Category: City Vehicles

Introduction:

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 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. Mayor Eric Haven has also cut people 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 by the mayor, 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.

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

Agenda Item #1, Call to Order:

The meeting was not formally called to order.

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:12):

Pledge said.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:30):

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

Agenda Item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:45):

Haven said he would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as it has been presented to them.

Motion to approve the agenda by Wylie; second Casey.

Haven asked if there was any discussion. Does anyone want to put something on it or take something off?

No discussion.

Motion adopted by unanimous voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:08):

Haven read the rules for public comment.

Chet Pardee:

Pardee identified himself and provided his address.

Good evening.

Clarkston City Council has shown no reaction to public comments with criticism or suggestions regarding insufficient funds to repair streets and sidewalks – only silence. Sometimes a polite thank you, but no response, no plan.

For the last two budget years, the finance committee has prepared, and council approved, the next year’s budget with insufficient funds to repair streets and sidewalks.

For four years, council has ignored the message in the annual capital improvement plan showing more than a million dollars required for desired capital projects in the next five years. Joe’s [councilmember Joe Luginski] correct: it’s not really a plan, it’s a project list. A plan includes how the projects can be accomplished.

The 2017 HRC [Hubbell, Roth and Clark, the city’s contract engineer] PASER [Pavement Surface and Evaluation Rating] RAMP [Road Asset Management Plan] report of street conditions required spending $80-100,000 per year and projected street conditions would decline from 4.3 to 4.2. A month ago, the HRC PASER update showed the expected decline, but to 3.5. There is today no plan to provide sufficient funds to repair streets and sidewalks. 

In the June finance committee meeting, the mayor, city manager and city treasurer (and two council members were absent) with the city attorney via phone concluded insufficient time to use an expired bond issue as an offset to millage for citizens to consider in this November’s election.    

The next millage opportunity occurs in November 2023. Funds for street and sidewalk repairs could come in July 2024. Does council understand there will be no funds for street or sidewalk repair until the 2024-25 budget year? 

The city manager acknowledges that the current budget assumes using parking funds that don’t exist for the budget’s capital projects. The seven paver aprons may be repaired in this budget year using the one-time $98,000 in ARPA [American Rescue Plan Act] funds provided by the federal government. Parking revenue is the city’s only fund source for street repairs. 

Council has ignored the suggested benefits of facilitated workshops to determine priorities and understand how the city has gotten to this financial point.

Citizens may believe the city is taking care of its roads because MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] has repaired Main Street and the Road Commission of Oakland County will recap Clarkston Road in September but without storm water improvement.

Who can explain why city council has not acted to provide the funds for city employees to do their jobs of taking care of the city infrastructure? Does council acknowledge this responsibility? Does council not understand the city’s financial “hot mess”? Can anyone explain council’s inaction?

Haven asked if anyone wanted to comment or ask Mr. Pardee a question on his report.

No comments.

Haven said it’s a regular one. It’s a repeated one that comes to us. Pardee agreed. Haven said he read Pardee’s last paragraph today and thinking about the, you know, over time, this election, and monies to fix the roads and so on. Haven said that Pardee knows that there are things going on. They have something on the agenda even tonight about minor crack fill and all that kind of thing and the pavers, so Pardee knows that’s going on. Not the magnitude Pardee wants, but again, he asked the question who can explain why the city has not acted to provide funds for city employees to do their jobs taking care of the city infrastructure. That’s a bit of a presumption, OK. We do. We do pay our people on a regular basis to do their job relative to whatever street and road jobs there are to do. But again, it’s a matter of money, you know. Haven said he doesn’t know, and he was going to ask Pardee this tonight because they have talked about this before, is it Pardee’s intention that he would pursue raising taxes to do this, is that what he would want, or take a collection, or how would Pardee suggest that we pay for these?

Pardee said that as they’ve talked for the past year, there was a bond issue that was expiring. Haven agreed. Continuing, Pardee said the city government let it expire without any action. So, everybody’s taxes in the tax bill that’s due Wednesday went down. Haven agreed. Continuing, Pardee said because that bond issue went away. Pardee was after adding a couple mills in November, but the meeting that occurred here on June 6^th – interrupting Pardee, Haven said Pardee knew that they had to let that expire. We had to go through that process, and we might decide to engage our public relative to those taxes and that or, and when it expired, we knew that, we knew that, OK? And Jonathan [Smith, city manager], we had to go through that process, right, to let it expire, and then we decide whether to reenact it. So, it’s not a matter of just kind of hoarding it now, we have it, we can’t do that. So, Haven thinks that Pardee knows the answers to his questions (unintelligible). Pardee frequently repeats it, and Haven gets that, we’re certainly aware of them.

Pardee said that there is not an intention to provide funds that would repair streets and sidewalks currently. Haven said that there is currently, and we’re using ARPA funds. Haven said that Pardee knows that, he mentioned it here (holding up a copy of Pardee’s comments). Pardee answered some of his own questions. Pardee said fix the pavers. Haven said he’s got it, that’s what they’ve put forward, and there is a committee that has been formed by planning [the Planning Commission], OK, and Pardee knows that, to look at additional parking, using visitor money, a dollar an hour or whatever, to add a lot, Pardee knows that, so there’s a plan. He can’t say that there isn’t any plan. But short of raising taxes, he knows that, that seems to be our option, right? Pardee said he supports raising taxes at least back to the previous bond level. Haven said that’s, again, for discussion. Pardee said it’s five mills. Haven asked if Pardee had any other sources of revenue other than raising taxes. Pardee said five mills. Oh no, he’s looking to replace the bond issue that went away. Haven said he knows. Pardee said and there’s another one that’s going to go away next year. Haven said it’s another tax, you know, replacing the old one. He gets it. But again, these are repetitive questions Pardee asks, and Haven just wants to make sure that we are on the same page. Pardee knows what our status is, and we’re operating with, living within our means, very nicely. We operate with a balanced budget all the time, right? And so, we are making provisions for using additional revenues from paid parking, we’re using the ARPA funds that we have, and short of raising taxes or going to a bond issue, we are where we are, OK? So, there’s no free money, there’s no free lunch, unless we take up a collection or something and some people want to contribute. Again, philanthropy is a possibility for using on our roads, so, that’s clear, isn’t it? We are where we are; we’re living within our means.

Pardee said we had an opportunity in June at the finance committee meeting. Not everybody was there. Luginski wasn’t there, Avery wasn’t there. Haven agreed. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Pardee said the decision that was made was that there was insufficient time to work through – (interrupting Pardee), Haven said it wasn’t an irrational decision. Continuing, Pardee said to work through things that needed to be done by August. Haven agreed. Pardee said July, August. He commends council for responding as quickly as they did to the marijuana thing (made sounds and gestures). We brought that right up. Pardee said he looks forward to a millage increase to vote. Haven said OK, there you go. That’s the answer to your question. Pardee said he acknowledged three years ago, if you’re looking for a poster child, (raising hand) yes. Haven said OK, alright. Haven thanked Pardee for his comment. Pardee thanked Haven for speaking with him. Haven said he didn’t want it to go on indefinitely without some engagement about this. Pardee thanked Haven.

Haven asked if there were any other public comments.

No other public comments.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:09:20):

Haven said they would move on to the next item on their agenda which is For Your Information. This is kind of their opportunity to show you things. We always have a For Your information (unintelligible).

• • Bucks for Buses (Video time mark 0:09:34; page 3/45 of the council packet):

We have on September 4^th [14^th] over at Brady Lodge on Bay Court, is a fundraiser dinner, tickets are $35 apiece, to raise funds for buses for seniors and so on. (Haven held up the flyer). So, that’s there, if you would like to take a look at this and attend, again, the date is September 14^th. Haven said he was over there the other day. It’s really pretty over there at Brady Lodge. So, that’s an opportunity for you if you’d like to do that.

• • Clarkston Community Historical Society’s 50^th Annual Juried Show, Art in the Village and Vintage Market and Pop-Up Shoppes (Video time mark 0:10:01; page 4/45 of the council packet):

Haven said then Art in the Village, he’s going to turn this over to Smith because he knows a lot more about Art in the Village than Haven does, but it’s coming.

Smith said that this weekend is Art in the Village. It’s the annual, you’ve probably all seen it, it’s where we bring our artists into the park. This year we’ll have a record number of artists. Because we have this vintage market that we added last year that will be in the back again this year, so we’ll (unintelligible) a record number of artists this year, and we expect good weather and a good turnout, so we hope that you’ll all come out and enjoy the fun. There’ll be food, lots of different types of food, as well as the art and music. Haven said this is the highlight of our year here in Clarkston (unintelligible) one of our major festivals, for sure (unintelligible). Smith said it’s estimated that we bring about 10,000 people oveFr the two days to the city. Haven said wow, and that keeps the Historical Society functioning well. Smith said yes (unintelligible).

• • Friends of the Clarkston Independence District Library Fall Book Sale (Video time mark 0:11:05); page 5/56 of the council packet):

Haven said the Friends of the Clarkston Library are having their book sale. This is an annual event too, and it will occur from September 20^th through 24^th. That’s Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of that week of the 20^th of September, and again, that’s always a robust time of having a whole lot of books for sale and so on, and it supports our library which we love, so please be aware of that. Again, the date is the week of September 20^th and we’re following on through there Tuesday through Saturday.

• • 09-07-2022 – Notice of Assessment and Right to Appeal Lake Improvement Board for Clarkston Mill Ponds (Video time mark 0:11:41; page 6/45 of the council packet):

Haven said he’s taking these in order here, and there’s a notice of meeting for the assessment of properties along the Mill Pond. Primarily, this is for South Mill Pond. They’re the ones that are on assessment right now, $117/property. The Upper Mill Pond, because it’s low, is not receiving services up there. But it’s a meeting on the 27^th. Pardee and Haven go to this thing periodically, and so this is again to inform people of the annual budget and so on. So, we wanted to make you aware of that.

