March 9, 2026 City Council Meeting

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 0:00:00):

Sue Wylie said it’s 7:00. I’m calling the meeting to order.

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

Wylie said so, if everybody would please rise, we will say the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge said.)

Wylie said thank you.

Wylie said there’s somebody’s clock ringing, I think, over the speaker. Erica Jones said yeah. Is it? Yeah, OK. Wylie said OK.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (video time mark 0:00:33):

Wylie said Item #3 on the agenda is a roll call. [To Angela Guillen, city clerk], Wylie said if you take the roll call, please.

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

Wylie said whoever’s on the speaker is – (interrupting Wylie), Jones said yeah, hey, Chet [Pardee], I don’t think you’re on mute. We can hear everything that’s happening on your end. Jones said are we on mute. Wylie said OK.

Agenda Item #4, Approval of Agenda – Motion (video time mark 0:01:04):

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

Motion by Rodgers; second Jones.

Quisenberry said I have a question. Wylie said yes.

Quisenberry said in the February 9^th meeting, in the minutes, there was an Item #10A, which was a discussion about Jimi [Turner, Department of Public Works supervisor]. And that was passed until the March 9^th meeting. Should that be on this agenda? Wylie said I think it was moved later than that.

Jonathan Smith [city manager] said yes, actually, Turner reminded me of that this morning. And I totally forgot it, so to be honest. So that will be on the March 23^rd meeting. Wylie said OK. So, we’re still looking forward.

Wylie said OK, so is there any other discussion or questions on approving the agenda.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (video time mark 0:02:06):

[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 want to make any public comments.

Wylie said Pardee’s waving his hand. So, it looks like – (to Pardee), Wylie said hang on, you’ve got to be unmuted. Pardee said thank you.

Chet Pardee:

This relates to an email that I sent city officials today. And it relates to the roadwork that we’re intending to do on Church Street. And as I listened to a May of 2025 meeting recording, I heard a different number from F&V [contract engineering firm Fleiss and Vandenbrink] than has been used in previous discussion. And I had sent an email to all city officials asking, inviting them to listen to that same recording. Has anybody else listened to the recording?

An unidentified woman said this is not a question and answer.

(To Pardee), Wylie said anything else. Pardee said no. So, no one is responding.

(To Pardee), Smith said I will comment. Pardee said thank you. Smith said May 23^rd was nine months ago. We don’t have an ability to foresee the future that closely. These numbers are fluid. They’re always changing. With gas prices going up, oil prices going up, I expect we’re going to see an increase. I don’t know if there will be an increase from the number you recall or the number that I have most recently been saying, $117[,000] to $125[,000] for the repaving of East Church. But I expect that number will probably go up as oil prices go up. Asphalt is an oil product. So yeah, I expect those to change again. So, you may have heard a number back in May, but those are changing daily. I had a meeting today with the F&V personnel who talk about that paving. And they acknowledge that things are still moving around. We’ll do what we can to stay within the budget, but things are still moving. That’s all I can say. Wylie thanked Smith.

(To Pardee), Wylie said anything else.

(To Smith), Pardee said I was having issue with us including in the budget a number that appears to be short by 40% of what F&V told us last May. And I’ll leave it there. Smith said all right, thank you. Pardee said listen to the recording. Wylie thanked Pardee.

Wylie said any other public comments.

No comments.

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (video time mark 0:05:23):

Wylie said move on to [Item] #6 is FYI. I have none. Anybody else have anything for FYI?

No comments.

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:05:31):

• • 03-09-2026 City Manager Report (page 3/28 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #7, the city manager’s report, which is included in the packet. (To Smith and Guillen), Wylie said have anything to add to what’s included?

Smith said I think just Guillen’s comment. (To Guillen), Smith said go ahead.

Guillen said yeah, just wanted to have early voting moved here to the city. I feel like it’s fiscally responsible to my residents, and then also not having them have to drive to Bay Court on Andersonville or to Waterford Oaks. They can come right to their city hall and vote and make it easier and more accessible for them. So, starting with the August election, early voting will be here.

Smith said so, a couple of years ago, this was not feasible because we did not have the hardware necessary to do that. But through Guillen’s help, we were able to get some hardware from another municipality free of charge. And so now we do have the backup hardware to do the nine days of early voting here, as well as the election day voting. So, it is feasible to do that here, and so it only makes sense to save money. Because doing the nine days at Bay Court is not free. We pay significant expense for that to cover the personnel at that event. So, it only makes sense that we try to save money where we can, and that’s what Guillen’s doing.

Wylie said anybody in council have any questions on anything about this?. Guillen said she’d be happy to answer questions.

Wylie said anything else on – (interrupting Wylie), Gerry Fisher [city attorney] said I have a comment about the other point that’s in the manager’s report that’s kept kind of, yeah, one of the main topics on there is a set of legislation that has been offered, and it’s now in committee, that is essentially going to take away from local governments all local control. I mean, for everything.

Wylie said I thought it was just zoning. It’s everything? Fisher said well, oh, yeah, zoning. But it’s actually a little more than zoning. But for example, they’re going to make an exclusive maximum lot size of 1,500 square feet. Lot size, which is crazy. And so, this is off the rails, and my suggestion is that some kind of formal authorization be given to Smith to take to the convention and object to it.

[Note: I respectfully disagree with city attorney Fisher regarding what HB 5529 and HB 5530 provide. This is a pro-developer package of bills that would prohibit a municipality from banning small-lot residential developments. The bills would prohibit a municipality from setting a minimum lot size of more than 1500 square feet for a detached single-family residence. (Clarkston’s zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 16,000 square feet (R-1 district) or 12,000 square feet (R-2 district). The legislation is in reaction to municipalities that want to require large minimum lot sizes to keep out the “riff-raff” who can only afford to build on a smaller lot and municipalities that try to keep out developers of large residential developments that have small lots. This would not have been suggested if municipalities had not abused their zoning authority to try to zone out small lot size developments. HB 5530 also prohibits municipalities from giving developers the runaround by requiring repeated submissions and studies and requires them to act on site plan proposals within 60 days. We should be honest about what the bills require and how they came to be and not just blithely agree with an assumption that developers are bad and municipalities should be able to use zoning as a weapon to keep them out.]

Smith said so, that would not be uncommon. MML, when they’re looking for a mass response to some crazy thing – Fisher said yes – (continuing), Smith said such as this, they have letters already drafted, and you can just sign in their app, enter your name, and hit enter, and it will send that to the legislators as a formal way of setting out objections. So, they make it very easy. They make a form ready, a form letter ready, available online to anyone. Fisher said yes. This is important, and I listened to a Michigan Municipal League conference or webinar today that I’ve listened to regularly. And they are very concerned about this. They have worked with Michigan Townships Association and SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments], and they have developed their own two-bill package as an alternative. And it’s all going forward.

