Category: Elections

Introduction:

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

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

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

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (video time mark 0:00:04):

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

(Pledge said.)

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (video time mark 0:00:27):

Wylie said the third item on our agenda is a roll call and Angie [Guillen, clerk], if you would take the roll call, please.

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

Laura Rodgers was absent.

Wylie thanked Guillen.

Agenda Item #4, Approval of Agenda – Motion (video time mark 0:00:44):

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

Motion by Quisenberry; second Jones.

Wylie said any discussion, comments from council members?

No comments.

Wylie said from the public?

No comments.

Motion to approve the agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (video time mark 0:01:09):

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

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

Wylie said Item #5 is public comments.

(Wylie read the rules for public comments.)

Wylie said anybody like to make a public comment?

No comments.

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (video time mark 0:01:36):

Wylie said number, it was Item #5, Item #6 is FYI. (To Jonathan Smith, city manager), Wylie said any late arriving FYIs?

Smith said no.

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:01:43):

• • 08-24-2026 – City Manager Report (page 3/62 of the council packet)
  • July 2026 – Permit summary (page 4/62 of the council packet)
  • Building Activity Log (page 5/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #7. Yeah, Item #7 is city manager’s report, which is included in the packet. (To Smith), Wylie said did you have anything you wanted to add?

Smith said just to emphasize Guillen’s help in obtaining this grant to get a defibrillator for the city office here, something we haven’t had for quite a while. Should there be an emergency in the park, this could be the difference between life and death. So, it’s a very important addition in the city hall, installed in the front hallway. Admittedly, it’s only here when we’re accessible, when we’re open, but putting this outside, I think it’s just too high risk to do that, so . . .

Quisenberry said I have a question on it. How much was the grant? Was there any matching or what? Guillen said there was none. Sorry. I wasn’t sure if you were asking me. There was no matching grant. It was just an application. They were actually only giving away one AED [Automated External Defibrillator] and I didn’t hear anything, so I thought we didn’t get it. But there was a generous donor that donated four additional AEDs to the London Strong Foundation – Wylie said wow – (continuing) Guillen said so we were chosen as one because of the traffic that we have in the park, Art in the Village, Taste. It’s just a big composite of what made them choose us. And I just had to write a little, you know, like a little letter.

Wylie said I was kind of curious where it came from. And it looks like under, there was a girl in the Grand Blanc area. Guillen said so yes, unfortunately, London passed away there. I believe they were at a water park in Frankenmuth. And when she was at the top of the slide, the water slide, she was alive. And going down to the bottom, she had a heart issue and passed away when she got to the bottom. Unfortunately, if they would have had an AED present or somebody would have started CPR, they probably could have saved her, but they didn’t. So now the mom has made it her mission to get AEDs wherever there’s children at in those areas – Wylie said that’s wonderful – (continuing) Guillen said to prevent that happening from somebody else’s child. Wylie said (unintelligible). Thank you for getting that.

(To Smith), Wylie said anything else you wanted to add to this?

Smith said in the last meeting, you asked about the building permits. I did attach it here. We can provide that to council once a month if you wish to see that. I did include it here. There’s a summary that shows volume on a year-to-date basis and a month-to-date basis, number of permits that are currently open, 24. And then the next page shows, it’s a little hard to read, but it does show all the address as well as all the open permits. Wylie said I think that’s all helpful. Very informative. Smith said any questions you may have, I’m happy to answer those. If I don’t, I can get those answered quickly from the building department.

Smith said the other building department related news is that I met with Dave Moran [Building Official, Independence Township], we were talking about ordinance enforcement, the need to start cracking down on some, some properties in the city that are not staying up to snuff. So, we currently have five properties identified and we’re working with Moran’s ordinance enforcement team to bring those up to code. So, that’s really all I had.

Forte said what are the, I don’t know if it’s the right word, like, the issues with the properties? Smith said it’s just not maintaining the home mostly. The international maintenance code, property maintenance code, requires that you maintain the house, keep it painted, keep gutters from falling off, keep trash out of the yard, keep the lawn mowed. All those kinds of things fall under the international maintenance code. And so those are the main things. It’s usually painting or lack thereof, just general yard maintenance, keeping the house looking nice. So those, we adopted the international maintenance code, those are all part of that. So, Moran will be enforcing that.

Forte said so, what does that look like with homeowners? Like, do, does Moran like reach out to them or how does that work? Moran gives them a two-week notice. So, none of this will be just sprung on them, a citation in a mailbox. He will give them two weeks’ notice, first of all, saying this has come to our attention that you haven’t mowed the grass for, you know, six months or you haven’t painted your house, or the windows are broken upstairs, whatever. He will tell them what the issue is, give them two weeks to rectify the situation. If at that point nothing has happened, theoretically, he’ll talk to the homeowner. If they say, I just need a couple more days, I’m working on it, then we’ll cut them some slack. If they say, I don’t want it, I don’t know when I’ll get to it, then he’ll probably issue a citation, so – Forte said is that like a fine, typically? Smith said it’s a fine, indeed. So, we don’t like to do that, but we’ll do that if we need it. We are going to be doing that, so . . .

Casey said how does a fine get enforced? Smith said I’m sorry? Casey said how does a fine get enforced? Smith said well, I guess I would ask Jerry [Fisher, city attorney]. So, this is a citation issued by the Township Building Department. We can take that to court, I assume? Fisher said yes. Smith said and a judge will – Fisher said yes – Smith said enforce it. Fisher said so, if a fine isn’t paid, they can be held in contempt. But you know, my experience is that the township has, I assume he’s still there, Steve Parker? Smith said yes. Fisher said former Deputy Sheriff, and he is – Smith said Steve Pearson. Fisher said oh, Steve Pearson? Smith said yeah, Steve Pearson [Independence Township Code Enforcement Officer]. Fisher said that’s what I mean. But he is very persuasive, but he doesn’t go down, out, you know, and beat people up or anything. He just speaks to them in a logical sort of way, and he’s been pretty effective.

Forte said one more thing about this topic. It’s been brought to my attention that the township has basically either upped their regulation on rentals, and I’m wondering if we should be doing the same thing to keep in tandem with the township. I don’t know if that’d be a question we could ask Moran, or who’s managing that. Smith said I think it really is more of a question for the city council. So, what the township enacted was rental inspections. So, not short-term rentals, it’s just long-term rentals. So, apartment buildings, homes that are for rent, they have to be inspected once a year. The homeowner or the landlord has to pay for that inspection once a year. And it is something we could do. We talked about it here on the city council, maybe – Avery said two or three years ago – Smith said at least. I was gonna say three or four years ago, but we talked about it here, and the general consensus was that it was government overreach, and we didn’t want to go there right now, so we opted not to do that. But that’s, the township has opted to do a rental inspection program. It’s once a year, he’s hired additional inspectors just for this purpose, to go in and inspect these homes to make sure that they’re safe for the renters and make sure that there are fire extinguishers and smoke alarms that are working, that there’s egress out of the lower level if they have people living down there, that kind of thing. So, they will go in and do that inspection every year, and any violations have to be corrected within so much time.

Forte said how do they do that? Is it an ordinance update, or what is it? Smith said it is, there is an ordinance for it, yes, indeed. So, it is something, I’ve talked to Moran, it’s an overwhelming task to, now they have many more properties than we do, but they also have more staff than we do, so it would be a challenge to inspect all of our apartment buildings, every unit in the apartment, once a year. You just kind of spread them out in a cadence, and then next year, you start all over again, that kind of thing, and . . . So, it is doable, you have to have the right amount of staff, but that’s what the township has passed, and they’re working on it.

Wylie said I assume it’s a break-even project? Smith said absolutely, it’s intended to be a break-even, not a profit center for the township. So, I assume that’s exactly the case.

Quisenberry said there are several other communities around us that are doing the same thing, sending out resident inspection notices, not just to renters, but also to homeowners, about improvements and stuff like that, that they’ve had, but the renter thing is something that Independence, Waterford, and one of the other townships next to us is doing. And I think that it’s something that we should put on the agenda for next, our next meeting and discuss and talk about whether we should do it or not. I think it’s a good idea, even if we find out how many we have, and we could say that, well, we’re gonna inspect them every two years, so that every rental place gets inspected and make sure it’s up to safety codes every two years instead of one. But nonetheless, I don’t think it’s anything, I don’t think it’s government overreach, and I also think it’s something we should be following up on.

Wylie said is there something driving the other townships, the townships that are doing this? Quisenberry said could be complaints by residents or renters that these things are going on. I brought it up to my landlord, and nobody’s saying anything. It’s not being done. That could be generating some of it, or not.

Avery said yeah, first thing, we have to have ordinances on the books, because we have nothing. So, what exactly, I mean, you could, what would be the basis of the inspection? Just general safety rules? I mean, because we – (interrupting Avery), Wylie said planning commission looked at it, and I think, like, it was probably three or four years ago, I started this when I was on planning commission, I believe, and I don’t remember how far it got. Avery said yeah, because remember we had that issue with – (interrupting Avery), Wylie said yeah, with David [Delasko, resident.] Avery said yeah. Wylie said I think that’s what started it. [To Delasko], Wylie said with your issue, with your landlord. Avery said yeah, and then that guy, the other tenant would come in every meeting. Smith said yeah. Wylie said oh, OK. Avery said it was pretty persistent. Smith said very persistent, complaining about black mold in the shower and that kind of thing. Avery said yeah. Smith said but we had a realtor on council at that time, and he felt it was – Wylie said oh, that’s right – (continuing), Smith said problematic for the real estate industry, and he spoke out against it, but I can absolutely put it on the next agenda to come back and see if there’s interest in it.