Jennifer Speagle [city clerk] said it is located in Independence Township. (Unintelligible crosstalk between Speagle and Haven). Speagle said it’s 6:00. Haven thanked Speagle.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:12:38; page 9/45 of the council packet):

Haven said that the next item on the agenda is city manager’s report, and we have that in our packet. Smith has four items on here.

The first one is a report on public restrooms. Haven said we had another vandalism situation. Smith agreed. Haven asked if the installation had taken place, Smith said within a week or something. Smith said we hoped the sink would have arrived today, but he doesn’t believe that it did. It was supposed to arrive today, but we hope to get that fixed this week before the weekend.

Haven said before we didn’t know the vandal – we did find the vandal in this case? Smith agreed. Haven said whoever (unintelligible). Smith said that we did receive payment from the parent of that young lady. Haven said that’s what it was. Smith said yes, we did receive some compensation. We didn’t charge her for what the new sink is going to cost, but we did charge her a fair amount for what this broken sink would cost. Haven asked if the camera played a role in identifying the subject or not. Smith said not really. Greg [Coté] our treasurer still happened to be here when this occurred. So, he heard the commotion and ran out there first to see that everybody was OK, which they were, because the china sink shattered and broke when it hit the floor. So, it could have been very dangerous, given it’s sharp china. When that breaks, you have to be really careful that you don’t cut yourself, so fortunately nobody was hurt, but they did basically acknowledge that they sat on the sink. Haven said sat on it. Smith agreed. Haven asked if we’re seeing a pattern. Is that what happened the first time too or was that just sort of outright – (interrupting Haven), Smith said it probably was the same kind. We have a problem. When you put three, four, five, eight kids in the bathroom, the last time there were eight kids, this time there were three, but one of them inevitably wants to sit down so they sit on the sink, the only thing you can sit on besides the toilet. So, it’s an ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] sink, meaning there’s no legs in front to block a wheelchair from pulling up to it, and as a result, it’s vulnerable.

Haven asked if Smith was going to put more of a pedestal operation underneath this one for support. Smith said it’s got braces that go down to the base to the wall. So, it’s got double bracing, so it should be safe, more stronger, and it’s a stainless steel sink instead of a porcelain sink. And it’s got an automatic water shutoff, so it will sense the hand motion and turn the water on and off, which is good from a vandalism standpoint as well. We’re always concerned about somebody just leaving the water on. That can’t occur now. Haven said we have a nice amenity here in this building, and we have a nice bathroom to our park and so on, so we certainly don’t like to see this. Smith agreed. Haven said sort of slow down and stop this whole situation. Smith agreed.

Haven asked Smith to bring everyone up to date on Main Street pavers. Haven said he knows that Smith is working on that solution, but it’s not obvious what’s it’s going to be. Smith said right, so we thought that a solution on the Main Street pavers would be a less costly solution, might be just to replace those pavers that were crumbling. We thought that might just be a temporary solution. Granted, it’s not going to last us another twenty years, but we thought it might be something that we could do in the short-term to just save ourselves some money, but we had a commercial contractor come out, and he said that basically it’s going to cost you more, or as much, possibly even more than if we just completely took this out and replaced it with new pavers. Because the new pavers aren’t going to be the same size as the old ones so you have to get into cutting pavers that will fit in those spots, and then you still have, which we knew, you’ll still have the rest of the pavers that they didn’t replace, they’re still twenty-plus years old. So, they’re vulnerable to falling apart at any time. So, he said you’re going to spend a lot of money and then in a year from now, it’s going to be (unintelligible). So, he was trying to be honest with us. He said he’s talking himself out of a job, but he has to tell you honestly, it’s the wrong decision, you’re wasting your money. It’s going to cost you very much in labor to replace all those pavers. They have to cut each one. It’s just going to be so time-consuming. So, we’re kind of back at the drawing board looking at concrete, which is the next most economical solution is poured concrete. We have to get these temporary easements from the various property owners (unintelligible due to background noise). So, we also want to (unintelligible) from SEMCOG [Southeast Michigan Council of Governments] that we can potentially take, capitalize on. It’s specifically for ADA compliance, which is perfect because that’s what we’re trying to accomplish here, ADA sidewalk compliance as well as eliminating some potholes that people could fall in. So, we’re pursuing that now and hope that we can get a grant for the 2023 fiscal year.

Haven said that we certainly need that, because we had a trip and fall, right, so we need a cleaner scenario, situation, and we’ve reached the end of the line.

Luginski asked Smith if it was replaced as opposed to repair that we would have to do the grading and go back because it was a couple of degrees off and whatever and (unintelligible) compliance and whatever. Isn’t that going to add a substantial amount of cost to the project? Smith said well, they think that it’s going to be about the same, actually. Now, they’re saying in light of the pavers contractor, his input that it’s going to cost so much per square foot to just repair this, and yes, you didn’t have to bring it up to code if you just did repair. Luginski agreed. Smith said where if you do a full replacement, you have to make it code. Luginski agreed. Smith said they think that in light of that news that it’s actually going to be about the same. It might even be cheaper to do a complete replacement. Luginski said that he thinks before we make a decision, we need to get that comparison. We need the cost for both. Smith said right and he does have the cost. Luginski said repair, and then the replacement cost. Smith agreed. Luginski said OK. Smith said they are working on that, and then also at the same time simultaneously we’re looking at could we get a grant. Luginski said right, and if we get a grant, then that makes it (unintelligible).

Haven said we are looking at grant potential and ARPA funds which Pardee pointed to. Smith agreed. Haven said so hopefully, we can get this done before winter. Smith said not before winter. Haven said it won’t happen. Smith said that the SEMCOG, their fiscal year starts November 1. So, the 2023 fiscal year starts November 1. Haven said OK. Smith said that’s getting a little late, unless you have an unseasonably warm November. It’s unlikely you are going to pour in November so likely this is turning into a spring project. Haven said a spring project, OK. Smith said but if we get all of our ducks in a row, all our financing, all the approvals necessary, permitting, so we could start right out of the gate in the spring, that’s probably going to be our best bet.

Luginski asked if Smith had talked to the businesses, wasn’t there seven or eight businesses. Smith said seven. Luginski said seven and asked if there was any pushback on the easement. Smith said that the one business owner did not suggest, that he talked to about this, did not. He hasn’t talked to all of the business owners, but he wasn’t concerned about it. Luginski said OK. Smith said you know three of the properties are ours. Luginski said right, three. Smith said just four business owners. Luginski said four additional, OK. Smith said that one of the four was OK with it. Luginski said OK.

Haven said OK, we had a truck repair, and Jimi [Turner, Department of Public Works supervisor] again came through for us, right? Smith agreed. Haven said he’s a really valuable employee. Smith said replacing a starter on a Ford 550 diesel truck is not the easiest thing to do, but Turner did that in a matter of a couple of hours and the part cost was negligible, so we’re back in operation.

Haven said then the last one here, getting our website even more useful, so the businesses asked for it to be updated, and you are working on that. Smith said absolutely. Haven said so it will be all correct. It will be better for our citizens to go to our website and find out who’s who and so on. Smith agreed. Haven thanked Smith for that. (Haven made an unintelligible comment.)

Pardee raised his hand and Haven recognized him to speak. (To Smith), Pardee said that we had talked a few months ago about trading in the very large truck for one that had greater utility, and at the time, we were thinking that we might get that on a no out-of-pocket basis. Smith agreed. Pardee asked if that’s still. Smith said it’s still something that he’s kind of looking at. Unfortunately, it’s kind of slid to the back burner. Smith said he was looking at both trucks, and we’re (unintelligible) into more and more and more repairs of the Ford truck. It’s got an oil leak right now that was going to be $3,000 at the dealership to repair, or like $2,800. Turner is going to try and repair that himself, but Smith is just sickened by the leak. Every day, Smith walks out on the driveway and sees this oil on our new concrete. So, it’s really frustrating. Smith said the assignments are obvious here. We need to consider trading in this vehicle for a new one, and at the same time, Smith thinks that we should consider leasing something. It’s what the township is doing now, leasing rather than purchasing. So, there are definitely things to look into. Smith is hoping in the winter, things calm down a little bit, Turner and Smith have some time to really dig into grants and other opportunities to take advantage of the equity we have in the trucks right now, which is still good, and see how far that would get us into new vehicles potentially at no cost whatsoever. Haven said excellent. Haven thanked Smith.

Agenda Item #8 – Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:23:23):

• • 08-08-2022 Final Minutes (page 10/45 of the council packet)
  • 08-17-2022 Final Minutes (page 12/45 of the council packet)
  • 08-22-2022 Draft Minutes (page 14/45 of the council packet)
  • 09-06-2022 Draft Minutes (page 16/45 of the council packet)
  • 08-12-2022 Treasurer’s Report (page 17/45 of the council packet)
  • 09-07-2022 Check Disbursement Report from 08-01-2022 – 08-31-2022 (page 18/45 of the council packet)
  • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., August invoices (page 28/45 of the council packet)

Haven said we would move on to the next item on the agenda, acceptance of the consent agenda, and this is a collection for purposes of expediency of the meeting. Our final minutes from [08-08 and] 08-17, our draft minutes from 08-22. We have two sets of draft minutes tonight. And the treasurer’s report. They’re all together in a packet so we can approve them all at once by motion unless someone wants to pull something out of the packet and talk about it separately. Haven said that he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda as it has been given to us unless someone wants to make another motion.

Motion by Luginski; second Rodgers.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about our consent agenda.

No additional discussion from the council.

Wylie pointed to the audience and said that there was a comment. Haven said sorry and recognized Pardee.

Pardee said he had a few questions. On Tom’s [Ryan, city attorney] billing, it shows a new lawsuit, and Pardee was wondering if he would give us some perspective on what is the nature of the lawsuit, Hannah Stocker is the name that’s there. And the other question that he had is there is a billing related to 154 North Main. Haven said they could take that one first and asked Smith if that’s the one being painted. Smith said yes and asked if Ryan wanted to talk about the first question first. Ryan said either.