Avery said but what’s the point. Who will introduce it? Quisenberry said yeah, who’s pushing it. Fisher said I think there are two or three driving forces. I can only imagine, and I know the realtors are on board with it, the developers are on board with it, because I think they see short-term profits. And I mean, just, if you can imagine the idea of a local government that has all of their water and sewer size based upon the zoning, and somebody coming in and making the lot sizes 1/20th, or one fraction of the lot size, I mean, all of the utilities are going to go underground, you know, so to speak. [Note: If a development requires additional utilities, that can be a requirement of site plan approval, at the developer’s expense.]

Avery said I guess I would need more information before I would be in favor of some sort of a council vote to respond, because I don’t know what, I mean, interesting, but I don’t know enough about it to speak intelligently.

Casey said is it passed to your house, or the senate? Fisher said it’s not passed to anything. It’s just in committee. Casey said OK. Fisher said whether and how it does in the committee, we don’t know. But even if it doesn’t do well now, it’s going to hang around, and maybe be in a lame duck session.

Wylie said OK. I do know, I heard, that Mike Harris is opposed to it. Fisher said yes. Wylie said our representative. Fisher said he absolutely is. Yeah. And I know he’s looking for support from all of his constituent local governments to oppose it. He’s on the committee, in fact. Wylie said oh, he’s on the committee. The bill has introduced it, yes. Wylie said OK. So, as individuals, we can go online and look at the MML website? Smith said I’ll let you know what processes are objecting to it. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said can we, as a council, object to it after this meeting that starts tomorrow? OK. Smith said yes. Fisher said oh, yeah. Smith said I’m sure there’ll be time. Wylie said OK. All right. So that’s something we can do, put on agenda for a later meeting.

Wylie said anybody else on this, or anything else on the city manager’s report.

No comments.

Agenda Item #8 – Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for January (video time mark 0:11:30):

• • Oakland County Sheriff/Independence Substation Monthly Report for February (page 4/28 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #8, Oakland County Sheriff’s report for February. Any questions or comments on the report? We haven’t seen, it feels like we haven’t seen anybody for a while.

Smith said yes. Yes. I’ve talked with John [Sergeant Ashley] a couple of times about coming in, but I gather he’s rather busy right now. Wylie said OK. Smith said so yeah, I was hoping he’d be here tonight.

Wylie said anybody, questions, comments on the sheriff’s report.

No comments.

Agenda Item #9 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:12:01):

• • 02-09-2026 Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 5/28 of the council packet)
  • 02-17-2026 Final Minutes, Special City Council Meeting (page 7/28 of the council packet)
  • 02-23-2026 Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 9/28 of the council packet)
  • 03-09-2026 Treasurer’s Report (page 11/28 of the council packet)
  • 03-03-2026 Check Disbursement Report, 02-01-2026 – 02-28-2026 (page 12/28 of the council packet)
  • Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler January invoices (page 18/28 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #9, consent agenda. This includes the final minutes of the February 9, 2026, regular meeting; final minutes of the February 17 special meeting; draft minutes of the February 23 regular meeting; treasurer’s report for March 9, 2026. And I will need a motion and a second on the consent agenda.

Motion by Quisenberry; second Rodgers.

Wylie said any discussion.

Quisenberry said I just have an observation, and I find out, looking at the attorney bills, is it about $9,000 of attorney bills that we have, and it’s primarily to defend and respond to complaints by Mr. and Mrs. Bisio? Wylie said I came up with $7,000 just for them, roughly $7,000. Quisenberry said I thought it was closer to $9,000, but I don’t know. Forte said where is it. Quisenberry said there’s about five-six – Wylie said there’s about five pages. And this is all from January 4th until January 30th. I came up with $7,000. I kept coming up with different numbers, but roughly $7,000, so maybe you found other things that were not part of our total. Quisenberry said well, I just totaled them all up, around $9,000 total. Wylie said OK, I just went through the Bisio stuff. And that’s nothing against the attorneys on that, but that’s crazy that there’s so much work that has to be done. And there’s a variety of different things. They’re doing FOIA requests. A lot of it seems to be court hearings.

Quisenberry said the total line item for our attorney for the fiscal year is how much? Greg Coté [city treasurer] said $30,000. Quisenberry said $30[,000].  Coté said we were pacing well until the January invoice. Fisher said from Kristen [Kolb, assistant city attorney]. Coté said I’m sorry. Fisher said from Kristen. Coté said yeah. Fisher said I haven’t seen her in a bill for a long time.

Wylie said anybody else have questions or comments about the consent agenda or discussion,

No comments.

Wylie said OK, we have a motion to accept it from Quisenberry, and a second from Rodgers.

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

Wylie said the consent agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #10, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:14:34):

Wylie said Item #10 is unfinished business, and there’s none.

Agenda Item #11, New Business (video time mark 0:14:36):

Wylie said Item #11, New Business.

Item #11a – Resolution: Board of Review Appointment and Swearing In (video time mark 0:14:39):

• • Motion – Board of Review Appointments (page 26/28 of the council packet)

Wylie said Resolution, Board of Review appointment and swearing in. Are they meeting today? Smith said they are meeting. Wylie said OK.

Smith said so the current appointments are complete. Assuming you appoint these people.

Smith said hold on, let’s vote first, and then we’ll bring them in to, well, if we want to meet them, we have to bring them in. But the thought was bring them in when we swear them in. Wylie said well, I mean, I think we at least ought to meet Gordon Robertson, because to me, he was new. I’d never met him before. I think they’re all here. Smith said they are. We are still looking for a replacement for Joel [Hoffman]. And that’s why Hoffman’s appointment only goes through this June. Wylie said OK. Smith said so, if any of you that know potential candidates that would be a good Board of Review person, let me know. We’re are looking for a replacement for Hoffman. Wylie said thanks for coming in.

Smith said so, if you’re not familiar, it’s Joel Hoffman, Greg Robertson, and Scott Meyland.

Wylie said so, we’ve got a, nominations, renew Scott Meyland, or appoint somebody else. It’ll be through June 2028. Renew Joel Hoffman or appoint somebody else through June 2026. And appoint Gregory Robertson through June 2029. Thanks for coming in. Thanks for agreeing to serve.

Wylie said anybody in the council have any questions, comments, before we go on.

No comments.

Wylie said OK, we need a, we can do them all together. I need a motion and a second to accept the above listed nominations.

Motion by Avery; second Jones.

Wylie said any comments or questions from the council, from the public.

No comments.

Wylie said and let’s make it a roll call.

Jones, Quisenberry, Rodgers, Wylie, Avery, Casey, and Forte voted yes.

Wylie said and the resolution is adopted. Thank you very much, gentlemen. (Unidentified persons said thank you.)

Wylie said thanks for your work. Don’t leave yet. You’ve got to be sworn in. Smith said this is an opportunity to get sworn in, so you’re all legal.

