Clarkston Sunshine

Introduction:

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

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order (video time mark 0:00:01):

Sue Wylie said it is seven o’clock, I’m calling the meeting to order.

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

Wylie said if everybody would please rise, we’ll say the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge said.)

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (video time mark 0:00:23):

Wylie said our third item on the agenda is a roll call and (to Angela Guillen, clerk), Wylie said I guess Angie you’re doing the roll calls now. Guillen said yeah. (To Guillen), Wylie said if you take the roll call, please.

Sue Wylie, Laura Rodger, Gary Casey, Amanda Forte, Erica Jones, and Ted Quisenberry were present.

Al Avery was absent.

Wylie thanked Guillen.

Agenda Item #4, Approval of Agenda – Motion (video time mark 0:00:43):

Wylie said Item #4 is approval of the agenda. I need a motion to approve the agenda as written.

Motion by Forte; second Rodgers.

Wylie said and any discussion from council.

No discussion.

Wylie said any discussion from the public.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (video time mark 0:01:06):

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

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

Wylie said Item #5 is public comments.

(Wylie read the rules for public comments.)

Wylie said does anybody have a public comment for items not on the agenda.

Wylie recognized Chet Pardee for a comment.

Pardee thanked Wylie and provided his name and address.

Chet Pardee:

Good evening. A month ago in public comments, I started with what should be actually step three, what should the city’s objectives be.

In the last meeting, I focused on what should have been step two, which was what should the city’s priorities be, and suggested that city council (unintelligible) that it was the city council that had the responsibility to suggest the process to start.

Today, I’m suggesting step one, answer the question of can the City of the Village of Clarkston continue as a city. Jonathan [Smith, city manager] suggested in the public hearing council meeting on the ‘25-‘26 budget, that he felt that it may not be possible to continue as a city, and then has begun to outsource several city responsibilities to Independence Township with very detailed contracts. It feels like Jonathan has begun the activity with his objective, his priority, and the process. Perhaps moving the assessment process from Oakland County to Independence Township by the city may be on hold as the township no longer appears to have an assessing department. If I am incorrect in believing that it’s city council’s responsibility to determine the city’s priorities, please correct me.

Jonathan seemed to suggest in the public hearing the city would have insufficient funds to continue as a city. Is that what the residents of the City of Clarkston want? Should the residents of Clarkston have a say? What would be the process for converting the City of Clarkston to be part of Independence Township? Taxes up, taxes down. With the recent budget approval, it could be difficult to seek approval to increase taxes from residents, but shouldn’t they be consulted?

Separate subject. Someone asked me about a new phone contract. I responded that I did not recall a contract approval by council, but I thought I recalled Jonathan mentioning the city savings in the 2025-‘26 budget (unintelligible).

What is the message to city officials and residents that no one appears interested in the historic district commission open position?

Wylie thanked Pardee.

Wylie said anybody else have public comments. Something for public comments?

No comments.

OK, I have closed public comments.

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (video time mark 0:04:30):

Wylie said we are moving to Item #6, which is FYI, and I don’t have anything for that. Wylie asked Smith, Guillen, and Evelyn Bihl if they’d gotten anything since then. (No audible response.)

No additions to FYI.

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:04:38):

• • July 28, 2025, City Manager Report (page 3/32 of the council packet)

Item #7 is our city manager’s report, which is included in the packet. (To Smith), Wylie said did you have anything else to elaborate.

Smith said only one new item that’s come up since the preparation of this report, and that is that tomorrow and Wednesday, a crew from General Motors will be filming an ad in the city. So, at various times, they’re not looking for big crowds or anything, so they’re hoping to keep it somewhat quiet, but they’ll be working through different parts of both Tuesday and Wednesday. At times, they will have to disrupt traffic. They’ve been working with the Oakland County Sheriff. It would just be a momentary disruption, it wouldn’t be a big closing of any kind of road or anything like that. Just be a minute or two while they stop traffic to get their shot, and then they can resume. So, they’ll be doing some stationary shots as well as some moving shots, but don’t expect a big disruption to city services. So, that’s just an added note.

Casey said do you know what locations they’re going to be at? Smith said primarily in the downtown area. Rudy’s, The Fed, Honcho are known three areas that they want to shoot near. I don’t know if anything beyond that.

Jones said have they provided timing as well, just beyond just Tuesday and Wednesday? Smith said yes, they have. They’ve given me timing, so I have that and can send it to you if you want. It’s just broken up throughout the day, both Tuesday and Wednesday.

Wylie said any idea what kind of car it is, so I can look for the commercial. Smith said no idea. They didn’t disclose that. Wylie said all right.

Forte said what a great compliment to the city. Smith said it is.

Wylie said I was looking at these commercials, which have really pretty towns, and I wonder where they are. Smith said yeah. It’s been a few years since they’ve done this. Wylie said OK, thank you.

(To Smith), Wylie said did you have anything else that you wanted to bring up. Smith said no.

Wylie said anybody have questions on council, questions or comments for Smith on the city manager’s report.

Jones said well, I was going to say, do you want to go ahead and head off some of the questions and share the timing, or is that something that’s supposed to be kept confidential? Wylie said I kind of cut it off. Smith said I’d rather not. I think they’re looking for clean shots without people gathering around, but – Jones said oh, yeah. I was just thinking in terms of so the residents would know where they could avoid, and, you know, because it’s more traffic, this congestion. Smith said they have promised me that any traffic disruption, if any at all, will be very minor, very short. Short-lived. Jones said OK. All right. Well, all right. So, if anyone has further questions, they can follow up with you directly? Smith said absolutely. Jones said OK. Cool.