Smith said 154 North Main, the house that’s being painted. Smith said he’s talked with him many, many times, and he is slowly making some progress. Maybe not the color that you might have chosen, but it is paint, and it will help protect the structure by virtue of getting a new surface on there. So, that is something that Smith thinks is a step in the right direction. He’s trying to do the work himself. He thinks he can get everything done here in the next week or two, and we’re hopeful that in the next week or two will be (unintelligible) the weather and he can finish it. The only thing he won’t be able to do, and he has to call a friend over, is the very peak of the house in the gable that needs another friend, a little bit more (unintelligible) to help him paint that. Haven said so, we passed one deadline, the 15^th, right? And we gave him a reprieve until the 1^st and it still kind of lingers. Smith said yes, and that’s why he’s been talking to the homeowner and pushing him for what happened, why did you miss the last deadline, he has not just been playing softball with him. Smith has been pushing him hard to get this done. We lost a whole season last year because of one issue after another, and Smith is bound and determined not to have that happen again. Haven said he’s in Smith’s backyard and Smith sees it every day. Smith said and he hears it, yes.

Haven asked if there were any other questions and then noted that Pardee had a question for Ryan about a lawsuit. Pardee said Hannah Stocker appeared in the billing for the first time, and he asked Ryan if he could describe the nature of the lawsuit since it’s new. Ryan said it’s the Clarkston Cares Coalition versus Jennifer Speagle and the City of the Village of Clarkston, which he found out about Friday afternoon, August 12, 2022, and the rest as they say is history. (Haven made an unintelligible comment.) Ryan said it’s a brand-new lawsuit. Pardee asked if she is the attorney for the other side. Ryan said correct. Pardee thanked Ryan.

Haven asked if we had any discussion about the consent agenda.

No discussion.

The motion to accept the consent agenda as presented passed by unanimous voice vote.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business:

Item 9a – Discussion: Status of Ballot Wording (Relative to Medical Marihuana) (Video time mark 0:27:22):

Haven said under old business, a discussion on the status of the ballot wording relative to the marijuana and told Pardee it was a good lead in for this. Haven asked Ryan to lead the discussion for us.

Ryan said sure and thanked everybody for being here today. Ryan said that what he thought he would do in preparing for tonight’s meeting, and he did want to say that he had a very nice phone call with Mr. Bisio this afternoon who is here. He was as surprised about the court of appeals decision as Ryan was. Ryan ensured that council has a copy of this decision which he received unceremoniously on September 1^st which blew through, in his opinion, all of the requirements for a charter amendment by initiatory petition and basically rewards someone who waits until the last possible moment as the city clerk, a city clerk, has forty-five days to review the signatures and make sure that 5% of the signatures are from registered electors in the city in question. So, the forty-fifth day was August 15^th. We certified, or Speagle certified, the language on August 11^th. The next day they filed an appeal, and we are in court, as Ryan explained last time, he thought we were going to be in court on Wednesday, August 24^th. That’s what we agreed upon. When Ryan got the order from the court later that Friday night, it was for August 16^th at 10:30, which is the deadline to have ballot language into the county clerk. So, Ryan had a discussion with Ms. Stocker about that on Monday morning, but in any event, the circuit court ruled against us, inexplicably in Ryan’s opinion, and then we went, the council authorized Ryan to appeal it, we did appeal, and the September 1^st opinion we received upheld the circuit court saying that you, that basically if you have the number of signatures and they’re appropriate, that the other portions of the statute which provide for city council review, for attorney general review, and governor review don’t matter. If there are enough signatures on the ballot, it goes through. It doesn’t matter what the statute says. So, very disappointing, and surprising, and Ryan said he would talk about that in a minute.

Ryan thinks it’s a very poor decision. It was by one panel of the court of appeals. It’s not published, so it’s not binding precedent, but it is unfortunate in that they took the position, they very narrowly looked at the language and how something should get on a charter by initiatory petition, that is, by a person, and people have the right to vote, the right to initiate language for change of charter and/or ordinances in cities in Michigan, but there’s a procedure which, up until this case, was followed. So, in any event, it’s a disappointing opinion, and there are some questions about everybody saying well, what does this mean, and so Ryan said he wanted to talk about a few things.

Continuing, Ryan said citizens of the state voted for medical marijuana. You know, you’ll all remember the advertisements, the promotions, it’s for grandma with glaucoma and whatever, and there’s certainly medical use of marijuana, not disagreeing with that, but the practice was a lot different. So, in any event, in 2016, prior to the 2018 proposal that passed for recreational marijuana, so recreational marijuana means that anyone 21 years of age or over can have in their possession at any time two-and-a-half grams of marijuana, they can have ten grams of marijuana in their home, they can grow twelve plants or whatever, you know, that’s what the law is now if you’re over 21. So, in 2016, when we still had medical marijuana, because you may remember there was some marijuana for recreational trying to get put on the ballot which didn’t make it. In 2016, they passed, the legislature passed, what they called the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act.

Ryan said he wants to read, and he hopes they’ve all seen this, what our charter, what this petition is, it uses the term, and this will hopefully answer some other questions, it uses the term that there are marijuana provisioning centers, two licenses issued, and a minimum/maximum of two licenses allowed. So, what is a marijuana provisioning center? So, the statute says that a provisioning center means a licensee that is a commercial entity located in the state that purchases marijuana from a grower or processor and sells, supplies, or provides marijuana to registered, qualifying patients directly or through the patient’s primary caregivers. Provisioning centers includes any commercial property where marijuana is sold at retail to registered, qualifying patients or registered primary caregivers. A noncommercial location used by a registered primary caregiver to assist a qualifying patient connected to the caregiver through the Department’s marijuana registration process, in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, is not a provisioning center for the purposes of this act. So, under medical marijuana, you have to have a card, you have to have a signed doctor’s card saying whatever your medical reason is to have medical marijuana and that you can either be a caregiver, which means you’ve got to get licensed by the state also, Ryan said he kind of discussed this earlier but will go over it again, and that caregiver can have five patients, no more than five, and that caregiver can have twelve plants for each patient. So, including him or herself, that’s seventy-two plants you can have. They have to be locked up and whatnot, he’s not going to get into that, but so that’s a non-commercial medical marijuana caregiver. So, when we say in this charter amendment, it says provisioning centers, we’re talking about a commercial operation that like if I’m a caregiver, and I don’t have enough plants or enough marijuana, I can go to this medical marijuana provisioning center and I can get medical marijuana for my patients or myself from this provisioning center. So, people that still have to go anywhere, it’s actually a commercial entity. Now, whether or not we want to amend our zoning ordinance, he’ll be discussion with our city planner or whatever, but it’s not, there’s a difference between the residential use for a caregiver with patients, with five patients, and a provisioning center, which is a commercial location for distribution to either patients and/or caregivers. So, that’s the first thing Ryan wanted to bring to everyone’s attention about whether, where these things will go if this thing gets approved.

Continuing, Ryan said why we are dealing with medical marijuana after the 2018 ballot language, he doesn’t really understand it. There’s a lot more people smarter than he is about that, but he just wants to correct one thing, or talk about one other thing about is medical marijuana a gateway, in other words, if medical marijuana is approved, these two provisioning centers are approved in the city, does that mean we’re going to have recreational marijuana, OK, is that a gateway. So, he provided the city council, when in 2018, when MRTMA [Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act], that’s the recreational marijuana, when that passed, part of that statute when they were trying to integrate all this, dealt with the fact that we’ve dealt with medical marijuana since 2008, now it’s ten years later in 2018, and if this recreational passes, which it did, what do we do, how do we integrate all this or whatnot. So, it’s MCL [Michigan Compiled Laws] 333.27956, in section six, it says under powers of a municipality, a municipality may not adopt an ordinance that restricts the transportation of marijuana through the municipality or prohibits a marijuana grower, a marijuana processor, and a marijuana retailer from operating within a single facility, or from operating in a location shared with a marijuana facility operating pursuant to the medical marihuana facilities licensing act.

So, that was kind of quick, but Ryan said in other words, under MRTMA, which is a different process than medical, so right now, if this charter amendment passes, it’s a charter amendment for medical marijuana only. For them, if it passes, and if they had two provisioning centers in the city, they would have, somebody would have to come in under MRTMA and provide or present an ordinance that allowed recreational marijuana in the city. And if that passed, then we would have the two marijuanas if you will, and the prohibition against the city restricting the location to be co-located if you will, of medical and recreational, the city couldn’t do that. But it’s not automatic that if we have medical that recreational comes in; it’s got to go through another process that is not on the table yet or maybe it will be, he doesn’t know, but Ryan just wants people to understand that while it’s possible that if this passes on November 8^th with these two provisioning centers that at some point, somebody in the future could try to come in with an amendment under MRTMA for recreational, and if that passed, then our two provisioning centers could become recreational and medical. Does that make any sense at all?

Luginski said that the process as he understands, this is what he’s been told recently, that the hardest thing of getting the medical or recreational, getting the application approved at the state level, right, so it’s the people that they check their background, their records, and the finances and all that, and once they get approval for this medical marijuana, right, the process to go to, they don’t have to go through that process again to get a license for recreational because they’ve already done that, and that’s the big hurdle is getting approved by the state to get any kind of marijuana license. So, they’ve already done phase one, so for phase two they don’t have to go through that process again because they’ve already been approved. Second, so number one is that valid. So, number two, Luginski doesn’t know where this falls within the charter amendment they’re asking us to vote for or vote on, because the way he reads that is we aren’t allowed, and maybe he’s reading this wrong, but as a council to pass any ordinances or any kind of rulings that go against their ability to do whatever they want to do. So, if they come and say this is what we want to do – (interrupting Luginski), Ryan said Luginski was pointing at MRTMA – continuing, Luginski said yes. Ryan said they can’t do that unless they go through a different process. The city people have to vote, the voters of the city have to allow a MRTMA ordinance to come in. Luginski said so, there would still be a vote. They can’t just do it. Ryan said that is correct. It’s a whole different process and it’s got to be voted on by, well, the city council could adopt an ordinance. Luginski said right, but if we say no – (interrupting Luginski), Ryan said we have said no, we opted out. Right now, we’re an opt out community for medical. We’re not in medical, we’re not in recreational. Luginski said if we said no to this, they could still get the number of petition signatures to get it on the ballot to vote. Ryan said they could try that, yes, they could try to get recreational. Luginski said OK. Ryan said there’s nothing we can do about that. Luginski said he was just trying to understand the process.