(To Guillen), Smith said do you want to do it or do you want me to do it.

Wylie said should they stand for swearing in. Smith said you can do it all as one.

(Guillen walked toward council table.) (Pointing), Guillen said I can have people stand right here. (To Smith), Guillen said do you want to come. Smith said that’s fine. They can just stand.

Guillen said oh, so I’m just going to read it as one whole oath. And just raise your right hand.

(Guillen administered the oath.)

Guillen said congratulations.

(Laughter. An unidentified woman took a photo.)

Guillen said so, I’ll have you guys sign here real quick, if that’s OK.

Forte said that look in your eyes.

(Laughter.)

Fisher said you want to take a breath.

(Guillen distributed certificates.)

(Unintelligible discussion at council table.)

(Hoffman, Robertson, and Meyland signed documents at Smith’s table.)

Fisher said is that pen valuable after everybody signed.

(Laughter.)

Smith said all right. Thank you.

Wylie said alright.

Item 11b – Discussion: Status Update on the Income Improvement Recommendations from the Finance Committee (video time mark 0:18:36):

• • 2026/2027 FY [Fiscal Year] Revenue Improvement/Cost Reduction Opportunities (page 27/28 of the council packet)

Wylie said OK. Item #11B is Discussion, Status Update on the Income Improvement Recommendations from the Finance Committee. Is that door shut? Because we need to shut the door for their meetings.

(Coté walked toward the door.)

Wylie said and we’ve got the item in our packet. I don’t know. Is Coté, Smith, who’s going to talk about this?

Smith said I’ll start it. So, this is the tracking spreadsheet we’ve been using to show that the Finance Committee is entertaining quite a few different options. If you haven’t seen this already, fourteen different options that the Finance Committee brought up as possible ways of either reducing costs, but most of this is about increasing revenue for the coming fiscal year.

Jonathan Smith:

We talked about a number of things, some from starting at the top, increased millage rates. Of course, seems like the easy thing to do, but it’s not something we want to do. So, we have put that as a mid/slash-long-term proposal. The status is over the far right.

Request exemption from the Headlee millage. [Note: This refers to the annual millage reduction factor that keeps the city’s annual property tax income the same as the previous year, plus inflation and income from new construction.] The Headlee millage is the millage that kind of brings down your millage rate every year. Proposal A is the Act that limits how fast they can grow, 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. [Note: Proposal A doesn’t affect the millage rate. It limits the increase of individual parcel taxable value to the lesser or 5% or the inflation rate. It is something separate from the Headlee millage rollback, which is computed on the total taxable value of the municipality.] Between the Headlee millage and Proposal A, they’re detrimental to virtually every municipality in the state, but it’s what we have to live with. Requesting an exemption from the Headlee millage [rollback] is something that can be done, but it’s really not feasible. You have to show hardship. Almost, what I’ve been told is you almost have to show that you’re on the verge of bankruptcy before a Headlee millage rollback will be granted. So that is determined to not be feasible at this time.

Number three includes some special assessments, issue some special assessments. That’s something that the city can do for sewer repairs or tree plantings, or whatever the council wishes to do and funds are not available. Special assessments is always something that can be done, but we’ve left that off for now as a mid/long-term proposal.

Number four, issue a bond for citywide projects such as road paving or sidewalk replacements. This is also something we put as a mid- or long-term proposal only because there’s a lot of work involved in getting a bond issued. So, we put that off for now, not closing it out, but just saying it’s more of a mid- or long-term effort.

The next three, five, six, and seven, pertain to parking and some expansion of the existing parking program.

Number five was add paid parking on Main Street and potentially on West Washington, Mill Street, and Depot Road. That would be something that would be a little bit expensive because you’d have to put a kiosk wherever you’re putting paid parking. Right now, we just have the two kiosks, one in each lot. If you were to put paid parking on Main Street, you’d have to put a kiosk periodically somewhere mid-block, so you’d probably need at least four for Main Street and then maybe some others. So, at about $8,500 a piece, that starts to add up. We have determined that about a one-year payback is something we could expect, so we’d pay off that $8,500 each within one year, and then we’d be making profit again. So that is something that could be done at any time if we wish to go down that road. We haven’t brought that to the city council to vote on yet, but that is something that the finance committee wants to do. I will draft a proposal and bring that to council, but not yet.

Number six was to leave the parking, number of paid parking spots as is, but increase it from $1 an hour to, say, $1.25 or $1.50 an hour. That could bring as much as $40,000 a year in if we raise it to $1.50. A lot of cities charge between $1.00 and $2.00, so we’re still kind of in the normal range for paid parking.

Number seven was to increase the hours of operation. Right now, we’re 4:00 to 9:00 Monday through Friday. Maybe we’ll make it 11:00 to 9:00 Monday through Saturday. That’s something that would estimate, or would bring in an estimated $20,000 a year of increased revenue.

OK, moving outside of parking, number eight was something we actually brought up in a recent council meeting, the idea of using some paid parking funds for other operational expenses. We’ve decided not to do that, as you’ll recall, so that is off the table for now. Number eight is off the table.

Number nine, endeavor to develop the Waldon and Main property. We’ve talked about this many times. The owner of that property very much wants to develop that property. We as a city want to develop that property for tax reasons. We’ve estimated $30,000. [Note: That assumes a taxable value of the property as developed of $5,220,796 at the current millage rate.] That’s very conservative. I think you could bring in as much as $75,000 or $80,000 with the right development. [Note: $80,000 assumes $13,922,365 taxable value.] So, that’s not something to take lightly. That’s a great opportunity. Oh, wait a minute. I don’t think it’s the right amount. $50,000 to $100,000 is what we said, depending on the development type. [Note: $50,000 assumes taxable value of $8,701,458. $100,000 would be twice that.] So that is still something we could do. The next step there is to work with the planning commission. Forte’s familiar with this. Work with the planning commission to see if they’re in agreement that zoning change might be appropriate for that site. Forte said we’re not. Smith said we’re not, OK.

Quisenberry said if I could, has the planning commission even met since we’ve talked about this, since we said this to them? Forte said it’s come up on every agenda. Quisenberry said pardon. Forte said it’s been on every agenda. Like, we’ve talked about it multiple times. Quisenberry said since we’ve met, how many times has the planning commission met and discussed on this. Forte said what do you mean, like, since our last council meeting? Quisenberry said yeah. Forte said what do you mean when we’ve met. Quisenberry said well, has the planning commission met. Forte said yeah. Quisenberry said and they brought this up and they’ve talked about it. Forte said yeah. The owners came to a few meetings. Quisenberry said pardon me. Forte said Deanna [Olsen, co-owner of the Waldon and Main property] has come to several meetings. Quisenberry said and what’s the consensus. Forte said that we don’t want to change the zoning. Unless we do it. So, the way we left it currently is that we’re doing a master plan update. Part of that master plan update is doing public engagement. One of the public engagement questions we’re going to ask to the community is do you, as a community, want this zoning to change? Because it should come from the community, not the owner of the property.