Smith said maybe you want to defer this to the planning commission to investigate? Forte said no, I think we need to decide as a council, because what ends up happening is if, if council’s going to say no – Wylie said right – (continuing), Forte said there’s no reason for planning to spin our wheels.

Fisher said it’s really not a zoning question. Forte said oh. Fisher said it’s really not a zoning question. Forte said or not zoning, but planning. Fisher said I mean, no, but it’s not a planning question. Forte said OK.

Avery said no, it’s really pretty simple, right? Fisher said yeah. Avery said we adopt the ordinances that establish what the codes are going to be, and then we decide – (interrupting Avery), Fisher said it’s police power enforcement. Police power, health safety and welfare.

Forte said is there a boilerplate one we could look at for the next meeting, or is that not? Avery said I would assume the township’s – Fisher said yeah, we need to look at the township’s. Forte said could we just have that one for the next meeting? Smith said we can. Forte said OK.

Jones said but does that mean that we’d have to hire someone to do the – Wylie said probably. Avery said oh, yeah. Wylie said but that’s all something we could – (interrupting Wylie), Avery said right, but we already hired the township to do that. Smith said in theory, it’d be offset by the fees. The, we would charge the landlord for the inspection. Avery said yeah. Smith said so, if you charge $100 a unit per year, then that pays for the inspection.

Pardee said I remember a third of our residents are in rental units. Smith said she’s still talking. Pardee said I’m sorry.

Jones said are we currently having an issue with rentals and code violations? Forte said yeah. Smith said we were. I don’t know that anything’s changed, to be honest. At the time, we stopped working on a proposal. But at that time, we were told that there were some violations, and a couple of the residents in Delasko’s building subsequently moved out because they just couldn’t make any progress.

Forte said I think there’s some great ones, and there’s some not great ones. (unintelligible). Jones said yeah. It seems like if someone’s breaking the law, then they should do something to make it (unintelligible). Wylie said OK. We’ll have it on a future agenda.

Wylie said anything else?

Quisenberry said probably more than just Independence. We’re going to look at a couple other samples, and a couple of the neighboring communities would be better rather than just looking at what they did. Smith said OK. Forte said thank you.

Wylie recognized resident Chet Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said no, I just, I was recalling that the number of rental residents was about 300 and some, about a third, a little more than a third of our 840. Wylie said residents – Pardee said yes – (continuing), Wylie said you’re talking about. And when the planning commission talked about it, I know we looked, I don’t know if we actually looked at any ordinances, but I know we talked a lot about what could be inspected. It was a pretty far-reaching discussion, but that’s as far as I recall anymore.

Wylie said anything else on, I guess it’s on ordinance enforcement.

Smith said no, that was it.

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #8 – Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for July (video time mark 0:16:04):

• • Oakland County Sheriff Department Cumulative Report through July 2026 [Zero traffic tickets issued in July] (page 6/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #8 on the agenda is Oakland County Sheriff’s report for July and that is included in the packet. And anybody have questions or comments? If I understand it, Smith can pass it on. Smith said right, the sheriff is not here. Wylie said OK.

Avery said I’ll just say our conversation with the sheriff’s office didn’t do much good because I see that we had zero monthly citations. Obviously, it was not spurred into action. Forte said but I’ve seen him pull some kids over a few times, like since our last – Avery said oh, on the motorbikes. Forte said on the motorbikes, but I don’t know of anything, obviously not to the sort of issue, but I’ve seen the kids all over. Quisenberry said outside the city. Forte said right in downtown on Washington. (Casey made an unintelligible comment.) Wylie said it’s probably a judgment call, I imagine. They’re thinking that maybe (unintelligible) the first time before they issue a ticket. Forte said yeah.

Wylie said anybody, questions or comments on sheriff’s report?

(Unintelligible crosstalk between Avery and Casey.) No additional comments.

Agenda Item #9 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:17:19):

• • 07-27-2026 – Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 7/62 of the council packet)
  • 08-10-2026 – Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 10/62 of the council packet)
  • 08-24-2026 – Treasurer’s Report (page 12/62 of the council packet)
  • 08-12-2026 – Revenue and Expenditure Report for the Period Ending 07-31-2026 (page 13/62 of the council packet)
  • Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C., June 2026 invoice (page 21/62 of the council packet)
  • Fisher Consulting, May-June-July 2026 invoice (page 23/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #9 is a consent agenda. This includes final minutes of the July 27th regular meeting, draft minutes of the August 10th regular meeting, and treasurer’s report, August 24th. Treasurer’s report for August 24th. And I will need a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda.

Motion by Jones; second Avery.

Wylie said before we vote on it, the final minutes of July 27th, it still has my name on it for opening the meeting and pledge of allegiance. Smith said OK. Wylie said it needs to be, I assume it’s Laura Rodgers. Smith said yeah. (Unintelligible comment.)

Wylie said so with those changes – Quisenberry said I have a question – Wylie said go ahead – (continuing), Quisenberry said on the financial report from Greg [Coté, treasurer]. Wylie said OK, so we’ve got a question on Item c, the treasurer’s report. Quisenberry said yes.

Quisenberry said is there, I was scanning through the budget and revenue reports here. And I was trying to find, do we have a line item? I thought we did in our budget for expenditures for the planning commission. Money set aside to have planning services done by an outside entity. Coté said yep, planning commission’s in there. (To Smith), Coté said can you see it? Smith said page five of eight, at the top. Five of eight of the treasurer’s report. Coté said planning. Smith said so, we have a $750 budget this year. And that can be used really for anything the planning commission desires, whether it’s training for their own people or to bring in a consultant, anything along those lines.

Quisenberry said OK, we’ve had quite a few different issues in the last six, seven, eight months where we’ve directed guidance over to the planning commission to do something. And some of them in my mind are quite important. Some of them have to do with opportunities for increasing revenue that we can get throughout the city. And it was a year ago that I suggested that we have the planning commission or the finance committee meet and start early to come up with ways to save money. And we came up with a whole bunch of them. There was a list of 12, 13, whatever. And some of them were discussed like we wanted to act on them. But most of them were passed on down saying, all right, we need this entity to do this. Now we need the planning commission to do this, to come up with a new master plan, to correct some zoning issues that might allow some of these opportunities for funds for the city to take place. And nothing’s happened. And I don’t think the planning commission is prepared or competent. I don’t like competent. I don’t think that they’re, that they should be the one in position to do these things, to come up with a new master plan or something. Because one is just not getting done. And I don’t know that they know what a planner would know and could probably come up with it in a matter of two or three weeks. So, my thought is, is if we have money set aside to study planning issues, we should be using it rather than sitting, it’s been a year and these other opportunities that we were looking for have not taken place. That’s why I think this is so important, is by not having those things in place that we all talked about and said, yes, we want to do it. Let’s set this in motion or we can do this. And in defense of Forte. Forte does a very good job on the planning commission, but it isn’t her role to do these things. It isn’t her time, she shouldn’t be investing her time and studying and trying to find out what these opportunities are, how to go about and do the master plan and whatever. That’s not her role. She has tried to do it. She spent some time, but you know what? It isn’t Forte’s role and Forte shouldn’t be the one that shoulders, it falls on her shoulders to see that this sort of stuff gets done.

Smith said well, I first of all, echo your thoughts. Forte is doing a great job on the planning commission. We’re thankful for everything Forte’s done. So, Forte recognizes, we all did, that there was a shortfall of funds in getting a plan, a master plan update, which was quoted by the previous city planner at $30,000. We thought there’s just not money to do that. So, we embarked on an effort to do what we can in-house, and Forte has been central in that effort, to do what we can in-house. And then, where we really need the professional help, then we go to our city planner and that’s what we’ve done.

Smith said so, in our last planning commission meeting, was that last week or? We had a great discussion with Giffels Webster. We hired Giffels Webster as our new city planner and I can’t say enough about their energy and their presence, their involvement. So, I think we’re gonna see a very different kind of cadence to our master plan completion. It looked like we kind of, with all the things that the planning commission does, looked like we were starting to run into some bigger obstacles. And we really need the expertise that Giffels Webster has to offer. So, we are working with them to get kind of an estimate and put together on what it would cost for them to really help us get across the finish line. There’s a lot to be done yet, but I think they can get us across the finish line, and we can still do some of the lesser things in-house and save some money that way. $675 that’s left in our planning commission budget, I’ll be honest, isn’t gonna be nearly enough. But we’ll get started with this and then we’re gonna have to come back to the city council with a request to obtain additional funds, whether it’s $5,000, $8,000, $10,000, I don’t know at this point, but I would think it’d be somewhere in that range to get Giffels Webster’s help to get us across that finish line.

