Category: Main Street

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 0:00:02):

Laura Rodgers said 7:00.

[Rodgers did not call the meeting to order.]

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (video time mark 0:00:06):

Rodgers said do you want to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

(Pledge said.)

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (video time mark 0:00:26):

(To Angela Guillen, clerk), Rodgers said do you want to do the roll call, please?

Laura Rodgers, Amanda Forte, Al Avery, and Ted Quisenberry were present.

Gary Casey, Erica Jones, and Sue Wylie were absent.

Agenda Item #4, Approval of Agenda – Motion (video time mark 0:00:54):

Rodgers said everyone got the agenda, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Motion by Forte; second Avery.

Rodgers said I just had one question before we move on, but I don’t see Cara [Catallo] here. We were going to have Clarkston Main Street give an update on what they’re doing every month. Jonathan Smith [city manager] said we previously asked for that, and I’ve asked for it as well, but I have not heard anything. Rodgers said OK, all right.

Forte said I can do it in lieu of Catallo. Rodgers said could you? Forte said so, we welcomed a few new board members, including Guillen, so that happened, and then we’re working with the county, and they’re helping us with going about some funding that I previously mentioned, and what else? We’re going to have another board meeting, we’re working on solidifying that date, and when we have it, we can post it on the agenda. Rodgers said OK. Forte said yeah, anyone’s welcome to come to the meetings, obviously. Rodgers said and then maybe you can keep us abreast of like things that we can help facilitate so that we don’t leave anything on the table that might go to waste. Forte said yeah, sure.

Motion to approve the agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Rodgers said the agenda is as it is.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (video time mark 0:02:25):

[Though public comments can sometimes irritate the city council, there is value to both the council and the public in hearing them. While it 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.]

Rodgers said public comments.

(Rodgers read the rules for public comments.)

Rodgers said is there anybody that would like to make a public comment?

No comments.

Forte said said oh, Gary’s [Casey] walking. Quisenberry said yeah, here comes Casey. Rodgers said hello. Casey said good evening.

(Casey took a seat at council table.)

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (video time mark 0:03:20):

Rodgers said the next thing on the agenda is FYI.

Item #6a – E. Church Street Paving Notice (video time mark 0:03:21):

• • Notice: E. Church Street Paving Work (page 3/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said and the first thing is East Church Street paving notice.

(Rodgers read the notice.)

Item #6b – Music in the Park, Friday, July 31^st (video time mark 0:05:20):

• • Music in the Park Flyer, Stardusters Big Band (page 4/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said next is Music in the Park that’s benefiting the Clarkston Family Farm. The Sun [sic?] Stardusters, which is a big band, is live in Depot Park on the 31st at 6:00. And that’s happening here in Depot Park.

Rodgers recognized Chet Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said before we get way past East Church Street, I’d like to ask, what will be the city’s cost to repair Church Street? Forte said you just mentioned the (unintelligible). Avery said yeah, but he’s looking for numbers. (To Smith), Rodgers said do you have those numbers? Smith said well, the previously announced numbers were $117,000 in paving funds. Pardee said what? Smith said $117,000 in paving funds will be the city’s share of the paving costs, and then there’s some engineering costs on top of that. I don’t know the exact number of that yet, but – Pardee said a year ago, that was $45,000, and then more recently, the numbers – (interrupting Pardee), Smith said I don’t know where you got $45,000. (Unintelligible crosstalk.) Pardee said $32,000 was the number. Forte said $32,000. Pardee said $32,000. Twenty percent. OK. That’s why I’m asking the question, because I think it’s not clear what the city’s cost will be. Smith said I previously discussed all this with the council. $117,000 for the road paving plus roughly $40,000 in engineering fees, but I don’t have the exact number. Pardee said plus $40,000. I’m good. Thank you.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Where did Pardee get the $45,000 number? Directly from Fleis and Vandenbrink, the contract engineers who estimated an engineering cost at $45,000 at the May 27, 2025, city council meeting.  Pardee asked about the $45,000 at the May 11, 2026, city council meeting when the council was accepting the grant money and mayor Sue Wylie rudely shut him down, saying the only focus at the moment was accepting the grant for the project (the engineering fee is based on the construction costs for the project). Now, it’s apparently $40,000. We’ll see what it is at the end of the project.]

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:06:56):

• • • 07-27-2026 City Manager Report (page 5/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said City Manager report. (To Smith), Rodgers said do you have anything beyond what was, is on here?

Smith said so, we’ve already talked about the East Church paving. The new parking rate increase to $1.50 an hour went into effect last week. That is running just fine, no issues at all with that, so it’s a pretty smooth implementation (unintelligible). And then, lastly, on early voting, things have been going smoothly on that as well. That started on Saturday. Guillen is leading the charge. Everyone’s been a big, huge help on that as well. So right now, we’ve completed three of the nine days of early voting. We’ve had four voters so far, so that’s going smoothly. Residents are welcome to come in during early voting. Continues on through next Saturday. Guillen said next Sunday. Smith said next Sunday, the 2^nd? Guillen said yes. Smith said and then, of course, Election Day is on the 4th.

Rodgers said you don’t have to have like any prior registration or anything to come in early? Guillen said no. Rodgers said just like, no.

Rodgers recognized Forte for a comment.