Jones said what is it. Is it commercial and they’re wanting to change it? Avery said no, it’s residential. Forte said it’s residential. Rodgers said single home residential. Jones said I’m sorry, I might be a little backwards. Waldon and Main. The empty lot? Avery said yep. Jones said oh, OK. Alright. Alright, never mind.

Forte said so that’s the process we’re going to take is going through the master plan process, doing the community engagement. And then if the community wants to rezone it, then that’s what the community wants, and that’s what would be part of the master plan. And that would cue a zoning update. Quisenberry said so, the first step is going to be amend the master plan that would allow us to do that. Forte said yeah. Quisenberry said and then after that, it’s then somehow get community input. Forte said yeah. Which you have to do as part of your master plan. Quisenberry said OK.

Avery said ultimately, it’s up to the owner, though. She has to come and request the zoning change. Forte said yes. Fisher said well, she is refusing to do that as far as I know. Forte said and she could ask for what’s it called, what is it called where you ask for – Quisenberry said variance. Forte said yeah, variance. So they could do that. That’s another way around it, too. It’s just a builder has to come to us with a plan and apply, whether it’s the, not homeowner, but the owner of the property. Smith said they could always go the variance route and ask for it and it might get shot down, but they could do that. Quisenberry said who does the variance, the planning committee or us. Forte said us. Quisenberry said us. Does the variance go to the planning committee, commission first? Avery said I think so. Wylie said I think it does. And then it comes to council. I think planning is a recommendation to council. Smith said but ultimately, zoning board of appeals would hear the request. Forte said and they have to show hardship. Smith said yeah. Forte said if you don’t show hardship, you can’t get a variance.

Fisher said there are two types of variances. One is a non-use variance, and then one is a use variance. You have to show hardship for a use variance, which means you can’t use the property the way it’s at. But the non-use variance is much more readily available, and that would be changing, say, the unit sizes and things like that. And that is available. I mean, there are a number of things like you can’t self-create it and all that, but it’s if the property can’t be developed reasonably. Forte said and there are some, like, things that are hard about that property for a lot of reasons, that they could maybe go down that route. Fisher said that’s true. Quisenberry said what do you mean that are hard about it. Forte said like there’s a dream about where they would probably do an entrance, like in the middle of the road. Like that could be an issue. Wylie said wetlands. Forte said wetlands. There’s several things. Fisher said the creek. Forte said the creek, yeah. Fisher said setback from the creek. Forte said yeah. Wylie said change in elevation. Forte said yeah.

Forte said so, I mean, it’s not we haven’t had a builder straight up come and be like, this is our plan. We want to rezone it. So, we haven’t said no formally. But we have to do the master plan. We’re past the point where we need to do that update regardless. So, we’re using this opportunity to gauge the community because if the community wants to do this, they want to do this. You know what I mean? It shouldn’t come down to just us, who’s on the board. You know what I mean? So that’s the way we’ve kind of navigated those waters.

Quisenberry said isn’t there also an issue with the language in the zoning that the owner and whoever else representing the city disagree with what it means. Forte said yeah, so I can explain that to you. Unless you’ve already been explained this. Quisenberry said I’ve been explained both sides, and I wonder who’s right. What are we going to do about it? Because both sides have their opinion. Forte said it doesn’t matter what side you’re on because a master plan has, for example, R1 versus you’re testing me. I got three hours of sleep last night. Well, there’s definitions – Smith said in the master plan. Forte said yeah, and we have definitions within the master plan.

Forte said so, her point, which is totally an astute point, is that, well, that’s not how it’s defined in other master plans, the way we define our definitions. Smith said mixed use. It all comes down to the title mixed use. Forte said yes. Smith said so, in our definition, mixed use is only residential mixed use. So, you could have multifamily, single family, condos, townhouses, different types of residential all on the same piece of property. Their definition, the owner’s definition, is that mixed use involves commercial and residential together on the same property. So, you could have a Starbucks or a yoga studio amongst the property. So, there’s a difference of understanding. And sure enough, if you Google mixed use – Forte said yeah – (continuing), Smith said Google will tell you it’s residential and commercial. But our definition that’s printed in our document – Forte said it is, yeah – (continuing), Smith said strictly says, no, it’s just different types of residential, not commercial.

Forte said so, if you do your research and read the master plan, it’s straightforward because we have to, they explain all the different usages and what they include and what they don’t include. So, it’s all in the document. It’s not, there’s no ambiguity in what the document says. Quisenberry said there appears to be because the other side is saying it is. And they’re attorneys, and I don’t want to carry their water for them. I’m not going to do that. It’s just that we’ve heard in council meetings before with it that there is a different opinion of how the language is read and what it means. And I just don’t know if that’s been resolved. I don’t care one way or the other. I just think one of two things. We were tasked with trying to come up with some revenue. This was our number one, the highest possible achievement we could do to raise money. So, I’m thinking let’s do it. Let’s do whatever we have to do to be able to put this in front of the community and let them vote on it because that’s going to be the end result. If they say no, then it’ll be no. But we have, I think we have to move forward to be able to get to that point so that we can have an opportunity to bring more revenue into the city. Right now, I mean, we’ve got all these other things, and they’re pushed off and whatever. We’ve got some parking issues. They’re going to bring some shekels in. But this is our number one piece that we came up with to develop un-, to develop property in the city that’s going to bring in additional tax revenue.

Avery said she came to our finance committee meeting, and she said she’s not going to do anything with it. She’d like to, but she never really, other than five years ago, right before the pandemic, they had a plan, and they wanted to build, in my recollection, they wanted to build apartments or units that were above the allowed density. We told them that, and then they (unintelligible). Quisenberry said and I remember she did say, I’m not going to, and I think she was just sour grapes because she said she spent money before and nothing happened. I’m not going to spend any more money until I know something can happen, alright? Again, I don’t care about that, but I’m just saying that regardless of whether she is pushing for it or not, I think that we as a commission, a council, need to realize that’s money revenue that we could be capitalizing on and we’re not. Jones said yeah, but we can’t do anything until the master plan gets done. Avery said well no, the master plan is the master plan. The language is the language. There are ways to, if we change the zoning to a commercial that includes residential, we have the power to do that ultimately as a council or a planning commission. There’s nothing stopping her from bringing a proposal. We can haggle about what the language is, but the language is what it is.

Fisher said the best practice is to do the master plan first and then have the zoning follow. But there is precedent all over for doing the zoning and having the master plan, starting the master plan proceedings at the same time. Avery said but we have a master plan. We’re just updating it. It’s not like we don’t have one. Fisher said but you would want to address this property in the master plan. Avery said and they’ve done that before. The last master plan they talked about that property, and I think they recommended a rezone, but it never happened. Forte sad yeah, long-term, that’s what’s in the language. Avery said yeah, so there’s nothing stopping her from coming forward. She says she doesn’t want to put any money in unless she’s got some sort of guarantee that we’ll approve it. Well, that’s kind of the chicken-and-egg argument, right? We don’t know what it is she wants us to approve, but she’s not going to do anything unless we approve it. That’s what I, that’s how I understood it.

