August 24, 2020 City Council Meeting (held virtually)

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

Meeting:

City Manager Jonathan Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the rules for virtual meetings as they were presented on screen.

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:01:17):

Meeting called to order by Haven.

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:21):

Pledge of Allegiance said.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:01:43):

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie were present.

Agenda Item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:02:11):

Motion to approve agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:03:09):

Chet Pardee:

• • Thanked Clerk Jennifer Speagle for restoring council meeting documents prior to 2018 to the city’s website so that they are available to the public again. Pardee became aware that they’d been removed in March 2020, emailed Speagle and Smith, and was told that it wasn’t intentional. On August 10^th, Pardee asked Speagle to work with CivicPlus to restore the records. The city’s commitment to transparency is understandably being questioned, and Pardee wanted to know how the information would be protected in the future.
  • The Michigan Supreme Court determined that City Attorney Tom Ryan was a public body and he should have provided the records requested in the June 7, 2015 FOIA. After the council’s closed meeting, Wylie was the only council member who voted for transparency. The mayor and other council members voted to delay releasing the 18 documents and to support overturning the court’s decision. Why the 18 documents were withheld is relevant to Clarkston citizens who value transparency. Pardee provided a list of the 18 withheld documents to the council.

Haven thanked Pardee for his comments.

Smith said that Cory and Robyn Johnston submitted public comments in writing, and Smith read them aloud. Johnston asked that the council consider using the $57,165 capture of the taxpayer funds from the SAD [Special Assessment District] to pay down the loan taken from the sewer fund to finance the city hall expansion. This benefits the taxpayers by reducing debt while increasing the sewer fund that will be depleted by the city’s cost for rebuilding the Oakland/Macomb Interceptor. While the signs may be nice to have, they’re certainly not a need to have at this time.

No additional public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:08:04):

No items.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:08:11; page 4/65 of the council packet):

Wylie noted that Smith said that he was thankful to the city engineer (Hubbell, Roth & Clark) and the contractor for the city hall driveway. Wylie wanted to know if the $50,000 cost to put in the driveway and parking spaces included the engineering costs from Hubbell, Roth & Clark. Smith said no, that would be billed separately. The $50,000 was specifically for the scope of the work. Wylie asked how much the engineering costs would be. Smith said he didn’t know, but he’s working with them so there are no big surprises. If it’s less than $1,000, he doesn’t ask for advance detail. There were quite a few surveys that had to be checked and rechecked in a hurry before the concrete was poured to have the proper pitch and elevation, but Smith hasn’t seen them yet.

Wylie noted that Smith thanked Jimi Turner [DPW employee] for his work. Wylie wanted to know if the work was done on overtime because she saw Turner doing some clearing on a Sunday. Smith said that there was a minimal amount overtime, less than six hours, but that was only because grass mowing and general maintenance in the city prevented completion of everything that needed to be done in advance of the contractor beginning work.

Wylie asked if Smith had any luck finding other DPW people. Smith said that he hasn’t received a single response in two months. If any council member is aware of anyone looking for a job, please let Smith know. Turner is going to help the city search.

No further comments.

Agenda Item #8, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda As Presented (Video time mark 0:11:58)

• • 07/27/2020 – Final Minutes (page 5/65 of the council packet)
  • 08/04/2020 – Final Minutes (page 7/65 of the council packet)
  • 08/10/2020 – Draft Minutes (page 9/65 of the council packet)
  • Treasurer’s Report, Dated 08/24/2020, as of 07/31/2020 (page 11/65 of the council packet)
  • Revenue and Expenditure Report for the Period Ending 07/31/2020 (page 12/65 of the council packet)

Wylie said that she had a related item that was not on the consent agenda. She wanted to know if Speagle was ever able to attach the resolution regarding Church Street to the July 23^rd meeting minutes, and Speagle confirmed that she had done so.

The motion to accept the consent agenda passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business

Item 9a, Presentation: Oakland Macomb Interceptor; Power Point Presentation on the Oakland Macomb Interceptor presented by Independence Township DPW Director Dave McKee (Video time mark 0:13:19)

• • Power Point Slides, “Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain (OMID) Extension and Improvement Project” (page 23/65 of the council packet)

Dave McKee provided background for the Oakland-Macomb Interceptor Drain.