An unidentified woman in the audience said it’s her understanding that the state, the state is in the process of changing the way that they’re doing things. Specifically, because across the board there are very few, if any, medical marijuana facilities that don’t become recreational that in order to minimize paperwork and process, that the state is going to a single approval. Luginski said a single license. The unidentified woman said for medical and recreational. Ryan said yes, but they can’t do that, unless they totally do away with local control, which is not the statute, if they preempt everything. The unidentified woman agreed. Ryan said right now, it’s still a local unit of government has the say on MRTMA and on medical.

Luginski said (unintelligible) this statute to begin with. Ryan said it was a charter amendment statute, that’s what it was. Luginski said he means the process that they had to go through, they didn’t. If it truly was just by the process and the fact that they didn’t do it, the petition wouldn’t get on the ballot. Ryan said not this year, no. But the state didn’t buy that and said we don’t care about all that, as long as they have the signatures, it’s OK. Ryan said it’s something that would have been on the ballot for next year. Luginski agreed and said he understands.

Haven said that Ryan had mentioned something about the transition from medical to recreational. He appreciates that and thanks Ryan for that, and Ryan said that a second vote was required, that’s what he’s saying right now that’s what the law is. Ryan said that’s correct. Haven said (unintelligible) he thinks that as we look at this, the concern would be removed from medical to recreational facilities to what this particular three-page, fine print proposal, you start reading the fine print in it, and it gets really disturbing, OK? There are a whole lot of requirements that the city has to do to support this. You know that costs. But Haven thought that the most troubling thing is in section five, called the repealer paragraph, which was really troubling language to Haven, which sounded like, and he’ll just read his take-away from it. The language in this amendment dictates in the repealer, section five, that if approved, the city should consider all past documents null and void when in conflict with their newly added chapter sixteen. They’re adding a chapter, and again, this is what Haven understood from Ryan, was the reason for extended time for review for this from the state and so on, because they’re not just asking for an ordinance. They’re asking for a change in our charter, which is changing our city constitution, if you will. So, they wanted that, and when you read that paragraph, it sounds like any previous government rulings, ordinances, anything we have on the books, if it stands in the way of their practice here in the town, then that’s null and void. They don’t have to abide by our previous laws, which would mean that things like our zoning laws would be in jeopardy. If they can’t find property on Main Street, which is kind of minimal, we see that in a lot of the town, if they can’t find property here, then they can move into a residential area and set one of these things up, and the signage that goes with it would be another thing that they could null out, an ordinance they could null out, to break just because of that, so we’re dealing with the language of what’s given to us to vote on, yes or no. It’s not so much the generalization of state law, how it stands, but they’ve given us a contract, OK? There’s great definitive definitions in that contract. So, you’re better to read the fine print in that contract if you’re going to sign something, and they’re asking a public that really doesn’t know the fine print let alone the confusing language in it, it’s, we don’t talk like this, you know. For asking people to check a box yes or no, it just opens Pandora’s box inside of that, so Haven is troubled by what this is doing to our city government. If it begins to look like we begin to work for the marijuana organization, because then they can come in, once this is on the books, once this is part of our charter, then they can exercise it again and again because it’s part of our charter. This isn’t just a new ordinance we have to approve or reject. It’s part of our basic constitution here in our town, so that’s very troubling to Haven.

Ryan agreed and said that’s why the main challenge for the city is, and he knows nobody asked for this, is we’ve gotten a bad court ruling, unfortunately. Haven agreed. Ryan said the city is going to have to step up and get the education out there so people understand what’s going on here. Haven agreed. Ryan said he’s going to suggest, he’s thinking about it, he doesn’t have to make this tonight’s decision, and he’s talked, he’s sent this decision and another decision, he had a bad Friday and Thursday. On Friday, he got another decision from the court of appeals on another town he represents, in Keego Harbor, and also, they cited this case from the day before, for this case. Haven said it’s Ryan’s hometown. Ryan said it’s close, and he considers Clarkston a hometown too but to add insult to injury, they cited a case from September 1^st, which was the Jennifer Speagle case, against the City of Keego Harbor like this is like black latter law, and this is like the – (interrupting Ryan), Haven asked if these are the same judges. Ryan said yes, it’s the same panel, the same judges, so you can’t make this up. So, Ryan is just saying it was not a good Thursday, Friday. But Ryan thinks, and he talked to the Michigan Municipal League about our case and about the other case, and they may be interested if we are interested. Ryan said this is not right. It’s totally against the law, and Ryan is not just baying at the moon here, it’s just wrong, so he thinks that we ought to take a shot at, he’s not trying to look for business, but we ought to file for a rehearing on this. He doesn’t know that we will get anywhere, because a lot of times rehearings (unintelligible), but they are wrong on the law, and so if we file for a rehearing, we have twenty-one days to do that. That’s like September 22^nd or a little before that. Then they’re going to take some time to decide the rehearing. They’ll say no, probably, unfortunately, but whatever, and then we have forty-five days, forty-two days to go to the Michigan Supreme Court, and if the Michigan Municipal League joins us, if we have to, that buys us some time if we have to, because then if this doesn’t pass, if this fails on November 8^th, we could still continue. The law is wrong. This is a panel decision that’s wrong, but it’s unpublished so it’s not precedent setting. But it’s still out there and it’s bad law, you know what he’s saying? So, that’s just a thought that we buy some time even after, and in the meantime, it would be incumbent on everybody in Clarkston that cares about this thing and is against it to get the word out to people, to let people know what this is all about and what it could mean for the city.

Luginski said so, if we went down that road, it’s still going to be on the ballot. That ship sailed. Ryan agreed. Continuing, Luginski said so if we go down this road, twenty-one days, forty-two days, whatever it is, but this is on the ballot and it passes, what are we going to accomplish if we were to win that appeal. Ryan said we may have to file, we may take another run at this in circuit court with the fact that the language is not fair and impartial because the attorney general never looked at it, and was this really a charter revision, which should have been by charter commission, or was it really a charter amendment, does it alter the course of city government, does it change the direction of city government, it puts this kind of hybrid marijuana department kind of off by itself with nobody really in charge of it other than the city clerk who is directed by the proposal in here as to what they can do, what the city clerk can do, the city council is out of it, the city manager is out of it. We don’t have any department like this in the city. Haven said no. Ryan said this is really a government reorganization which requires a vote of the people under a charter revision for a charter revision group. Haven agreed and said that’s not understood.

Luginski said he thinks that there’s a number of points, but he thinks Ryan hit on two very critical points. This isn’t about, in his opinion, just for himself, this isn’t about whether medical marijuana is good, bad, or indifferent, should people, it’s not about the marijuana, it’s about what it’s doing to the city. This is about the issue of our government. (Ryan nodded.) Continuing, Luginski said the city charter being changed and us having to follow the law of some people that don’t even live in the city, you know, that they want to change our charter, our constitution as Haven said, to do what they want us to do, right? So, they’re going to be able to govern our city better we can in certain areas number one. Number two, the costs, what about the costs. Ryan said it’s up to Speagle, we don’t have department like this with the city clerk, what does that do to our costs? Are we going to have to raise taxes to pay for this? We don’t have enough money per Pardee’s comments to raise taxes for the roads. Right? So those are at least two points. There’s others. But those are two points, you just alluded to a very critical, this isn’t about marijuana good, bad, or indifferent. This is about what’s it doing to the city and what’s it going to cost us. That’s what people need to understand.

Wylie asked if Ryan said that the Michigan Municipal League may be interested in joining a lawsuit about this. Ryan said yes. Wylie asked if Ryan thought they were serious. Ryan said yes. He’s talked to a couple lawyers, and he sent it to the general counsel for the league to look at. Frankly, everybody’s horrified. Wylie said that’s a separate and good direction. Ryan agreed. Wylie thanked Ryan.

Speagle said that Luginski said that if it passes, if we keep appealing this, but it passes, then what happens? Ryan said if it passes, we may, and again, we could take a direct action to circuit court for declaratory relief based upon the fact that this is not a charter amendment, it’s a charter revision. There are other issues that we can raise too relative to an original action challenging the validity of this whole thing.

Haven recognized Richard Bisio who said he had a couple of questions for Ryan. Bisio asked first, is the statement that the council approved at the last special meeting, is that going to be on the ballot? Ryan said yes. He thinks that Speagle sought approval, right? Speagle said they already sent it (unintelligible crosstalk).

Bisio said that the second item is if the proposal is approved by the voters, isn’t it harder then to get it undone after the fact. Haven agreed. Ryan said not necessarily, because most of the time, the courts want you to wait to see because it’s a moot question. If there’s no real case in controversy or actual controversy if it doesn’t pass. If we file a lawsuit and it doesn’t pass, then it’s moot. Bisio said he guesses that he’s suggesting that Ryan is doing a time kind of prediction as to twenty-one days for rehearing and forty-two days for going to the supreme court and however much longer it takes for a decision there, that’s going to be after the election. Ryan agreed. Bisio asked if there’s some advantage to doing it beforehand to say that there shouldn’t even be a vote on this, or the votes shouldn’t be counted, something like that, rather than waiting until after the election. Ryan said he appreciates the question, but he thinks that the law is really the courts want to have an actual matter before them that’s something that’s an actual case in controversy. If this doesn’t pass, and we file a circuit court lawsuit, then you know there’s really no point, do you know what he’s saying? And he appreciates the comment. Bisio said if you do it before the election, and you don’t know how it’s going to turn out, but he thinks there would still be a controversy in that we would claim it shouldn’t be on the ballot at all, or even if it’s going to pass, then it would be invalid. Bisio is suggesting not to take a lot of the time, but to move as quickly as possible so that you’re not accused of delaying and prejudicing of the possible – (interrupting Bisio), Ryan said really if you look at it, the law is mostly, the courts want you to wait to make sure there’s some issue at hand.