Forte said can I say something? Mm-hmm. I just wanted to thank Smith and Guillen for the help that they did on the Church road paving. They like went door to door and knocked on residents’ doors to let them know what was going on. And then had the flyers and then put stuff on social media. So, I got a lot of questions about that, like as soon as the signs went in the easement. And immediately, residents were really happy to hear what was going on and know like the full span of things. So, thank you both. Smith said it should go pretty smoothly. We’re not anticipating any big hiccups. It’ll be a pretty quick job, I think, actually. They’ve reserved the whole month of August, but it shouldn’t take anything near that. And it’ll be a beautiful, beautifully newly paved road when it’s done. Rodgers said thank you.

Rodgers said is there anything else you wanted to add?

Rodgers said one thing that I wanted to give a shout-out to was to Smith and Representative Harris for that gigantic, do you call it a grant? Smith said it is a grant, yes. Rodgers said that Smith worked so feverishly on and got it in on time and represented us up in Lansing to try to get that money for us. And that’s a, we don’t have to pay any portion of that. We don’t have to match that. And the, what was the number? Smith said $850,000. Rodgers said right around $850,000. Rodgers said $850,000. So that’s huge for, for our city. And what is that to be used for specifically? Smith said it’s specifically for the repaving of the driveway aprons downtown, driveway aprons in our commercial district, as well as fixing some of the non-ADA-compliant sidewalks downtown. Rodgers said so that is just huge. So, thank you for finding that grant, supporting that grant, writing that grant. I know from doing grants for the university that there is no grant that is an easy, non-torturous thing to do. So, yeah, thank you so much for doing that. Quisenberry said it’s almost our budget. Rodgers said yeah, it is almost our budget that’s going to be able to fix the city roads, so that’s fantastic. Smith said thank you. It’s actually on the agenda. There is a press release, so we’ll get to it. Rodgers said oh, there is. I’m sorry (unintelligible).

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Rodgers falsely stated there is no city match for the Mike Rogers grant and no one in the room corrected her. The city absolutely does have to match this grant. It can use up to the grant amount for the Main Street project designed to benefit the downtown businesses – which does not include any public safety features such as bump outs or pedestrian signals – but the city must match 20% of the total cost. So, if the total construction cost was $1,000,000, the city could use $800,000 of grant money and would have to contribute $200,000 of city money. It’s unclear whether the engineering fee can be paid for with grant money. The engineering fee is a separate charge on top of the construction costs and equivalent to 20% of the construction costs. I wrote about this not “free” money here.]

Rodgers recognized Michael Moon for a comment.

Moon said I just wanted to ask about Church. When the paving is completed, it will look exactly the same as it did before, correct? Smith said yeah. Moon said no changes? Smith said no, just new asphalt. Rodgers said it will look prettier. Smith said no other changes.

Rodgers said all right. Anybody else have anything they want to ask Smith?

No comments.

Agenda Item #8 – Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for June (Sgt. Bowie to Attend) (video time mark 0:10:51):

• • Oakland County Sheriff, Cumulative Monthly Report, June 2026 (page 6/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said next is the Oakland County Sheriff’s Report for June, and Sergeant Bowie is here tonight. Rodgers said welcome. Sergeant Bowie said thank you. So, I’ll come up here. Smith said yes. (Sergeant Bowie walked to the podium.)

Sergeant Bowie said yes. I’ll let you in on a little secret. This is my first time in 30 years that I’ve done this. Forte said welcome. Sergeant Bowie said I know John, Sergeant Ashley, who is retired, used to do this, so I hope I don’t have too big of shoes to fill.

Sergeant Bowie said well, as far as – I guess I’ll just go over the basics. The month of June arrests, we had two misdemeanor domestic assault arrests in the village. There were no violent crime reports or arrests made. We had five automobile crashes, five citations issued. The breakdown of the citations were one for speeding, one stop sign violation, one was considered overtaking and improper passing for a total of three moving violations, one considered non-moving violation, which is impeding traffic, which is just a lower traffic offense, and a prohibited parking violation was issued. I don’t believe any motor carrier violations were issued in the month of June. I didn’t find any in the report. And obviously, the one meeting that I’m here for, and there were no liquor inspection activities completed in June.

Rodgers said does anybody have any questions for?

Avery said just a quick question or comment. A few months back, we took away one of the parking spots on Main Street directly across from the Union, and it looks like some of the paint has washed off maybe, and people are starting to use that as a parking spot again. So I don’t know if we need to re-stripe it, but I’ve seen it probably three or four times here in the last couple of weeks. Smith said yeah, that’s on the to-do list. All those, there’s one in front of KH Homes, one in front of Honcho as well. Avery said yeah. Smith said all three of those will be painted.

(To Sergeant Bowie), Forte said have you guys been seeing a lot here in, like, the kids on, I know this is probably, you guys get questions about this all the time, but the kids on, like, the little motorcycles and everything. Sergeant Bowie said I saw four on my way up here from the substation. Yep, every day. Forte said how does that work, and, like, how are you guys handling that? Sergeant Bowie said there’s nothing we can do because they’re classified as bicycles. There’s no statutes covering them. The only statute that covers them is based on the speed of the bicycle. Because they have pedals, they fall under the classification of a bicycle, which they are, any bicyclist is technically obligated to follow the motor vehicle code, but does anyone ever? No. They can be driven on sidewalks just like any other bike because they have pedals on them. Now, I did see one kid go down on a minibike. That’s illegal. If it does not have pedals, it’s not classified as a bicycle. It’s an off-road vehicle. The problem we have is e-bikes are classified as bicycles, pedal bikes, so they fall under the same statute as a standard 10-speed or regular bicycle. Like I said, the only statute that covers it is if you’re under 14, you have to have a helmet on over a, because there’s three classifications of e-bikes, and it’s based on speed. The first classification is zero to 14 miles an hour. The second one is 14 to 25. The third one is 25 and above. So, class 2 and 3, you have to have a helmet on if you’re under 14. That’s the only state law that says anything. I know there’s 12 townships and cities in the state that have adopted ordinances. They’re pretty lenient, from what I can see, other than prohibiting them from riding on the sidewalks. But it has, you know, there’s no other state law governing it. It’s just technology hasn’t caught up yet.