Forte said on a kind of unrelated note, when we get memorial tree funding for the park, does that go to Friends of Depot Park? Smith said that’s where it gets deposited into, yes. Forte said and then do they recommend where to plant the tree? Smith said they do. Forte said OK. I have some opinions on that, so I’ll follow up with them. Smith said OK.

Wylie said anybody else.

No comments.

Wylie said anybody in the public, questions for Smith on the city manager’s report.

No comments.

Forte said no, thank you.

Agenda Item #8 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:):

• • 06-25-2025 – Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (Page 4/32 of the council packet)
  • 07-14-2025 – Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 6/32 of the council packet)
  • 07-28-2025 – Treasurer’s Report (page 8/32 of the council packet)
  • 07-25-2025 – Revenue & Expenditure Report for the Period Ending 06-30-2025 (page 9/32 of the council packet)
  • Carlisle/Wortman, June invoices (page 19/32 of the council packet)
  • Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., June invoices (page 21/32 of the council packet)

Wylie said OK, Item #8 is the consent agenda. This includes the final minutes of the June 23rd, 2025, regular meeting; draft minutes of the July 14th regular meeting; and the treasurer’s report for July 28th. And I need a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Motion by Rodgers; second Quisenberry.

Wylie said discussion or questions from council.

No comments.

Wylie said discussion or questions from the public on the consent agenda.

No comments.

Wylie said OK, all in favor say aye – Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said I’m sorry. (To Smith), said I have a question, about sidewalk repair cost (unintelligible) as capital outlay. And it appears that it was $40,000, but I thought it was double that. Was there some other cost? I mean, the period ending at the end of June. Smith said there was some more. I don’t know if it was double that. There was, what page are you on? Pardee said so, I’m on page 10 of 10, the period ending June 30th. You are essentially in the center of the page, capital outlay, and I was thinking the number was 70 or 77 in total, and I wasn’t sure where the balance was. I know we did it in the previous budget. Smith said I’ll have to check and see (unintelligible).

Smith said and I did want to comment on the phone contract. There is no contract. So that’s why it didn’t come to council, because there was no contract (unintelligible). Wylie said OK.

Wylie said anything else on the consent agenda before we go ahead and vote again.

No comments.

Wylie said OK. I have a first from Rodgers, a second from Quisenberry.

Motion to accept the consent agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the consent agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #9, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:10:17):

Wylie said Item #9 is unfinished business. There are none.

Agenda Item #10, New Business (video time mark 0:10:20):

Wylie said Item #10 is new business.

Item 10A – Presentation: Main Street Oakland County Accreditation Certificate (video time mark 0:10:23):

Wylie said we have a presentation, Main Street, Oakland County Accreditation Certificate. Oh, I’m, OK, that’s – (a man stood up). The man said George Venettis with Main Street Oakland County. I think I was here last year. Wylie said OK, can you give me your last name again, George? Venettis said yeah. Venettis. Venettis. Spelled V like Victor, E-N-E-T-T-I-S like Sam. Wylie said thank you. Venettis said yeah.

Venettis said so, we do this once a year, and I’m really proud to recognize Main Street America and Main Street Oakland County is proud to certify that the City of the Village of Clarkston has been recognized as a 2025 affiliate program. They meet all, they’ve met all the standards and qualifications, and this is signed by Main Street America’s president, Aaron Barnes, and the chief impact officer, Hannah White. (To Smith), Venettis said so, come on up and maybe get a quick picture. And actually, one with my camera, too, because we’re about to post it on Facebook. (Evelyn Bihl walked toward Venettis with her phone to take a picture.)

Cara Catallo said hey, can I just – (to Catallo), Venettis said oh, hi, Cara. Catallo said I’m not looking to be in the picture, but Amanda [Forte, council member] is on the board, and I think it’d be great if we included Amanda, actually. Venettis said sure. Amanda, and Erich Lines is also on the board. [Lines is Cara Catallo’s brother Curt Catallo’s business partner.] Come on, Amanda. Come on. Catallo said I think you were on it last year. Or he would have been here. (To Catallo), Forte said you too. Catallo said but I’m wearing a T-shirt, but Eric Lines looks really good. Lines loves the photo. Wylie said he’s got a dress plaid shirt on. Lines said yeah, it’s a dress one, yes. And it’s dry. An unidentified person said dress pants. Catallo said it takes a village. Wylie said yeah. Bihl said OK, so remember, you guys say cheese. (Photo taken.) Lines said cheese. Bihl said OK, that’s (unintelligible). Venettis said is that your camera? Bihl said this is, this is, yeah, is this your camera? Oh, wait a minute. Wylie said oh, you got one more picture. (To Forte), Wylie said don’t sit down. Venettis said I’ll post this tomorrow. (Unintelligible cross talk.) Venettis said great. Thank you. Bihl said you know I charge to do this. Lines said cheese. (Photo taken.) Venettis said thank you. (Venettis handed Forte a plaque.) Forte said and we’ll definitely put this up.

Venettis said yeah, and just other comments real quick. Just real excited to work with Smith and Catallo and Brandon [Still] on Main Street Clarkston. And we’re working to make it better, you know, get the organization better, you know, get a good board going, continue the trainings, all of the education so we could make downtown Clarkston kind of a destination place, which it already is, but even better. You know what I mean? And really get some, get a mission statement, a vision statement, and get it moving. So that’s my goal, work with Smith and the Main Street board. So, thank you very much. (Multiple people thanked Venettis.)  Thank you.