Quisenberry said but her notwithstanding bringing anything to us, can’t we do something that then would make it more feasible in somebody’s eye to develop that? Avery said I don’t know that that’s our – Forte said prerogative. Avery said well, I don’t know if it’s our prerogative. I don’t know if that’s our job. We’re not here to develop property. Quisenberry said no, we’re not, we’re here – (interrupting Quisenberry), Avery said I don’t have a problem with making it easier if she comes forward with a proposal that is acceptable. Quisenberry said to encourage somebody to develop it. Avery said well, she’s the owner, so it’s very specific. If this was a citywide problem where we had all kinds of lots that were sitting empty because we wouldn’t budge on how to rezone, then I think we’ve got a bigger problem. But we have one lot here that’s in question. The language is clear. They don’t like the language. But again, there’s nothing stopping them from coming to us and saying, hey, we want to build X, and we can, but she hasn’t. Forte said and there’s no reason they couldn’t have, like, changed the number of apartments, and the planning commission would have worked with them on that. You know what I mean? Like, we were all working with them. You know what I mean? It’s not like we’re like, you can’t develop this at all. That’s not at all what was going on. They just had to hit certain calculations, which are all in the master plan. Quisenberry said and it just seems like we’re in a stalemate now, and the stalemate is not allowing us the ability to try to capture some additional tax money. Jones but, no, I’m not going to get into that.

Avery said I said it before. We can’t force people to develop property. Jones said yeah, and – (interrupting Jones), Avery said and she doesn’t want to develop it, or she doesn’t want certain things done that – Forte said and she could put five houses there and be done with it. Jones said yeah, like if it’s over something like that. Quisenberry said (unintelligible) but what we can do is make it very clear it’s developable. Avery said it is. Casey said five houses. Avery said well, it was five lots. Wylie said that’s what it was originally. Avery said and then you can combine them all. Jones said I mean, like, I mean, I (unintelligible crosstalk). Avery said they put them all together. Jones said well, I mean – Casey said I don’t know.

Jones said forgot about vacant property. Like, I was confused when we were saying Waldon and Main, because we’ve got that, what was it, a former jewelry store that’s sitting open? Like, have we even, like (unintelligible crosstalk). Avery said they’re using it. Jones said so it being used? Yeah, because nothing’s happening. I thought that’s what you guys were talking about. Quisenberry said no, that’s just a vacant property as opposed to a property that can be better developed to increase revenue. Fisher said aren’t they cooking food in there? Wylie said I don’t know. Smith said in the lower room. Wylie said yeah, yeah. Avery said they’re there. Casey said it’s being used. Avery said it’s being used. Yeah.

Smith said so I’ll just share what Olsen has told me. She believes that the city should change the zoning to wherever we want it to be, and then she will go find a developer that can build a project on that under that zoning. And what we’re saying is, no, we want you to ask for what you need, and then we’ll consider it and vote it up, vote it down. But she says, no, I’m not doing anything until you change the zoning, and then I’ll go find a developer.

Rodgers said is she saying there’s no developer that will develop under this definition? Smith said correct. Under the current definition. She’s tried three times, and they’ve walked three times. So, she wants us to change the zoning to whatever we want it to be. But I’ve made this very statement to the planning commission, and they’re response was, no, it’s not our responsibility to change the zoning unless there’s a request to change the zoning. We don’t just willy-nilly change zoning. So, it’s this chicken and egg thing. Who comes first? And that’s where we’re stalled. Quisenberry said the planning commission cannot change zoning unless somebody is requesting it? Fisher said no, they can’t. Rodgers said they can’t. Smith said they can’t, but they don’t see the, unless they’re residents requesting it or the property owner themselves requesting it, they say, why would we just change this? But, yes, if we want to, if the council wants to ask, I would imagine, ask the planning commission. I want you to consider the opportunity to rezone Waldon and Main to commercial. (To Smith), Quisenberry said I thought that’s what we did at the last meeting when we addressed these. We said, let’s look into the three parking issues. Let’s ask the planning commission to move forward on looking to see how that might be developed. And there was another, I guess, request that we made when we talked about this last time about acting on these ways to try to increase revenue. Smith said right. And I did talk to the planning commission about that, and that’s why I say these discussions are ongoing and the comment was made is, as has been said, we have to kind of incorporate all this in the new master plan that’s under development. It only makes sense that that be the driving process.

Wylie said well, it sounds like, from what Forte’s saying, the planning commission has considered, and you said, without a request, you’re not doing anything. So, if we want to do something, it has to come from council. Either it has to come from Olsen or, and whoever Ed’s [Adler’s] heirs are, and, or council. Fisher said his wife. Wylie said it’s his wife, OK, yeah. Forte said yeah. Casey said are there two owners? Wylie said Ed Adler and Deanna Olsen both own, as I understand, they own the property. Fisher said right. Wylie said she seemed to be the vocal person. I don’t know if she owns the majority or not, but she seemed to be the spokesperson for the property.

Pardee said Adler’s died. Wylie said I’m sorry. Pardee said I was saying Ed Adler has died. Wylie said yes, that’s why I mentioned heirs, and Fisher said his wife is his heir. Pardee said OK. I mean, I’m wondering if it’s just going to be simpler to ask the public to approve four mills because we’re all tangled in our shorts right now.

Jones said well, I was just going to say, like, we’re getting hung up on this one line item, and, yes, it is a large item, but we’re looking at a total of $250 per year, and so we’ve still got other things to, you know, like, in terms of – Wylie said but – (interrupting Wylie), Jones said yeah, no, no, no, I’m just saying we’re just getting so caught in the weeds on that piece. Wylie said we’ve talked about it a long time. Quisenberry’s bringing up a good point. I mean, let’s say it’s $50,000 a year or $75,000. Every year, you’re getting that money. Avery said do we know that, though? I mean, what would the value of that have to be to get to $50,000 a year in property tax? Smith said I don’t know. Wylie said their wheels are spinning. Avery said I know. I’m just curious. It would be a million dollars. (Background noise.) Quisenberry said I can’t imagine a development going in there that’s going to be less than a million. That’s going to cost less than a million dollars. Avery said but if it’s a residential, then it’s a different rate, isn’t it? Coté said yeah. [Note: Not a different rate for the city operating millage. School operating millage is different for commercial and residential property, but that is irrelevant to this discussion, which only involves tax revenue to the city.] Avery said yeah. Then if she puts condos there, puts, you know, units, apartment complex, are we going to get $50,000? Quisenberry said and again, I don’t care what she does. I just think we need to do something to encourage this. Avery said well we have to care what she does. Quisenberry said huh. Avery said because she’s the owner. Quisenberry said I know. Avery said and she’s not letting it go. She made that pretty clear when she was here.