This is a combination of two major sewage drains for Oakland and Macomb counties. The Clinton/Oakland system is comprised of several communities, including Independence Township and the City of the Village of Clarkston. All of our sewage ends up in the Clinton/Oakland drain and moves east where it meets Macomb County at which point it becomes the Oakland/Macomb Interceptor Drain. These drains serve 830,000 people in southeastern Michigan. The sewage is collected into a major pipe that goes south to the northeast pump station which was previously run by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. It’s in very bad shape, and we can’t have a failure of this pump station. We need to improve the pump station and seven miles of drain that goes into the City of Detroit wastewater treatment plant that runs into the Great Lakes Water Authority.

On June 17, 2020, the Oakland/Macomb Interceptor Drain Board approved an assessment roll for $84 million in improvements. The total bond will be $100 million, but for now, we are only discussing $84 million in improvements.

The map indicates how the costs are split between the counties. All the customers in Clinton/Oakland are responsible for 33.1% of the cost ($27,513,429), and Macomb is responsible for 66.9%. Independence Township, which includes the City of the Village of Clarkston, is responsible for 2.4213% of the $27,513,429.

The assessment shocked everyone because it’s a lot of money. Some communities were hit very hard. For example, Sterling Heights is responsible for over $17,000,000.

The work has to be done. All communities that are part of the Clinton/Oakland and Macomb County systems signed agreements that all costs would be common to all, and the costs are spread out proportionately based on usage. Independence Township is responsible for 2.4213% of the $84,000,000, and the only way to charge this is through REU [residential equivalency units] which is how we bill for sewage. The city of the Village of Clarkston is responsible for 4.915% of the $2,513,429 (or $98,921.06). The Independence Township Board approved prepayment of the full amount because they have the cash reserves, and this will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest.

The amount is set by the Oakland/Macomb Drainage Board members. We don’t have a say in it, we can’t negotiate, and the work needs to be done because things are in bad shape. There are 2,000 horsepower electric pumps that pump the sewage, the piping coming out of the station is seven miles long and sixty feet deep, and there are some sections that are seven feet in diameter. The pipe is bad, and we don’t want it to collapse.

Haven said that even though the City of the Village of Clarkston is a small participant, this is a significant amount of money. Where can we learn more about what might happen in the future so that there aren’t surprises? Who is overseeing the health of the system, and is there a possibility for requests like this in the future?

McKee said that in this instance, the Water Resources Commissioner for Oakland county is going to operate this station, and he is in charge of rehabilitation and enforcement of the project. The Oakland County bond rating is so much better than the Detroit Water and Sewerage department, so there’s a savings built in there. There are good people at the Water Resources Commission and it’s better that they are managing this. The Oakland/Macomb Drainage Board will ultimately oversee this project, and the funding is coming from the communities within one big giant district. There will be another $12,000,000 bond coming, which is the balance of the $100,000,000.

The Water Resources Commission has quarterly meetings. They believe that there will be another charge in early 2021 with the remainder in late 2021. Oakland/Macomb customers would be responsible for 33% of that, and it would be similarly allocated. It might be $100,000 or $20,000; it depends on how much they get of the remaining $12,000,000.

They are always looking at future projects and being proactive. The Water Resources Commission is good, but we pay for it. We knew that this was coming but didn’t know when. There are a lot of agreements – the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, Great Lakes Water Authority, and Clinton/Oakland and Macomb County customers – so the oversight is pretty good, but any project they come up with will be big money.

Haven said that we need to learn with McKee. We have to plan. We would rather pay now than later. We are late on this one, but the region is too. We want to face reality and be informed.

McKee said that they have quarterly meetings, and all the project updates are there. We are aware of what is coming, what is projected, what we are going to do in 2021, what the cost estimates are, and whether it will be paid through reserves or another bond issue. It is a living document, and they are trying to focus on the timeline – what they want to do, how they want to do it, and how they will pay for it. When is the key – they have a schedule, but it’s been changed many times and we can’t pin it down. They would be happy to have someone from the City of the Village of Clarkston sit in on the next quarterly meeting.

Haven said he would love to go. We have reserves to offset things like this, but we need to make sure our reserves are healthy and prepared. It’s out of our control because we are downstream from the process. He would like to get more upstream in terms of doing the budget so that we can be wise about these things.

Smith said that Ryan brought up verifying the REU counts that are the basis for the formula in the last meeting. He’s talked with Hubbell, Roth & Clark and verified that the number of REUs on the slide (4.915%) is correct. Treasurer Greg Coté gave Smith the current sewer fund balance, which is $127,000, but it fluctuates over time as we receive money from people for their sewer bills and pay Independence Township what we owe to them.