Gerry Fisher (city attorney) said I can supplement. We did have a meeting the other day, and I’m sure that there was no desire to talk about it. I think we’re not finished with our background work on it. But one of the thoughts was there is a statute that allows a cause of action against parents of a minor for causing, allows a lawsuit to be brought by somebody that is injured against the parent, not the child. And so, we thought that it may be possible to work that into an ordinance that would, that if kids are really creating big problems on the sidewalks and speeding, we may, we thought maybe we could use the analogy of the host ordinances where you have parents held, being held responsible for kids drinking in the homes. And so, I have started working on a discussion with the chief judge of the 52 District Court. The new thing is, relatively new, is in the 52 District Court. We used to have a chief judge here. But they’ve got one chief judge now that is in Novi. And the good news is that one of his magistrates is a former colleague of mine at Cooley Law School. And so, I’ve been discussing that with him, and he thinks this guy will be receptive and do creative solutions. And I know that one of the problems was, well, what do you do if you stop somebody? I mean, what do you do with the bike? Because you really don’t know who their parents are and all that sort of thing. But I did check with the Secretary of State’s office, and we could require that anybody riding one of those bikes, one of those motor-driven or motor-powered bikes on the sidewalk, carry a government-issued ID. Rodgers said for any bike? Fisher said for, yeah, because the Secretary of State will issue government-issued identification cards to anybody under 17 or whatever it is. And so that might be helpful in terms of keeping kids honest when you stop them and indicating that maybe their parents could be responsible, and, you know, because then you’ll know who they are.

Rodgers said I’m just, I have to say I live on Main Street, and two incidents in the last week. One was I was coming from 75, and I need to make a left-hand turn into my house. And I saw the boys, like they were still on Clarkston Road when I came past Clarkston Road. And just knowing that they were somewhere, I didn’t know if they were going north or south at that point. Before I turned into my driveway, they were there. Like if I hadn’t seen them, I don’t know. Fisher said right. Rodgers said the next night we’re taking a walk at 9:30 at night, and they’re doing wheelies down the street in and out of traffic. Like that just seems dangerous to me minimally. And I have elderly neighbors. They’re going to be bringing out their garbage some night at 10:00, and they’re going to get nailed by it. And that 12-year-old or 14- or even 16-year-old on the bike, he didn’t wake up in the morning and say, I want to kill someone, right? I mean, it’s just going to be a terrible accident for both parties. And we just, you know, we’ve talked about this ad nausea [nauseum]. We have to figure out some way that even with rules and licenses and registrations, how do we enforce it? And that’s the first I’ve heard, that the state. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, there’s no statutes on the books.

Quisenberry said they’re all local ordinances. Sergeant Bowie said yup, they’re all, they’re all townships or cities that adopted their local ordinances. Quisenberry said and if we pass an ordinance, we could do what you said, require ID. Fisher said yes. Quisenberry said that could be part of it. It could be some sort of controls about them driving down the sidewalk. We could pick and choose what our primary concerns are and make that into the ordinance that we want to adopt here in the city. We could certainly do that. Fisher said yes, because the city is authorized under the Constitution. The city is authorized to regulate on matters of local concern as long as the state has not indicated that we can’t. And so, this is a matter of local concern that we can regulate. Quisenberry said and by virtue of others that have already done it, that certainly implies the state has said no. Fisher said yes. Quisenberry said I think that’s a smart way to go. What you said about holding parents responsible, that’s OK, but that’s after the barn door is open. That’s something you do afterwards if there is an incident. I think our main concern is we want to be able to do something to be able to prevent it from happening. Fisher said well, see, my thinking is that if that word gets out, the parents might be a little more responsible with what they do with their kids.

Avery said I guess my only concern is, so we pass the ordinance, but is the Sheriff’s Department going to really be interested in patrolling the sidewalks? I mean, you’re busy enough patrolling the streets. I mean, we have ordinances already that say that you’re not supposed to ride your bike in the downtown district. People do it. Fisher said we need signs, though. We need signs. Avery said there are signs that say don’t ride your bike, I believe. Smith said we just re-stenciled the sidewalks. Yeah, but there are signs, too. I’m pretty sure there are signs. Smith said yeah, there are signs, too. Avery said but if there’s nobody to enforce it, I mean, we can put a million laws on the books for whatever that’s worth. I mean, I’m not saying not to do it, but I’m just saying the reality is how are we going to slow them down? It seems weird, because they’re motorized vehicles at that point. I get that they have pedals, but you know, they’ve got an electric motor on them. Fisher said exactly. And they go faster. Avery said do we not pass an ordinance saying no motorized vehicles on city sidewalks? It seems like that would take care of anything in order. Smith said we actually have that already. Avery said so, we already have an ordinance on the books that we can enforce.

Quisenberry said does Independence have an ordinance? Sergeant Bowie said no, not yet. Forte said are they working on one? Sergeant Bowie said not to my knowledge.