Smith said a big part of this, I just jumped to this, is the public engagement sessions. That’s big and that’s expertise that we’re not, to your point, we’re not gonna have, any of the planning commission members are not gonna have that experience under their belt. You’ll have to bring in the experts at that point to make sure that your public engagement sessions, which is a key part of the master plan process.

(To Smith), Quisenberry said I understand that, I know that, and I think this is something that was talked about and heard the same comments six months ago. And I think we’re being penny wise and pound foolish because we’re leaving money on the table by not doing some of the things that we said we could do that are gonna bring in a significant amount of revenue. Nothing’s happening with it. And I think that we’re past the time to allocate some additional funds into the planning costs. And if it’s $30,000, it is. We go and we look at the budget and we find out what are we gonna do? How can we come across, what funds can we allocate, reallocate and do this to get it done? Because that’s opportunities that are gonna bring in revenue instead of just spending money because we have to spend money to exist. We’re missing that out. We’ve been missing it out for over a year.

Wylie said but if we can do it for $10,000, why don’t we do it for $30,000? Quisenberry said I’m not saying we do it for that. I’m saying we get a hold of a planner and say, these are the things we want to do, and we want you to do it now. Do it now. (Unintelligible crosstalk between councilmembers.)

Wylie recognized Jones for a comment.

Jones said no, I mean, didn’t we just hire a firm to do this? (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Wylie said yes, yes. Quisenberry said Giffels Webster. Jones said yes, OK, so, so – (interrupting Jones), Avery said so, I guess I’m missing, (to Quisenberry), Avery said I’m not sure where you’re going with it. Jones said do you want us to throw more money at it? Avery said no, no, I think what he’s saying is that there were some suggestions. I assume you’re talking about the empty lots, the one in the corner of Waldon and Main. I don’t think it’s a planning commission problem, personally. I think it is up to the owners of the property, and we’ve had this catch-22 circular argument we keep having is that they don’t want to come up with a proposal until we somehow rezone, that we’re not really looking to rezone until, you know, we get a legitimate proposal. I don’t know that that’s a planning commission’s problem.

Quisenberry said I agree, that’s a shell game, that one right there. Every time they say one thing, we look at it, and now it’s something else. And then there’s been different opinions of what the situation is there. Avery said so, what is it specifically? Do you feel like the planning commission’s not getting down on that? Quisenberry said I feel like we haven’t done anything in over a year to – (interrupting Quisenberry), Avery said implement the finance committee’s suggestions. Quisenberry said yes on the new master plan on a – (interrupting Quisenberry), Avery said the master plan’s not gonna be a moneymaker. If they finish it up and do what they – (interrupting Avery), Quisenberry said no, there was some language we needed to change in the master plan that was going to help make the improvements more conducive.

Fisher said can I point that out? I recall what it is. It was the definition of mixed use. And the definition of mixed use was an impediment that needed to be looked at. So, is it that we want only residential with multiple residential, or could we have residential with commercial below, or something? That’s where it is.

Forte said but the definition doesn’t matter if that lot doesn’t get rezoned. The only reason we’re talking about this is because everyone thinks we’re gonna make a bunch of money on the corner lot there when Deanna [Olson] gets the ideal buyer to come in and do exactly what we all want. Wylie said we don’t need to jump on that. Forte said no, and I have no problem with that, but like I’ve been working on the master plan for a year. Yes, it’s taking forever. Yes, I have two kids at home. My husband works a lot. I do this in my own time.

Wylie said it’s not your fault. I’ve done a previous master plan, and it’s an extraordinarily long, tedious process. Forte said it’s very tedious. Wylie said it’s a very long process. It doesn’t happen in six months. It doesn’t happen in nine months. Forte said and I totally agree the master, the planners can probably do it in a blink of an eye compared to what I can do. I’m happy. I’ve already turned over the Word document. They can quote it as is. What we need for this next step is community engagement, which keeps being brought up. We need a quote for that. We’ll say yes or no to the quote. And then from there, we’ll get community engagement. That will determine that lot, the language amongst other issues. And then from there, we can finish off the master plan. We just need to keep going. Like I don’t like the idea that we have been doing nothing in the last year because we have been. And on top of that, like, I think it’s extremely disrespectful for the work that I’ve been putting in. I know you said no disrespect, but it’s a lot of effing work. And I’m not looking to gain anything. I don’t have a property in downtown other than my house. Like, I’m doing this all because I love this village. You know what I mean? Not that you’re arguing when I don’t, but it just kind of gets my blood boiling.

Forte said so anyway, before I get emotional, the next step is community engagement. After that, then we can finish the master plan. And then we can figure out what happens with a few other factors. But that’s the next step. They came to the last meeting. It was great. We had the, the initial meeting with our planners and basically told them what are the shortfalls? Where do we need to look at in the master plan? What needs to be updated? So, they have a really good grasp on what’s going on. But to say that there’s been nothing going on in the year. Last year when we came, we asked, can we have $30 grand to upgrade our master plan? And there was a no, which obviously – Wylie said we all kind of jaw-dropped. Forte said yeah, we’re all like, $30 grand? Like, I mean, that’s a lot of money for a little town. So I guess my point of all this is like, as planning commission, we’ve been meeting, we’ve been talking about every chapter. We go through chapter by chapter, every meeting. We’re not just dropping the ball. We’re not ignoring council. Every time, like we have an issue, we bring it to council. Everyone says yes or no on the issue. And then we proceed from there. We never go off in our own direction. We always come to council. And we didn’t get the $30 grand. So, we’ve been doing it ourselves. So, I would argue we’ve been working our butts off in the last year because we didn’t get the $30 grand. Wylie said we appreciate it. Forte said like, yeah, we’re all volunteers. We all have a lot going on, but we are definitely not trying to let the city down in any shape or form.

Wylie recognized Smith for a comment.

Smith said a question I would have, and Forte, you can chime in on this as well. Does it make sense to, because the previous planning commission master plan looked at that corner property and had suggestions and called it in. You’re absolutely right, Fisher. What is the definition of mixed use? And should or could that be broken out as a separate issue to get that handled and zoning change, get that whole process started? Yeah, I don’t think it’s going to have a wholesale change to the master plan. It could be brought out as a separate issue, get it implemented.

Forte said but there’s an asterisk on this whole conversation. That owner could come to us and ask for a variance. Smith said absolutely. Forte said they could come up with a plan tomorrow or to our next meeting to council and say, here’s what I want to do. I want a variance to change the zoning. Come on. Smith said there are things that could be done. Forte said so, I don’t feel like the master plan is the, like the reason. (Wylie made an unintelligible comment.) Forte said yeah.

Smith said I would agree. And I agree with what Quisenberry’s saying. We’re leaving potentially money on the table if we’re not getting this zoning changed. And it was brought up in the finance committee as something we want to act on quickly. So can we do that outside of the master plan, which I don’t think we want to rush into quickly just so that we can get this property rezoned. I think we could do this property separately.

Fisher said I think you could break that question out as a policy question and just let the council decide it. And then, and then the planning commission could start working on it. Smith said or then the homeowner or the property owner could at that time pursue the variances. Forte said if she wanted to do so. Fisher said yeah, once you have the policy issue resolved, that’s all you need. Smith said yeah. More than likely. Fisher said yeah. Wylie said OK.

Quisenberry said the point is, I think that we need some force to drive these things forward. And Forte, it was not meant to be any pointing a finger. I understand what you’re doing. I know you’re very busy. I just think that as a city governing itself, that we shouldn’t rely on, on you. It shouldn’t fall on your shoulders to do this, that which we should have somebody else do to make sure it gets done. Forte said but who?

Pardee said yeah, folks, we’ve got $12,000. Wylie said I’m sorry, Pardee, right now we’re with council. You’re afterwards, after council finishes.

Quisenberry said some entity that does this for a living. Jones said absolutely. That’s why we voted to get. Wylie said we as a council voted not to do that. Avery said well, at the time, though, it was who? Wylie said it was still, not McKenna, it was Carlisle/Wortman. Avery said Carlisle/Wortman, yeah, we have switched. We’ve not gotten an estimate from them. I guess I’m not really grasping where you’re going with it, Quisenberry. If you want to reconvene the finance committee and we go over that list and find out where things aren’t happening, then I think we can be more specific. I don’t know that. Quisenberry said don’t you think we know where things aren’t happening? Avery said I don’t. Maybe it’s me. I mean, if you’re talking specifically about that lot, nothing’s changed in 10 years. Quisenberry said I don’t want, I don’t want to zero in and say this is all about that lot. It isn’t. If she can get a variance and she doesn’t come to us, that’s her issue. Avery said right. Quisenberry said but we need to at least make it available that, that these things can happen. Plus – (interrupting Quisenberry), Avery said we have. They’ve come before. They’ve had – (interrupting) Avery), Forte said they’v come to planning several times. Yeah. And they always, they never come back. Avery said yes. They have a plan. They come in. It’s usually too big for the lot. There’s density issues. It’s whatever. And we say, no, we’re going to go this far, but not this far. And then they go away. Forte said no one ever came back.