This is just a discussion item tonight; we hope to make a decision at the next meeting. Smith said that Coté is not comfortable taking the $98,921 out of the sewer fund because we could bounce a check that we wrote to Independence Township for a sewer bill. At the last council meeting, we talked about the way that the construction loan was funded – $200,000 from the water fund and $100,000 from the sewer fund for a total of $300,000. We may need to move all of the $100,000 that is owed to the sewer fund to the water fund, which would mean that all $300,000 from the construction fund would come from the water fund. This would replenish the sewer fund so we could comfortably pay the $98,921. Smith will recap this in the next meeting as we prepare a resolution, but he hoped that McKee’s input tonight would give the council the information that they need to be able to vote on a resolution at the next meeting.

Haven asked if our auditor Rana [Rana Emmons from PSLZ CPAs], Hubbell, Roth & Clark, or Ryan would be good to have? Smith said all of the above were possible.

McKee suggested that we make sure that it’s OK to move the money between the water and sewer funds, and Smith said he would talk with Emmons about that.

Haven thanked McKee for coming and for helping us plan for the future.

McKee said that the quarterly meetings are virtual. Haven and Smith said they would like to go. McKee said that they are very thorough meetings. They use Basecamp for presentations, quarterly meetings, and notifications. McKee can get us on the list so that we are notified about everything that the County and the Water Resources Commission are doing. Smith said that would be good. We need this information as we do our Capital Improvement Plan so we know about big expenses that are coming our way.

Item 9b, Discussion: Short-Term Rentals; Update from Michigan Supreme Court (Video time mark 0:34:05)

• • 08/18/2020 Memorandum from Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., Subject: “Short Term Rentals – Report on Supreme Court Decision June 5, 2020, Reaume v Township of Spring Lake” (page 27/65 of the council packet)
  • 06/05/2020 Supreme Court Order, Susan Reaume v Township of Spring Lake (page 30/65 of the council packet)

This started months ago and was curtailed by the virus. We were also waiting for the Michigan Supreme Court to make some decisions. Ryan has given us a report. It appears that we have the authority to govern short-term rentals, and Ryan suggested that there are three ways to look at this: 1. Set up regulations that allow short-term rentals; 2. Prepare an ordinance that prohibits short-term rentals; or 3. Deal with the rental property in general in the city if the council wants to pass some sort of a rental registration ordinance. Haven asked Ryan if he wanted to comment further.

Ryan said he was just trying to get the information to council. We were waiting for the court’s decision, and it gives the community the authority to regulate short-term rentals in single family neighborhoods. It’s up to the city council at this point to decide whether to regulate or prohibit these types of uses.

Wylie said that there have been some discussions about grandfathering current short-term rentals, but it appears that is not correct. Ryan said that wasn’t correct.

Bonser said that this is something that is near and dear to his heart because his property was an Airbnb before they started doing construction. He’s new to the council and wants to make sure there is time to present a case when it gets to that point.

Wylie said that the Planning Commission stopped working on this because they were waiting for the legal opinion and to see what council wanted to do. Unless the council decides to do something else, this will probably go back to the Planning Commission which will give opportunities for public input.

Haven said that we had a hearing and had people come and present to us. He wanted to know what the Planning Commission has done. Wylie said that the Planning Commission asked for more direction, and Ryan said that the Michigan Supreme Court case would hopefully answer the question. The Planning Commission can propose regulations if we choose to go that way.

Haven said that this is only a discussion item this evening, and Haven and Wylie can speak with Rich Little [Planning Commission Chair] about next steps. That would give more opportunity for hearings. Wylie agreed and thought that this was unfinished Planning Commission business. She will try to get it on the Planning Commission agenda again. Haven said that there was no rush; we need to move it along and make a decision in the near future.

Pardee asked how many short-term rentals there are in the city. Wylie wasn’t sure, Luginski thought there were three or four, Smith was aware of two, and Speagle said there were officially two along with Bonser’s home before they moved in. Wylie said that there are several companies that advertise short-term rentals, and a lot of them say they are in Clarkston but they are not.

Haven asked if anyone had any objection asking the Planning Commission for input. Luginski thought that was the right way to go. We talked about this months ago – not allowing it or allowing it with or without regulation. Different cities have different restrictions, some requiring permits and certification, and some based on the size of the city and the number of homes. Can anyone do this, or would we allow a certain number based on population or number of homes?