Forte said what do you think of like doing like a training course? When I wanted to get my motorist license, I had to get a training course through Independence Township. Could we do something like that where like the kids have to do a course? (Pointing at Lisa Paterczak), Rodgers said oh, somebody looks like she’s on to it. Paterczak said there’s a couple things, and you’re kind of coming into a point or a question I want to ask, too, where you mentioned that you could possibly register with the state. Is there a way, if there’s an ordinance you guys are working on, to have a registration for the village where you have to, if you’re going to ride one of those bikes in the village, you have to have a, to register with the village. And so, there’s a registration number that goes with that bicycle, and if you’re caught doing something bad on that bicycle, that there’s a connection to someone. And then, two, it could be $100 a bike. It could be a revenue source or something more for the city if they have to register this bicycle. There’s some kind of local registration. Then you have a quick track into the owners and the registration of those vehicles (unintelligible). Fisher said we’ll look into that.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: As usual when someone suggests imposing a fee as a “revenue source,” all present, including the city attorney, ignore the fact that the amount of a fee the city can charge is limited to the actual cost of providing a service or enforcement and cannot be a source of additional general revenue. Fees that exceed the cost of services or enforcement are disguised taxes that must be approved by voters.]

Forte said yeah, I like that idea for a lot of reasons. I think it should be, the reason I brought up the motor safety course is I’d like it to be tied into a safety course. Paterczak said yeah, and then you would have to have some kind of a class if you’re going to ride. Forte said because sometimes I feel like they’re just being reckless.

Moon said as Smith says, we already have an ordinance on the books against motorized vehicles on sidewalks. Why aren’t we enforcing that? I see more than just these little electric motorcycles. I see four-wheeled vehicles driven by, I would say, eight, nine-year-olds. At golf courses. It’s kind of like a golf cart. I see them speeding by in front of my house that makes me give pause as to walking on the sidewalk in front of my house. Sergeant Bowie said I mean, you’re getting real technical. I mean, you can go to Walmart and buy a motorized wheel car for your grandchild that goes eight miles an hour. Are you getting that picky? Yeah. I can tell you I won’t. Moon said because if I’m walking – Sergeant Bowie said I will not be that police officer that does that. Moon said well, if I’m walking, I don’t want somebody zipping along eight miles an hour. Sergeant Bowie said I understand that. Moons aid because I – (interrupting Moon), Sergeant Bowie said a bicycle, a bicycle is entitled – (interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Moon said I may not be able to get out of the way. Sergeant Bowie said a bicycle is entitled to ride their bicycle on the sidewalk. A bicycle can very easily do eight, ten miles an hour, and they’re not breaking the law. Moon said but they’re not motorized. Sergeant Bowie said right. And I’ll pose this question to you because I play devil’s advocate because I go up against defense lawyers. OK? If I’m on my bicycle and I’m drunk, can you arrest me for drunk driving? No, you cannot. Even on a motorized bicycle, the statute says gas or electric-operated vehicle other than by human means. Human means, OK? If I’m drunk on my bicycle, on my motorized bicycle, my lawyer is going to fight every day and say, I was pedaling my bike. I wasn’t breaking the law. That’s the thing we go up against as police officers. OK?

Quisenberry said but what if you weren’t pedaling your bike? You were pedaling. You got the thing started. The motor kicked in. Now you’re not pedaling anymore. Now you’re driving a motorized vehicle. Sergeant Bowie said that can’t be proved yet. Quisenberry said what? Sergeant Bowie said can we prove it? Quisenberry said can we prove it? We don’t see him pedaling. At that point, that, it’s not been tested in court yet. That’s, we’ve talked about it all the time at the substation. What happens if we pull somebody over on one of these that’s drunk? Are they operating technically under the statute?

(Interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Rodgers said maybe we need to, like, go to the schools and do some kind of, you know how, like, you guys used to do, like, right before prom, that movie, and I don’t know if they still do it or not, where, you know, you talk about drunk driving and show horrific scenes. I don’t know. I don’t know, study-wise, if that helps or not, but – Sergeant Bowie said it’s hard because a lot of these, you know, it’s hard to say. I mean, coming up here, there was a kid, like I said, driving his moped, you know, little minibike down the sidewalk, and, you know, it’s hard to tell how old they are when they have a helmet on or whatever. You know, the state also tied our hands a couple of years ago and made anyone under 17 a juvenile. 17 and below is a juvenile. Used to be 17 and above, you were an adult. So anyone 17 and below, we can no longer do a custodial arrest. We can under certain circumstances, but there’s a long, lengthy process. We can’t write them tickets. We can only write them a very limited moving violation in a car, but if they’re on these bikes, we can’t write them a citation. The law doesn’t allow us to. We have to go through the juvenile process. Basically, it’s the equivalent of us doing an adult warrant for a juvenile. It’s a petition. That hasn’t been, hasn’t been tested yet. Then we get into – (interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Fisher said on that, is that written into the law or, when we had the discussion, I can’t recall, or is that just a judge-made rule? Sergeant Bowie said no, that’s in the statute. Fisher said it is in the statute. Sergeant Bowie said you know, and then I don’t want to bore you to death with procedures, but then we get into our pursuit policy. We’re absolutely prohibited from pursuing anything with less than four wheels. We cannot pursue motorcycles, bicycles, ATVs [all terrain vehicles]. So, I see a kid riding one of these down the street, I turn my lights on, he takes off. I can’t pursue him. Absolutely forbidden. Half mile down the road, he crashes. Whose fault is it? I’m going to argue it’s not mine because I never pursued him. Defense attorney and civil attorney is going to absolutely say it’s my fault because I turn my lights on and they’re looking at the deep pockets, but.