Jones said well, and here’s the way I’m looking at it, too, right? OK, so say we do decide, yes, let’s change the zoning from A to B. I don’t know what the zoning codes are, so I’m paraphrasing. OK, we say it’s now zone B. She goes out. I can’t find a developer for zone B, so now you need to rezone it to something else. So, we are going to get caught in this game, this snake eating its own tail, where nothing is happening, because the owner of a property doesn’t want to commit one way or another. Rodgers said I was thinking the same thing. There’s so many different definitions of how we can rezone this thing. Jones said yeah. Rodgers said we can rezone it totally commercial. We can rezone it mixed with that definition that if you, you know, look into it, what mixed is, residential and commercial, we can keep it the same way. Like, we would have to do a bunch of research to see what is our best option, and even at that, there might not be the person that wants to do that. Like, if we decide we want it mixed, and then nobody will do it mixed, they’ll only do it commercial, then we’re back to square one. So, you’re right. It is without any kind of solid, speakable desire . . .

Avery said the majority of the time, landowners come to the governmental body asking for a zoning change. They say it’s farmland or it’s residential, and they want to put up a whatever, commercial. That’s usually the process. Unless you’ve got some sort of big plan to redevelop as a city, like if the City of Detroit, you’ve got a block that you want to turn to commercial, then I think you would be proactive and say, OK, let’s change that zoning from residential and make it commercial so that there could be some industrial commercial use there that wasn’t there before.

Casey said when the plan was four houses, did she say she couldn’t find a developer to build four houses? Avery said no, the plan was never four houses that I’m aware of. It was originally four parcels there (unintelligible), and then they combined it into one large parcel, and they wanted to put an apartment complex, right, back in – Wylie said oh, a long time ago. It was a nursing home. Before that, I believe it was a nursing home. Avery said well, it might have been before I was on council. When I was on council, it was apartment complexes, but they wanted to put a lot of units in there, more than the density allowed. Smith said right. Avery said and that’s where it died. It did just stop there. Once we said, no, this is, and we were willing to increase the density, I believe. Smith said well, we stopped at 22. They wanted 36, as much as 64 units at one time. (Laughter.) Coté said then they got it down to 28. Smith said they got it down to close to our 22, and then that developer walked. Then the next developer came in and said, well, if you could include some retail in there, that would greatly improve the value of the numbers, and we could make this make sense if there was some retail in there. He brought it forward, then it looked like that was not going to fly, so he walked. I think there is something to be said from that. You talk to developers, they say that some retail included in there would dramatically change the formula. They could justify that with banks or whoever is doing the financing and make it feasible.

Fisher said well, maybe it would make sense for the planning commission to meet with a good developer and ask the developer what is really appropriate for this that would be a good – Wylie said when we’re done here – (continuing), Fisher said revenue source. And then you’re getting it right from the horse’s mouth. Quisenberry said but that’s just one developer. Fisher said well, they don’t, I think that’s kind of a common sort of thing. Avery said someone who doesn’t have a vested interest at this point. Fisher said yes. Avery said might give you an honest opinion. Fisher said exactly. Avery said there are, somebody else’s coming in with an agenda – Fisher said yeah – (continuing), Avery said which is they want to get this stuff in.

Wylie said so, we kind of go out and we get people doing our assessing and building and all that. Can we get somebody who does development? I mean, hire somebody. Because a lot of cities do have a development department. I wonder if there’s people who we could get in, you know, pay them 10 hours’ work and tell us what you think we could do with this piece of property. Avery said yeah, and a one-off. Because we only have one piece of property. Wylie said one piece of property. Avery said yeah, if we could hire someone to consult with. Wylie said the consultant, yeah. Forte said and it would be good to do before the community engagement so we can give our population, like, these are some options. Fisher said right. Wylie said one, how far off is community engagement. Forte said we’ve got time. Wylie said OK. Forte said yeah.

Wylie said anybody else on council have something to add.

No comments.

Wylie said I know Cara [Catallo] wants to say something. (To Catallo), Wylie said go ahead.

Catallo said no, I was just going to suggest that rather than – I’ve been to so many meetings where this has just been a talking point and I don’t know that we can have a developer and then they can decide what it’s going to be. But Main Street-Oakland County might be able to give us some assistance and some expertise as far as, like, examining the size of the property and making some suggestions. And, you know, I’d be happy, I’ve talked with Olsen about this in the past, and I know she’s very open to the idea of having a community engagement meeting because, you know, to find out what people might not be opposed to, so to speak. So, I feel like that, you know, starting with Main Street, we might be able to at least find an expert who could make suggestions. And I’ve always also thought that it might be good to sort of get a better sense environmentally of what that space could endure just because being a, you know, wetland in a flood zone, just I think that that would be a good starting point as well. But I’d be happy to ask Main Street if there’s anything that, you know, we might be able to benefit from, like, some expertise. Wylie said that’s a good idea. So, we already have a consultant on standby – Catallo said right – (continuing), Wylie said who could possibly jump in and help us. If you could do that, I think that would be a good start. Thank you. Forte said awesome.

Wylie said anybody else. OK, so we’re not even finished with this, though. Smith said no, no. Quisenberry said 9. Smith said that was number 9.

(Smith continued his presentation.)

Smith said number 10, we talked about this is a cost reduction possible opportunity and asked if it would result in a cost reduction or not, but the possibility of contracting directly with the Oakland County Sheriff rather than through Independence Township. So, I’ve been given the name of the under-sheriff, and [Sergeant] John Ashley said he’d have him call me. And I was on vacation, so now that I’m back, I’ll call the undersheriff and get that going.

Number 11 was, similarly, contract with North Oakland Fire Authority as a way of reducing costs instead of using the Independence Township Fire Department. My concern here is possible delays in response time. Quisenberry said I think with that one, we shot it down. Wylie said yeah, it says not considering response time. Smith said yeah, you’re right. We did say not considering that because of the response time.

Number 12, somewhat similar to number 9. I hesitate in saying, but that one was the possibility of other rezoning in the community or assistance in developing. So, whether it’s the property behind 42 West Washington or a couple other undeveloped sites in the city, is that a possibility, things we could help with to get those sites developed. So somewhat similar to number 9.

Number 13 was really not a cost reduction or revenue improvement, but just better visibility was the idea of preparing a three-year budget forecast. This is something that Coté’s been working on for a couple years now. This is real close to being ready.