Haven said that we should refer it to the Planning Commission so that we can be more informed. Avery said that if this is sent to the Planning Commission with no direction as we did before, they will come back and say that they weren’t told what to do. Avery said that as he reads Ryan’s memo, they aren’t allowed today; Ryan agreed. Avery asked if there was anything that we needed to do other than enforce what’s not allowed – do we have to go through the process of coming up with an ordinance? It didn’t appear that was necessary. Ryan said that it’s up to the council to enforce the ordinance as it exists; the use of short-term rentals doesn’t exist in the ordinance.

Haven asked what the ordinance says, and Ryan said the ordinance doesn’t mention that use. The court’s decision said that an R1 ordinance that doesn’t speak to short-term rentals doesn’t allow such a use. This is the most intense single-family use in a community.

Haven said we need more discussion and would like to move this along to get a decision from council. He will have a discussion with Little, Wylie, and Smith. Ryan recommended that they talk with Carlisle [Carlisle Wortman] if it goes back to the Planning Commission. Haven thought that was a good point.

Item 9c, Resolution: City Sign Project Funding (Video time mark: 0:45:14)

• • “Resolution – City Sign Project Funding” (page 33/65 of the council packet)
  • 12/09/2019 Final Minutes (page 34/65 of the council packet)
  • 11/28/2019 quote from ASI Signage Innovations (page 36/65 of the council packet)

Haven said that we’ve seen this for quite some time, and there is a lot of information in the packet about this. It’s a question of timing. Johnston recommended that we apply the $57,000 that we have from our retiring SAD to pay down the building debt. Pardee agreed with Johnston and had an emphasis on roads. Haven had mixed emotions.

Haven said that we have a need for signs in our city because the existing signs are showing the signs of age. This would add a great visual at a time when we are trying to attract businesses and make Clarkston appealing to support them. The sign project would take $33,000 from the SAD and leave $24,000. He suggested that we go ahead with the signage and use the remaining money on other things, such as the clock, infrastructure, or paying down debt. This would give a morale boost to the city while using part of the money to pay expense and debt.

Bonser wanted to know if this was what Johnston was referring to, and Haven said yes. Bonser wanted to know if there are examples of what the signs look like. Haven said that the signs are discussed in the packet, and they saw an example of something that had been prepared by ASI Sign Systems who was the bidder. They really sharpened their pencils and gave us a good price, but we don’t know how long that bid is sustainable. The signs will keep with the look and feel of our community, and Haven would like to bring us up to speed. Haven is very pleased with the look of the product.

Wylie said that the signs were beautiful, and the bid was great, but times have changed considering the pandemic, property taxes in the future, what’s going to happen with the city’s finances, how much we are getting from the state, the sewer assessment, the Bisio lawsuit, and the fact that we just paid $50,000 for a driveway and parking lot at city hall. The signs are beautiful, but this is a want, not a need. We need to save our money for something that we need to do.

Avery said he couldn’t have said it better. The signs are beautiful, it’s a great job and a great price, and he would vote for them at another time. He is going to vote no for the reasons that Wylie outlined – the sewer, the driveway that cost more than anticipated, and the water and sewer things that could practically drain our sewer fund. This is a little too much to pay for signs that we want but really don’t need.

Bonser said he was trying to understand where the money came from. Smith said that the proposal was to use the windfall refund that we obtained from the two SAD accounts that were closed out last year that gave us a surplus balance of about $57,000. This money went into our general fund and can be used for anything. When we brought this proposal forward, we said we would like to do something uplifting and positive for the residents and could use the money for something like signage which is visible. The city hall driveway fund is coming out of the construction and parking funds; this money is not coming out of the fund balance. Wylie’s point is still valid, because it does take away funds whether they are in the budget or not, but Smith wanted to clarify that.

Wylie appreciated the clarification, but as things have progressed, we need the SAD money for other things. We may need to put it back into the sewer fund, use it to pay the sewer assessment, or pay for something in the lawsuit. Now is not the time, and it breaks her heart to know that she has to vote against it.

Luginski wanted to know how much was in the fund balance. Smith thought that we were at about 16%. We completed the 2019-2020 fiscal year with a 33% fund balance. Our ordinance requires that we have at least 16% or two months of coverage.

