong in there, and he wrote up letters and notices. He didn’t do that just because. It was because he saw something wrong. Avery’s concern is that it’s the follow up, do it in May, and then it kind of lags a little bit because they aren’t hearing anything, then Rottarr comes in and rattles their cage, and then they’re more compelled to get something done. It would be nice if it was moving along before that, before we got to this point. That’s all.
Wylie said she didn’t know how much Mr. Rottarr was going to stay involved with this after he moves out. It seems like he feels an obligation to the tenants who are still there, and that’s a fine thing for him to do. She would protect them too. It sounds like they need help.
Wylie asked if there was any additional discussion.
No additional discussion.
Agenda Item #11, New Business
Item 11a – Presentation: Lakeview Cemetery Restoration Project (Video time mark 0:50:54; page 26/42 of the council packet):
Wylie said that she saw at least one speaker there, two speakers.
The first person gave her name as Joette Holmes, and she’s a township person. Her buddy is Charlotte Hooper, and she is a village person. They wanted to tell the council about the Lakeview Cemetery Restoration Project because, while the township takes care of it, the people in the village obviously utilize it as well as anybody else, and it’s historically from the village where it started.
Holmes wanted to start with a quote by Ben Franklin, who said “you can judge the character of a town by the way their cemeteries look.” She thought that was an interesting one.
They’ve been out to the cemetery. They are both members of the Sashabaw Plains Daughters of the American Revolution with Jen Harris, who is their regent, and they are working on a 2020 project with the county. They found a lot of stones down. The first burial in the cemetery was in 1832, so it’s almost 190 years old. A farmer named George VanSickle gave three acres, which was basically a hill. You go out to that cemetery, you go in the front entrance, the only entrance, the left side is the historical part. Hills are not good for farming, but they were good for cemeteries, but that’s part of the issue.
It was called the Union Burial Ground at the time. You could buy six graves for five dollars. That was in 1850. That was the big deal. They actually owned Deer Lake. The frontage that the city actually owns today, they gave you in 1921. It didn’t have a beach area. Wylie asked if it was the cemetery? Holmes said that the cemetery board gave the village the beach area in 1921, which the city leases to the township. Holmes thought that was interesting.
Holmes said that there are 9,902 full gravesites in the Lakeview Cemetery. There’s only 559 left. There are 1,100 veterans that are buried there. Hooper said that includes two revolutionary soldiers. Holmes said Jeremiah Clark (unintelligible), also Martha Veliet(?) is buried there. She came in 1832, she was the great granddaughter of John Hart of New Jersey who signed the Declaration of Independence. So, lots of the people on that hill were children and grandchildren of revolutionary war soldiers. Most of the settlers of the village and township are buried there. It’s kind of a museum of the people who came to Michigan about that time, the 1830s, 1850s. If you want to learn more about them, they have a Facebook page called Lakeview Cemetery Restoration.
Holmes said that they noticed a lot of the gravestones were damaged. They are old, they’re (unintelligible) the gravestone, they are made of marble, softer rock, they were tilting, there’s moss on them, there’s acid rain. They did not cement those gravestones down. They put them on a bed of rocks, and you can imagine with 100 years of water rushing through there and whatever, tree roots, falling trees, and lawn mowers have damaged those graves.
Holmes said they talked to the township about it, and they told them that they would put $25,000 in their budget to restore the graves, and they would match every dollar that they raised. So, Hooper wrote a grant, they held a cemetery walk, and they have raised $15,000 in the last year. They are carrying it over into 2022, so they still have $10,000, $9,500, to get to their $25,000.
Holmes said that because of the erosion, they are leveling the gravestones because you can see them tilting back and forth. They are restoring those. There are several that are just on the ground, and they will be lost. We need them (unintelligible) four inches under the ground. They have a cemetery company called Carter Cemetery Preservation, and they are doing the restoration and the leveling, and the community members are doing the cleaning. They’ve learned to wash graves. The second Saturday of every month. Hooper welcomed everyone to come. Holmes said that they are trying to stabilize what they’ve gotten.
Holmes said that about 150 gravestones have been cleaned, about 105 have been restored. If you go by, as you probably do on White Lake Road, take a look, it will be lighter than it has been in the past and you’ll see most of the gravestones standing straight up. They’ve had a lot of community support, the Rotarians, there’s a lot of Masons in there, the Daughters of the American Revolution, they’ve had kids, which they are really pleased to have come out and work. The National Honor Society, the Rotary (unintelligible) group, and they’ve had a lot of families, some with teenagers and some with little kids, but they’ve come out to the cemetery. They know that they are teaching their kids how to do community service, and they are really pleased about that. They’ve had their donor (unintelligible), historical society, the Rotary, the genealogical society, the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution), and just individual members have sent contributions to them.
Holmes said in 2022, they are going to continue cleaning. When she talked with Smith one day, he said that people are asking what they are doing in the cemetery, so that’s why they wanted to come and tell the council what they are doing.
Hooper said that they start again in April; they can only work through October because of the weather. They will be cleaning the second Saturday, and they welcome everybody to come out. It’s instant gratification. Holmes said that you can take it to wherever your relatives are buried and sort of pay it forward.
Holmes asked if there were any questions. Wylie thanked them and said that she appreciated it. She’s seen it on Facebook, but she honestly did not understand the whole background and the historic nature of the cemetery, or really what was going on, so she appreciates this. Holmes said that the cemetery walk was basically a reenactment with eight people. You can just see some of the people in that middle place that were early residents, whether they were the shoemakers, or they were the miller, or farmers, or doctors, these are the people who created our community.