And then last, but certainly not least, number 14 is the possibility of a police and fire millage, or what’s commonly referred to as a public safety millage, that would have to go to the voters for approval. But this could be done just to fund police and fire, which are our two biggest line items on our budget. So, a lot of communities are doing this because police and fire costs are going up, sometimes exponentially, and having a separate millage is a way of protecting those services without in any way harming the operations of the city. Quisenberry said and freeing up general fund. Smith said and freeing up general fund. Now, if you did, say, a three mill millage for police and fire, public safety, maybe we could reduce the general operating millage somewhat, somewhat offset that. But we’re not looking to completely offset that. We’re looking to somehow do that somewhat incrementally over our current millage. Does that make sense?

Quisenberry said and have you had to speak with Holly about, or any other community that has done this. Smith said I’ve talked to one other community. There are actually two other communities through the city managers where public safety millages were proposed and passed, and they said it was a slam dunk. Now, you can’t take that for a guarantee by any means. Quisenberry said which communities. Smith said one was, I’d have to get you the name. One was in northern Michigan, because we were in Traverse City when we were talking about this. And the other one, I think, was over near Grass Lake or the west side. So, it’s just something to think about. People recognize the importance of police and fire, and they don’t hesitate to, generally voters don’t hesitate to approve that because they recognize it is something you have to have for a viable community, and to protect your property values.

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

Casey said what about considering, and I forget the term now, small houses like mother-in-law houses being built on the same property? Forte said ADUs. Wylie said ADUs, accessory dwelling units. Casey said OK. I mean, we’ve got people who want to move here. Forte, Smith, and Quisenberry said accessories. Casey said we’ve got people who want to move here, and there’s nowhere to go. And we’ve got aging populations where it would be convenient for grandparents to move, and it would significantly increase revenue. Wylie said I know planning has looked at it. Forte said we talked about it, but I think council told us not to continue. Casey said we did talk about it, but I think it’s worth – Forte said I agree, I would love – (continuing) Casey said it’s worth reconsidering. I really don’t see a downside. Quisenberry said it would bring in additional revenue just because it would raise the tax value of the property. Casey said absolutely. Absolutely, yeah, it would.

Forte said I feel like everyone in my generation is like, now our parents are, like, looking to downsize and are, like, looking to stay long-term with us. Casey said I’ve got a good friend who lives in mid-California, and in a mid-sized city, and that town is encouraging these things to be built for the same reasons, because there’s a demand for it. And you can put restrictions on them. You can say they can’t be more than 1,200 feet or something like that, you know? Forte said and I think we looked at Traverse City, because they have a really strict zoning code. I can’t remember if we talked about this with council – Rodgers said we did – (continuing), Forte said or did you tell me if I had this conversation before. I can’t remember where I had it with. Smith said we talked in a planning commission about it. Forte said OK. Smith said Traverse City, again, where one of my previous MML conferences is held, ADUs are like blowing up there in a good way. Forte said yeah, it’s super expensive up there. Smith said they’re using them, much like your California friend is using them, as a way of bringing more people into the city and increasing revenue.

Rodgers said there are downsides to ADUs, and I think that’s what we were talking about when we brought them up in council, because, you know, my son lives where they’re allowed, and sometimes five families pack themselves into that 1,200-square-foot house, and you’ve got parking issues, and you’ve got, you know, you have, if you get every house in the village was allowed to have an ADU, then that increases the number of people that have to find parking spaces, and already a lot of driveways can, you know, it’s a one-way, in-and-out kind of thing. So, in theory, they are, they sound, you know, like a good way to raise revenue through taxes, but they’re, they would have to have super-strict constraints, or else, like, some days you can’t even get out of the driveway, there’s so many people parking in his subdivision. And it’s a subdivision with between $500 and $800,000 homes in it. Avery said and they wouldn’t really jive with our historic district, right? Rodgers said no, no. Avery said they really couldn’t build on those particular blocks. Quisenberry said I think the issue came up when we were discussing that property on Madison, that building that they put up in Madison. Is that an issue?

Rodgers said I had a thought. I think I brought it up once, but I don’t know where we’re at with the contract with Independence Township and the boat launch. I mean, that won’t give us $50,000, but if we, if we took over the boat launch again, it’s a matter of handing out keys every year, and whatever the charge is for the people that live on the lake, it’s the only way they can get their boat in and out. I know that they were calling you to see when that was going to all happen. But rather than hand that over to the township for a dollar, if there are 75 homes on the lake, and I don’t know how many homes there are, I know there’s 150, but that could be not on the lake, too. But if there’s 75 homes on the lake at $200 a pass for the summer, that’s $10,000. That’s without a whole lot of, you know, rezoning and rebuilding. Avery said they just have to maintain the launch, that’s all. Fisher said and have somebody administer it. Rodgers said no. Jones said no, it’s a key. Wylie said but administer it here at the office. Somebody has to keep track of the money, hand out the keys, do the paperwork. Rodgers said but it would be worth investigating what is the maintenance of the boat launch. Casey said what about the swimming and the life guards. Rodgers said that’s separate. The beach is separate from the boat launch. The boat launch is just to allow the Deer Lake people to get the boats. Avery said but we have the beach, too. Rodgers said we still have the beach. What we do with that is, I’m going out – Wylie said you’re referring to probably two options, shut down the beach or swim at your own risk. Rodgers said or Independence run the beach. That’s, you know, it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing. Smith said Fisher and I have talked with the township about beach, and that’s ongoing discussion, so I guess I’d rather not go into further detail. Rodgers said it’s worth bringing up to the finance committee, though. I would like you to do that because it seems to me something that they could do. Smith said I’ll add the ADUs to the list as well. It’s just a possibility.

Wylie said OK. Anything else regarding these revenue improvements?

Forte said so, what’s the next step? Wylie said well, these are things that are mostly still being dealt with in the finance committee. I started to say anybody who wants to go to the finance committee, we can’t, because we’re over our, get a quorum. Unless somebody’s not going to be there. [Note: Wylie’s statement is untrue – council members can participate as audience members if they wish with no greater or lesser rights than the general public.]

Forte said so, like, some of these are kind of looming through, and then some of them are a little bit more challenging. Like, will we do the parking? Like, I guess you said you’ll bring a couple of them. Wylie said (unintelligible) council. Smith said I can bring those to you as soon as the next council, if we want. Avery said well, we have a finance committee meeting coming up, what? Wylie said i’s supposed to be the 17th. Quisenberry said St. Patrick’s Day. Wylie said well, somebody was opposed to that, and now I can’t. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Avery said let’s have one more finance committee meeting. Wylie said I can’t come. Since we originally scheduled – Avery said yeah – (continuing), Wylie said I had to change the plans, and now I can’t. Smith said so, I’ll reach out to you. We’ll get that rescheduled. Avery said yeah. Let’s have one more finance committee meeting, and maybe we can push it.