Wylie said yeah, again, I want to reiterate, the master plan is, when we did it, I think it took us a year and a half, two years, perhaps, to come up with a master plan. Now, we have people, not young mothers with children. We had retired people working on it consistently and constantly, and – (interrupting Wylie), Forte said and I’m not trying to come off as frustrated with – Wylie said no – (continuing), Forte said Olsen or that lot. It’s just like, I feel like I’ve had this conversation so many times. Like, I just, we’re not anti-development. Come with a plan and ask for a variance, or don’t, and develop five houses on there, like, as it’s split up now, or was back in the day. I don’t know, but, you know, the zoning map shows, a current zoning map for the city shows five or six residential lots. Wylie said right, five. Forte said yeah, so . . .

Wylie said OK. (To Quisenberry), Wylie said anything else?

No comments.

(To Pardee), Wylie said you had something you wanted to, or anybody else in the public had something to say?

Pardee said I’d just like to comment that we had $12,000 in the budget, and I don’t know if we’re planning on spending that with vehicles. I mean, we – (unintelligible comment) – (continuing), Pardee said we teed them up, and it sounds like they’ve got their feet wet, but we had $12,000 to spend on whatever the priorities related to planning are. Wylie said thank you.

Wylie said anybody else in the public?

No comments.

Wylie said OK. We still had, so we had a motion from Jones, a second from Avery, on accepting the consent agenda. Anything else on the consent agenda?

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said the last line of the 7/31 financial report shows negative, and I’m puzzled by how that could be. Wylie said what page are you on? Pardee said I’m on, probably the same page. Smith said page five of eight. Wylie said five of eight, I’m sorry. Pardee said bottom line, this is general, and it compares what our revenues are and expenditures are, and I go out to the, next to the last line. Coté said available, I believe that’s the available balance, is that what you’re – (interrupting Coté), Pardee said no, no, no, it’s negative. Why is that negative? We must plan to spend more than we expect to have revenue. Coté said yep, let me see, yep, yep, yep. Pardee said well, that’s, we’re a month in. And I thought – (interrupting Pardee), Coté said we’re still way too early in the budget, though, right now. I don’t have any tax revenue coming in right now. Pardee said OK, OK.

Wylie said anybody else?

No comments.

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

Wylie said the consent agenda is accepted.

Agenda Item #10, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:38:25):

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

Agenda Item #11, New Business (video time mark 0:38:29):

Item #11a – Motion: Chamber of Commerce Light Post Decoration Proposal (video time mark 0:38:30):

• • Motion – Chamber of Commerce Light Post Decoration Proposal for October-November (page 26/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #11a, Motion, Chamber of Commerce Light Post Decoration Proposal. And we have the motion, I’ll read this.

(Wylie read the motion.)

Wylie said so, I guess I’m confused by what we’re doing. So this is like a pre-approval?

Emily Osmialowski [Executive Director, Clarkston Area Chamber of Commerce] said yeah, so we just wanted to make sure that we had approval. Usually, we try to put them up just like at the end of September, and then they go through October and take them down before the holiday decorations that get put up, so there’s just time to take them down and put the other ones up. The only challenging thing is that getting a cornstalk in August was not a foreseen problem. So, we did do a mock-up of what it’s gonna look like. I’ll pass this around for you guys so you guys can see it. It’s gonna be exactly like it was last year, but with much smaller signage. We’ll still have the same pretty fall ribbon and the cornstalk attached to the light post. So, we just wanted to present it to you guys so that you’re able to see it and then let us know if you have any comments.

Wylie said it’s a wheat stalk? Quisenberry said yeah. Osmialowski said they will be cornstalks. We get them from a local farm, but (unintelligible). Wylie said the two non-farmers said, OK.

Wylie said so, I guess, are we approving or not? Are we approving October and November? Avery said in the spring, you said we wanted to see them before they – Wylie said yeah. Osmialowski said yeah. Avery said is that where we’re going? Smith said each, each season, yes.

Wylie said OK. Smith said fall season.

Motion by Forte; second Jones.

Wylie said any discussion from council members?

No comments.

Wylie said discussion from the public?

No comments.

(To Osmialowski), Wylie said did you guys want to say anything else? (Whispering), Wylie said don’t say anything.

Motion to approve the light post decoration proposal passed by unanimous voice vote.

Jones said do we have to do a roll call on this? Wylie said there’s no money involved. Jones said oh, OK, all right, I didn’t know. You put it in front of me, and I think we gotta go through it.

Wylie said saying nothing is better, that’s all I’m gonna say. Osmialowski said I appreciate it. Wylie said all right, thank you. Todd, come back!

Item #11b – Discussion: Primary Election Recap (video time mark 0:41:12):

Wylie said Item #11b, Discussion, Primary Election Recap, and I assume our clerk, Angie Guillen, is going to talk about this?

Guillen said sure, for our nine days of early voting, this was the first time we administered our own nine days of early voting. Everything went exceptionally well. We only had eleven residents out of all nine days, so I’m really encouraging residents to get out and exercise their constitutional right to vote. November’s gonna be a little bit busier, because this was a primary just to narrow down candidates for November, and then also, out of 180 out of 240 ballots that were sent out, like absentee, 180 came back, and then we had 176 residents that actually came on election day and voted, so a total of 356.

Wylie said I saw a newspaper somewhere that Clarkson actually had one of the higher communities, was one of the higher communities for percentage of, I don’t know if it’s residents. I don’t know. We had a lot of voters. Gullen said yeah, compared to most communities. Wylie said oh, good.

Guillen said I just think it’s important to have residents, don’t have to travel to Bay Court Park or Waterford Oaks. They can come right to their city and vote and go right on about their business, no matter what their day entails. Forte said I saw a lot of parents come here while the kids were in the park. Guillen said yes. Forte said yes, that’s a nice option. One parent. Wylie said I’m laughing because I’m looking at Fisher’s face when you said that. I think he’s picturing babies out there by themselves. Forte said no unattended children. Don’t worry, Alice is watching Brian’s.

(To Guillen), Wylie said thank you very much for taking care of this and making it work.

Wylie said any comments or questions from council members, from the public?

No comments.

Wylie said thank you again. Guillen said you’re welcome.

Item #11c – Discussion: E. Church Street Paving Status and Cost (video time mark 0:42:40):

• • 08-19-2026 – E. Church Street Paving Costs (Page 27/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #11c, Discussion, East Church Street Paving Status and Costs. (To Smith) Wylie said yeah, I assume this is – Smith said so this question has come up a couple of times, and so just to recap, where do we stand right now?

Smith said (unintelligible) so the costs are broken down into engineering versus planning and construction. As you know, we got a grant from Michigan Department of Transportation, and that grant covers 50% of the planning and construction costs. It does not cover engineering costs. We knew that going in. So, the engineering costs are on us. We are using F&V [Fleis & VandenBrink] Engineering for this project. They helped us get the grant. They were instrumental in getting us the grant. So, they were awarded the engineering costs. Now, they had originally estimated $47,000 of engineering costs. They had cost to date is $25,000. They’re estimating now their final cost will be $32,000. So, coming in well below the original estimate. So that will be the city’s cost, that $32,450 for engineering. But keep in mind, it sounds like a lot, but we’re getting all the MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] grant for nothing.

Smith said so, let’s jump down to the next block here, which is planning and construction costs. The engineering, I’m sorry, the original estimate was $129,450 each for a total of $259,000 [$258,900] for construction. That has since come down. We’re doing well, actually, below estimates. We’re currently estimating a final cost of $223,000 [$223,128]. So that’s well below the original $258[,000]. It doesn’t come out exactly to 50-50 between the two because there’s some things that MDOT just will not cover. But it’s pretty close to a 50-50 split between the two of us. So, our total construction costs will be about $114,646. And MDOT will pay, again, for no charge. They cover $108,000 [$108,482].

Wylie said so, prices coming down, I figure our asphalt cost going up with oil. Smith said yes, but I mean, this project went so smoothly. Wylie said that’s good. Smith said it couldn’t have gone any smoother. And I don’t want to make it sound like they cut corners. They did not. They did this whole vibration check. They milled it down. First of all, they milled down four inches, which is what they knew they were gonna mill out. And they said, that might take us down to the dirt, but there might be another inch of asphalt below that. In reality, it took us right to the dirt. So, then they did what they call a construction roll or something, something roll, where they take a truck full of asphalt millings, and they roll down the road at a very, very slow pace. And the workers just walk next to the truck and watch if there’s indentations. Now you’re just riding on bare dirt. And so, they’re checking to see if the truck is going up and down and settling in spots, because that will tell them they might have to excavate out and rebuild the sub-foundation below that area. They did not find any of that. There were a couple bad spots on Church that warranted this paving work, and so I was a little concerned about those. But in reality, they all passed the construction roll phase. So, they were able to almost immediately start paving. It’s going very, very smoothly. Everything that they said they’d do, they did. And a few things came in under budget.

Smith said so, all total, if I look down to the very bottom line, we estimated $306,000. It’s come in at, they’re currently estimating we’ll finish at $255,578 for about a $50,000 savings. So, the city’s cost, you might say, or what is the city paying, we’ll pay $147,000 for the paving and the engineering. So our total cost on this project is $147,000. But again, we’re getting $108,000 [$108,482] of free money from the State of Michigan.