Wylie said thanks for the presentation. Venettis said yeah, thank you.

Item 10B – Discussion: Draft Tree Ordinance (from the Planning Commission) (video time mark 0:13:12):

• • Planning Commission Changes, Chapter 96: Trees (page 23/32 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #10B is discussion draft tree ordinance from the Planning Commission. Derek Werner’s [Planning Commission chair] here, so I assume you’re going to talk about that. (Werner stepped up to the podium.)

Derek Werner:

Werner said well, just the history. So, we, the members of the Planning Commission, have been approached by community residents saying that, well, some didn’t know we even had a tree ordinance. Some didn’t think it was very effective and suggested some changes. We took that feedback, looked at tree ordinances from other local areas, Holly, Benton, Lake Angeles. Independence did not have a tree ordinance at the time, but I believe they’re working on one now. So, we took things that we had been hearing from the community as what they would want in a tree ordinance and sort of came up with this draft.

Now, this hasn’t gone any further than the Planning Commission members just kind of going through it and adding and taking stuff out. It has not gone to legal, it has not gone to Carlisle [Carlisle-Wortman, contract city planners]. We just wanted to get council’s position on, are you supportive of changing it? Do you want to keep the existing ordinance? Because we don’t want to start engaging fees, either from the lawyers or from Carlisle, if council doesn’t want us to do anything with this.

So that’s kind of where we’re going now. And I don’t know if you want to discuss it point by point, or you can just send me an email, so here’s some things you like, don’t like, or we can say cease and desist now, and we will go on to something else. Or do you have any questions?

Jones said I do have a question here. I was skimming through the highlighted sections, and I’m a little confused when it gets to the protected trees. Does that supersede, does the protection of the protected trees, does that apply to trees on private property as well? Because it’s not, it’s not explicit, and so – Werner said that was sort of the intent, but I know that’s going to bring up some legal issues. So again, that’s when we need to have the attorney say – Jones said yeah – (continuing), Werner said can we go on private property? I know some would say no. Jones said yeah. Werner said some say you can if you’re trying to protect it. So, you know, those are one of the things, because I know some of the communities that people are cutting down trees without really going through anyone. And so, we want to sort of preserve the character of the city and one of the ways that we did is that you can’t cut down a protected tree unless you come to Smith, come to DPW [Department of Public Works], and address it. But again, none of us are lawyers. We don’t know what the statutes are when it comes to entering private property. So, it may not be allowed. It was just one of the feedback items that we had heard, so we included it.

Jones said yeah, no, just because I understand, like, about the dangerous disease – Werner said right – (continuing), Jones said or infested, but I feel like the protected trees, the way it’s worded is, is fairly vague. And so I think that gets into that line of, I mean, we’re not really going to start policing like, you know,  the private property of like who’s got, like if someone wants to cut down a tree for reasons that, you know, like that’s, I just, I want to, I want to make sure that like we call out these things explicitly, like whether or not it’s, you know, like having a – Werner said so the example is somebody on Main Street cutting down all the trees in front of the house. Jones said yeah. Werner said and saying, these are, this is my property – Jones said yeah  (continuing), Werner said I’m going to cut these down. I don’t like them anymore – Jones said yeah – (continuing), Werner said I’m sick of picking up leaves. This would be the way for the city to protect them. Jones said OK. Werner said that was the intent. If, again, if the way we have it written is to do a gray area, we need the attorneys who are allowed to help direct us to something that’s not going to be getting the city in trouble. Jones said OK, cool. I just wanted to get clarification on that.

Wylie said anybody else want to talk about it.

Wylie said I’ll talk about it unless you want. I’m not in favor of this at all. And I mentioned at the last meeting, we talked about it. I don’t like policing of our private property. I – this whole thing came about because somebody on my street chopped off some trees and some people complained. To me, and I, when I saw this, that this was in the packet, I kind of started talking to my neighbors about, what do you think about this possible rule? And I explained, I didn’t, they didn’t read it, but I explained to them what was in the, this possible ordinance. And everybody said, no, we don’t want that. Just because one person does something that is not favored by the community, we should not come up with a law to prevent anybody from cutting the trees down. To me, it’s private property and private property needs to be respected.

Wylie said yes, you can come up with this. What if somebody on Main Street cuts down all their trees? It’s unlikely because one of the reasons people live on Main Street is because of the beauty of the trees, the character. So, it’s unlikely. But honestly, if they do, that’s their business. That’s their property. I think they should be allowed to do it. Hopefully they wouldn’t do it. I mean, I agree with all these things you say about helping protect the land, helping protect that public health because they absorb pollution. They’re beautiful. They give character to the city. All that’s true, but I don’t think that the city should be policing our trees. So that’s my opinion on it. Forte said OK.

Rodgers said the trees that are right on Main Street, those aren’t the private citizens, right? Those are the city’s trees. Werner said the ones that are in the right of way. Jones said yeah. Yeah. Oh, sorry.

Casey said I disagree with you. I think private property only goes so far. And if an individual property owner cuts down trees that are viable, even on their own property, that should not be allowed. It’s the character of the town we’re talking about.

(To Forte), Wylie said oh, go ahead.