Avery said part of it, I don’t know if it’s a problem, but part of it is we’re going to keep spit balling these things and talking about it in the finance committee, but we need, like, a hard deadline and say, OK, this next meeting, we’re going to come up with a plan and give it to council. I think that would probably push us on a committee that, instead of saying, well, maybe, yeah, that sounds great, to, yeah, let’s definitely bring it. Forte said would you come with, like, these, like, would you bring any, like, proposals? Wylie said one at a time, I think. Forte said one at a time to each meeting.

Wylie said my, from my impression from attending these meetings, number 14, the police, this public safety knowledge, has been, my impression, that was the one most favored by everybody on the finance committee. Forte said so, are we, we’re going to, can we do more than one of these? Wylie said oh, sure. Absolutely. And there’s even, we’ve even talked about if we do that, it takes, we can’t do it immediately. We may have to do something else in the means of something more immediate.

Forte said yeah, because, like, the parking ones, it seems like we could do those. Jones said yeah, and I wanted to ask with regard to the new purchase or the additional kiosk, is there a legal requirement with regard to the location of kiosk and number of kiosks per spot? Smith said not to my understanding. Our legal requirement is just kind of a feasibility that’s – Quisenberry said convenient. Smith said if you make it too far apart, they won’t pay. Jones said yeah. Smith said I’m not going to walk all the way down and I’ll take my chances. Jones said yeah. And there’s also, yeah, the online stuff too.

Avery said I think we have to, you know, we’re stretching it pretty thin to cover two lots, and then we put it on Main Street too. We’re going to have to get more people. Smith said we have to get a set. Avery said yeah, we’re going to hire more people, so there’s a cost to that too, I suppose. Forte said we couldn’t just add a sign with a QR code or something that, like, OK, take a picture of this and then it’ll remote to your. Wylie said what about cash. Forte said like, yeah, but it could say on the sign, like, kiosk and parking lot, like, of downtown, like, and then they can chance it, I mean, like . . . Wylie said those parking people, I’m sure they have, they can give you some good recommendations. Smith said they can, and maybe – Wylie said they’re the experts. Smith said and maybe some combination to, Forte what you’re saying and Jones what you’re saying is some, thin out the number of kiosks but have more signage that says you can go to a kiosk or you can pay with the app as a QR code.

Rodgers said yeah, you know, in Birmingham there’s just, like, there’s a sign with a QR code. Forte said that’s what I’m trying to say. Rodgers said there’s no kiosks. Quisenberry said but they also have a slot where you put your card. I think we have to be careful. Rodgers said no, you do it all on an app, and you have to download the app in order to – (interrupting Rodgers), Quisenberry said I was just there last week and parked on Old Woodward, and there was a card slot. Jones said there’s options. Rodgers said but there’s other spots out there that don’t do that. Forte said can we use the same system we have, or would we have to get a new system? Smith said no, I want to use the same system, build on what we already have. Quisenberry said I think we have to be careful about having the sole method of paying, you have to have a smartphone. Jones said no, it’s not the sole option, it’s options. Quisenberry said that’s right. But you have to still be able to have a way where somebody can pay with a card or cash. Wylie said I don’t think they were denying that. Jones said we’re not denying that. We were just saying, as opposed to buying five kiosks – Wylie said just limiting the number – (continuing), Jones said maybe we buy three, and we amp up signage, like, go pay this way. Forte said and we could put a phone number on there, too, you know what I mean. Jones said yeah, there’s all kinds of – (interrupting Jones), Wylie said anything else. Jones said sorry. Wylie said no, it’s OK. Jones said that was all I needed.

Wylie said OK. So, we are done with our discussion. Income improvement recommendations.

Wylie said I’m sorry and recognized someone named Eric [Erich Lines, Curt Catallo’s business partner?] for a comment.

Eric said a couple of things. Parking, have you taken into account the rising popularity as far as on the payback with Lyft and Uber and bringing people in that way, and also delivery services for the restaurants. Wylie said I don’t know what that means. Eric said there’s that many fewer people coming into town. So, you may say it’s going to take a year, but that’s based on previous. Avery said historical data. Eric said which is always changing. Wylie said I’m sorry. I missed something somewhere. What were you saying about Uber and – Eric said not as many people are driving into town. Wylie said so, you’re saying it’s going down because of that. OK. Eric said we see in the restaurants, we see more people being dropped off with Uber. Wylie said oh, really. Eric said more Uber and DoorDash deliveries than ever before. And we just assume that those tendencies are going to continue. And the other thing I wanted to say is, as we’re talking about things like ADUs that, you know, three and four years ago were taboo, I think we’re, it would behoove us, you know, if you want to talk about a way to get some money, quick and easy money, dispensaries. A dispensary will bring you $50 to $55 grand a year. Wylie said did you see this week that the, like Oxford’s number, I think last year they got $300,000. This year they had about $160,000. The market saturated then. There’s just too many places selling. Avery said it would require, I think, a vote of the people, because didn’t we have a vote? Quisenberry said yeah, we already turned it down. Eric said sure. Wylie said well, we turned it down. Avery said somebody funded that. Eric said but again, that was eons ago. Avery said yeah. Jones and Wylie said three years ago. Wylie said a lot changes. Eric said yeah. Three years ago, ADUs were maybe one of the (unintelligible). Wylie said OK. Avery said they voted to not allow them. Casey said oh.

[Note: The council members claiming the city voted against a marijuana dispensary are wrong. The vote several years ago was on a charter amendment that was proposed by a group that supported having marijuana dispensaries in the city. City residents always have to vote on a charter amendment. It was entirely possible to be for, against, or neutral on the subject of dispensaries and still vote no on what was an onerous charter amendment that would have neutered the city’s ability to regulate dispensaries and would have even allowed them in historic homes in residential areas. The city could allow a marijuana dispensary by ordinance that would not require a citizen vote.]

(To Eric), Wylie said did you have anything else. Eric said no, that was it.

Wylie said anybody have anything else.

No comments.

Wylie said OK. So that’s the end of the discussion.

Item 11c – Closed Session to Consider Attorney’s Written Opinion (video time mark 1:06:16):

Wylie said we are now on [Item] #11C, which is a closed session meeting as permitted by the Open Meetings MCL 15.2689

• • Motion to Hold a Closed Session Meeting with City Attorney Gerald Fischer

I’m going to have to say this.

(Wylie read the motion.)

Wylie said so, we will need a motion to hold a closed session meeting with City Attorney Gerald Fisher. And I need a motion for that.

Motion by Jones; second Avery.

Wylie said discussion or comments from council.

No comments.

Wylie said from the public,.

No comments.

The motion to go into closed session passed by unanimous voice vote.

• • Initiate a Closed Session Meeting

Wylie said we are moving into a closed session, which is 8:07. We need a little bit of time. Gina’s going to shut down video.

• • Discussion
  • Motion to End Closed Session Meeting
  • End the Closed Session, return to Open Session

Agenda Item #12, Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 0:):

[Unknown – you’ll just have to trust the law was followed because cameras/outside witnesses were not present.]

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 03-09-2026 – city council packet