Pardee thought that when Smith proposed the constrained budget that he was proposing to take around $20,000 out of the fund balance, which would take it down to the 16.7% minimum. If we had to pay $300,000 toward the lawsuit, where would it come from? No capital projects, a small amount from the fund balance to take it to 16.7%, and laying off employees for $48,000-$49,000. Pardee didn’t think that the budget has a big surplus and believed that it was $20,000 over the 16.7% minimum. Smith said that in coming up with $300,000 in the hypothetical, there was approximately $198,000 in the capital improvement budget that we haven’t spent because of this. The driveway didn’t come out of that and the sign project wouldn’t come out of that. Beyond that amount, we could tap into any excess in the fund balance and could do staff layoffs.

Pardee said he was concerned because he thought we made a commitment to the State of Michigan regarding road maintenance, requiring $80-$100,000 of spending each year. We haven’t spent any money in the calendar year, there are only a couple of months left in the construction year, and he hasn’t heard about any proposals for hot rubber crack fill and fixing roads. He also had a concern about how the raw edges of the new Miller Road paving are exposed on the south side.

Smith said that the RAMP [Road Asset Management Plan] report filed with the state is a projection, not a commitment. We want to show the state that we are keeping up with deteriorating roads. Whether we can afford to do it is another thing, and Michigan isn’t going to hold us to it because it’s understood that it’s a projection. We are not slamming on the brakes but are holding off spending because of the legal fees owed. The second thing that is contributing to this is COVID because road construction is backed up and they are trying to catch up on projects. Even if we had the funds, it’s unlikely that we will hear from the road commission this year. Smith is trying to piggyback on one of the road commission projects this year.

Pardee said that the discussion that we’ve had in the past is that we ought to be doing rubber crack fill every season. We did it in 2018 and have had the winter of 2018, 2019, we are now into 2020. We should not be spending $57,000 on signs and other things. City officials need to discuss whether in fact there are priorities.

Haven said that Pardee’s point was well-taken, but the sign project is $33,000, not $57,000. That’s why they came up with a hybrid proposal relative to this resolution.

Casey said that the middle ground is that there is a windfall of $57,000 and the signs are going to cost half of that. The signs will significantly improve the look of the city, it’s not a tremendous amount of money, and we are better going forward using half the money for the signs and half for something else. Haven said it was a $57,000 overall windfall from the SAD, $33,000 for the signs, with a balance of $24,000 for other needs that have been discussed.

Kniesc said that he was hearing a lot of varying input. Perhaps the council could postpone and table this until the unknowns come into the light. Haven said that if Kniesc wanted to pursue that, he should vote no.

Haven, Luginski, Bonser, and Casey voted yes. Avery, Wylie, and Kniesc voted no. Motion carried.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a, Motion: Andrew Herrmann Eagle Scout Project; Bat Houses for Depot Park (Video time mark: 1:06:03)

• • “Bat Houses for Depot Park, Andrew Herrmann, Boy Scout Troop 189, Eagle Project” (page 45/65 of the council packet)

Haven introduced Andrew Herrmann who is proposing an Eagle Scout project to build bat houses in Depot Park and for residents who may want them. His sister Emily did a tremendous project that provided the musical instruments that we have in Depot Park. The family is achievement-oriented and Andrew is demonstrating this as well. Haven noted that Herrmann also gave a presentation to the Friends of Depot Park.

Herrmann thanked the council for having him. He’s a junior at Clarkston High School and this is his Eagle Scout project. Bats help the environment and provide natural pest control and pollination. Bat houses are an inexpensive way to help bats because they mimic the natural environment and protect the bats from predators. If installed correctly, they provide the perfect temperature and humidity. Depot Park will benefit with more bats living there because they will decrease the mosquito population and make the park more comfortable, especially during evening events.

Herrmann described how the bat houses are constructed and what materials are used. His goal is to build the bat houses over the winter and install them in the spring. The Eagle Scout Council has advised him that he needs to build a minimum of ten bat houses for the project. He provided a map with suggested locations, including a few that could be held for after the boardwalk is constructed in the wetlands area. If ten are too many bat houses for Depot Park, Herrmann suggested that some Mill Pond residents may want some to reduce the mosquito population in the wetlands area.

Wylie hoped that Herrmann had another sibling in Scouts. She has a bat house, thinks they are terrific, and this is a wonderful project.

Haven thought Herrmann could move a lot of these if he went into manufacturing and marketing.