Forte said I have an opinion somewhere in between. I think we should up the DBH a little bit. So currently, I think it reads as six inches. And I think it should be like somewhere between, like, 36 inches or 48. It’s like – Wylie said I’m sorry, what’s DBH? Forte said so, DBH is diameter of breast height. Wylie said diameter of breast height. Forte said yeah, so like when you look out and you put your arms around that diameter. So, six inches is fairly small. But like a lot of municipalities call heritage trees a certain diameter above. So, I think most people love the trees, want them to be protected over a certain diameter. And that’s maybe where we regulate. Somewhere in between like the really big ones. Like I have three huge ones in my backyard that are probably hundreds of years old. Jones said yeah. Forte said but they’re also like me and Steven [Forte] putting our fingers together couldn’t reach around them. Like they’re huge. So, I think those trees should definitely be protected. But I agree that like if you have little ones that are six inches, it shouldn’t be a big deal. Like and maybe that’s the in-between where…

Jones said I like to cotton on to that because I agree with you. Like I think that if we’re going to say it’s a protected tree, like protected trees are like, you know – Forte said they’re normally heritage – (continuing), Jones said yeah, heritage trees. But I feel like the things in here for like the trimming of the trees and the dangerous disease and infested trees as a matter of public safety and that sort of thing. And also, we have a lot of people that come in and talk about blight and people taking care of their houses and their areas. And so, I think clarifying those things is good all around. But again, like I think that there’s a fine line where it walks between babysitting and actually trying to regulate, you know, historic character and community.

Forte said and it does become hard to regulate because like municipalities like Bloomfield is a township and then Lake Angeles like have all those trees tagged like that are over a certain diameter, which we don’t have here. I don’t think we have funds to tag those trees. Jones said I was going to say would that involve getting someone like a professional? Forte said an arborist to come through. Because there are trees that are probably over certain diameters that would be deemed invasive, but, and that would alleviate them from being in consideration. Wylie said I’m sorry, that would – (continuing), Forte said like – Wylie said they would not be in consideration as a heritage tree. Forte said if they’re invasive trees.

Casey said what’s invasive? Forte said so that could be a whole onslaught of species that, I mean, I don’t think – Wylie said they’re not native. Forte said yeah, they’re not – Wylie said not native trees. Most of those are smaller, aren’t they? Forte said no.

Wylie recognized Quisenberry for a comment.

Quisenberry said I tend to agree more with Casey and I’m questioning some of your reasoning. You said it was one person. If we don’t do something, what’s to stop that one person from becoming one another and another and another until if there’s no control on it, then that one person did it and now anybody can. Will they? I don’t know. But the bottom line is so, that leads me to think something does need to be done with this ordinance the way that it’s written, the way that currently is. I think the way that these, you’ve brought this together. It’s fraught with problems, just all through it. There’s all sorts of problems with it. But I do think that despite the fact that a homeowner has his own property, there should be some sort of ability for the city to govern the homeowner from doing something that’s irreparably harming the charm, the neighborhood itself. Should be able to control that. What that is, I don’t know. But we need to do something so that people can’t just arbitrarily act.

Werner said and that’s what that, this is sort of the idea of, the idea is that we’re getting from the community. And so, we put them down as that. But you’re right. It is not a cohesive document that’s ready for (unintelligible). We just wanted to make sure if council wants us to work on this or not. And if you don’t, you know, there’s other things we could do. But that was, that was, before we spent any more time on it, we were at that point of, let’s take it to you and get your feedback. Is there stuff on here you like and don’t like? Is there stuff you want us to add that’s not here? That’s, that’s sort of the phase that we’re in now.

Quisenberry said there’s a lot on here that I don’t like. I don’t know that we want to sit there and dissect this right now. Jones said yeah. Werner said this is the forum to do that. We can get that feedback from you via email or however. And then we can go to Carlisle and help us write up an effective ordinance.

Quisenberry said I want to just try to go at this a different way. And this is, you know, the city controlling the residents from what they can and can’t do with trees and whatever. I’ve had a diseased tree that was removed from my front easement after getting authorization from it. I’ve been asking for almost a year and a half to have that tree replaced, and it isn’t. I can’t get it. So, I guess, what obligation does a resident have to ensure the city upholds what they’re supposed to do? Werner said that’s a good point. Casey said same thing has happened with my property. Werner said so, we can take any of those ideas offline and, you know, start going on a path if that’s what you would like us to do.

Rodgers said I do think what Forte was saying about just really qualifying what a heritage tree is. That’s the first I’ve heard of that terminology, but a six-inch tree is a tiny tree.

(Speaking to an audience member, Wylie gestured and said council.)

Jones said and just to, like, you’re saying about, and I know it’s not the, but just to consider who’s going to pay to enforce, like, the tree stuff, right? Like, I mean, like, we’re already trying to figure out who’s going to do this, who’s going to do that. And now, like, oh, let’s have tree enforcement into it, like? Forte said maybe our code enforcement officer. But maybe we only do the front yard, do you know what I mean? Jones said I just think that that’s overstepping in a way that’s, if it’s in the right of way, awesome, but, like, private property is, I just, we’re starting to overstep bounds there. Unless it’s, like, disease or something like that. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said so, it sounds like what I’m hearing is the biggest, does anybody have any problem with the idea of trimming, start at the beginning, with planting trees in the right of way, cutting or destroying trees, which is, let’s see this first section, this is about diseased trees. To me, it sounds like most of our discussion is about the protected trees. And entering private property. Well, yeah. I kind of figured that’s off. There’s no way you can enter, nobody can, you can’t enter private property. Police can’t do it without a search warrant or cause. So, I can’t imagine that Smith or our ordinance officer can enter private property. All they can do is stand on the street and look. So, I assume that’s off the board or off the, I mean, police can’t do that, right? For a tree.