Wylie said questions or comments from council?

Wylie said who was the contractor on the job? Smith said Hutch Paving out of Warren, Michigan. Wylie said OK. Smith said top notch guys. No one I’d ever heard of before, but they did an excellent job. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said from the public, any questions or comments?

Pardee thanked Smith. Smith said you’re welcome. Wylie said yes, thank you, thank you. And thanks to all of you who keep getting, I keep hearing grants, grants, grants. We keep getting grants. It’s awesome that we keep getting grants. Helps the city quite a bit. Smith said yes. And then the next big one will be downtown, probably have the next summer.

(To Coté), Avery said that money came out of the parking fund, the $147,000. Smith said yes, absolutely, the $147,000. Avery said none of it came out of the taxpayers’ pockets. Wylie said you’re absolutely right, that’s a good point. Coté said well, are we going to go parking or local roads? We’re not sure, we’re going to kind of split that up. Smith said yeah, but it’s, you know. Avery said but it’s not coming out of the general fund. Smith said it’s not coming out of the general fund. Avery said correct.

Forte said did we increase the parking price? I can’t even remember how much it is. Smith said we did, from $1 to $1.50. Forte said OK. Smith said and it hasn’t slowed the usage of parking. Forte said did anyone complain? Smith said not one single complaint. And the weekly income, which is doing very well in our parking lots, it was about $1,000 a week. I used to say it was a good week for the city. Not this past week, but the week before, we were at $2,900. Wylie said wow. Smith said I said $1,000 used to be a good week, and last week was $2,900. Forte said what do you think the difference is? Smith said well, part of it is a 50% increase in the rate that helped us, it was a good shot in the arm, but just very busy. The restaurants, and I thank the restaurants. They’re key to making this happen. They’re bringing a ton of people to the city. And that’s a real – Wylie said the economy going good. Smith said it is. We’re blessed to have this. Wylie said the weather is warm. No snow. Fisher said Rudy’s got labeled number one on Hour Magazine. Wylie said that’s right. Forte said really. Fisher said so that would bring people from the whole region. Forte said cheers to them. Fisher said yeah.

Jones said and I saw someone getting a ticket for parking, whatever, so. Forte said was it the Lamborghini in downtown? Jones said no. But just saying. Wylie said we’re getting tickets all the time. Avery said is it just Mike [Cascone?]? Smith said it is just Mike. Avery said we need to find someone that’s, I appreciate that he’s doing this, but at some point, you know. Smith said I do, and I ask Mike all the time, when is he getting, enough is enough, so we continue to monitor that, but – Forte said Pardee – (continuing), Smith said Mike is still – Forte said you’re walking around anyway. Do you want to be a parking enforcement ambassador? Pardee said my dog doesn’t do that.

Wylie said OK, can we move on then?

Item #11d – Discussion: Oakland County Sheriff Contract (video time mark 0:50:36):

• • 06-23-2025 – Clarkston/Independence Township Intergovernmental Law Enforcement Services Agreement (page 28/62 of the council packet)
  • 12-12-2024 – Independence Township Board of Commissioners, Agenda Item, Law Enforcement Services Agreement with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office (page 36/62 of the council packet)
    • Exhibit A, Sheriff’s Deputies and County Agents Contracted for and to be Assigned to Public Body (page 37/62 of the council packet)
    • Independence Township Item Tracking Report (page 38/62 of the council packet)
    • 12-12-2026 – Resolution (page 39/62 of the council packet)
    • 2025-2027 Law Enforcement Services Contract Between Independence Township and the Oakland County Sheriff (page 41/62 of the council packet)
    • Exhibit A, Sheriff’s Deputies and County Agents Contracted for and to be Assigned to Public Body (page 55/62 of the council packet)
    • Exhibit B, Holiday Pay (page 56/62 of the council packet)
    • Exhibit C, Overtime (page 57/62 of the council packet)
    • Exhibit D, Request for Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Form (page 58/62 of the council packet)

• Wylie said we are on Item #11d, Discussion of Oakland County Sheriff Contracts. Smith said so let me kind of recap where we’ve come from and where we’re heading.

Smith said so, in June of 2025, almost a year and a half ago, we brought to council this agreement that had been worked out between Independence Township and myself. It was a collaboration of input from both sides, and this was the final agreement that we settled on. Brought that to the city council on June 23rd of last year, and it was approved by city council. The next morning, I signed that agreement, and I emailed it, it was actually Wednesday when I emailed it, so it wasn’t the next day, it was the day after I emailed that, to the township leadership, the township attorney, Fisher and a couple other people received it, Tom Ryan, who’s our attorney at the time. We, we, I sent it to seven or eight people. It was never signed [by the township], to this day, it had never been signed and returned.

Forte said what does that mean? Casey said by the township? Smith said by the township. Wylie said the township didn’t sign it. Forte said so, what does that mean? What does that mean? Smith said that’s what we’re talking about. Fisher said their board approved. Smith said the board did approve it in their July 22nd meeting. About a month later, on July 22nd, their board did approve it, but they never sent back a signed copy. And this is an attorney question, is if I don’t have a signed copy, do I have an agreement? I used to, in my preliminary school days, it was always taught that you don’t have an agreement until both parties sign the document. This has not been signed, to this day, it’s still not been signed and returned to us by the township. Nor was their billing clerk, I don’t know his exact title, but I’ll call this person the billing clerk. Coté said accounts payable. Smith said accounts payable, where they, they never instructed them to use the new algorithm for billing that’s called out in the police agreement. It was a change, a pretty large change in the way the algorithm is structured. Instead of being based on assessed values [should be taxable values] of the properties, it was based on a percentage of what the township pays Oakland County.

Smith said so, I recently asked Oakland County Sheriff to provide me a copy. I could have FOIA’d them, but they didn’t require me to do that. They sent it over to me, so I have a copy. It’s included in the packet here. It’s a copy, well, I’ll jump down and then come back up to this. So, this copy here is a document between Oakland County and Independence Township. And the second page summarizes the annual costs. So, as you can see here, it’s got ‘25, ‘26, and ‘27. It’s a three-year agreement. And down at the bottom are the totals for those numbers, for those costs. This is straight time, it does not include overtime, but it’s generally kind of what they should expect to pay. Under the new agreement, now I’ll bounce back up to our new agreement wording, Clarkston shall be paying 2.7% of the total cost of law enforcement that the township pays to Oakland County. 2.7%, and then in item C, it does say that we will pay an administrative fee of $300 per month. So, that’s the new algorithm that we fully expected to see, but the township billing clerk never actually changed the algorithm to this 2.7%. They just kept using the old algorithm, which is based, as I said earlier, on assessed values.

Fisher said it’s quarterly versus monthly. Smith said and that’s another big change. This new agreement is based on monthly, you see it right here, monthly billing, whereas the previous one was a quarterly bill. We just continued to receive quarterly bills. These go directly to Coté’s office. They’re things we’ve been paying for how many years? Quarterly bills, they come in. We don’t want to jeopardize the law enforcement coverage or fire coverage, so we immediately pay these bills the same week that we receive them. So, Coté is diligent and we’ve been paying those bills, but they were based on the old algorithm.

Smith said so, a couple things didn’t happen here. One, the agreement was never signed. You can see in this copy at the bottom here, I signed it. Forte said who needs to sign that? Smith said Independence Township. Somebody from the – (interrupting Smith), Forte said is it just accounts payable, or who? Smith said no, it should be somebody in the leadership of how we expect the township supervisor to sign this. So, that never happened. And secondly, the billing clerk was never instructed to change the algorithm. So, we continue to receive the old formatted invoices.

Smith said now, should I have caught that? Should Coté have caught that? How should that have been caught? Yeah, we could take some responsibility in that we didn’t catch this, but on the other hand, we don’t seem to have, on the surface here, we don’t seem to have an agreement. We don’t have two parties signing the agreement. So, do we have an agreement? As you know, shortly after signing this, as you would call it, shortly after signing this, we embarked on, Fisher and I embarked on a long series of meetings with the township leadership to talk about agreements, because after we hired Kim [Kim Feigley Assessing] as our assessor, it was told to us that all contracts shall be canceled. And Fisher and I started meeting with the township leadership and attorneys to see, okay, what does this mean to us? And we had multiple meetings going into January and February of this year, and then things just kind of stopped, as though we kind of agreed to disagree, and, but the status of this being one of the contracts that was threatened to be canceled is still up in the air. We still don’t know. It’s never been returned to us, so I honestly don’t know the status of it.

Smith said you wanna blame me for not following up with the township, go ahead. But I still maintain, I don’t know what the status of this agreement is as of today. Now, Fisher reached out to Dan Kelly, their attorney, today, and they are of the mind that they didn’t receive this contract, and they’re asking to see a copy of the contract. So, I forwarded them the email that I sent out on the Wednesday following the June 23rd council meeting, saying, there it all is, here’s the documents. The police, fire, building, all three of them, including the resolution that council passed that night. So, it’s all there. The contract.