Forte said so, is that regardless of whether or not we have an ordinance? Sergeant Bowie said regardless. So, say we had an iron clad – Sergeant Bowie said the only time we can pursue in that, it’s got to be a capital offense. It has to be a capital offense and then we can pursue. You’re strictly prohibited from pursuing motorcycles. Even for, like I said, it’s got to be a capital offense for us to continue to pursue. And again, that’s boring, my side of the job that I have to look at, but we look and say, OK, what’s the benefit to them, you know, does the cop benefit outweigh the means as far as, I know it’s a problem. I mean, the township, I know three accidents off the top of my head that we’ve had with e-bikes, but it’s the legislature in Lansing that makes the rules and we just have to follow them.

Forte said so anecdotally, my best friend works in the ER as a nurse on Sashabaw, and she said every single shift, she works once a week, she has kids on e-bikes that come in. Rodgers said because their minds are just not, their brains aren’t developing. A 12-year-old should not be driving anything that can go 30 miles an hour. Sergeant Bowie said I agree.

Rodgers said you know, whether or not they’re not sitting in front of video games anymore or not. They, you know, like I said, they don’t wake up in the morning saying that they want to kill somebody. Sergeant Bowie I’m surprised that there’s not, because anything else, like ATVs, like you said, boating, you have to go through a safety course. You know, even a hunter safety course for minors to go hunting and carry a shotgun. But this, there’s nothing. Rodgers said I think it just came on the scene so fast in such a sneaky way. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, and that’s it. Like I said, we have to catch up. Rodgers said right. Sergeant Bowie said we always play catch-up to new, you know, new inventions, new technology. We always play catch-up.

Quisenberry said I think we need to research a little more and get some true clarification about the use of these motorized vehicles when they cease being a bicycle, a pedal-driven vehicle, and turn into a motor vehicle. What then is the change in being able to operate it? I think that there is some distinction in there, but I don’t know what it is. I don’t think that you can sit there and just say, if a kid’s zipping down 35, 40 miles an hour and it’s all based on the engine and the motor and there’s no pedaling involved, it’s a motor vehicle. Sergeant Bowie said I would agree with you, but it hasn’t been tried in court yet and I, I don’t – (interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Quisenberry said so, every case that hasn’t been tried eventually has to be. So you do it, and you see what happens. I think that that should be baked into our ordinance as far as the use of it. If you’re using it just as a bicycle, which they’re not going to because it weighs four times a bicycle, so.

Rodgers said well, maybe we need to talk about this further and talk about whether somehow we can get a safety thing, program that they have to go through. Forte said yeah, I like the idea of a safety program, but if we can’t enforce anything, where’s the point?

Rodgers recognized Cara Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said yeah, I just was curious about the comment about pedals and if that was, if it means operational pedals or if pedals that weren’t operational, like a motorcycle, if it’s the same, and also if they’re reckless driving, which certainly seems to be the case through town, if that, like absent of the fact that it’s, you know, like an electric bike, if that’s something that could be pursued because they are just sort of weaving in and out of traffic and doing wheelies everywhere, but a lot of the ones that I’ve seen, and these kids aren’t very kind or thoughtful or respectful, but a lot of them seem to be stationary pedals, which to me is like just more of a mini bike, which to me is sort of shocking as somebody with a cycle endorsement that it’s legal for them to be doing that. Sergeant Bowie said there is a distinction. If it has, they’re called pegs, if it has pegs, it’s not a bicycle. Catallo said OK. Sergeant Bowie said OK. If it has, if it has pedals, the state considers it a bicycle. If it has pegs, it’s considered an off-road vehicle or a motorcycle. Catallo said OK. Sergeant Bowie said 99% of the ones I see are considered bicycles, except for the kid that went south when I was coming here. That was an absolute, identifiable minibike. But all the other ones that we see that we’re familiar with and talking about are considered bicycles.

Rodgers said any other questions about e-bikes?

No questions.

Rodgers said Quisenberry had another question for you before . . .

Quisenberry said Sarge, you mentioned when you were given the report, you said we had two misdemeanor arrests, but you’ve got the two under the felony. Sergeant Bowie said yeah that was our secretary’s typo. She thought domestics were felonies. Quisenberry said OK, so zero here and two down in misdemeanor. Sergeant Bowie said it is a felony if it’s your third offense, but at least for the first offense, which are misdemeanors.

Quisenberry said the second has to do with, a little history. We just finished our budget sessions, and in going through the revenue that the city takes in, over the past several years, prior to the last several years we’ve had, the city always received money from the state having to do with reimbursement for enforcing liquor laws, for doing liquor inspections. We’ve received an income amount from the state based upon how many liquor inspections we’ve done. We didn’t do any last year, and we didn’t get any money for it. We’re down for zero again this year, and I think it was even the year before that we didn’t do it and we’re not getting it. What I’d like to ask you is, that also means that the five or six different liquor establishments we have in the city are not being inspected. No liquor inspections taking place in here, which my thought is they should. Even if it’s just walking in, look at the license, and seeing that everything is OK, and then it’s down as a liquor inspection. Two things, that’s going to keep the establishments on guard, that’s going to keep them honest, but it’s also going to bring us some revenue back from the state that we could use. What is preventing the Sheriff’s Department from periodically coming in and conducting liquor inspections in our Class C, or, well that’s what we have, we have Class C’s, we might have Tavern, but that’s it, right? Sergeant Bowie said there’s four, right? Sergeant Bowie said Fed, Woodshop, Quisenberry said Union, Sergeant Bowie said Union, Quisenberry said Rudy’s, an unidentified person said Woodshop. Quisenberry said I think there were six of them there.