Bonser wondered where they would be located because it sounded like they had to be placed very high up – 12’-20’ off the ground. Would Herrmann have to climb a ladder? Herrmann said that it can be between 12’ and 20’. Smith offered the use of the lift. Herrmann could put on a safety harness as a passenger with the DPW manger driving.

Wylie thought that was a great idea and asked if the bat houses needed to face in any particular direction. Herrmann didn’t think so.

Motion passed unanimously.

Haven congratulated Herrmann and said he was looking forward to working with him. He thanked Herrmann for bringing this to our town; it will be an asset. Herrmann said he would keep the city updated with things that come up.

Item 10b, Discussion: Plan for Returning to In-Person Meetings (Video time mark: 1:15:09)

• • 08/18/2020 Memorandum from Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., Subject: “Discussion of Resumption of In-Person City of the Village of Clarkston Public Meetings” (page 57/65 of the council packet)

Ryan wrote a memo about returning to in-person meetings. We can go ahead as long as we don’t exceed ten people. It’s on the agenda for discussion.

Luginski said that everyone has their own level of comfort on this and there is no mandate that any person needs to be there. It would be nice if we could go back to face-to-face meetings, and the people on the Historic District Commission have expressed a willingness to do this as well. We would limit it to ten persons, practice distancing, and wear masks. We could also have hybrid meetings. Luginski is doing a lot more face-to-face meetings for work. Everyone has a different level of comfort, but if we follow the guidelines, it might be an appropriate way to go.

Haven said that there is nothing inhibiting the council if they wanted to move forward. Ryan said that if it’s going to be a hybrid, then we need to have some kind of communication at city hall, someone who appears in person so that people who are there virtually will be able to hear what is being said. Haven asked if Ryan meant a kiosk or computer, and Ryan said it could be a laptop or an iPad at the entranceway to council chambers. This would allow someone who wants to come in person to communicate with the people who are also in-person as well as the people who are attending virtually.

Luginski said that his wife is the chair for the Oakland County Historic Commission, and they have returned to face-to-face meetings.

Haven said he wasn’t hearing a lot of opposition to it, so we could begin with a learning curve. Wylie said that she was opposed. She also mentioned the technical difficulties that Smith had mentioned. Smith said that there were information technology challenges, and he needs some specific direction regarding what to buy and how to set it up. He doesn’t want to violate the Open Meetings Act by preventing someone from talking who wishes to talk. Smith wanted to assure everyone that there never, ever, ever is any intention to be anything less than transparent. Earlier in the meeting, it was implied that there are devious things going on behind the scenes, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Smith thought that this would require running two meetings so that everyone could talk to each other. He hasn’t felt comfortable setting this up on his own and needs help.

Ryan said that if the council wants to explore hybrid meetings, he can talk with Smith and provide resources with regard to what his other municipal clients are doing. If the eleventh person shows up, someone has to leave.

Luginski said he could help Smith as well. Smith would not be running two meetings; it’s one meeting online and no different than what is happening today. There will be people in-person and people joining online. Luginski said he would donate an iPad for the front area, and Kniesc may be able to help because he has a technical background.

Kniesc said it’s not difficult to do, but it’s a moot point if no one else on the council is interested. Luginski said that it’s a legitimate point, other people are doing it, and he doesn’t think that other people aren’t interested. It’s not a mandate, just an option.

Haven said that since it’s a discussion item and we all want to be supportive; we should provide Smith with the resources mentioned. In-person meeting are desirable, but we want to pace ourselves. Smith should move forward as he feels comfortable.

Smith said he would talk to Ryan and reach out to his contacts, and he may take Luginski up on his offer. Smith wanted to come back to the council in two weeks with proposed timing. Haven said it’s not a rush and this was enough discussion on this for tonight.

Item 10c, Discussion: Council Agenda Setting Procedure (Video time mark: 1:28:43)

Haven said he was sympathetic on this one. We have talked about this on and off and he doesn’t know if we have a written protocol. His job is to facilitate the meeting. He doesn’t have a powerful position on council and gets one vote. Helping run an expeditious meeting is desirable, and Smith and Ryan have helped with running orderly meetings. We want to keep a short agenda with time for discussion. No one needs to be buried in Roberts Rules. Forming an agenda should be fair for all, both for the leadership of the meeting as well as to the council people. Secondly, there has to be a clearinghouse for agenda items, not a prohibition or stalling, but for fairness and adequate information. Ryan suggested that if there is an emergency need to add a discussion item and someone wants to make a motion, then a 2/3 or supermajority vote is required if a motion results from a discussion item.