An unidentified man in the audience said he had a question. He wanted to know if, in addition to their efforts, is there any efforts to do digital conservation, like high resolution photos of the headstones, especially for those that are in total disrepair to have some (unintelligible) with them? Holmes and Hooper said yes. Holmes said to go to their Facebook page. There’s also Find A Grave. One of the community members, after they cleaned, she’s been going out and taking new photos of them so you can see them. What they’ve done on the Facebook page is they’ve researched and written about George Smith, and who was he. He happened to be a Union soldier. Where was his farm, where was his home, what was his occupation, etc.
Wylie said that she had a question about the map that’s in the brochure that shows blocks. She wanted to know which blocks were in the historic section, would it be blocks one and two? Wylie said that it was on page five of the brochure. Hooper said that they started in block seven. Wylie said that was immediately to the left of the entrance. Hooper said yes, immediately, that’s what you’ll see as looking whiter and they look like little orthodontia, teeth.
Holmes said that you have that gravestone, 1841, it’s right on that road that is a dead end. As you come in, right to your left, 1841 and the hill going all the way down. Those are some of the older graves. Jeremiah Clark, who probably died in 1848, he’s right there on the road. Wylie thanked her and said she would check it out.
Wylie asked if there were any other questions or comments.
Bonser said trying to reach that $9,500 to get that $25,000 match, and he assumes they are doing fund-raisers throughout the year, can people donate to this and does that go toward the matching grant? Holmes said yes, people are making donations, they do have a Go Fund Me page, there’s a Go Fund Me button (unintelligible). Post Office Box 1011 is their post office box. The cemetery walk runs about $2,500. They put everything back into restoration for next year, so with the township money, that’s $5,000, but they still need $9,500. Even after they get to the $25,000, it’s going to be continual to some degree, but it will be less, much less.
No other comments or questions.
Item 11b – Resolution: Planning Commission Recommendation for Ordinance Audit (Video time mark 1:02:37):
-
- Resolution – Planning Recommendation for Ordinance Audit (page 27/42 of the council packet)
- Planning Commission Information Sheet for City Council – Carlisle/Wortman Associates (CWA) Audit of the 300+ Page City Ordinance (page 28/42 of the council packet)
- 02-10-2021 – Memorandum from Carlisle/Wortman, Re: Zoning Audit (page 30/42 of the council packet)
Wylie noted that Rich Little (Planning Commission Chair) was there talk about this agenda item.
Little said he was there to talk about ordinances. As council knows, the ordinance book was compiled, put together, in the early 90s, around 1992. It contains all the guidelines, directives, laws, and statutes concerning things that you can and can’t do in the city. Over this thirty-year period, technology has changed. You can search and put links in a document, and you don’t have to repeat areas a lot of times. We don’t have page numbers. We have certain parts of a document that are contradictory of each other, and we have building codes and various other state statutes that are at odds in certain cases. So, the feeling in the Planning Commission (PC) is that it’s time to do an audit of it and possibly a reengineering of that document to make it easier to use. Little has been using it for three, four, five years on the PC and it’s a mystery to him a lot of times about how to sort his way through it.
Little and the PC spent some time with Carlisle/Wortman, and they’ve done audits for a lot of communities. They represent eighty communities, and their recommendation is that we do a simple audit up front for about $1,000, and that’s why Little is here tonight.
Little said that they put it in the budget this year. He came to the finance committee in March to make sure they had some money to do this. We would then get back sort of a rough outline of the areas that we should concentrate on, the things we can fix, areas of opportunity to do first, and in general, how to reengineer it to make it a better document, and how to reduce it considerably from the approximately three hundred pages that it is today for a town this size.
Little is there to let the council know that’s what they are doing. He thought there needs to be a resolution passed to fund it, and that was all he had unless the council had questions. Little said that he wanted to add one other point. This is a preliminary audit. It will give everyone an idea of what it takes to do the engineering job. It’s like a cost estimate. What we will get back is what it’s going to take to do that, and quite honestly, they think it might take more than a year or two years to do that. We aren’t going to have the money in a given year to do it all at once. It could be as much as $10,000; Little didn’t really know. It could take two, three, four years to get it done, but it’s something that Little would do because it’s very hard to navigate at this point.
Wylie asked if there were questions from council.
Luginski said he didn’t have a question, just a comment. Luginski noted that he’s been on the PC with Little in the past, and being on the council for many years, he agrees 100%. It’s a tough read. War and Peace was pretty easy compared to this. This is something that we’ve talked about doing for years, and for lots of reasons, financial reasons, time reasons, we just never did. And if we never do it, we’ll never do it, so he agrees that it needs to get started.
Avery thanked Little for his service and noted that he’d put in his resignation for the first of the year. Avery appreciates the work that Little has done on the PC for the last five or six years now. Avery said that he didn’t always agree with Little, but he appreciates the things that Little has done. Avery doesn’t have a problem with doing an audit, but he knows that the follow up is $9,000, $10,000 or more. Avery said to him, is it a want versus a need. $10,000 down the road, there’s sidewalks, roads, so many things that we need to get done. If we had extra money, extra funds, he would say let’s update it, let’s get it in better working order. He just feels like we have other needs at this point. We’re not exactly flush with cash. Again, it seems like more of a want than a need.