Rodgers asked if there isn’t already kind of an issue in that the law (unintelligible). Ryan said that’s what we’re going to deal with, at least relative to that particular issue, the procedural aspect of this relative to maybe asking for a rehearing and whatnot. The guts, the substance of the issue, we’ve never attacked the substance of this relative to the issues we’ve talked about, so that’s new territory. That’s new territory.

Haven said so we’re not inhibited after the election, we could still go after the substance of it. Ryan said oh, no question about it. Haven said that’s what, because we’re in jeopardy, when this thing passes, we have thirty days to rewrite ordinances and everything else to come into compliance with this. That’s what we signed up for if in fact it passes, you know, so we have an operation here with our new marijuana department. Ryan said that’s what some people signed up for, right. That’s why he’s hoping that the people, you know, it’s a great town, and if you think this would be helpful, fine. If you don’t, then he hopes people mobilize and get the word out what’s coming, or what could be coming. Haven said he thinks we ought to do that, for sure. We ought to do that, but to Bisio’s point, let’s do everything else we need to do in a timely manner, you know, before and after to be able to nullify this thing because it’s a monster we are looking at here, much more than we thought, do you want a store here or not. Oh no. It’s much more basic to our government, city government. It’s detrimental. Ryan agreed.

Continuing, Haven said so, maybe you could, and he doesn’t know (unintelligible) right now, but maybe you could come back to us with a schedule or prescription, and we need to go and approve that, do a resolution or whatever, like we did with the appeal, you know, to give you authority to go ahead with this, because it’s really important to us. Ryan said it would probably be a special meeting, because we meet on the 26^th, but we need to do something before the 22^nd. Haven said let’s get it scheduled then. Luginski agreed. Haven said if you meet (unintelligible). You can’t, we can’t authorize you tonight, even if we chose to amend our agenda, we couldn’t direct you to proceed, according to the valuable, timely schedule that we need to do to get in front of this curve without us saying aw shucks, we should have, you know (unintelligible).

Ryan said he guesses he would feel more comfortable if maybe they would set it for Monday, next Monday, because then everybody might be here, and the public would know. Haven said we haven’t lost any time then, we could – (interrupting Haven), Ryan said right. Haven said he would like to do that, because if we need a special meeting – Ryan said he thinks they should pass a motion so it will be noticed by Speagle and then set up a special meeting if you would for the 19^th at 7:00 or whatever. Haven said it’s a discussion item right now. Ryan agreed. Haven said so we need to vote to add a motion to the agenda. Ryan said as part of the discussion. You’re not going to make a decision. Haven said so that he could move so that we have a special meeting, perhaps next Monday or as soon as we can and then get a second for that and we vote on that right now.

Haven said he would like to make that motion, that we vote on having a special meeting. Second Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion about that. In other words, anything else we ought to know before, the nature of what that meeting is and what would be the outcome of that meeting? Ryan said it would be a discussion of options for an action taken by the city attorney on behalf of the city relative to this issue. Haven said OK, and Ryan could help Speagle with the wording for that. Ryan said sure.

Haven said so a motion and second.

Pardee raised his hand and Haven recognized him. Pardee asked if the wording for the ballot is frozen at this point. Ryan said yes, it’s being printed today as we speak. Pardee asked what was approved in the meeting previously on the 6^th, is all of this (holding up the proposed charter language) – (interrupting Pardee), Ryan said no sir, the only thing that appears in the language is at the bottom of the page that you’re looking at, form of proposed ballot language, medical marijuana proposal, this proposed charter amendment, if adopted, would end the city’s prohibition of medical marijuana facilities and establish a local licensing system and regulatory provisions for medical marijuana facilities to operate within the city. Shall this proposal be adopted. Pardee said OK, so the regulatory that’s mentioned there, and the regulatory that was in our statement and approved by council, aren’t the regulations here (holding up a document), they’re fixed, and to Luginski’s point, it’s not like we’re going to, he doesn’t think we’re going to establish new regulations. Ryan said he doesn’t understand the question. Pardee said that he thought the three pages of fine print outlined – Ryan said they do, it does – continuing, Pardee said how the process should work, what the regulations are. Ryan agreed and said there’s a hundred word limit for ballot language, so they can’t get this in a hundred words, so that’s why they put something that’s pretty plain vanilla, benign, and so that’s what he said to Bisio, because we didn’t get the chance, had this gone through the process, the city could have provided their own other caption, you know, with more substance to it, directing people to whatever, but we didn’t have that time and we had to do what we could as he explained, the other people agreed to this, because the county wanted to have concurrence because they didn’t want to worry about a lawsuit. Counties have started printing ballots and been stopped by a judge, stopped, had to start printing and changing things again, and they provided all the proofs on Friday, and they started printing today in Oakland County. So, it’s going to be on the ballot. Haven said so that ship has passed.

Haven said he still would like to identify the language because he wasn’t sure if it was a comingling of what we added and what they already have there, or is what we have, is that – (interrupting Haven), Speagle asked if he wanted her to read it. Haven agreed and said he would like to get a copy because we need to know what’s on the ballot. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Speagle asked if Haven wanted her to read it out loud, and Haven asked her to please read it.

Speagle said medical marijuana proposal explanatory caption. Haven asked everyone to please listen. Continuing, Speagle said this proposed amendment would authorize two provisioning centers within the city and create regulations for the facilities by adding a new Chapter 16 to the city charter. Further, this provision would authorize marijuana facilities to operate between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., Monday through Sunday. It would not permit recreational marijuana sales to any adult but does allow commercial medical marijuana sales under the medical marijuana facilities licensing act to qualified patients. This proposed charter amendment, if adopted, would end the city’s prohibition on medical marijuana facilities and establish a local licensing system and regulatory provisions for medical marijuana facilities to operate within the city. Shall the proposal be adopted, yes or no.

Ryan said so, our explanatory caption appears above the proposal and then the proposal. Luginski said he sees what they’re saying. Haven said that they need to get a copy of that because we need (unintelligible) to inform the people, a part of our fact sheet (unintelligible). Smith said that this is a draft. So, we didn’t have – (interrupting Smith), Speagle said she didn’t have the actual ballots yet. That is what she had to approve today. Haven said it looks like a copy of what they’re doing. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Haven said it looks for sure (unintelligible) what he got in the mail from the (unintelligible) but he didn’t see (unintelligible). Speagle said the county sends us, the county sends her our ballots and she has to go through, you know, and look at everything. Not just that, but all the wording, everything, and she has to approve it and send an approval sheet.

Pardee asked if the wording that Speagle just described, that’s the wording that he sees in the September 6^th – Speagle said yes. Pardee said there was a draft, and it’s now final. Speagle agreed. Pardee said based on the consent agenda, OK.

Pardee asked if the city could take a position and communicate that position to the residents. Haven said yes. Ryan said the city can inform. The city can’t advocate. Haven said that we need to start the information process. We’re not done yet. You know, the fact sheet which you alluded to in the last meeting. Ryan agreed. Haven said we have to build that fact sheet, that’s one project, but then the citizens can go ahead, and they can communicate outside the council. There’s two functions that can go on simultaneously, and we need that activity to inform people. The people, they’re not aware of this. This is heavy, and they’re not aware of it. They just are not. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Another unidentified woman in the audience said she wanted to clarify because the residents are responsible for delivering this information to our other residents, so she just wants to make sure she’s clear that regardless of whether this is passed or not, and she would like the language from Ryan, Ryan considers, our city attorney considers the process, she thinks the word he used was illegal. Is there a different word he would use? How would you have us describe the situation in terms of – (interrupting the woman), Ryan said you mean the process of getting on the ballot? The woman said not so much that. It’s the recourse after the election, whether it passes or not, we may, in conjunction with MML [Michigan Municipal League], in the supreme court we may be revisiting this process. So, is it because it’s illegal, is it the process wasn’t done, how would you prefer – Ryan said that he thinks this panel made an error of law in ignoring the process for charter amendment under the law. The woman asked Ryan to say it one more time, an error of law. Ryan said an error of law in ignoring most of the process for initiatory petition charter amendment. The woman said OK. Ryan said that they cut out the city council, they cut out the governor, they cut out the attorney general’s review, and the attorney general under the law, like the governor, the law says the governor looks at it, but because it’s an initiatory petition under 117.22, whether the governor agrees with it or not doesn’t matter because it’s an initiatory petition. But the attorney general has the legal obligation to look at the ballot language, that couple of sentences that Speagle and Ryan just read, it removes the prohibition of medical marijuana and whether or not that language is clear and doesn’t advocate, doesn’t shade one way or another, and it informs the voters. The woman agreed. Ryan said that step was skipped. The woman said OK. Ryan added along with the governor’s review. Haven said that they knew it at the time, and that’s why you took it to them under appeal, right? You said the first judge got it wrong, right? And you were going to go to an appellate court, and you said that you thought they’d get it down, and they didn’t. Ryan agreed. Haven said they agreed with the first judge. Ryan said they doubled down. Haven said he can’t see why, what’s so troubling to him, is why can’t they see exactly what they skipped? They knew exactly what they skipped, and they said we’re going to skip it. Ryan said he didn’t know. The unidentified woman said that’s right. Haven said that’s a strange anomaly to him.