Wylie said that this was motivated by her being unhappy a month ago. She tried to put something on the agenda, was told it was changed by consensus, and she wasn’t happy about it. She wanted a motion on a discussion item. She agrees with fairness to all but is bothered by the clearinghouse idea. Anyone on council should be able to put something on the agenda as long as it is in soon enough. We are all elected officials, no one is a higher elected official, and once it’s on the agenda, then council can vote for, against, discuss, or do what we want. We don’t need anyone else to decide for us in advance whether or not an item belongs on the agenda.

Bonser asked someone to summarize the current process so he could understand it. Haven said that Smith puts the agenda together and they may talk about certain items. Haven has to manage the meeting, and what he described as fairness and clearinghouse is what we’ve been doing. We may need to write things down to say that this is how we want to operate.

Bonser asked if the clearinghouse was a filter for what goes on the agenda to avoid an agenda that could have fifty items on it and take hours to go through. Haven has seen that in the past. Clearinghouse doesn’t mean filter. If there is an item that warrants council consideration, it will get on the agenda. He wants everyone to have enough information initially so we can have a good initial conversation and come to a decision at a future meeting.

Luginski said that he’s been on council in some form or fashion for the last ten years and this is how we’ve always done it. If everyone could add to the agenda, it could last six hours. It might not be the right time, and sometimes we don’t have enough information. City managers Dennis Ritter and Carol Eberhardt used to do it when Luginski was the mayor. Everyone absolutely has the right to ask for an item or subject to be put on the agenda, and we always try to accommodate that. Sometimes it’s not the right time because the agenda is jam-packed, it’s not a matter that needs immediate attention and can wait for the next meeting, or we don’t have enough information. Someone has to make the decision to put it together and organize it.

Haven said that time is interesting. We start at 7:00 and it would be ideal if we could finish by 9:00. That gives two hours for a good conversation. We have had agendas with 23 items – that’s nuts and doesn’t work. The planning and sequencing of items is important so that things are done decently and in order. That’s all that’s being said here – no one is trying to obstruct things from being discussed that really need to be discussed.

Wylie disagreed. She wanted a motion on the agenda and was told that there was a consensus that she believed involved Haven, Smith, and Ryan. She was told it couldn’t be a motion and would have to be a discussion. She believed that was censorship and Haven, Ryan, and Smith shouldn’t have the right to tell her that something she wants on the agenda can’t be on the agenda. You can talk to her and ask if something can be moved to a later date if there’s a full agenda, but she strongly disagreed that anyone on council, or the city manager or city attorney, should be able to tell a council member that they cannot put something on the agenda. Anyone can request an agenda item, but elected council officials should be able to put anything they want on the agenda. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the right way for things to be done.

Luginski disagreed that all council members are at the same level; that’s why we have a mayor and a council. They mayor is elected at a higher level. Wylie said that he facilitates the meetings. Luginski agreed, but someone has to make a decision about how to run the meeting and that’s the mayor’s responsibility.

Wylie disagreed. The mayor runs the meeting and Smith puts the agenda together and decides the order. Luginski asked if Wylie disagreed that certain things were time sensitive, and Wylie said that if the mayor, city manager, and city attorney are making the decision, they can call or email and ask if we can shift or move something. Wylie’s request was timely, we just had a lawsuit decision, we were going to talk about it that evening, everyone had received information about it, and there was nothing wrong with it being timely. Obviously, the motion would have been voted down anyway. Haven said that it was on the agenda, but Wylie said that it was on the agenda as a discussion item and she asked for a motion. She doesn’t believe that the three of them had any right to say that it couldn’t be a motion.

Ryan said that the decision wasn’t just his, Haven’s, or the city manager’s. Ryan asked James Tamm [the attorney paid by the Michigan Municipal League’s Liability and Property Pool to represent the city in the FOIA lawsuit] to weigh in on whether this was advisable or not because the opinion had just come down on Friday. His advice was that it was not advisable, so in that regard, it wasn’t a garden variety motion because it could have affected the legal rights of the city. You met with Mr. Tamm on August 4^th and had a full in-person discussion with him. This was a different and unique circumstance. Secondly, a clearinghouse isn’t censorship. If two council members want something on the agenda, in fairness to everyone else who may not have the information, it’s reasonable to allow them to learn about a particular item so it can be on the agenda. If someone has an idea and brings forth information that can give other council members a reasonable amount of information, then it should be on the agenda. No one is trying to hide anything or withhold discussion, but not everyone has the same level of interest or knowledge about a particular subject.