Luginski said he doesn’t disagree, but the only thing that he would say is that right now, that’s a decision we don’t have to make. We are talking about an audit not to exceed $1,000. We can make that decision down the road after we understand what it is. The ordinance is a mess, and if we fixed it, maybe we wouldn’t have so many issues that come up with the ordinance. Problems. Luginski isn’t saying that we agree to spend $10,000 tonight or whether we are going to do that, but we need to understand what is the problem. If we don’t know what it is, how can we know if we are going to fix it or not. Luginski thinks that audit is something that we should look at, and then we can look at down the road whether we want to do it and do it over a couple of fiscal years. It doesn’t have to be done in one. We talked about spreading it over a couple of years and doing certain sections, where are the most pertinent ones that need to be done first, the most critical ones, we fix those. Luginski doesn’t disagree that there is only so much money to go around, he gets it, but he thinks they should look at it.
Little said that the audit is probably eight or nine hours of total work. That’s how you get to $1,000. Little said that honestly, he thinks it takes a professional to look at it because they are just not trained to know what’s possible, what other cities are doing, what are the best practices or other ways to do things from other municipalities, so that’s the reason they want a planner to help them through this.
Avery said that we are paying Carlisle/Wortman $1,000 because that’s how much it’s going to be. We acknowledge that the ordinances are in rough shape and need to be fixed and streamlined, so why are we paying Carlisle/Wortman $1,000 to tell us that. We are paying them $1,000 to give us an estimate regarding how much it’s going to be to fix it. Little said it’s not only an estimate, it’s what areas are opportunities for us to make a big difference. Avery agreed. Little said that he could tell Avery some things that he would like just because he’s fought through it, but he’s not by any means an expert on what’s possible based on what best practices are today.
Luginski said that one of the things they talked about a few years ago is to make it searchable, make it easy, you go online type in whatever the issue is, lighting, signs, whatever, and you can go to the different sections, and we never got any quotes that Luginski remembers on that. Luginski asked Little if that is something that could be done quickly and easily and relatively inexpensively. Little said he didn’t know.
Avery said he could put it into a PDF searchable format. Luginski agreed, but not online, because (gesturing) it’s this many pages of stuff. Avery said that’s more of a clerical function than something that requires expertise.
An unidentified woman asked if the quote includes looking at digitizing it or is it looking at the content. Little said that part of it is what technology can be applied to make it a better document. Wylie said that $1,000 will not digitize it. Little agreed. It’s just to identify the opportunities. Wylie said that she thought that part of the audit would tell them what it would cost to get it digitized. Little agreed.
Luginski asked if they decided to go forward with it, would the $1,000 go toward the cost of the fees to do it. Little said he could check on it. The point right now is they are going to spend a certain amount of time, eight, nine, ten hours or whatever working their way through it and telling you OK, here’s the twenty-seven paragraphs that you could eliminate, here’s the things you could do, here’s something that technology could do, so when it comes back, we have sort of a scope of work that says this scope of work requires this amount of money which then is either going to make sense to us or not, but at least we have some explanation of what it would take. And maybe some examples from other communities. We did this work for community X, and here’s the improvement that they saw. That’s what Little would expect from them.
Smith said that we would use their experience from other cities to tell us where the big priorities are. Little agreed. This would be a prioritized list that would say, “this sign ordinance is really out of date.” Smith said he’s just making this up. That should be your number one because you have a legal loophole right here that other cities have already encountered, and you should fix that. Smith said that he’s just making an example, but their knowledge of other cities and the law, legal cases they’ve run into, will help us prioritize what things we want to do first, second, third, and fourth, and maybe we only have $2,000 a year to throw at this, and this will tell us here’s where the biggest bang for your $2,000 will get you. That was the thought.
A woman named Amanda asked if the city had looked at other firms. Little said no; Carlisle/Wortman is our ongoing planner that we use. Amanda said she was curious, because she calls Bloomfield Hills all the time, and they have a planner on file that they deal with and who answers all of their questions. Little said he thought that Carlisle/Wortman has been the city’s planner for twenty years or longer. Amanda said that they could start by digitizing and adding clickable links, exporting it to PDF, and making it searchable. Anyone can do that; it’s just setting it up.
Luginski asked what the $1,000 audit would include. Obviously research, it would give us a priority list, here are your top ten problems or however many they find, and prioritized based on their experience and knowledge of what we should do. So, it’s more than just going through and saying yeah, it’s a mess, there would actually be a game plan that comes out of it. A deliverable that we could follow over the next several years and say OK, this section, this section, this section, this year, we’re going to spend $2,500 to do it or whatever. Luginski asked if that is accurate, and what they would agree to deliver to us, and Little agreed.
Smith said that the big difference is they have expertise in other cities. You and I could read the sign ordinance and say that kind of makes sense, what’s wrong with it? They could look at this with entirely different glasses on and say this third paragraph is illegal, or it’s been fought in court, and it will no longer stand up. Just as an example. They could use their expertise to tell us where to really focus our money, and that’s where we need help. Smith said that he and Little can read the ordinances all day long, and not pick up on it – Little said that sometimes they do – Smith continued and said they would not be aware of it. Smith said that’s why they thought they needed to spend the money to get professional help.
Cara Catallo said that if they are our planners, shouldn’t they be doing that anyway? Little said that they don’t do it for free. Catallo said so we don’t pay them to be our planners, they are our planners until we need them. Little said that’s correct. Wylie said that they get paid by the job. Catallo said she would be curious if it should be a case of getting quotes from other planners just to make sure that it’s all along the same lines. It seems odd to her that we are being charged for a quote for work to be done, especially if it’s a day’s work for them.
Catallo asked about an electronic version, can you get to it online? Little said you could. Catallo asked if it could be searched. Little said you can search it, but it’s cumbersome and it doesn’t even have page numbers. Bill Basinger just recently added page numbers, but it hasn’t been published online yet. Catallo thought we could handle that part. Little said that based on what they tell us, we may do that ourselves. Catallo said if it would save the city $1,000 for that part or however much they would charge to do that, she thought that we could handle that much, but she was just curious. Little thanked Catallo.