Quisenberry said I had a thought. Wylie said OK. Quisenberry said if you thought Jimmy Hoffa was buried in my backyard, you’d need a search warrant to come and check. But according to this, you don’t need a search warrant to come and look for a bug in my tree. And I think that that’s where you’ve got something. Jones said I think that’s where the law is, step in and say things.

Werner said (unintelligible) if somebody cuts it down, they’re allowed to do that. Is that what you’re saying? So, you’re only going to protect the city property? Is that? Quisenberry said no. Wylie said no, I think you’re getting a variety of opinions. Casey seems to think, and if I’m correct, that you want all trees on private property. Casey said I take what Forte says. Wylie said OK, so she’s going with the heritage trees.

Casey said yeah, if it’s small, if it’s invasive, you know, it’s a matter of judgment at that point. But everybody knows, you know, I don’t think anybody has the right to cut down a 100-year-old tree, no matter where it is, if it’s healthy.

Wylie said so, I don’t like it at all. I don’t want any. So, I’m the only person who says that.

Forte said I mean, like I’m married to someone who would oppose this whole thing. So, like, I hear what you’re saying, like, my husband would be livid if Smith came in our backyard and was like, let’s look at the trees. So, like I totally get where you’re coming from. Not that Smith would ever trespass. I’m doing that for joking. I hear what you’re saying completely. I think maybe this will bring in, like maybe the city planners will say, like, if we do want to do this and get to this level, we might need to do a tree survey of the largest trees in Clarkston. Wylie said somebody’s got to pay for it. Forte said yeah, and that would be a real cost. But if we want to protect, and that’s a big part, like a lot of people say, like, Clarkston is so charming and it feels like going up north, and that’s a big reason is because of our tree canopy. So maybe that is something we protect. Like, it might be just as value as our historic district. It’s part of the historic district. It’s just whether or not as a municipality, we want to put that in writing. And that’s something that we have to agree on as a council. And of course, we can come down to like, what parts of this need to be changed. In a first draft, it’s always shit. But like, like, or at least my writing is. But I do think this is kind of going in the right direction. Like the last ordinance talked about tying your horse to your tree and like all that stuff. So like, I think the last reiteration was when? Like – Werner said 1915. Forte said yeah, so I mean, that was just a few years previous to Carol [Eberhardt?]. So, I mean, I think it’s time for us to all like, maybe update this, but maybe we don’t include all of it. We just include parts of it.

Jones said well, and I mean, again, recognizing that this is the first draft that you all have, have pulled together. And I mean, like, if anything, it’s always good to get clarity on things that have just been sitting around. And so, yeah, we’re not going to solve it tonight. But I mean, I recognize that this is not at all being asked to, you know, it’s a final. So, I appreciate you guys pulling stuff together and letting us discuss it.

Forte said yeah, and I like that Planning Commission came to us instead of doing all the cost of legal and like working with the city planners prior to those costs. Because stuff will, I mean, the planner will have an opinion and so will legal.

Wylie said I have to, when I was reading it, I kept reading every time it said city manager do blah, blah, blah. I could see Smith cringing at the whole idea of doing anything like that. Werner said and maybe it’s not Smith, it’s DPW or it’s the code enforcement officer. However we want it to be, it was just a lot of them are. Wylie said or not at all. Werner said it’s just a lot of, or not at all. Forte said they have to give – Werner said or they’re not doing that piece of it. We’re just going to protect their histories – Forte said yeah – and make sure we take care of any of this disease or that. Forte said yeah.

Wylie said anybody have anything else to say on this topic. This has just been, and now with the public, do you have anything? I know Robert’s been waiting to say something.

Robert said I’ve got a vacant lot with a big, beautiful black walnut tree that I absolutely love, but unfortunately, it’s taking up about 35 to 40% of the building envelope. So, if this comes through, literally I think I’d have a huge problem because the lot is so many feet wide. Putting in a smaller house would conform to HDC [Historic District Commission] standards. And then I’ve also had plans before where we can (unintelligible). So, I’m just asking like, I know it’s pretty preliminary.

Forte said there is, there is, a loophole, like, for all of this. Like, because that is a real thing that we see when people build houses, they have to take down a tree. And the loophole for that, or the caveat for that, is you would plant an equal value to the caliper that your caliper DBH, same term, would be replacing. So, if the caliper is six inches and you plant three, two inch, that would be the way you alleviate. Robert said just want to make sure, because, like, it’s just, you know, one thing that the huge (unintelligible) that leaves your property, you know, within reasoning. We have started people saying you can’t cut trees down. It’s like, ah, you know, are you taking care of it? Or are you doing, I understand aesthetic-wise, but you know, there’s gotta be a fine line of what we can and can’t do. So, I kind of agree with your point on that one. Wylie said yeah, valid question, good point.

Wylie said anybody else in the public have questions or comments on trees.

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said I encourage the city to manage the canopy over North Main Street because it’s encroaching and makes it difficult to see the light to the south or the light to the north. The other comment that I’d like to make is, I’m a pruner and I’m also a dog walker. And so, I have taken it upon myself to prune to the edge of the sidewalk any branch that’s infringing on six feet. And I pick up the branches. And for the most part, those are citizens’ trees because the ones that are in the right-of-way are much bigger than that. Forte said oh, wait, you’re trimming other people’s trees? Pardee said I’m trimming a branch. Forte said no. Pardee said you put my eyesight at risk. Well, I shouldn’t have to go through with a hand in front of my face because the branch is chest high. Forte said oh, my God. Wylie said it is understandable why you would do it. Jones said is it private property or public property? Wylie said you say it’s private property. Pardee said I’m walking on the sidewalk, which is public property. Casey said I can’t envision any, any, I can’t envision any place where that’s the case. Wylie said well, apparently, he’s got some agreement that there is some. (To Pardee), Wylie said anything else. (Unintelligible comments from council.)