The unidentified woman said just to follow up, in terms of the city council and how they were skipped. Ryan asked how they were what? Haven said overlooked. The woman said Ryan said that they overlooked the city council, attorney general, and governor. Can Ryan just describe how the city council is affected by the process. Ryan said it never got to city council. He said he would read the letter which he composed with Speagle. She sent this on August 11^th: “Pursuant to Michigan statutes, as city clerk, I have forty-five days to review the petition to make sure it is signed by the requisite number of registered electors. The City of the Village of Clarkston has 803 electors, and you have provided 88 signatures that are appropriate and valid, so your petition has the proper amount of signatures. I will advise the city council of all of the facts of this petition, and that the petition has the requisite number of signatures, and we’ll put this on a city council agenda in the near future to apprize city council of the petitions and ballot language. Thereafter by law, I must send the petition out to the attorney general and governor for review. As indicated by the governing guidelines attached as Exhibit A, your July 1, 2022, filing was too late to be considered for the November 2022 election.” Ryan said Exhibit A was what we received last year from the governor telling these folks that because of these late petitions coming in, at the end, right at the end of July or whatever, that the governor and the attorney general need more time, they need at least 60 to 90 days prior to the election to allow proper review for the language. The woman agreed. Ryan said then he attached for the court of appeals that thing, because the attorney general sent out another memo mirroring what the governor said. The attorney general has other things to do other than look at ballot language as a (unintelligible), she had an election on August 2^nd of this year. So, these folks seem to think that everybody is sitting around with nothing to do and they’re going to process, you know, they’re going to get right on this. Not that they’re delaying them, because we’re not, but because of this information, which we apprized the circuit court and the court of appeals about, what the guidelines are for this review, they just blew by all that and said basically, if they’ve got enough signatures, it goes on the ballot, whatever it is. The woman said OK.

Haven recognized Bisio for a question. Bisio said he would suggest they do one more thing, and that’s send it to the governor and the attorney general now. Ask them to do what the statute says they’re supposed to do. Bisio thinks they’re going to say sorry, we’re not going to do that because it’s too late, and that will give you more ammunition to say this whole process was short-circuited and it’s wrong. Ryan said that the attorney general knows informally about all this, but that’s a (unintelligible) suggestion. He can just do that.

Haven said he thinks this is good. We need to build our case.

Wylie said she wanted to note that some of us on council, and she seems some people in the audience, are getting text messages from the group that is saying vote yes on the local campaign, vote for one campaign, on your November ballot do you want to allow medical cannabis to be sold in Clarkston. As we’re sitting up here now, and we’re getting this. There’s some money behind this. An unidentified woman in the audience said an unending amount of money. Wylie said as she was reading hers, she could see the faces. The woman asked what if she responded. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Wylie said Haven made a motion and she seconded it.

Haven asked if there was any other conversation on the meeting. Let’s just get this on the table. Luginski said that the motion didn’t say the date and time of the meeting. Wylie said for Monday, September 19^th at 7:00 p.m. Speagle repeated September 19, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. Wylie agreed. Ryan said special issue for this meeting only. Haven said for this issue only. Speagle agreed. Haven said it’s an open meeting. Ryan agreed.

Haven said so we have a motion and a second and we’ve had a lot of conversation.

The motion for a special meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.

Haven said the motion carries. So, we are going to meet back here on Monday. Haven asked Ryan if he would put some words altogether for them. Ryan agreed. Haven said we need to build this up in writing because there’s a whole lot of oral stuff. Ryan agreed. Haven said we have to report to the citizens, and it should become part of our fact sheet, a lot of this stuff, this isn’t covert stuff, this should be right out in the open, because we have this precedent. We have these two ordinances sitting here that are being proposed but the document is just overwhelmingly changing our government, OK, so, we have a lot of work to do. But we’ve got legal things that we can do that you guys have talked about, and we’ve got citizen information. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Haven said it’s really throwing a whole lot at you, and so it’s really difficult to explain these subtleties to people so (unintelligible).

An unidentified woman said she had a question. She wanted to know if they would be so kind as to clarify the council’s line of information for informing and advocacy. Ryan said you can say what the proposal is about, but you can’t tell people how to vote. The woman asked if it would be fair to ask the council then to prepare something written so that the residents could then on foot – (interrupting the woman), Ryan said he thinks they are going to do that. Haven said that’s in process; they are talking about it. The woman said great, thank you. Haven said it’s needed, for sure.

Wylie asked if they as individuals could advocate for their point of view. Ryan said absolutely, of course you can. You have a first amendment right to your opinion and whatever. Haven said OK for the next step, and he thanked Bisio for his opinion and so on. Of all these suggestions, we can exercise every one of them, whatever it takes to kind of get a favorable position going forward, do our homework, and get ahead of the curve as best we can (unintelligible). But we are going to talk about that next Monday.

Haven asked if there was any more on this issue, or maybe we can move on to the next one on our agenda.

Smith asked if Ryan would have feedback from MML by next (unintelligible) whether they will join. Ryan said he didn’t know if they would join in the rehearing, but he believes, he’ll ask and find out, but he doesn’t know if they’ll do the rehearing or not, but he thinks there’s a (unintelligible). He doesn’t know, to be determined, how’s that. Haven said hopefully so.

Item 9b – Motion: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Video time mark 1:12:52):

• • Motion – Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (page 32/45 of the council packet)

Haven said that this is a motion for electric vehicle charging stations that are costing us nothing, is that right?

Smith said that’s right. So, we did talk about this back in May, and we had Duane from State Electric come in and do a full proposal about installing electric vehicle charging stations in the city. Smith thinks they probably all remember that. It was a very positive presentation, and Smith thought it was all good. Again, he was planning on doing that all free of charge to the city. Some new news that has occurred in the meantime is Bowman Chevrolet and General Motors have come forward to announce that they will provide free charging stations. So, Duane was going to provide free charging stations, but GM will also do it, and Duane is basically saying I defer to GM. He’ll still install them, so the installation would be free. Under the GM program, the unit is free, but you have to pay the electrical fees to have them installed. So, in this case, we’re looking at a hybrid of GM providing the units and State Electric installing the units. In both cases, they will be free to the city. No charge. So, we’re working on a legal agreement that will summarize all that and Smith will work with Ryan to verify all the wording is acceptable for the city. Of course, that’s our normal process and we will go through all that. The reason this topic is on the agenda tonight is because we need to identify or determine the number of units and the location of the units.

Smith said when Duane was here, he was proposing three units. One for the Washington and Main lot. Smith said when he says one unit, he wants to first define that. One unit has got two sides to it so you can charge two vehicles simultaneously. So, there’s like a two-hose gas pump. There’s two connections and you can charge two vehicles at the same time. The post, the kiosk, would be installed right in between two parking spaces so two vehicles can pull up and both be charging at the same time. So, back to what Duane was proposing was three charging stations. One in the Main lot, one in the Depot lot, and one on East Church adjacent to Honcho. That was his thought. GM is saying they will give us four units free of charge, so that then kind of raised the question do we take advantage of GM’s offer and install four units. The biggest lot is the one right outside here (gesturing). The Depot Road lot. Our thought is that we could acknowledge that this trend is coming. More and more electric vehicles will be coming in our city and so why not take advantage of this good offer, and we know that these are coming, and let’s just install the additional fourth unit that GM is willing to provide to us.

Rodgers asked if Smith does four units, so that’s eight cars in theory. Smith said that is correct. Rodgers asked if they were set up, can only electric vehicles park in those spots. Smith said that’s a determination that we could make. Rodgers said she’s just thinking about, she knows it’s coming, but the percentage of EVs [electronic vehicles] versus gasoline vehicles at the present time is not eight to whatever the total number of parking spaces we have right now. Smith said yes, we have 78, 56 (unintelligible). It’s still a small percentage (unintelligible). Rodgers (unintelligible) and she can’t think of the right word, the ones for people who need close proximity. Pardee said handicapped. Rodgers thanked Pardee. Handicapped spaces that you can’t park in unless you’re handicapped, we have eight spaces that you can’t park in unless you have an EV vehicle, and we keep hearing we don’t have parking, we don’t have parking. So, maybe that’s a determinant we can make after we have them in there, but just something to think about. Smith said well, it is something that we can continue to monitor. If we find they’re sitting there and just consuming two parking spaces and not being used, we can always, what Smith refers to as bag the unit, literally put a bag over the unit, and allow anybody to park there. Otherwise, Smith thinks we would have signage that would effectively say these spots reserved for electric vehicle charging only.

Luginski said Smith was making his point about 8 over 130 or so spots, and that ratio isn’t so bad, but if you look at one of those over on Church, you’re looking at two out of eight spots, that ratio becomes an issue. Smith agreed.

Rodgers says it’s almost like you’re giving preferential treatment to someone who has an EV. Smith agreed and said the original thought was let’s get ahead of this curve, we know this is coming, the manufacturers know this is coming, they’re turning off production of gasoline engine vehicles and changing over their assembly plants. That’s millions and millions and millions of dollars of investment on their part. So, you know they’re not going back, and the federal government is obviously not going to back off on their fuel standards, so it’s a trend that is likely coming. These cost us nothing. The only obligation that we would have to your point is that we may have some spots that say on a Friday night, here come people that want to patronize their favorite restaurant and they can’t find a parking spot because here’s two spots that aren’t being used at all. We would have to monitor that, and if we find that that’s happening, we would have to bag them. Rodgers said that she can see why GM is doing this. It’s because they’re really pushing that agenda so that makes complete and total sense to her. They’re offering all this for free because that is their agenda, that this is coming, whether you want to or whether you want it or not. Smith said he thinks Ford, and Stellantis, and (unintelligible), they’re all shortly behind. They’ll be doing the same thing, because they have – (interrupting Smith), Rodger said they have an agenda.

Luginski said it makes sense (unintelligible) where we put them and how do we manage it.

Haven said he feels good about this kind of thing because the same thing happened with paid parking in these lots. You know, once you get the infrastructure in place, then you have control. So, you get infrastructure in place, it’s whatever happens when the wind blows, you’re subject to that, so in a case where we might want to shut them down (unintelligible) parking (unintelligible) EV vehicles around (gesturing), they are free, you can’t beat the price, you know. Rodgers said keep them open, and if you have an EV (unintelligible crosstalk) and you park there, you can plug it in and if you don’t have an EV and you park there, then you don’t plug your car in. Haven said exactly. Rodgers said you don’t even have to shut them down.

Haven asked if there’s some sort of record keeping on the machine or remote or whatever, you can check and see how much usage there is and make determinations. Smith agreed. Haven said just like we do with paid parking and everything. Smith agreed.