[See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #3.]
Wylie asked if there was any other discussion or anything else to bring up.
No additional discussion.
Wylie said that this is a resolution. Wylie read the resolution out loud and asked why the date was February 10th. Little said that he asked for a quote earlier this year in order to set it up for the finance committee.
Bonser resolved; Luginski second.
Wylie asked if there was any other discussion.
Directing his question to Smith, Luginski said that it’s being funded by the planner fees budget, and Luginski wanted to know if the $1,000 was already in the budget. Smith said it was, and they got a quick quote before it was budgeted. Luginski said he just wanted to make sure.
Wylie asked if there was anything else.
No further discussion.
Wylie asked for a roll call.
Bonser, Luginski, Wylie, and Casey voted yes. Avery voted no. Resolution approved.
Little thanked the council.
Item 11c – Resignations: Bill Basinger and Rich Little (Video time mark 1:18:07):
-
- 10-05-2021, Subject: ZBA Resignation, William Basinger (page 32/42 of the council packet)
- 10-02-2021, Subject: Rich Little – Planning Commission (page 33/42 of the council packet)
- Chair – Clarkston Planning Commission duties (page 34/42 of the council packet)
Wylie said that there are letters in the packet. There is a letter from Mr. Basinger, and he’s resigning as of October 31st, and one from Mr. Little was just mentioned. Little included the duties, he’s the chair of the PC, and he included his duties as the chair. Luginski (unintelligible) until the end of the year. Wylie said Little will stay until December 31st. Little said that was correct.
Wylie said they don’t have to do anything with that other than they will be looking for – (interrupting Wylie), Ryan said that they had to move to accept them, with regret. Wylie asked if they had to take them one at a time, and Ryan said that they could take them together. Wylie jokingly said that they don’t accept.
Motion to accept the Basinger and Little resignations by Luginski; second Avery.
No discussion.
Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Item 11d – Motion: Main Street Banners Resolution (Video time mark 1:19:45):
-
- Motion – Main Street Banners (page 35/42 of the council packet)
Motion said that Smith could talk about this.
Smith said that the banners over Main Street are something that the city has done for many years. These are between the two telephone poles south of Waldon Road over Main Street. If they’re not familiar with the process, they have a manlift that they have to drive up there. It’s a treacherous task just getting to the location where the banners go up. The machine only moves at five miles per hour, and people are very angry with them by the time they get there because they are three minutes late for wherever they were going. They’ve had people yelling obscenities out the windows, giving them all kinds of hand gestures as you can imagine, so by the time they get there, they are already kind of frustrated. And then they have to get out and stand in the middle of the road as these drivers are going by on both sides. So, Jimi [Turner, DPW supervisor] is up in the lift attaching the banner to the cable, and Carson [Danis, DPW employee] and Smith, because OSHA requires two men on the ground in addition to the person up in the lift, it’s a very dangerous situation. If you’ve never stood in the middle of Main Street while people are angry, they’re frustrated, they are driving quickly trying to get past you, they’ve had people literally burn their tires just as they get past them. They burn their tires to show their frustration. Smith has had cement truck drivers who clearly have cement setting up in their truck, giving them the benefit of the doubt, but they are driving 40-45 miles per hour past them, and that lift only extends about that much higher (gestured) than the top of that cement truck, the hopper on top. If that truck were ever to clip the lift, Jimi is up in the air, he has a harness and is attached to the lift, he would stay with the lift, there’s no question about that, but he probably would be killed in the process. The lift would come tumbling down and on top of him.
It’s a very, very dangerous situation, and Smith thinks if our insurance agent knew we were doing this, they would raise our insurance rates. Having been out there on Main Street, Smith can attest, and he’s not in the lift, he’s standing on the ground, it’s a very, very dangerous situation. Smith is not aware of another municipality that does this on Main Street like this, a state highway.
Smith thinks it’s long overdue. Smith proposed this to Mike Speagle, our previous DPW Director, that it’s time to stop this. Smith proposed this well over a year ago and is just now bringing it to council. After some recent frustrations out there, Smith thinks it’s time, it’s got to stop. Smith’s proposal is if there is an interest in doing this, if people still want banners in Clarkston, we could erect poles on Depot Road. Depot Road would be easy to close. We could completely close it for five minutes, or fifteen minutes, while we put this banner up on these two poles. People could go through the parking lot or wherever, there would be a way to get around them as they are working. That would be a very different situation than being out on Main Street with all the traffic that’s out there.
So, if there is an interest, there is an alternative. Smith didn’t know what the cost of putting the two poles up would be, but there would be an alternative if they think we need to support our local civic groups that use the banner option. Smith thinks that the time has come to stop putting these over Main Street.
Luginski said we charge $200 per sign, and he asked how many we do per year. Smith said it varies, but he would say eight to nine.
Avery asked if there is any reason why we can’t have the Sheriff help us, and he means pulling a car up behind them and putting the flashers on. He thinks that would help the flow of traffic a little better than standing out there with a flag. Smith said no question that would make a difference. They would need two Sheriff officers, one in front and one in back, because they can’t see past the truck and the lift that are in the middle of the road. Speagle said that would be essentially closing the road too, and that’s a different request to MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) than just hanging the banner. Smith said that MDOT wouldn’t allow us to just close the road. Speagle said that we have to ask for approval for anything we do there.