Avery said well, we know they got it, because they voted on it. Smith said they voted on it, but – (interrupting Smith), Avery said they had to have – (interrupting Avery), Smith said they had to have had a knowledge of what they were voting on. In fact, it was in their agenda packet, but they never signed it or implemented it. So, it is still questionable. Where do we stand right now?

Fisher said it’s an agreement. Avery said yeah, it’s approved, the board approved it. Fisher said they’re implementing it. Avery said yeah, exactly. Avery said the bigger question, I suppose, and I’m sure you’re getting to that, is it’s a different formula from the past contract to the new contract. Are we, are the payments similar? Are we not paying enough? Are we paying too much? That’s the question. Smith said I’ll let Coté, Coté’s prepared our math. Avery said I’ll let the math guy do it. Avery said here we go. Smith said I’ll let him. So, Coté will walk you through the numbers, but the quick answer is, we have underpaid them. We did not overpay them, and we’re gonna be asking for a refund. We’re not going down that road again. We’ve underpaid them, and so. Quisenberry said I think it’s better said, they’ve underbilled us. Smith said underbilled us, correct.

Jones said can I, I mean, yeah, but also, I mean, sorry, just throwing this out there. There’s this clause right here that says any payment about overpayment, right? Avery said yup. Jones said I feel like, given that whole thing, and that we’ve locked into this, you know, only getting 60 days notice, that we should have caught this earlier, if we were doing this, because we’ve been doing this for a year. We’ve been in this contract for a year, and if we’re getting it on a quarterly basis, that means we’re underpaying them. I mean, we’ve had four invoices. Smith said yeah. I understand the point.

Forte said can we talk to them about the difference, or anything like that? Wylie said at least let Coté talk about it, and then – Forte said sorry. Coté said no, that’s OK.

Coté said so, what you guys have in front of you is the police/fire contract. I’ve highlighted in yellow what we want to focus on. So, under the full police and fire contract, in 2024, for instance, the police annual cost was $165,000. Does everybody see that highlighted? (Several councilmembers said yeah.) (Continuing), Coté said and when you drop down to ‘25, it’s $173,000. So, the new police contract calculation is at the bottom. For ‘25, it would be $173,234, and then for ‘26, it would jump to $188,671. That’s what we should have been paying, and that’s on a monthly basis. So, under the old formula, it went up about 4.57%, and under this new calculation, it went up about – (interrupting Coté), Fisher said you said monthly. The number you said, the $173[,000] and the $188[,000], that says annual. Coté said yeah, that’s the annual. But the new one is a monthly versus a quarterly. Fisher said right. Coté said so, under the old, it went up about 4.57[%] year over year. And just the new police contract, it went up about 9%.

Coté said so, I wanted to implement some office procedures that I’d like to adopt going forward to help avoid this SNAFU in the future. And I just jotted down a couple things. I wanna be involved and be able to review all contracts going forward. I think treasurers and the future treasurers for the city should be involved in that process. Smith’s got so much stuff on his plate right now, I think I can help him out on that. And number two, I believe that all financial contracts that bind the city to a future payment or obligation will be required to submit an exhibit that will show the future invoice that will be generated by the payee. This will allow both the payee and the payor to review account numbers, dates, CUSIP [Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures], payment amount terms. If we had that in front of us, we could have probably avoided this SNAFU. In other words, they would have produced that before the billing cycle even started. That would ensure that I know their payable departments is in sync with what we’re expecting. And then finally, I think all fully and signed executed documents need to be presented back to council when we have them in our possession. I’m not sure if we’re doing that now. I think it’s a good procedure.

Smith said we don’t do that now. The expectation is that after I send it over to them, they will sign and send it back and we’ll put that in the file and file them. But in this case, we didn’t. We never got it back. Coté said yeah, I think council just needs to know that this has been completed, we’re doing our due diligence and now we’re gonna file it. (To Fisher), Coté said and I’m assuming, you keep a copy of all this stuff – Fisher said yes – (continuing), Coté said once it’s fully executed as well. So, you have a copy and then we have a copy. Thoughts?

(Avery made an unintelligible comment.)

Quisenberry said all three, sitting here, is reasonable and should be a standard business. Coté said yeah, they’re not hard to implement.

Jones said now, I just, I don’t know, the third one, I mean, is it just gonna be like they just get included in the packet – Coté said yes – (continuing), Jones said or is it gonna be like a whole different thing? It’s not gonna be like a discussion or anything like that? Coté said no, it’s already been done, we just want everybody to know, look, everybody signed it, whoever that may be. The township signed it, Smith signed it, the council blessed it. Forte said it’s just like our bills and everything. Coté said yeah, yeah, yeah, I think it’s an easy solution.

Forte said OK, what is a CUSIP? Coté said I apologize, that’s a bank reference (unintelligible). Forte said and then have we talked to them about what we’re gonna do and what the next steps are with the township? Smith said Fisher’s  talking with Kelly. Forte said OK, what do you say?

Avery said what’s the number here? We’ve been underpaying them, what’s the aggregate that we would owe them under the new formula? Approximately? Coté said I’d say about $15,000. Smith said I calculate $13,000, but yeah. Coté said yeah. Smith said $13,000. Fisher said a little over $1,000 a month. Coté said yeah.

(To Fisher), Guillen said can I ask you a question?

Avery said if their own accounting department would be on top of this, I mean. Coté said well, that’s what I mean here. Avery said but we’ve learned our lesson before. We’ve got overcharged on – Coté said right – (continuing), Avery said the police contract – Coté said right – (continuing), Avery said so we need to be better – Coté said right – Avery said because we know better.

Fisher said I think Guillen wanted to. (To Guillen), Coté said sorry.

Guillen said one, I just wanted to touch, we’re paying for an admin fee every month and it’s not getting completed. And then two, they only have 60 days to come back and get money from us, correct, that we owe them? [Guillen means money that the township owes the city for an overpayment. The contract doesn’t limit the time the township can seek payment from the city for an underpayment.] Coté said that is correct. Guillen said so, it’s still $15,000 if they only can go back 60 days? Coté said well, that’s a question that Smith and I discussed, and that’s really kind of a theory question. Fisher said and it’ll be a legal question, because the clawback, the clawback, it goes the other way. Coté said right. Fisher said it’s that we have to discover it. So, the question would be, if there’s a clawback one way, is it implied going both ways? Forte said what does that mean, a clawback? Fisher said in other words, how much, how far back can we go to ask for the money? How far back in time?

Wylie said I sure as heck hope – Quisenberry said it’s 60 days – (continuing), Wylie said we can hold them to that. And they did it to us. Fisher said yeah, I mean – Guillen said kept our taxpayer money. Fisher said it wasn’t written that way, actually, because there was no expectation, but the question is, does it work both ways if it’s written one way? And I don’t know the answer to that. Well, (unintelligible) keep it from us. So, I think our council should be able to vote to keep it from them. Avery said well, there’s a difference. Wylie said I know, I know. Avery said there’s a six-year statute of limitations in contracts. Wylie said I understand. Avery said they’re well within the six years if they would go to court and get that money. I think we should figure out what that number is and give it to them, because it’s money that we agree to pay. So, it’s not time to play cute on this. Fisher said maybe less the administration fee, which obviously hasn’t been expended.

Forte said yeah, what does that mean, the administrative? Avery said it’s just a way for them – Fisher said they just add money for us, yeah? That is $300 a month. Coté said $300 a month.

Wylie said people (unintelligible), the people signing (unintelligible).

Quisenberry said we signed them, we’re gonna give you $300 administration fee, whether they, what they do with it, how they spend it. That’s now out of our hand. We signed it. We said, we’re gonna give it to you. So, we gotta give it to them. Doesn’t matter how they do it. (Unintelligible crosstalk.)

Wylie said so, you’re waiting to hear from Dan Kelly, is that correct? Or somebody? Fisher said yeah, Dan Kelly was, I talked to him. Wylie said oh, I’m sorry, I’m going to the wrong person. Fisher said I talked to him over the weekend, and then he was kind enough to follow up on it, and he talked to Cari [Neubeck, Independence Township clerk], actually Friday, he talked to both Cari and Chuck [Phyle, Independence Township supervisor] on Friday, even though the township wasn’t open. So, he was really pursuing it, and then he called me today and said he didn’t have a copy of the contract, and Smith sent him not only a copy of the contract with his transmittal letter, email to the township. So, they obviously had it, and I think he told me that Phyle is looking into it. Wylie said OK. Fisher said that’s the answer. Wylie said Phyle’s got a lot on his plate right now. Fisher said yes. Forte said he said it’s going to be a gift to the Village of Clarkston, the difference? Fisher said oh, no, nobody said that.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Missing from the council’s discussion and the presentation from both the city manager and the city treasurer is the contract provision (not highlighted in the copy included in the council packet) that requires the city to pay 1% per month interest on payments that are more than 30 days late. Did the treasurer’s computations take this into account? We don’t know because this was not included in the publicly available meeting material.]

Wylie said anybody else have council questions, comments?

Wylie recognized Quisenberry for a comment.