No comment.

Wylie said anybody else in the public. Questions or comments on this topic?

Quisenberry said there is some language in there that addresses what Pardee’s talking about. Wylie said yes. Quisenberry said the owner of the property has a responsibility to make sure that Pardee doesn’t scratch his head. All right.

Wylie said council, public, anything else?

No comments.

(To Werner), Wylie said thank you for bringing this. And thanks to, tell everybody on the Planning Commission.

Item 10C – Resolution: Acceptance of the Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Fire Services (video time mark 0:34:30):

• • Resolution – Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Fire Services (page 26/32 of the council packet)
  • Intergovernmental Firefighting and Emergency Services Agreement (page 27/32 of the council packet)

Wylie said we are on Item #10C, Resolution, Acceptance of the Revised Intergovernmental Agreement for Fire Services. And we have a resolution.

(Wylie read the resolution.)

Wylie said and I will need somebody to make a resolution and a support. Would somebody like to resolve?

Resolution by Jones; second Casey.

Wylie said and any discussion or questions from council members.

No comments.

Wylie said questions or comments from the public.

Rodgers said I have a question. Wylie said oh, I’m sorry. Rodgers said so, when this initially came through and was voted on, was that like wordage? Jones said verbiage. Rodgers said verbiage, thank you. Was that something that Independence Fire had agreed on? And then after we approve it, they slip this in? Or how, like, what happened?

Smith said so, the attorney put it together and presented it to us. The Independence Township attorney drafted the document, presented it to us, we approved it in our June 23rd meeting. Rodgers said OK. Smith said went back to the board for them to vote on it. Their next meeting wasn’t until July 22nd, almost a month later. And in that meeting, it was called out the fact that, A, the police services contract did, there’s still some hard feelings among some of the Township board members that we should have received a full reimbursement for the overbilled police services. And so, it was brought up that in the police services agreement, there was a clause that says if the city were to raise their hand and say, hey, there’s an error within 60 days of the invoice date, we are eligible for a replacement, or a reimbursement. So, if we overpaid, we have a 60-day window to catch it in the police agreement, and we get reimbursed. In the fire agreement, it was pointed out there isn’t such an agreement, OK? So, they said, hey, why aren’t the two agreements consistent? And the board overall agreed and said, yes, the two should be consistent, and they voted unanimously to include the same clause in the fire agreement that was in the police agreement, giving us that 60 days. It was just the timing of the way, so, the lawyer drafted it, we approved it, and then it went back to them for final approval. It shouldn’t have been that far apart, but it was.

Rodgers said so, my follow-up question to that is, why does that have to be in there? Like, is this in relationship to what has previously happened to us? And is that standard in — I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea — is that standard in contracts to put in a certain window that — and if that is the case, then they better very much itemize their — what we get as a bill, because that was the problem before. What came way before you even took place, was my understanding, was never itemized. [See Clarkston Sunshine comment.] And it was approved by that council a long time ago and continued to be a nondescript, non-itemized bill that we just paid. So is this something that is standard, like, for — to say, like, hey, if we overcharge you and you — we slip it in and you miss it, then so sorry, you know, you can’t come back later after 60 days. Is that normal?

Smith said I’d have to say my — I can’t speak for all governmental contracts, but I’d have to say, no, it’s not normal, but it was put in as a result of our previous experience. Rodgers said so, to protect them, not us, for sure. Smith said well, yeah. Rodgers said and so if we say no to that, like, no, that’s not going in there. Is — do we not — are they going to say no to fire and safety and police for us? Smith said well, the 60-day notice, giving us that 60-day window, that’s really in our favor. That’s giving us the opportunity.

Quisenberry said yeah, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want that. But remember what happened last time when we didn’t have any recourse. Now we at least have recourse. We have to be just on our toes for 60 days. Rodgers said so, what they’re saying is if we find out — if we figure it out at 61 days, we don’t get anything? Jones said yeah. Rodgers said so how is that in our advantage? Because we would have gotten nothing. Quisenberry said before, we got nothing after zero days. Now we at least — Rodgers said we got reimbursed. Jones said we didn’t get reimbursed the total, though. Rodgers said no, but we got something. This is protecting them, not us, as I see it. Or am I wrong? Jones said no, no, because it — no, this gives us a window. This — what it does is it puts the responsibility on us. It actually puts — it puts a clock on us. And so that’s basically saying we can’t come back and say, after ten years, oh, hey, ten years ago, we paid you — Rodgers said I understand that. Jones said so, I think this is just — I think that — Rodgers said that’s what I’m asking. Is this normal? Jones said this seems more standard in terms of, like, recouping costs and loss like that. Like, this kind of contract language seems more standard.