Bonser said that some municipalities require the support of a second council person to put something on the agenda, and Ryan said that’s true.

Wylie couldn’t believe that we don’t have a set of rules about meetings and agendas. Luginski thought that all we had was the charter that says that the agenda will be prepared by the clerk. Wylie said she wasn’t talking about the agenda; she thought that there was a separate document, booklet, or notebook somewhere in city hall that sets out the rules. The communication committee put together something in 2016 regarding public comments and how the agenda should flow, but she thought there was something else. Ryan thought there was something else from years ago.

Luginski read from section 4.15 of the charter regarding rules of order and noted that it wasn’t specific.

Smith said that rules and procedures can be set up at any time and that has been discussed. Rules aren’t as strict as an ordinance, and if council voted on a rule, we could put it in a book. While an existing book has been mentioned many times, neither Smith nor Speagle have found it. Wylie thought that means it no longer exists. Smith said that he could easily start a book of procedures and rules to follow. He would appreciate having them because it feels like they are establishing new ground each time.

Wylie thinks it’s a good idea and thinks she would end up on the committee writing them. Haven wanted to know if she was volunteering and said if he were writing the rules, fairness would be a criterion as well as some process for getting information to the people who need to make decisions before they are asked to make the decision. That’s why a motion sounded strong on that particular decision. Everyone’s heads were spinning, and we weren’t ready to receive a motion. It’s just discretion; no one was trying to inhibit anything.

Wylie thinks we need rules going forward. Even if we have a fair mayor, city manager, and attorney now, that may not be the case in the future. We need clear rules about how we put things on the agenda, adding the three minute public comment rule as well as the things we’ve already decided. Wylie said she could write it and the council could decide if they like it or not. Speagle said she would work with Wylie because there are a lot of good reasons to have rules and guidelines. Ryan said that this segues well into the prior discussion regarding hybrid meetings that Smith is exploring. Perhaps that could be in the procedures as well.

Smith asked Ryan if other cities have rules and procedures that would help, and Ryan said he would find that for them.

Haven thought this had been a good discussion.

Item 10d, Motion: Request Planning Commission to Research a Social District (Video time mark: 1:50:20)

• • “Proposed City Council Motion, August 24, 2020” (page 59/65 of the council packet)

Wylie said that she thought that Little wrote this; Wylie sent it on to the council and Smith.

Haven thought it was well thought out. He discussed the makeup of the committee and thought it should be three people – two from council and one from the Planning Commission. Haven suggested Wylie and Kniesc be part of the committee. Bonser agreed.

The motion was to establish the committee with Kniesc, Wylie, and maybe someone from the Planning Commission. Casey said that they need to reference the social district. Wylie said it was there, but Haven noted that it’s not in the title.

Wylie said that while they are saying that this would be established in 2021, they would like to get it started in 2020. Curt Catallo, Eric Lines, and someone else from Union Joints offered some potential boundaries for this. They talked to The Fed but didn’t receive much feedback about it from them. Haven thought that “social district” should be in the title.

Motion passed unanimously.

Item 10e, Resolution: White Lake Road Invasive Species Sign (Video time mark: 1:54:28)

• • “Resolution – White Lake Road Invasive Species Sign” (page 60/65 of the council packet)
  • Bid Comparison (page 61/65 of the council packet)

This is a resolution to spend $865 to replace a sign down by the phragmites where the work was done. Smith agreed and said that the phragmites sign that educated the public has been there for a while. It’s made out of wood and is in a bad state of deterioration.

Haven asked if it would be similar to the historic signs, and Smith said that it’s made of CHPL (custom high pressure laminate) and is what you see around town on historic signs. It’s very durable and will last many years.

Wylie suggested a resolution not to exceed $900 to be paid to the company named in the resolution. She noted that she is very aware of that particular sign. She used to teach about invasive species to her freshman and AP Biology classes. She always showed students that sign, and you could barely read it.

Haven said it’s amazing that we can see Middle Lake now. That wasn’t always the case.

The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:56:51)

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording – http://216.11.46.126/VOD/3240-CityCouncil-8-24-2020-v1/vod.mp4
  • 20200824 – City Council packet