Quisenberry said I have a couple. As I recall reading through this, I thought I read that the language Independence insisted was in there about not, if they overcharge us, we overpay, they’re not gonna get, we’re not getting reimbursed. It also said it doesn’t go the other way. There was language saying that if we overpay, that wasn’t gonna happen. And in that language, doesn’t it say that we have 60 days, 30 or 60 days to point out an error? Fisher said yes. And if it’s past that 60 days, then we lose it, if it’s gonna be to our benefit. If we don’t catch an error where they overcharged us in 60 days of bringing to their attention, we can’t get it. Fisher said but this is the opposite. Avery said yeah. Fisher said yes. Quisenberry said uh-huh. Fisher said and so the question is, does the opposite rule apply? If it’s not written, and I think Avery is saying, let’s not quibble with that. Wylie said police services (unintelligible). Avery said we agreed (unintelliglble).

Forte said so, should we just make a motion to put in the 30 days? (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Avery said and I don’t think we have to make a motion anyways, because we already approved the budget with that expected disbursement.

Forte said the real, what do you need? Fisher said this is just a report on something that’s happened. Wylie said we’re just talking about it.

(To Quisenberry), Wylie said did you have other points?

Quisenberry said a couple in here. The contract starts on, started on July 1st of 2025. It is going to expire 12-31-27. Because the contract says that our contract with the, Independence expires the same day their contract with the county does. And that’s December 31st of next year. So that’s the term of this. There were some other pieces in here that I saw. On page two, section B, from law enforcement services shall be signed as if blah blah blah as provided for, as stated in Clarkston ordinances. So according to the contract, the sheriff’s department should be enforcing our ordinances. Jones said there is a note, if you keep going. Quisenberry said yeah. Jones said where it says, yeah. Yeah, where it says Clarkston acknowledges that it will, shall remain solely responsible for the enforcement of the local law ordinances, which would include noise ordinances because they aren’t managed at a county-wide level. Quisenberry said so they’re (unintelligible). Here we are talking about e-bikes and all of this and relying on our police services entity to enforce ordinances we enact. And in this contract, it says they don’t have to enforce local ordinances. That’s an issue. Wylie said but that doesn’t mean they won’t. I mean, it was already talked about seeing officers stopping multiple times. Quisenberry said it shouldn’t be in there. You shouldn’t have a conflict of points like that in here. Wylie said OK, and next point.

Quisenberry said that – (interrupting Quisenberry) Avery said although I guess I would make a quick comment. This is a contract between us and – Jones said Independence. Avery said Independence, not local county sheriff. So even though it’s saying that we have to do it, it doesn’t necessarily bind – Wylie said the sheriff – (continuing), Avery said the sheriff, right? Jones said but the way. Wylie said it’s probably just to cover them in case. Jones said yeah. Wylie said it says noise ordinance. Like we have some whackadoodle rule that they don’t want to cover or something. Avery said (unintelligible) the contract.

Jones said well, because I Googled it while we’re sitting here. There’s no, there’s no county-wide, like all noise ordinances in here are enforced at a local level, so, but like – (interrupting Jones), Quisenberry said this contract is not, that language that I mentioned is in the county with Independence and Independence is with us. Wylie said so, the next contract (unintelligible crosstalk between Wylie and Avery).

Fisher said yeah, most of it, I think, is boilerplate on the county just kind of flipped over. Avery said yeah.

Jones said I mean, the bigger thing that really, I think impacts us is the way that the language is worded in terms of prioritization. The fact that it doesn’t allot for additional sheriff’s deputies for the substation. So, we get whatever is available or is left for the terms of their prioritization.

Quisenberry said there’s a point. I’m just getting, OK. The extra services that we get, so I’d say for Labor Day Parade or whatever, where there are, of course, most of those are reserves and volunteers. Any special details that we have, when we ask for additional coverage, how will we billed with that? And are we sure of getting it? Avery said I don’t think we are billed. Smith said for the parade? Quisenberry said for any extra services where an event is going on in the city and Oakland County is providing additional resources. Smith said so, we haven’t been billed on that. That’d be primarily two events, Taste of Clarkston and the parade. Quisenberry said that’s good. Smith said on and then Clarkston, two parades. But those are covered, by the Independence Township covers the parade costs. And the Chamber of Commerce covers the Taste costs.

(To Wylie), Fisher said so, can I just make a comment? Wylie said please. Fisher said I think you have in your packet the contract between the sheriff and Independence as well. Quisenberry said yes. Fisher said and in the same counterpart provision, it doesn’t call out state statutes and Independence ordinances. It says state statutes and public body ordinances, undoubtedly for this purpose. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said any other comments or questions from people on council?

Quisenberry said yeah. What are we going to, how are we going to, are we just waiting for them to get back up to say, this is how we want you to, how we’ll equalize out the past billing? This is how we’re gonna work out? Fisher said well, nothing that’s specific. They weren’t even acknowledging that they had the agreement. Like, it was probably the middle of the day that they asked me to ask Smith to send it over, which Smith did in the middle of the day. And I haven’t heard anything after that. So, Phyle is apparently gonna look into it and let me know. Quisenberry said and we’re just going to operate status quo until we hear from them and get a signed agreement with them. Fisher said well, I don’t know what else we can do. [The city could do its own computation of what is owing rather than waiting for the township to do that and than pay the overdue amount immediately to stop interest running on the underpayment.] Well, for a reasonable time, yeah. But I think there is an agreement. I mean, I think there’s a meeting of the minds of having a contract. They provided the services and we’ve been paying for them based upon their billing. So, it’s just a matter of incorrect billing.

Quisenberry said here’s the one point I wanted to mention is Phyle said he’s going to cancel our contract. By point 15 here in our contract with him says he can’t. He can’t cancel the contract because of something like that. There’s only specific reasons and that clearly is not one of them. Which I think we knew that when he threw it at us (unintelligible).

Wylie said any other questions or comments from council members?

No comments.

Wylie said from the public?

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said when is the next quarterly bill? Coté said the 30^th. September 30^th. Pardee said September 30^th. Fisher said technically, it should be a monthly thing. Wylie said right. Pardee said I understand that, but I’m just – Wylie said right. Coté said fires go quarterly. Fisher said yes.

Pardee said so, I’m back two weeks and we had the auditor here and the auditor handed out a document to all of the council members and didn’t share it. I’m like, great. Thank you for sharing your documents with me. So, the message that she was making a communication to the council and to the community, but she was referencing the contract that Independence Township was operating with. And I thought that was unusual that she wasn’t talking about the contract that was in effect now and in the future. Coté said she didn’t see the new contract. Pardee said OK. Avery said yeah, she just looks at the numbers. She doesn’t look at the contracts. Pardee said well. Avery said she’s looking at Coté’s month, his finances, financial statements. So, in theory, what she was quoting as police costs were lower. Pardee said yeah. Avery said so, it should have been higher. Pardee said right. Coté said yeah. And we just, I calculated it. I just finished calculating that out. I have that number. And she indicated a surplus the first year. We’ll probably have a surplus the second year. These are with the new numbers and then we’ll run a deficit after that. Wylie said OK. Coté said so, there’s not really a change. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said anybody else, questions or comments? Any more?

Pardee said that included all seven? Coté said all seven. Pardee said or that made the assumption of 1%. One mill. Smith said one mill. Pardee said one mill. Coté said yes. Smith said one mill. Yes, it makes that assumption.

(To Smith), Coté said I have a question on that.

Fisher said what one excess mill     , paying the seven but reducing the other? Reducing it. Pardee said I understand. Fisher said OK. Pardee said thank you.

Coté said the sheriff contract, is that an annual or is it a three-year contract? Smith said three-year. Coté said three-year, OK. Smith said and it was, it should have started, the last one expired in December of ‘24. Coté said 4, correct. Smith said the new one expires in December of ‘27. That’s the three year. Coté said so technically we were without a contract from January until June of ‘25. Smith said correct. Nothing was in place at that time. Coté said that’s the thing, OK. Smith said and I don’t think there’s verbiage in the old contract that says, if an agreement, a renewal has not been made that the old billing shall continue until one is agreed to. I don’t know that there’s such a clause in the old contract, but that’s kind of what they’re – Quisenberry said there’s one of those in this one. Smith said is there? Quisenberry said mm-hmm.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: This incorrectly assumes the previous contract between the city and the township terminated before the new contract was effective and there was no contract at all in effect for six months. The previous contract between the city and the township automatically renewed when the township’s contract with the county was renewed. In fact, the new contract between the city and township was unnecessary because the previous contract was still in force and the city could have insisted on continuing the lower payments provided by its previous contract instead of accommodating the township by agreeing to pay more after the county unexpectedly significantly increased its charges to local governments for policy services.]

Forte said so that span of time is within that re, that billing cycle? That like, where it. Coté said where we were operating without a contract? Forte said yes. That’s part of this? Coté said no, no. Forte said OK. Coté said this one commenced in July of ‘25. Forte said OK. Smith said the agreement we signed and sent over to them, it says commencing on July 1 of 2025. That’s actually six months late. It should have been January 1. Coté said right. Smith said it should have been January 2025. Forte said thank you. Coté said yep.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: There was no reference to any actual contract or other documents is provided to support this erroneous assumption.]

Wylie recognized Casey for a comment.