Haven said he loved the idea, especially free. We paid for the paid parking kiosk, but in this case, if we can get something for free, get it, we don’t have to use it and turn it on, that’s our option, but we’ll have it in case we like it.

Luginski asked Smith what the motion is. Smith said that the motion is to put one station or two charging units, one station in the Washington and Main parking lot, two in this lot outside here being the biggest of our parking lots, and then one in the angled parking on East Church adjacent to Honcho. That is conditional on approval of Union Joints because that power pole, while it’s a DTE power pole, it was upgraded by Honcho at their expense to run their tent at that time during COVID, so it would be using that power supply. So that’s why Smith says it would be conditional upon their acceptance of this proposal.

Luginski said his main concern again is identifying these for electric vehicles only. Because we already have parking, and we’ve talked about this a couple of times, right, we already have parking issues to some degree as it is. If we take away eight spots, now you’re creating more, and if we’re taking two out of the eight spots on Church Street, if we do that, you know what I mean? Luginski thinks he’s OK with the locations, but he doesn’t think we can deem them electric vehicle only. Luginski thinks it’s like every other parking spot we have here, whoever gets here, first come, first serve. That’s just his opinion.

Smith said that we would have to talk with the providers because they’re interested in these being used, right? GM wants them to be used, to be charging vehicles, not necessarily a GM vehicle, any vehicle will be able to use their charger, but they will have, and he understands Luginski’s point, it’s taking away a potential open parking spot, but of course, this would be their one condition, is that there – (interrupting Smith), Luginski said he doesn’t really care about their condition (unintelligible crosstalk), because if we’ve got all the spots filled and there’s two spots left and I want to go to dinner at the Union or Honcho or any of those, any of them, and the only two spots left are the ones for electric vehicles and nobody’s there because nobody’s got an electric vehicle, and I can’t park there, that’s a problem.

Rodgers said so that is a condition on us receiving these from GM. Was that the same condition from Duane, that we – (interrupting Rodgers), Smith said well yes, he wants his units used too because he was – (interrupting Smith), Rodgers said and limited only to EV parking. Smith said and they have signage. Rodgers said so if we say yes, there’s no sense in monitoring them because they’ll take them away if we say that they’re open to other – (interrupting Rodgers), Smith said well this gives us an opportunity in the legal agreement to say that if we’re monitoring them and we’re finding that they’re not being used, they’re only being used occasionally, that would be a clause that Smith could add to the agreement, it’s not in there right now, that says if we’re monitoring this and they’re not being used, we reserve the right to bag them so a spot’s not going unused because we don’t want that to happen. But barring that scenario, we will leave them, we will leave the signage up that says for EV charging only. That would be the only way that we would be able to reach an agreement.

Luginski (unintelligible) monitoring, if you’re going to do it, that’s going to be a nightmare. For someone to walk around all night, every day, every night, during parking, during peak hours, and say oh, there’s no more spots and they put the bag over it. And then another spot opens up, oh, wait a minute, sorry, there’s a spot opened up and they take the bag off. We either do it or we don’t. Smith said that the chargers themselves have apps you can use to tell you how much they’re being used. Luginski said what he’s saying is, if we get to that scenario, you’re saying that they’re not being used, how do you know, are you going to monitor that on a daily basis? We can’t have a parking – Smith said master – Luginski said master and said he couldn’t think of the word, going around with a bag and putting it on and taking it off based on someone pulling in or pulling out. Smith said no, this would just be done on a monthly basis or something.

Luginski said he thinks having them and getting them for free, listen, he gets that, his concern is about where they’re going, and maybe we don’t put one on Church Street. (Rodgers made some unintelligible comments.) Luginski said maybe don’t put one on Church Street. That’s a 25% ratio. We don’t have 25% of the cars coming here that are EV. If it’s two out of eight. Smith said well, that’s council’s decision. Luginski said he knows. Haven asked Luginski where he’s putting them. Luginski said he didn’t know, is there another location in the Depot or in the Miller parking lot to put them in? Not Miller, Washington. Haven said it is under consideration. We’re looking at changing part of our unpaid parking to paid parking in the future. Are there any outlying locations where we’re not doing that, are we talking about this lot plus all the angular parking down this way for paid parking provisions? Because that’s certainly desirable too to have that cash flow. So, this is potentially inhibiting. We’ve not turned the corner on electric vehicles yet, he thinks that’s the point. So, what’s the point? We get it free but beware the gift if it’s going to take something away from you. So, not until 2035 or something are they talking about stopping selling gas vehicles. That’s a long way away. Luginski agreed and said even if they stop selling them in ’35 (unintelligible crosstalk), long before we’re still here. Haven said exactly. Luginski said long after we’re still here. Haven said a future council would make the decision, and they’re probably free for a limited time, but he’s not sure the more he thinks about it how much advantage there is to having these. It may be more of a disadvantage to take up the spaces if the requirement is you’ve got to use them. You’re going to leave vacant spaces. Luginski said if the requirement is the only way we’re going to get these is to lock those spots up only for EVs, then he thinks that’s something to consider.

Haven told Smith if you consider the town, and look at our traffic infrastructure, our parking infrastructure, is there a place where we put four of them in for eight cars, and that’s our bank there, and anybody wants to come to town to charge their EVs they can do that, but it’s not for parking that we would otherwise use for paid parking or something like that. He doesn’t know where that would be. On Main Street for example. We’re not putting paid parking on Main Street. We haven’t yet, have we? Smith said no. Haven said it was one of those things that we don’t like meters and so on. We could expand the kiosk from the other end, right? As long you can start using the apps and phones, we could use those same kiosks, he doesn’t know if we have to have other kiosks over on Main Street. So, we haven’t done that yet. Maybe that’s a place to put your EV plug. Wylie said put them on Main Street, is that what you’re saying? Smith said it would have to be near a power pole. Haven said he didn’t know. Wylie said that’s like Church Street. That’s prime. When she drives to town, that’s what she does. She looks for parking on Main Street and Church Street. Her last choice is parking lots. So, you don’t want to take up the Main, she doesn’t know that you want to use Main Street streetside parking. And Church Street, that’s where she would park right in front of Honcho. Haven said everybody (unintelligible).

Haven asked Eric Lines (Curt Catallo’s Union Joints business partner, owner of Honcho). Lines said while these units are free to the city, that doesn’t mean that the city has to let them be used for free, right? Isn’t this a way that the city could make money by having the people who have electric cars pay to have the charging done. Rodgers said that she thinks that they already do that. When she asked Duane who was here what was in it for him, they pay by the minute or hour or whatever to these companies. She doesn’t know if GM gets that money or not. So, they would be double charged for us if they – (interrupting Rodgers), Wylie said if we charge them fees, not if we don’t charge a fee. Smith said with Duane’s proposal, he would charge a fee that would go to State Electric, and he says that’s really not making them a profit. They’re not going to make a lot of money. They would get some money, and they said if you wanted to raise that up a little bit more, then there would be some potential revenue for the city as well, but we’re talking about fairly small numbers here.

Haven said this resolution, it’s a motion, you could have waited and bring this to us later, you don’t have your findings (unintelligible crosstalk) – (interrupting Haven), Smith said we need this information for the agreement. Haven said he sees, OK. Smith said the number of units and locations needs to be spelled out in the agreement. Haven said so conceptually, basically what we’re down to, we conceptually want a freebie that’s going to cost us parking places for the next five years, pick a number. Is that going to help us?

Haven recognized Pardee for a comment. Pardee said maybe we just accept two and put one in Washington and one in the Depot lot and use that usage to tell us, and if they’re never being used then we certainly don’t want to add two more because we have two more free. So, all he’s suggesting is if we narrowed it to two units and then decide how well, before wiping eight spots off the map. Rogers said sure.

Luginski asked if this is an all or nothing from them. Smith said no, he can tell them, he can ask them if they would still do it for two units. Rodgers said and then monitor that situation. Smith said yes, it’s just the free offer is like now. It’s take it or leave it. Luginski said they’ll come back again. Rodgers agreed. Luginski said he doesn’t believe that.

Haven said we’re looking at three proposals here for (unintelligible). We have to modify this. Smith agreed. Haven said if we want to do anything, so what’s your pleasure council, what do you want to? Wylie said why don’t we just take the Church Street off. You know, we put it here in Depot, this end of the lot. Yes, we’re losing money maybe if (unintelligible) empty, but the main thing is convenience because people want to find a parking spot. You want to go eat; you want to find a place to park. You don’t want to drive around and around and around and park far away. You want to park across the street. And monitor it. That’s her preference.

Haven said it’s four to three, is that right? Wylie said that’s her view. Haven said he knows. Wylie said she’s down to three.

Casey said we have two parking spaces that are adjacent to the restaurant at the corner of Washington and Main that have been out of commission for quite a while, so if we put two of them there, we don’t lose anything. Haven said that that the restauranteur would lose his table space, that’s what you’re saying. On the other side of the Masonic Temple, which one are you talking about? Casey said on the restaurant side. Haven said so taking back those spaces. He had the same question, and he’s not sure how Smith wanted to approach that for taking those spaces back or not. We did it for COVID, we did it to help them prosper, they’re a small restaurant and so on, they’re new owners even. That’s another question. So, he’s suggesting that we use those spaces. It wouldn’t cost us anything, but again we don’t have the parking space. You’re taking away from him, then it’s still a spot there and perhaps we’re not using them as useless electronic spots. Smith asked if he was saying those specific parking spots, or just add we’re adding two back and lessen the hit a little bit if we added those two back. Because there’s no power pole there. Casey said oh, that’s the deal. Wylie said again, those are two prime parking spots. Casey doesn’t drive to town; she does. Casey said he doesn’t; he walks to town, but we can’t park there now. Wylie said it’s kind of a separation (unintelligible crosstalk). Casey said so what’s the difference? Wylie said it’s sort of a separation. Maybe we should be getting them back and then it makes it easier to take two spots away from either the Washington and Main lot or the Depot lot.