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

(To Smith), Casey said are we going to get itemized bills so we can figure it out? Smtih said that’s the key, and that’s what Rodgers was pointing out. Getting itemized bills for the first time is going to be key. We weren’t getting those before. And that’s why (unintelligible) years. So, this itemization is going to be key to the whole thing. Casey said are they going to do that? Smith said absolutely. Casey said OK. Smith said they’re going to do it, and we’re going to check it. Casey said yeah, exactly. Smith said both. So absolutely. Got it. So, this should never come into play. But should it, if we don’t do our itemization check, within 60 days, then, yeah, we are out. But if it’s within 60 days, which it should always be, then we’re eligible for reimbursement. Jones said because ideally, you would find the overage when you are doing the pay, the reviewing the itemization. Smith said honestly, we would catch it before we even pay the bill. Jones said yeah, no, yeah that’s it. Smith said so, this is a scenario where we paid the bill, and then we realized, oh, darn, we paid something we shouldn’t have. It’s wrong. I don’t see that scenario happening. But should it happen, this, I think, works out in favor.

Wylie said anybody else on council?

Wylie recognized Forte for a comment.

Forte said can we just get rid of that part of it and just agree. Smith said no. Forte said no. Casey said no, we want that in there. Jones said no, we want that in there. Forte said oh, OK. Jones said yeah, no.

Wylie recognized Cara Catallo for a comment and said she would recognize Richard Bisio after that.

Catallo said so, I went to that township board meeting, and I think we owe Sam Moraco a massive thank you for catching this. It’s a shame that we didn’t catch this, but it was in the other two, or at least one contract. And it basically, he was making sure that we have some recourse if, for some reason, the same error were to happen again. The township had it so that we made any mistake, and it’s like, it’s ours, you can’t have it. So having this opportunity, even if it’s just 60 days, is really a gift to us. And maybe it will help us make sure that everybody should be (unintelligible) Sam Moraco and thanking him, though, because this would have gone through without it if he hadn’t raised his hand and suggested it should be in it just like the other. Wylie said thank you.

Wylie recognized Bisio for a comment.

Bisio said and you should have no misunderstanding about what this is. It’s to protect the township. Without this kind of clause, you are able to go back six years, according to the statute of limitations. That’s how we got the $96,000 payment from the township on the overbilling on police and fire. They want to say, no, you’re not going to be able to go back that far. You got 60 days, and if you don’t figure it out, too bad for you, you won’t get the overpayment back. So, this is not anything to help the city or to be nice to the city. It’s to protect the township. Now, I don’t know what happens if you reject this. They can always say, okay, then we don’t have a contract, and you don’t have any fire protection. So, you’re not in a strong bargaining position. But don’t be deceived that this is something that’s good for the city. It’s something that limits what the city can do and what the city can get if it makes an overpayment. Wylie said thank you.

Wylie said anybody else in the public have questions or comments on this resolution.

(To Catallo), Wylie said you had something else to add.

Catallo said yeah, I just wanted to say that before this was in there, it basically said that the city had zero recourse, that the city could not ask for anything back if they realized that they had overpaid. So that’s why I was saying that having any opportunity is more beneficial to us than having zero.

(To Catallo), Rodgers said so, that was my question. Is that in a contract such as this, if it doesn’t spell out how long you have, does that mean that you have the six years like Mr. Bisio suggests? Or did the other one say you have to catch it right away or it doesn’t matter? Catallo said I was under the impression that I was listening that the one that preceded this said that, like, flat out the city had no opportunity for reimburse. Yeah, that’s the only reason that – (interrupting Catallo), Rodgers said so this is better than that, but it’s still – Catallo said it sounded like to me that, again, it might be something to ask the city attorney and not just somebody like me who was in the meeting.

Jones said if you look in here, the lines that are struck out is what was originally in there where it says that it shall not be obligated to provide any reimbursement. Rodgers said so, it’s better than that – (interrupting Rodgers), Jones said yeah – (interrupting Jones), Rodgers said so, it’s said it’s better than that, but there’s still – (interrupting Rodgers), Jones said I mean, if you think about, like, whenever you sign a contract with any agency or whatever providing a service, they’re going to have some sort of clause in there for reimbursement or overbilling or billing errors. Rodgers said but doesn’t the law protect us with six years? Like, isn’t that what the, shouldn’t that be the clause? Whatever the law says, six years is when you can, you have to, like, catch an error and respond to it. I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. Jones said no, I mean, I would say that too, but then I would also say, if we’re getting the itemized receipts and we have that, like, we have a responsibility as, you know, this to review them as well. And so, we have 60 days. So, yeah, I mean, it’s just, it’s, I don’t know.

Wylie said let me get these people then.

(To Bisio), Wylie said well, go ahead, because you’re going to speak on this one topic.

Bisio said Catallo is right. The original proposal from the township said you don’t get anything. You overpay, too bad for you. This is a compromise with that language. But with no language that deals with that, you have six years under the statute of limitations. Wylie said thank you.

Smith said I mean, that’s the way it used to be. That’s the way the previous contract, this section A for overpayment, wasn’t even in the previous contract. So, they started out, look at the sequence of events here. They started out by putting in this overpayment paragraph without the 60-day allowance. It was when Moraco spoke up and said, I think the 60-day allowance that’s in the police contract should also be here. That’s, that’s when they agreed to make that change. So previously, there was no reference to overpayment. It had never happened before. And so, then the six years of statute of limitations applied in that situation. When they added a phrase, because of the previous or recent experience, added a paragraph for overpayment without a 60-day allowance, it meant if one day after you paid the invoice, you were out of luck. But to Catallo’s point, Moraco did speak up on the city’s behalf and said, I think it should be 60 days the same as the police. So, it is an improvement over the previously approved contract that had no reference for 60-day allowance.

Wylie recognized Forte for a comment.