Avery asked why we would have to close the road; we don’t close the road now. Avery said he’s suggesting putting a patrol car in the front and in the back on the same side of the street. Smith said they could ask. Avery said he gets the part where Smith doesn’t want to do it anymore, and he understands. Smith agreed. Speagle said that it’s really in a bad spot, and they’ve all done it. Avery said he saw them out there in the last week or so, and he gets it. Speagle said that it’s not the ideal spot. Avery said it’s a great spot to get the message out. Speagle agreed. Avery thought that putting it on Depot Road would be a waste of time.
Wylie thought they should separate the discussion of the safety of putting it on Main Street and whether there are going to be other banners if we decide to go without it. Wylie said to her, it is a safety issue. She’s seen them out there, and she wouldn’t even want to be standing there in the traffic.
Smith said that he’s bringing it up now and saying make it effective January 1st. The first banner in the spring doesn’t go up until April, but they need to let the civic groups know that they have to seek other forms of advertising. That’s why he’s starting the process now. Smith said that he’s the president of the historical society. The historical society has had a banner that they’ve put up for twenty-plus years and they rely on that for advertising. He didn’t make any friends on the historical society board when he proposed that at this end, but he feels strongly enough that it does need to end for safety reasons.
Wylie said that she would make a motion to discontinue the city’s practice of installing banners over Main Street effective January 1, 2022. That’s the only motion that she’s making. Bonser second.
There was no further discussion.
Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Wyle said that she deliberately did not include the cost estimate in the motion. That’s something that can come up in a later meeting.
Item 11e – Resolution: Depot Park Storm Drain Repair (Video time mark 1:27:35):
-
- Resolution – Depot Road Storm Drain Repair (page 36/42 of the council packet)
- Storm Drain Photo (page 37/42 of the council packet)
- Al’s Asphalt Paving Co. Estimate (page 38/42 of the council packet)
- I.L. Construction, Inc. Estimate (page 39/42 of the council packet)
Wylie said that she thought Smith would discuss.
Smith said that on Depot Road (showing a photo of the storm grate on screen), it’s right out there on Depot Road at the start of the angle parking. This storm grate is settling, it’s breaking down, there’s an old school brick and mortar structure as they call it below this storm drain structure. The bricks are literally caving in on the inside and that’s why the top – as vehicles pull up here, the top is sinking down. At some point, the whole thing could give way and just open up a crater about the size of a manhole cover. It’s in pretty bad shape. Smith had the city engineer come out, they looked at it, they think it needs immediate restoration, and it’s not something we can wait until spring to resolve. They think it needs resolution right now.
HRC (Hubbell, Roth & Clark) helped us with the specifications. They sent it out to two contractors that they are aware of that do this type of work. We got those quotes back, one for $6,775 and one for $10,400. Smith doesn’t see a significant difference between the two that would justify the higher price so he’s recommending the lower bid and something that we would have to do yet this fall at a cost of $6,775 from the road repair and resurfacing budget. It was not something that they budgeted for separately, so that’s why Smith has to take it out of the road budget.
Avery said he would resolve to award the contract to Al’s Asphalt Paving for $6,675; Casey second.
Wylie said that she noticed that both of bids mentioned permits, bonds, inspection fees, layouts, testing, engineering – did Smith have any idea of what those other costs would be, which would apply. Smith said that for a small job like this, they would not apply. Smith said that they would not need a bond for this, we don’t require permits for this, HRC will be overseeing this – Wylie said that’s our engineer – Smith said there are no other fees that would apply to this small job.
Bonser asked if there was a timeframe for when they would do the job. Smith said that’s a very good question. Just like any contractor, they are having trouble getting workers. They know this has to be done before the onset of winter. If Smith lets them know tomorrow, assuming council approves, they would expect it would be at least three to four weeks out.
Bonser asked how much this damages our roads budget. Smith said as they know, the budget was really tight when it was established this year. Last year, with COVID and the parking lot being closed, or paid parking turned off, they had virtually no road budget, so they only put $8,000 aside in the road budget this year for road repaving. In reality, Smith knew that wasn’t going to pave a road, $8,000 isn’t going to pave Church Street, it’s not even close. Smith just wanted to get some repairs done where they might be needed. If a sink hole opened up on some street, it might fund that, but other than that, they didn’t have enough to really pave a road this year. Next year, Smith hopes it will be different with the parking fund filling up as they speak. Next year should be different. To answer the question, with $8,000 to be used (unintelligible). (Bonser’s response was unintelligible.)
Smith said that they’ve talked about a storm drain in the East Alley, behind Society, behind the Village Café, and that still needs to be rebuilt, no question. It’s collapsing too, but not to the degree of this one. Avery asked if that’s a city obligation, and Smith said no, it’s not a city obligation to get out to the sidewalk on Washington hooked up. The city’s share of that is a very small amount. The city would have to coordinate it to make sure that it’s all done properly. Smith said that he guessed he was prioritizing things and saying that can slide down the road a little bit, no pun intended. This can’t slide down the road; this could cave in at any time, and that’s HRC’s comment, not Smith’s.
No further discussion. Wylie asked for a roll call vote.
The roll call vote was unanimous.
Wylie said that the resolution is adopted.
Item 11f – Resolution: DPW Truck Tire Repair (Video time mark 1:33:41):
-
- Resolution – DPW Truck Tire Replacements (page 40/42 of the council packet)
- Suburban Ford of Waterford Invoice (page 41/42 of the council packet)
Wylie said this would be Smith again.