Luginski said you’ve changed to three spots. Wylie said yes, to get rid of the Church Street lot. Luginski said he gets that, and he understands that, but you made a comment about we won’t get paid. Why can’t we still have paid parking? Wylie said Luginski is absolutely right. She was incorrect saying that. Luginski is right. Luginski said OK. Wylie said she didn’t, she wasn’t thinking. Luginski said all right.

Haven said we’ve got four down to three, maybe two? (Laughter.) We’re kind of swinging at straws here. Mr. Pardee suggested two.

Rodgers said she finds it frustrating to have somebody offer something for free, and then not really. And then to have us vote on something of where we want them before we know exactly what that means because it says the legal agreement is under development. Wylie said Smith can be part of making the legal agreement she’s assuming and will advocate in our best interests, and Ryan is probably going to be involved also.

Ryan would just say you know, you need four votes, so maybe you want to wait, you have two people missing tonight. You’ve had good discussion. Haven said Smith has a deadline, doesn’t he? Smith said well, they’re pushing for an answer. Ryan said we’re going to meet in two weeks. Luginski said we’re going to meet in a week. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Ryan said that’s for the special meeting. Luginski said he knows, but they could put on (unintelligible crosstalk).

Wylie said she’d like to make a motion. Motion to approve the concept of installing three charging stations in the city at the two locations specified before, so she is suggesting removing the third, the single parking on East Church Street. Casey said so we would put three of them in. Wylie said there would be one station at the Washington and Main parking lot. Casey said yes. Continuing, Wylie said and two stations or two units right here (gesturing). That’s her motion.

Haven asked if there was a second for the motion. (Silence.) Haven said he would second just to get it out on the table.

Haven asked if there was any discussion, any more discussion.

Haven asked for a voice vote; Ryan said they should take a roll call.

Rodgers said and this is with the premise that if we get these that nobody can park in it but an EV. Wylie said she still thinks it’s all subject to whatever the contract comes up with. Luginski said he thought Smith said that’s the only way that they’re going to do it. Rodgers said if we say yes to it – (interrupting Rodgers), Wylie said she didn’t think they said that. Rodgers said if we say yes to this, and the contract come back that that is what she just said is the case, do we get to vote on that, or is this already a done deal? Smith said you are going to vote on the contact anyway. Haven said if we get past this, give you what you need, then we don’t have to approve the contract, he guesses. Rodgers said that we still need to look at the contract. Ryan and others said yes. Ryan said it’s like a memorandum of understanding.

Haven asked if there was any other conversation or discussion.

No additional discussion. Haven called for a voice vote and then said they needed to do a roll call.

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

Haven said that’s why they pay us the big bucks here folks, to make the decisions. Ryan said motion passes. Haven said motion carries.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a – Resolution: MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] Performance Resolution for Annual Permit (Video time mark 1:37:16):

• • Michigan Department of Transportation Performance Resolution for Municipalities (page 33/45 of the council packet)

Haven said this is the MDOT performance resolution. He asked Smith if this was kind of a rubber stamp, year to year. Smith said right, and he asked Ryan if he had a chance to – (interrupting Smith), Ryan said we’ve missed a couple of years. Smith said we’ve missed a couple of years since we’ve done this. Luginski said but we’ve done it. Smith said we’ve done it in the past, yes.

Haven said OK then, it’s a resolution so he needs someone to – (interrupting Haven), Luginski said he would make the resolution. Second Wylie.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Luginski, Wylie, Rodgers, Casey, and Haven voted yes. Resolution passed.

Item 10b – Resolution: Parking Lot Maintenance Bid Approval (Video time mark 1:37:55):

• • Resolution – Parking Lot Maintenance (page 35/45 of the council packet
  • City Parking Lot Repair, Sealcoating, and Restriping, Comparison of Bids (page 36/45 of the council packet)
  • Doug’s Seal Coating & Stripping proposal (page 37/45 of the council packet)
  • Tuff Coat, parking lot quote (page 41/45 of the council packet)
  • HD Sealcoating & Paving LLC estimate (page 43/45 of the council packet)

Haven said the next item on the agenda is parking lot maintenance bid approval. We have that in our packet. Smith picked the low bidder this time. Smith said well, yes and no. (Laughter.)

Smith said so, in the proposal he did select the low bidder. The second to low bidder called Smith today and had read the packet and had some issues with the cost comparison. So, Smith has to acknowledge his points. OK, so Doug’s Sealcoating did it last year and did a fine job, no issue whatsoever. He quoted a total of $13,400, or about $600 more than Tuff Coat. So, just looking at this at the pure numbers, Tuff Coat looks like the better deal, but he’s pointing out that he has almost a thousand lineal feet of more crack fill than Tuff Coat, 950 feet more linear feet of crack fill, plus he’s put some asphalt patching in. Tuff Coat has no asphalt patching at all in their quote. So, if you really do an analysis, and Smith did the math and doesn’t have it on the sheet, on the spreadsheet, but to make them truly apples and apples, Tuff Coat is charging $1.12 per linear foot. Haven said that’s what we need. Smith said if he takes that $1.12 and add the additional 900 feet that Doug’s had included in theirs, now suddenly, Tuff Coat is more expensive than Doug’s. So truly to do an apples-to-apples comparison on the same number of linear feet of crack fill, when you do that adjustment, Doug’s is a better price by about $952 better. Then you add in the fact that he’s doing some asphalt patching, which is filling in some of the bigger potholes, not making it perfect by any means but filling in some of the major potholes. We had some patching in the Washington and Main lot and in the Rudy’s Mill Street lot. Haven asked if Doug vended. Smith said Doug did it. Haven asked Smith if he’s adding services, basically, sweetening the pot. Smith agreed.

Smith said so, it definitely changes the outcome. Haven said so Doug’s is cheaper. Luginski said and he did it last year. Smith agreed. Smith said so, you really have to look at the number of feet. We asked that they quote on cracks that were ½” or wider, not just the hairline cracks, but Doug obviously measured up – (Wylie made an unintelligible comment). Smith said well, he had more than Tuff Coat did, so he’s not arguing their measurement, he’s just saying that if you make them have the same amount of linear feet, then Doug’s is a better deal.

Haven noted that Ryan had a question. Ryan asked who set up the criteria in the request for proposal as to how many linear feet we’re looking at. Smith said we didn’t specify. We specified as it’s shown here that cracks ½” or wider should be filled, and Doug found more than Tuff Coat did when he did the analysis. Ryan asked did HRC [Hubbell, Roth and Clark, the city’s contract engineer], did anybody look at this just to see if Doug is right or Tuff Coat is right? Smith said oh, he didn’t think there’s any question there’s a lot of linear feet. Ryan asked if the request for proposal talked about patching the lot also, is that in the criteria? Smith said that patching would be optional. That’s what’s down below, provide optional quote, which Doug did do some optional, but he felt there were some potholes that just couldn’t be ignored. It was just stupid to leave this pothole and sealcoat right over it. There were, Smith thinks he said, there were four major potholes in the Mill Street lot, between Rudy’s and the Fed, that he said he just couldn’t not patch those, but Tuff Coat didn’t make any mention of that in their quote. Not to say they wouldn’t do it, but they didn’t include it in their quote.

Ryan said as long as Smith has objective criteria, he can take the lowest and best bid, and if in fact there’s more crack fill that’s needed according to Tuff Coat, if you’ve got that on the record then – (interrupting Ryan), Haven said he’s just thinking about how you bid things, you just say look, we need to establish a price per linear foot. We may adjust that, but the bidding becomes for how much per linear foot, guys. Were they all $1.12 or whatever you’re saying? Smith said no, Tuff Coat is at $1.12; Doug’s is at $1.00 even per linear foot. Haven said so then, you look at how many you actually have and then you know what your total is, then you get the extra – (interrupting Haven), Smith said well of course he needs a total bottom line amount to get it (unintelligible). Haven said he gets that, so you call it that, and then if you want to ask them about over there, we need a few more, they can throw it in at that rate. Smith said yes. Haven said you can make that decision, but you need an apples-to-apples to Ryan’s point. The same amount of linear feet, and then how much will you charge us per linear foot, and that’s the way your bid is, and then you have the caveat as to some other potholes and so on, that’s a separate way to look at it.

Haven said anyway, so we are where we are. We’ve got to get it done before fall here, before winter, before the snow flies, right? Smith agreed. Wylie said the resolution says not to exceed cost of $13,473.00. What would you want to boost it up to if we were to try to contract with Doug’s? Because that’s almost right at what his bid is. Smith said using $13,400.00, so if he added 5% to that, doing the math here real quick, Luginski said it would be $675.00. Wylie and Haven said $14,000.00. Wylie said that would take us to $14,000.00 if we do that. Smith said another $670.00. Haven said so Sealcoat [HD Sealcoat] was right in the first place. Smith said so, it would be right around $14,000 with the 5% provision. Haven said the detail not provided though, Sealcoat, to be able to put them in the range, you know. Haven wondered what they were quoting. Smith said their total included everything; they just didn’t break it down by parking lot. They broke it down by activity. Haven said overall. Smith said just sealcoating, spray painting (additional Haven and Smith comments were unintelligible due to background noise).

Wylie said she would offer a resolution to authorize the city manager to contract with Doug’s Sealcoating to paint, crack fill, sealcoat, restripe the city’s four parking lots at a not to exceed cost of let’s say $14,000.00. Smith said right. Continuing, Wylie said to be funded by the parking kiosk fund with the number included. Haven said that was a good motion and asked for a second. Casey second.

Haven asked if there was any further discussion.

No additional discussion.

Rodgers, Casey, Haven, Luginski, and Wylie voted yes. Motion carried.

[See Clarkston Sunshine comment.]

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 1:46:10):

Haven said he would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion by adjourn by Wylie; second Rodgers.

Haven asked if there was any discussion.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn by unanimous voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/elr9oftbqowco7x/CityCouncil_Sept122022.mp4?dl=0
  • 09-12-2022 – City Council packet