Forte said yeah, so what should we do? Jones said we should approve it. We should approve it. Forte said well, should we strike this section and say it’s – (unintelligible crosstalk). Wylie said we’re risking not, having a rejection. Quisenberry said the township is going to have to then decide, OK, do we want to go with what the city is recommending that we don’t even address it at all, and therefore the state requirement of six years kicks in? Will they want to do that? Who knows? If we say no to this, then they have, then it’s in their court to say, OK, how do we want to work it? No, we’re not going to sign your contract or two, it’s just 60 days or it’s nothing. I don’t see them not putting, not addressing a time limit in it, which then defaults it to the six-year period. I don’t see them allowing that to happen.

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

Casey said I think Bisio is right, but as he pointed out, we’re not in a terribly strong bargaining position here. However, all we have to do, because we’re going to get itemized bills and they are going to be reviewed before they’re paid, I think this is a good position.

Wylie said anybody else anywhere have a comment or question.

Wylie recognized Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said OK, I just, I wonder, and this isn’t something that I would know, but if you decide not to sign it, can they revert it back to the one that you’ve already signed that they had and discussed in their (unintelligible)? Wylie said they can show up with anything they want. Catallo said right, but I mean you already agreed to it, so they could just sign it. Wylie said well, I don’t know. Wylie said oh, I see what you’re saying.

Wylie said anybody else before we have a vote?

(To Jones), Wylie said yeah, you look like you want to say something really badly. Jones said no, I’m good, I’m good.

(To Guillen), Wylie said OK, would you do a roll call, please.

Jones, Quisenberry, Casey, and Wylie voted yes.

Rodgers and Forte voted no.

Wylie said one, two, three, we got four. OK, so the resolution is adopted.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 0:56:37):

Wylie said and we are at Item #11, adjourn the meeting. I need a resolution to adjourn the meeting.

Quisenberry said I have one comment I’d like to ask first, OK? Wylie said OK.

(To Smith), Quisenberry said on the assessing contract that we’re supposed to be working on right now so that we can get out from under the county one. We wanted to have updates as far as what we’re doing to see who we can come up with a better option for assessing.

Smith said so, I really should defer that question to Greg [Coté, city treasurer], and he’s not here tonight, but we are looking at contracts possibly with AAS [Assessment Administration Services], what the township went with. Well, first of all, we’re looking at could we afford to stay with the county? Are we getting the best service for the money with the county? Right now, we’re very happy with what we’re getting from the county, but if we do, because of continuing costs going up, we have to move away from the county, then we’re looking at AAS or similar companies. It doesn’t necessarily have to be them. We thought because we’re signing up for a year with the county, Coté and I talked about this, it probably makes sense just to see how things go with the township. They’ve approved AAS to be their assessor for the next three years, five years. I don’t remember when. But let’s watch that and see how it works out for them. Is that a viable alternative for us as well? And there are other companies very similar to AAS that we could contract with. We are also looking at talking with some of the other municipalities that might have some bandwidth within their own department. So, we haven’t really started that investigation yet.

Quisenberry said well, a couple of things. I disagree with you. You say we’re happy with the county. We’re not happy with the county. Possibly their service, possibly their service, but the fees that they’re charging for, we’re not happy with it. So, to say that we’re happy with the county’s assessing contract we have, I don’t think it’s accurate. Smith said I was referring to their services, not their fees, their services. Quisenberry said they’re part and parcel with one another.

Quisenberry said and the other is I thought that was going to be immediately. We were going to start searching as soon as we approved and signed this right away for what are other municipalities around us doing, what other entities are out there that can do it so that if we find something that is, we’re satisfied with the price, but also we have enough background to realize that it’s a decent company and they can handle what we’re asking them to do, we can switch over to that as soon as we can rather than sit and wait and see what happens. I know what happens when we sit and wait and see what happens. It’ll be beginning of the year when we’re going to be starting with budget before this issue is addressed again. And then we’ll be behind the eight ball again trying to get something done. So, I thought the direction was we were going to, with both the assessing as well as the building, look at other options rather than what we currently have.

Smith said so as I said, I’ll have to defer to Coté. I’ll have him come to the next council meeting and give us his update on this. I know he is looking at other companies. He can give us a status update on that in that meeting.

Smith said building services, we are working right now trying to locate individuals. I’ve talked with two other companies and municipalities, I should say, to see what they’re doing. And what options that they might recommend. So, we are looking at it. Do I have any quotes in hand yet? No, I don’t. But we are investigating this.

Quisenberry said and I think to ensure that this matter stays on front and center, I think that this should be a running topic in the city manager’s report. Smith said OK. Both building and assessing? Quisenberry said yes. Smith said I can do that.

Wylie said anything else before we adjourn the meeting.

Pardee said I’d like to make a comment on this subject. Wylie said OK.

Pardee said yeah. I thought we would be pursuing Commerce. Wylie said if you’re going to go into details specifically, I think you need to have a private conversation. Pardee said Commerce had worked on a contract with them and then backed away. Why? Wylie said backed away. Commerce had a contract with whom? Pardee said Commerce Township was working on a contract with Independence Township Assessing. Wylie said but Independence Township Assessing is – Pardee said I know, I know. But before that went away, they went away. Wylie said oh, I see what you’re saying. Pardee said so why did they back off? The other thing is, is what’s going to happen with Springfield Township? Supposedly, they had a contract with Independence Township. So, I’m just seeing those as sources of information that would be helpful. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said anything else before we adjourn the meeting? I need a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Motion by Jones; second Rodgers.

Motion to adjourn the meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the meeting is adjourned at 7:56. Thank you, everybody.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 07-28-2025 city council packet