Sergeant Bowie said Fed. Avery said Honcho. Avery said and there’s two on one side of the street, four on the other. Financially, the city would recover some income that we’ve since lost because there’s none been taking place in the last two, possibly three years. Sergeant Bowie said off the top of my head, right now the only, right now the only thing I can say is manpower. As far as, you know, I don’t want to get into, as police officers, we’re not, we’re not money generators. Quisenberry said this is not necessarily a money generating exercise, it’s an exercise to see that liquor laws are complied with. Sergeant Bowie said I understand that. You know, as far as, like I said, I was just given this assignment since John Ashley retired. I was a patrol sergeant prior to. The only thing I can say is manpower. Quisenberry said well, I’d kind of like it if you would talk to the commander there. I’m pretty sure that there are liquor inspections taking place in Independence Township amongst all the party stores they have, the whole Sashabaw strip. Sergeant Bowie said I can tell you we usually don’t, we don’t do them on a regular basis. It’s not something that we dedicate for unless we are getting complaints about an establishment. Other than that, we, we’re kind of just, our calls are increasing, our staffing’s not, and we’re down. Quisenberry said the staffing should be stable. I mean, isn’t that pretty consistent with what our contract says? Sergeant Bowie said yeah, we have, I mean, yeah, we’re maintaining, but we’re filling, I mean, I have five vacancies in my subdivision substation right now that we’re filling with overtime. It’s not – (interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Rodgers said so do you think maybe you could just check, and then the next time you’re here, let us know what the. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, I talked to Lieutenant Buckman about it today, and he said that he will, next week he’ll come down, and he will conduct them in all the establishments, and go from there. As far as, you know, I researched, as I know Smith brought it up, I researched the law. I don’t see anything in the statute that mandates that they have to be done at a specific time or any time. Quisenberry said no, it doesn’t mandate the frequency that they have to be done, but it does pretty much mandate that you do them. Sergeant Bowie said from what I read, I mean, it doesn’t necessarily spell out, but I’m not here to argue. I’m not here to debate the statute. Like I said, I talked to Lieutenant Buckman briefly today when he was in, and he said, yeah, let them know that when I, next week I’ll go down, and we’ll take care of it. We’ll get them all done within all the establishments in the village, and make sure they’re in compliance, which I’m sure they are, but we’ll do it.

Rodgers said all right, any other questions?

Rodgers recognized Paterczak for a comment.

Paterczak said this is a traffic question. I’m just looking at this, and there’s 486 citations issued in 2025 in the village, and so far, that’s over 40 tickets a month, if you do the math. So far this year, in six months, we’ve had 24. And I’m bringing this up because last night, or last evening, Sunday evening, it was still light out. I witnessed a drag race with a motorcycle and a small, like, coupe, two-wheeler coupe from the stop sign at Washington and Holcomb, heading northbound on Holcomb. And I noticed it because I was outside. I turned around and looked, and it was so loud. And there were, it was a drag race from the stop sign as fast as they could go, one in each lane. I didn’t get a license plate or anything like that. It was a red motorcycle, and it was a small red car with, like, a gray bumper back. And I wanted to call someone. I didn’t know if I should call 911. Do I call the police? I’ve witnessed something like that. They were probably doing within three houses 60 miles an bour on a residential 25 mile per hour zone. Can I call the police when I see that? What would we do? There’s 24 tickets issued in the village this year so far. I see this every weekend. Sergeant Bowie said I wish I had a police officer on every street, but I don’t. Paterczak said but can I do that? I’m just asking. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, you can call – (interrupting Sergeant Bowie), Patersczak said can I react and call 911, or do I call a station? What do I do? Sergeant Bowie said no, you call our dispatch. Paterczak said because next time, I’m going to try and get license plate numbers, and I will call. It’s getting out of control. It’s a constant (unintelligible). Sergeant Bowie said I have a complaint for every, every road in this 36 square miles. We’re responsible for 36 square miles, and I have a complaint for every road. Paterczak said and I’m hearing what you’re saying about shortage and whatever, but, like, if there’s repeat complaints on things, I don’t know if there’s follow-up they can offer, but it’s getting really bad.