Smith said that council may recall that they replaced the front tires on the small pickup truck last summer knowing that the rear tires still needed replacement. These are the original rear tires. There are 49,000 miles on this truck, and the rear tires are definitely bald in spots, so they could not wait another year. They knew this was coming, so in August, Jimi found that the local Ford dealer had these tires, August/September, they found that the tires were available locally at the Ford dealership. They tried to get a better price, so they called Belle Tire, Discount Tire, and even local repair shops trying to find a better price. These are very unusual tires. They are meant for a Ford 550 medium duty truck. They aren’t something that you would find on a light duty truck. They thought they could find them at Belle Tire, and they may have to special order them, but no, not so true. They don’t do these kinds of tires. They won’t even order them. So, they quickly hit a dead end trying to find other sources and their only option was the Ford dealership. One benefit of going to the Ford dealership, they knew that there was an outstanding recall for the diesel truck exhaust, so they were able to get that done at the same time while it was there.
Smith said that he’s bringing it to council after the fact. The tires are already on the truck. The reason Smith had to act without bringing it to council first, which is not something he likes to do, was because of time. Smith saw a news article on NBC News one morning a couple weeks ago, and they are saying that the supply chain shortages that we are seeing everywhere now, everything from household items to automotive items, they’re saying tires and other things like batteries could become a real shortage and people are going to find that they may have to actually park their car while they wait for these parts to come in. With winter coming and us using that truck for snowplowing, they didn’t think they could wait until another council meeting. Another Ford 550 owner could bring his truck in, snatch those tires off the shelf, and they’d be gone. Smith thought they had to act quickly, buy the tires, get them on the truck, be ready for winter and not lose the chance of missing that window.
Smith authorized Jimi, even at $1,999, even above Smith’s $1,000 emergency spending allowance, Smith felt the need to go on this and so he authorized him to do so. Retroactively, Smith is asking for council’s approval to spend $1,999.65 to purchase truck tires for the Ford 550 truck. Council will recall when Smith sent out an email that was down closer to $1,800, actually down to $17-something. We had to have a super-tech from Ford Motor Company come out because they couldn’t get the wheels off the truck. On a dually truck [dual real wheel truck], it’s not just taking the eight bolts off, it’s getting the wheels off the hub, the axle. There is very little clearance even when the truck is brand new when they put those on and after a five-year-old truck, it’s less than. They couldn’t get those off, and they have to literally get one man under the truck with sledgehammers, more than you need to know, but they had to in tandem hit the opposite sides of the wheel to try to rock it off of the axle.
They could ask why Jimi couldn’t have just taken the wheels off and taken it to have tires put on. They thought about that. We would have saved some money for sure. But Jimi’s getting underneath this, and he said he used to do this in his old job, but he had a lift. If you’re up on a lift, it’s one thing, you’re safe, the vehicle is on the lift. It’s another thing when you’re on jack stands underneath the truck, hitting it with sledgehammers. It just sounded like an accident waiting to happen, so Smith said no, Jimi, we’re not going to do that, we’ve got to take this to the dealership. So, we did, and that drove the cost up a little bit to bring in the super-tech. We have the invoices here, $1,999 is the total.
Avery made a motion to retroactively approve the payment of $1,999.65 for the rear tires for the city truck. Second Bonser.
Wylie asked if there was any discussion.
Avery said that it seems to him, and someone can correct him if he’s wrong, that if we have a budget for maintenance and you haven’t spent all the money that’s been budgeted, why do you need to come to us to do the maintenance, to spend money on maintenance. Smith asked if Pardee was still on the phone (laughter). Smith said that he knows that Pardee would be anxious to answer this one. The Uniform Budgeting Act states that just because you have a budget doesn’t mean you can spend it. You have to bring a proposal to council with where the monies are going to come from and why, and they still have to approve the expenditure of monies, even if Smith has a budget, which he did in this case.
Avery asked why Smith doesn’t come before them every week, or maybe he does in the consent [agenda]. Smith said he does come to council over the course of a year.
Avery asked about payments for people’s paychecks and that sort of thing. Every time Smith spends more than $500 or $1,000, Smith isn’t asking the council to approve it because it’s budgeted. Smith said that Avery was right, not for payroll. But for purchases, he has to come to council for anything over $500 for approval to spend it even though it’s in the budget.
Luginski said these tires, they’ve got to have them, he has no problem spending $1,900 on these tires to get it done, the only question he would ask is if we knew this in the summer, August/September, why didn’t Smith come to the council three, four, five meetings ago to ask for this instead of having to do it this way, which then sends a message that we don’t do it, do you know what I’m saying? Follow protocol, come to us and say, hey, we’re going to need tires, they’re bad, we’re probably going to have to do it before winter, and ballpark budget for this is $2,000. Instead of doing it and then approving it after the fact. Luginski said that’s his only question. He has no problem doing it, it’s just the way that (unintelligible). Smith said as he’s tried to lay out here on the story, that’s why. They knew that they had to do this, they started looking at it in the summer, August. Jimi was looking at this. Then they found that they couldn’t find them anywhere else other than the Ford dealership. Then, on October 12th, seeing the news story, that’s when the (unintelligible) came to light. Smith said he can’t wait until November to do this; he needs to do this by today. So, yes, it’s a combination of things. Should they have started on this July 1 when the budget was approved? Maybe they should have. Smith and Jimi are certainly taking notes on this to do things differently if something like this comes up again.
Wylie wanted to know how much was originally in the budget for this work, Pickup Truck Materials and Outside Labor. Smith said that there are probably three or four different accounts that would cover truck maintenance, whether it’s done inside, in-house, or outside material and labor. When we take this in total that line item will go negative, but the department overall will still be very much covered. Wylie said OK, because she doesn’t see that much money in there now. Smith said on a simple line item, you won’t. He could split it up. This question comes up often. Smith said that that this is additional information. When he brings a proposal, he could bring it with ten different accounts listed, we’re going to take $10 from here, $20 from here, $50 from here. He could do that, but what that doesn’t tell him at the end of the year is the story. What he likes, when they go into the budget process, Luginski knows this, and Avery knows this, they see year over year, when they’re looking over the last three years, they are looking at trends. They see $1,900, what was that for. In 2021, what did they spend two grand for that drove this spike increase. That’s what tells them what kind of flags that may be in the future they may need to be budgeting differently. So, Smith likes having it where it actually came out of rather than splitting up the baby into twenty different categories which wouldn’t have drawn any negatives at all but wouldn’t have told the story. Wylie thanked Smith.