Casey said yeah, I’m looking at the exhibit A, and it says sheriff’s deputies and county agents contracted for and assigned to public bodies. And there’s a total of 25. Lieutenant, patrol sergeant, 21 deputies, and so forth. Who is the public body? Avery said Independence Township. Casey said is that the township? Fisher said that’s the township. (Quisenberry made an unintelligible comment.) Wylie said public body, he’s reading from this right here. Jones said public body. Smith said this is an agreement between the county and township. Casey said this is 25 personnel between the city and the township? Total? Quisenberry said no, this contract you’re looking at is a contract between the county and Independence. Casey said no, I’m looking at exhibit A. Forte said what page is this? Jones said yeah, but that includes us. That includes us. Fisher said see, there’s an exhibit A to the county contract. Wylie said right before that green paper. Fisher said and an exhibit A in the township contract with us. Two separate exhibit A’s. Wylie said OK, I’m sorry, I thought that’s what it was. Quisenberry said well, it says right here, law enforcement services agreement with the Charter Township of Independence. Jones said yeah, and so we get from, so what that, what Independence gets, we get from that. Avery said that’s the senior. Fisher said yeah, lieutenant, we get one. Patrol sergeant, four. Detective sergeant, one. Avery said right, we’re swallowing up into the township. Fisher said exactly. Avery said for the purpose of this contract. Fisher said yeah, right, definitely. (To Casey), Wylie said anything else? Casey said nope. Wylie said that’s what you wanted?

Wylie said anybody else on council?

Wylie recognized Pardee for an additional comment. Wylie said I’m sorry, we can take Quisenberry first, and then we can get to Pardee.

Quisenberry said just, when I was talking to you before, we wanted, I was under the impression we have a very, very simple way of determining methodology, and that was 2.7% times the cost that Independence is billed by the county. Correct? Smith said correct. Quisenberry said OK. On page three of our contract with Independence, section A, Clarkston shall be responsible for paying 2.7% of the total cost of law enforcement based on the township’s cost allocation methodology proportional to call volume and population share. That’s telling me that these two factors are somehow figured in, and I don’t, you didn’t say they were. What are these numbers, and what do they mean? Smith said the township’s cost allocation methodology? Quisenberry said yeah, what is the township’s cost allocation methodology proportional to call volume and population share? Smith said my understanding is that 2.7% reflects that. Coté said that’s the ratio of village population to township population. Quisenberry said OK, so what we’re assuming is the township agreed to that 2.7% based upon their configuration of methodology, proportional to call, and population on an annual basis. Because it’s, to me, seems like these are factors that are somehow computed into our cost, and our cost, to my understanding, are just two very simple numbers. Right? Avery said that’s what this is saying. Smith said yes. Jones said yes. Smith said that’s my understanding. Pardee said but those three factors make 2.7%. Avery said yeah, right, and then, exactly, and what I think what this paragraph is saying is that if Oakland County Sheriffs come back to Independence Township and for some reason there’s an increase in cost, they’re gonna be responsible for that percentage. Jones said that’s the portion.

Wylie said anything else?

Quisenberry said I guess I was really pleased the other day finding out that that old algorithm that you have included things like this, which were very, very hard to quantify for us. We were just at the mercy of those numbers, and I like the fact that we don’t have those numbers in our cost agreement with them anymore, but it seems like those two factors are baked into here somehow. Wylie said I think in their calculation, because that’s what you told, at the time we signed this contract, that’s how you explained it, that that’s how they were determining the 2.7%. Smith said 2.7% reflects those costs. Avery said I wouldn’t say this is a well-written paragraph in this contract, but it is a little bit confusing. It looks like they tried to take what the old paragraph said with the old numbers, and then it’s kind of twisted in the new numbers. I wouldn’t write it like this. Fisher said and I didn’t write it either. You know, so, and there’s a misspelling in it, but I’m not aware (unintelligible).

Coté said yeah, it’s easy to determine the population portion, but I’d like to understand the call volume. I, we don’t have access to that. Forte said we brought that up previously, too. Quisenberry said we were looking for that police report we got from the sheriff today, the very bottom line was the number of calls for service – Coté said OK – (continuing), Quisenberry said that they had in the city that number. Avery said yeah, but that’s an, honestly, I think that’s an arbitrary number, because they come at any time they drive through the city, it has to call. Quisenberry said oh, I’m not saying it’s a good number, but I think that they do have a number they could give us if we say what are our calls for service. (Avery made an unintelligible comment while Quisenberry was talking.) Jones said (unintelligible) there were ever some sort of legal precedent that you could use to acquire that information. Avery said oh, I don’t want to review. I guess we’re kind of getting into the weeds here. Jones said yeah, like – Avery said we’re trying to renegotiate a contract. Jones said it’s already been signed, so we would have these questions. But it hasn’t been negotiated a contract.

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment and said she cut him off before.

Pardee said I guess it’s really for Coté. How is the fire contract today? And what do we include? I’ve seen the fire contract for 2025, and it surprises me that the increase in the fire contract was 20% in the previous year. Jones said yeah, we talked about that during the budget. I was gonna say, that was something that I brought up during the budget. Like last year when we signed this contract, I brought up all of the increases and the 2.7[%], so. Pardee said so, is the fire contract involved in anything that we’ve talked about this evening? Coté said no, it’s not.

Quisenberry said but that was my last point I was gonna make. Pardee said so, do we know what the fire contract will be for ‘26. Is that in another document? Fisher said we’re in ‘26. Coté said we’re in ‘26. Based on the millage. Pardee said OK. Coté said taxable values. Pardee said OK. Coté said real property only. Pardee said is that a three or four year contract? Coté said I thought it was a four. Smith said I think it was a four. I think the fire goes through 2028. I don’t have it with me, but we have it. Pardee said but there are likely steps. Smith said yeah. In the future. Pardee said I’m just, not so much to this issue, but I’m looking forward. That we need to include that somehow in our expected costs. Jones said and that all sounds like really good stuff for like the budget talk. I’m sorry. I just, we’re trying to renegotiate a contract that we’ve already signed, and we’ve gotta, I’m sorry. I just. Well.

Wylie recognized Quisenberry for a comment.

Quisenberry said because it’s the last point I wanted to make on this. And it’s considering the accuracy of the billing that we’ve been getting from Independence Township, last contract and this one. It’s a lot to be desired. Have we looked at the fire contracts to see how are they billing us for that? What are the factors involved in coming up with that? And what are those like? In case we’re, we’ve got the same thing going on there, that we’re paying something different than what we agreed upon. Coté said that was given to you in that little brief handout that I gave you right before I started. Avery said right, but his point is, are we sure that we’re being billed the correct amount? Coté said I haven’t seen anything different. I haven’t seen the fire contract. Smith said it’s identical to the previous one. It’s still based on assessed values. [It is based on taxable values.] Coté said OK, so yes, yep. So, we are correct. Smith said depending on that, the algorithm did not change for fire.

Wylie said anybody else?

Quisenberry said but what may have changed is the numbers that go into that algorithm. Smith said that’s true. Quisenberry said it’d be good to get the contract. Wylie said so, the suggestion would be to take a look at it. Quisenberry said to get our fire contract with them and so we know exactly how we’re being billed with them, what the bills should be, just like you mentioned in point two that you have. Coté said yep. Quisenberry said but this is what we should be expecting because I’m making a guess that we’re just cashing the checks, or we’re just writing the checks to the bills they give us for fire. Avery said and trusting that they’re giving us the right numbers. Quisenberry said right. Avery said yep.

Wylie said OK, anybody else on this discussion before we move on?

No comments.

Wylie said moving on.

Item #11e – Resolution: Middle Lake Catch Basin and Curb Installation (video time mark 1:29:52):

• • Resolution – 6330 Middle Lake Road Curbing and Catch Basin (page 59/62 of the council packet)
  • Comparison of Bids (page 60/62 of the council packet)
  • Orozco’s Concrete & Construction, Estimate (page 61/62 of the council packet)
  • ARMS Reach Excavating LLC, Invoice (page 62/62 of the council packet)

Wylie said all right, Item #11e Resolution, Middle Lake Catch Basin and Curb Installation.

(Wylie read the resolution.)

Wylie said and I’ll need somebody to resolve and then support.

Resolution by Forte; second Avery.

Wylie said discussion, council members.

No comment.

Wylie said from the public.

Pardee said this was added sometime today. Wylie said yes, it was. Pardee said the resolution was added today. Wylie said it was added today.

Smith said so, this was a bring back from a previous council meeting where I did not have three quotes. I wasn’t able, so I went out and asked again for other quotes. And as you can see here on the schedule, I did get a quote from ARMS Reach Excavating for $9,400. I appreciate their effort to come out and do the thing. The other two companies did not respond or provide quotes. So, I had proposed Orozco before. I’m still proposing Orozco. So, that’s what (unintelligible) it is.

Wylie said any other questions or comments?

No comments.

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

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

Wylie said and the resolution is adopted. Thank you very much.

Agenda Item #12 -Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 1:32:41):

Wylie said Item #12, I need a resolution to adjourn the meeting.

Motion by Jones; second Casey.

(No discussion opportunity offered.)

Motion to adjourn passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the meeting is adjourned at 8:32. Thank you very much, everybody.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 08-24-2026 – city council packet