An unidentified woman said would that be your answer for the other part of Paterczak’s question, was the discrepancy between there just being 24 citations in eight months? Avery said well, there’s a reason for that, because last year they did a traffic sweep. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, last year, due to the I-75 construction and the amount of complaints we got from the residents on Miller Road, we put our traffic out there, and in one day they wrote 172 tickets. The unidentified woman said oh, that’s the 2025 number? Sergeant Bowie said yeah. The unidentified woman said so, the 2025 was a spike. Sergeant Bowie said we were, to be honest with you, we had so many complaints, our traffic unit came up and stopped and wrote everyone. They wrote 172 tickets in one day. The unidentified woman said it was a bad time. Sergeant Bowie said yeah. The unidentified woman said it was a bad time. Sergeant Bowie said so, you know, we wanted to make a point, and we did. The unidentified woman said yeah. Paterczak said we need another point. At some point we need to make another point, yeah. Sergeant Bowie said it is, but again, you know, when I was a patrol sergeant, I loved traffic. I’m a traffic cop at heart, okay? I’m not going to take your time and bore you to death, but I can name every street in the village, every street in the township. I sit at the entrance to Deer Lake at the village limit, OK? I had a kid coming out of the village 62 miles an hour, OK? Paterczak said that’s a 35-mile-an-hour street. Sergeant Bowie said well, 35 when you get to East Court, but coming out of the village is 25. You’re not 35 until you get into the township, and he was coming out of the village at 62, OK? Depot, 52 miles an hour. You know, I, it’s an epidemic. Everyone drives as fast as they want to and how they want to, and it’s just, you know. Paterczak said and I’m asking, yesterday was shocking because it was in broad daylight. Usually, I mean, it happens every beginning of the night, typically. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, and your quick answer is yes, absolutely, you can call it. Paterczak said I want to report something, and when it’s (unintelligible). Sergeant Bowie said yeah, absolutely, you can call it. There’s no reason why you couldn’t.

Quisenberry said the enforcement from last year certainly skews the numbers here. However, if you extrapolate ‘26 out, we’re going to have 50, 50 compared to 486 last year. Even figuring that there was because the I-75 traffic, then to me that still seems far, far lower than where it should be. Fifty as opposed to take the 486, cut it in half, and we’re still only a quarter of that cut in half. Sergeant Bowie said yeah, it’s hard to say. I mean, I could run the numbers and find out. I would have to tend to say that probably 60 to 70 percent of those are a result of the 75 traffic because, I mean, I was up there. I’m probably, just me alone, I’m probably 35 of those tickets, and that’s not saying a lot, but I’m at least 35 of those tickets myself because I’d sit right up there and then whoever went around the barricades got a ticket. You know, my normal shift is 6:00 in the morning until 2:00 in the afternoon, so I came in today about noon to be here. And listening to the radio, our afternoon shift came on, and our afternoon runs four cars. They have been nonstop. Unfortunately, our nonstop with mental health calls, which are two cars per call, they have been nonstop with family trouble, mental health, mental health, mental health, committal, committal, committal. That takes up two of my cars every call. When we have to commit someone, that’s two cars plus one car out of service for at least an hour because they’ve got to drive them down to St. Joe’s, fill out the paperwork, and come back. But it’s our job. It’s what we have to do. And the traffic enforcement, unfortunately, sometimes falls to the bottom of the barrel.

Rodgers said anybody else have any other questions?

(Avery made an unintelligible comment.) Sergeant Bowie said as long as Pine Knob doesn’t get in the way, yeah.

Rodgers said well, thank you so much for coming. I hope you come back. Forte said thank you. Sergeant Bowie said you’re welcome. Rodgers said thank you. Forte said thank you for all the information.

Agenda Item #9 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:48:43):

• • 06-22-2026 – Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 7/65 of the council packet)
  • 07-13-2026 – Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 9/65 of the council packet)
  • 07-27-2026 – Treasurer’s Report (page 12/65 of the council packet)
  • 07-23-2026 – Revenue and Expenditures Report for the Period Ending 06-30-2026 (page 13/65 of the council packet)
  • Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C., June invoices (page 24/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said OK, next on the agenda is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is – motion by Forte – Rodgers said yeah, thanks. It’s the final minutes of June 22, 2026, regular meeting; the draft minutes of July 13, 2026, regular meeting; and the treasurer’s report from July 27, 2026.

Second Quisenberry.

Pardee said I have a question.

Rodgers recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said my question is based on the document that’s in the packet tonight. Why did the city violate the State of Michigan budget law by having a deficit at the end of the budget year? So that’s the document that’s in the packet today. The budget law requires that we not have a deficit. Avery said well, we have our treasurer here. Rodgers said yeah, great. Any response to that? Greg Coté [city treasurer] said we don’t get all of our revenue until August, so that would be corrected. Pardee said but – (interrupting Pardee), Coté said there’s a $22,000 deficit. Pardee said this is the first time that I can recall in 10 years that this has happened. I know it’s kind of a pain in the butt that you’ve been jockeying things around in June. Coté said we still have revenue coming in August. Pardee said OK.

Rodgers said so you have until the end of August to do that. Pardee said will we see it in the document? Coté said you’ve seen it in the annual report. Pardee said we’ll see it in the auditor’s report? Coté said yes. Pardee said OK, thank you.

Rodgers said any other questions?

No questions.

The consent agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Agenda Item #10, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:50:48):

There’s no unfinished business.

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

Item #11a – Proclamation: Nancy Moon/Historic District Survey Committee Recognition:

• • Proclamation (page 26/65 of the council packet)

As far as new business goes, the first thing is a proclamation for Nancy Moon. And I’m just going to read this.

(Rodgers read the proclamation.)

Rodgers said and so we have this for you. Moon said I don’t know what to say but thank you. (Applause while Rodgers walked over to Moon and handed her a plaque.) Moon said thank you so much. Thank you very much. I have something for the city. It is a tribute that was signed by a state representative. It was given to us but it should be with the city. Rodgers said oh wow, thank you so much. Thank you for all your hard work. Moon said oh thank you. Rodgers said that is awesome. Moon said and to the other committee members that are here, thank you. Where’d she go? Rodgers said OK. Moon said Carol [Sawyer] was here. I guess Sawyer left. Forte said she’s talking to the police officer.  She turned to the police officer Fisher said she’s arresting the police officer. Moon said to say she was on the committee. (To Moon), Rodgers said so, thank you very much. Moon said you’re welcome.