Wylie asked if there was any other discussion on this resolution from Avery and seconded by Bonser. No additional discussion.
Roll call vote was unanimous.
Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:44:58):
Motion to adjourn by Luginski; second Avery.
Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.
Resources:
-
- Link to video recording:
http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3598?channel=2 - 10-25-2021 City Council packet
- Link to video recording:
Comment #1:
When Fuller first spoke on October 11, 2021, before telling stories about the Clarkston of days gone by, he told us that he was a public-school educator for thirty-five years, is now retired, and said that there’s a lot more to share about his career if anyone was interested. Since it’s unlikely that Fuller was overwhelmed by voters clamoring to hear more about his pre-retirement activities, a more likely explanation for Fuller’s prepared October 25th “resume” speech was that Haven directed him to provide more background information – so of course he did. Fuller also admitted to taking direction from Haven at the October 11th meeting, telling us that he’d made an external contact that Haven had instructed him to make.
Angelini, McLean, and Moore ran on a platform of inclusiveness, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and equality of treatment. Fuller, and later Rodgers, took their last opportunity to speak to voters – mostly about themselves. I honestly believe that the reason that both candidates lacked any platform was because they had clearly given zero thought to running for city council before being approached by Haven, and neither of them had any qualms about accepting Haven’s inappropriate use of taxpayer-funded resources to boost their campaigns. So, no one should be shocked if they overlook other questionable things that Haven does or vote in lockstep with Haven on important issues – it is, after all, the only reason why either of them are there to begin with.
Comment #2:
I was wondering where I’d heard Rodgers’ speech before, and sure enough, it turns out that it was simply a dramatic reading of large portions of Rodgers’ Letter to the Editor published in the October 27, 2021 Clarkston News. The Letter to the Editor claimed that there was “research done at the State of Michigan level by the city clerk” to support her candidacy. At the dramatic reading on October 25th, this point was exaggerated to become “A LOT of research done at the Michigan state level by the city clerk.” (My emphasis.)
Would you like to know how this newly elected city council member defines “a lot of research”? Here is what the city clerk said in an email, and she didn’t add much more when Agenda Item #10 was discussed:
“Confirmation was all verbal. I called the State of Michigan Elections Division and spoke with Charmya. I explained the complete situation to her, and she stated Laura Rodgers has been a registered voter since 2018 her driver’s license states that 58 N Main St is her address, all of her mail is sent to that address and more importantly her personal effects are located at 58 N Main St and once renovations are complete she will be living back at that address.”
The most important fact to Charmya was that Rodgers’ personal effects are located at 58 North Main Street. But are they? Before jumping onto Haven’s bandwagon, Rodgers was crystal clear that in September 2020, both she and her possessions moved out of her home on Main Street, and she’s repeatedly stated that she has been just “visiting” for the purpose of viewing the construction progress (and apparently picking up her mail). She wrote about her home renovations quite extensively on her blog. In her Letter to the Editor, Rodgers admitted that her home was still uninhabitable fourteen months after she moved out. This notion of “splitting time” between Clarkston and her childrens’ homes (apparently located outside of Clarkston) is a newly invented term, and you can tell by reading her blog entries that it was deceptively created for campaign purposes (that I’ve highlighted and linked to here):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/71ti7xqwyanvkx3/Laura%20Rodgers%2C%20pertinent%20blog%20entries.pdf?dl=0
And, as of November 18th, she still hadn’t moved in, though she did include a picture of a couch hanging from the ceiling on her blog:
https://www.lifeonmainst.com/post/the-weekend-is-almost-here.
Since Rodgers likes learning new legal terms, let me give her another one. Lawyers would refer to her blog statements as “admissions against interest” – because she made them before she had a reason to call her brief construction progress visits to Clarkston “splitting time.” At the October 25th city council meeting, Rodgers also described herself as “fully qualified” to run for city council. Setting aside the unresolved legal question about her residency for a moment, the answer is “perhaps” – but only if you believe that honesty and candor are NOT important qualities for a city official to have.
Comment #3:
To Catallo’s point, Clarkston already has someone who should have been paying attention to the obvious issues that have arisen over the last several years. Our city attorney is now present at every city council meeting, as opposed to attending only one of the two monthly council meetings, which was the practice for years. To the best of my recollection, this doubling of legal fees to sit through meetings started when Haven became mayor (because Haven believes that we have endless taxpayer dollars to pay for things).
I don’t think it was an accident that Smith just happened to use the sign ordinance as a repeated example of something that should have been changed a long time ago. The United States Supreme Court decided Reed v Gilbert on June 18, 2015. Reed was a sign ordinance case, and the court held that the government can’t regulate signs based on their content. Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, Clarkston continues to do just that. The city manager reminds everyone of this when he admonishes residents that they must follow the special rule regarding “political signs” before and after each election. You can’t know that a sign is “political” unless you look at the content of the sign.
A fact sheet from the Michigan Municipal League, published FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO, provides a brief description of the Reed v Gilbert case as well as some suggestions for municipalities. I’ve linked to it here:
https://www.mml.org/resources/publications/one_pagers/FS%20Reed%20v%20Gilbert.pdf
Our city attorney discussed “a recent Supreme Court decision” during a city council meeting for one of his other clients, the Village of Beverly Hills, ON AUGUST 18, 2015 in the context of the changes that city was making to its sign ordinance. I’ve linked to the August 18, 2015 minutes from the Village of Beverly Hills here, and you can find the reference under “Second Reading and Possible Adoption of Ordinance #354 Amending Chapter 22.32 Signs of the Municipal Code”:
https://www.villagebeverlyhills.com/document_center/Government/Village%20Council%20Minutes/2015/CM-2015-08-18.pdf
Clearly, the city attorney has been aware of the Reed v Gilbert case for a long time – as he should be – but he has provided zero guidance to Clarkston.
This is not a small issue. First Amendment violations don’t require any city action, such as a ticket, before a suit can be filed. Anyone, at any time, could have filed a lawsuit against the city since the Reed v Gilbert case was decided in 2015. I’m aware that the city council has been warned on at least one occasion that the current sign ordinance is unconstitutional because my husband warned them, in writing, and I’m pretty sure that there have been other warnings that have all been disregarded by the city.
So now we’re paying someone to “audit” our zoning ordinance. This is a good start, but one must fairly ask – where has the city attorney been for the last six years? What’s the point of paying him hundreds of dollars to sit through city council meetings if he’s not proactively providing advice regarding issues that should be obvious to any municipal attorney?
And, since the city council didn’t seem to be aware of what is available before voting to pay for an audit of the zoning ordinance, let me help. You can find the ordinance here:
http://villageofclarkston.org/DocumentCenter/View/548/Zoning-Ordinance-
Since this 304-page document is on the city’s website, it’s obviously been digitized. FYI, if you press your computer’s “control” key (abbreviated “Ctrl”) and the “F” key on your computer, it will bring up a search box. From there, you can type in any search term your heart desires. And now you know more than most of the the city council does about the zoning ordinance.
The council passed a resolution, probably between 2005 and 2009, to limit the city attorney attendance at council meetings to once a month, unless requested. The goal at that time was to further reduce it to only by request, as is commonly done in other municipalities. The reasons were to reduce expenses as it costs about $300 per meeting for his attendance, and to allow for preparation of legal questions versus the usual random question and answer that are rarely documented. I know of no action by the council to countermand the previous resolution, so this is undoubtedly another action by the city manager that the council silently accepts and pays for. Since council resolutions have never been organized and provided in accordance with charter requirements, and are currently not part of the official meeting minutes, it is difficult, if not impossible to know what the city council has officially approved, accepted by default, or just allowed to happen because they don’t know any better.
The current comments about the city’s Zoning Ordinance are at best confusing and often incorrect. The online version is dated January 2016. That is 5 years old, not 30.
The Village/City has had a Zoning Ordinance since somewhere around 1915, possibly earlier. It has been reviewed and amended many times.
The document does have page numbers consisting of the chapter number and page within that chapter. It is word searchable as a PDF file. I do it all the time.
The Mayor, and others, often cite zoning as a primary purpose of the city but no direction has been provided for this “audit”, only to look at other municipalities. While a good idea, city officials have often stated that the Village of Clarkston is unique, and whenever other cities are mentioned, the standard response is that we don’t want to be like them. FYI, the current base version of the Zoning Ordinance was adapted from that of Swartz Creek.
Yes, it does need simplifying and better organizing. Yes, it does have requirements that are contradictory, confusing, and some that are unconstitutional. That has been known and stated for years but little action taken. The fact that that a long term member of the Planning Commission and another member who has also been the Mayor and council member are saying they are confused by the ordinance is more of a statement about their competence to be in their position than anything else.
I expect little positive results from this action as there seems to be no direction as to what is desired. Something newer and shorter? Something that is understandable by those with little or no experience and training? If they just want it simple, as professed with the current proposal for residential review, they can simply eliminate all requirements and review, but I doubt that is what they want. So exactly what is the audit for and if the city has no funds to implement whatever changes are recommended, does it really serve any purpose?
The city manager was highly disrespectful to the tenant who complained about asbestos falling out of his bathroom ceiling, black mold, the need to join an athletic club to have a place to take a shower, and the lack of any effective city enforcement of the building code for months. The city manager’s solution was to tell the tenant he should just move, like it was the tenant’s fault he had to put up with this and put up with the city’s failure to take any enforcement action. The city manager asks the tenant why he is living there. He says the tenant “has some obligation of his own to look after his own health.” Arrogant and condescending comments from someone who is not doing his job and not assuring that the building inspector is doing his job. And there appears to be no sentiment on the council to inquire why the building inspector isn’t dealing effectively with this and why we are paying a building inspector who isn’t doing his job. Their solution, recommended by the city attorney: wait another two weeks and see what happens.
The discussion about auditing the zoning ordinance shows neither the planning commission chair nor the council members understand what the city already has and what the audit proposal (included in the council packet) covers. The commission chair talks about an “ordinance book,” which was something that used to exist and was replaced by adoption of a code of ordinances a few years ago. What he’s really talking about is the zoning ordinance, which is posted on the city web site and is the actual subject of the resolution presented to the council. There is much discussion about making the ordinance searchable, putting it into pdf format, putting it online, digitizing it, and adding page numbers. Apparently none of them bothered to look at what is already there, which is a searchable pdf file, with page numbers. So they’re discussing something that is unnecessary. And that is not within the scope of the proposal, which they apparently didn’t look at either. It appears none of them knew what they were voting on, knew what the city already has, and what subjects the proposal covered. All except one voted yes anyway.