Item #11b – Discussion: Q1 & Q2 HDC [Historic District Commission] Activity Report (video time mark 0:53:48):

• • Clarkston Historic District Summary of COAs [Certificates of Appropriateness] for 2026, cumulative through 06-02-2026 (page 27/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said and next is the discussion, the HDC [Historic District Commission] activity report.

Forte said may I ask before we move on? About the girl who came previously from? Michael Moon said Haley [Schriber, State Historic Preservation Office]. Forte said yeah. Where are we at with that? How does that work from here? Smith said so the, I talked to Schriber about this. She would like all the documents, and there are numerous documents, and even resumes from the HDC members that are required. She wants all the documents submitted together as one. So, I’m working on gathering all those. I’ve got the application, the CLG, Certified Local Government applications, filled out. And as soon as I have all these auxiliary documents that have to go with it, I’ll submit it to Schriber. So, it is a process. Forte said OK, thank you. Sorry didn’t mean to interrupt.

Rodgers recognized Nancy Moon for a comment.

Nancy Moon said Schriber has 45 days to review it once she gets all the pieces. Forte said OK, thank you. Nancy Moon said and they start reviewing applications for the money on October 1st. Forte said OK. Rodgers said there’s a timeline to get it in. Nancy Moon said to get it in. Smith said but that 45-day, and I’m thankful for you mentioning that, Nancy Moon, that 45-day clock starts when you submit your application. Nancy Moon said yes, exactly. Smith said so, that was part of a thought process behind don’t submit until you have all your documents, because you don’t want to use part of your 45 days just hunting down documents. Forte said that makes sense. Nancy Moon said so it would be nice if you could get all the pieces in by the end of the week and – Rodgers said send it on. Michael Moon asked Nancy Moon if that’s OK. Nancy Moon said yes.

Rodgers said OK.

(Lisa Paterczak approached the podium.)

Lisa Paterczak [HDC Chair]:

We’ll give a report on what’s been happening in our HDC meetings since the beginning of the year.

Our Certificate of Appropriateness [COA] list that’s happened since January through June is our list here. It’s been kind of a quiet first half of the year. We had four COAs issued.

One was for a new garage to replace an old garage. That’s the first item on there. We had two roof replacement approvals, and one approval for a window replacement was multiple windows on a single property. And then we also had an amendment to a COA that was issued for, to accommodate roof height change for the garage that received the COA in February, and that was due, that was done following a building department review. So that was an item that was (unintelligible) COA. We also issued one Memorandum of Administrative Approval (MOAA). So, this was for a severely leaking roof, and it was something that had to be addressed fairly quickly. And so, the MOAA was issued per the HDC ordinance, newly adopted as of last year in March of 2025 since section 6.1, paragraph 11. This repair, as it was stated, did not change the exterior appearance of the roof that needed to be repaired, and the property had already experienced a material damage due to the leaking roof. That was the (unintelligible) concern. It was very time sensitive, and it did not require a building permit, and it was appropriate within the guidelines (unintelligible). So, we were able to get that approval for them, and they did the work right away.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Although the ordinance was amended to authorize an MOAA, it is questionable whether this conforms to state law, which does not provide for “administrative approval” and requires the commission to issue a certificate of appropriateness, notice to proceed, or denial.]

Paterczak said so that concludes our list for the first half of year. We got a little busier last month in this coming weeks, but I did have some additional comments that I want to share with city council, and this will be just to communicate to you guys, the building department, to any applicants, and this one in particular is something that, it was an application from last year where they received two COAs for work that’s just been finished. Two COAs were issued last year for the property. The work was recently completed, and this is a building that is 20 to 26 Main Street, South Main Street, historically known as the Creek or the Terrace Building. This one is the oldest remaining wooden structure in the business district and the largest. So, it’s gotten some attention because there’s been work done on it. So, I just want to make some clarifications to the work that’s been done that had some questions asked, so I thought it might be a good idea to just put it out to everyone so everyone’s clear and on the same page.

The HDC did issue two COAs in May of last year, 2025, and one Notice of Denial in August of 2025. This was all following a visit and a report that was done by a preservation architect, Ron Campbell, in April of last year. So, the first COA was issued to replace existing doors on the west-facing side of that building. The doors were going to remain the same style and design as were already there. The second COA was issued to repair and replace damage to a lot of the side and trim on that building. And then there was a Notice of Denial that was issued, and that was done because the application that was submitted, which had already been extended several months, was expired. And at that time, the applicant had not decided on how she wanted to proceed with the design of the entryways, the north and south entryways on the west side of that building, and they stated they would submit a new application when they finalize the plan, so that was the reason for that. And the property owner did complete the work for the two approved COAs, along with replacing porches on the west side of that building, which are where some of the questions had come up.

So, I just wanted to clarify in Ron Campbell’s report that he did (unintelligible) that the porches were a safety hazard before they were replaced. They were in really bad, rotted condition in a lot of areas. So they were a safety hazard. They needed to be rebuilt. And the property treatment was in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior guidelines, so that was stated in the report. The porches were rebuilt with approved materials of the same size and shape as the previous porches, so that work was allowable. And I did contact the applicant recently about her plans for the remainder of the application, which included the entryways and which railings. And this was part, this is the open item that’s in the notice of denial. So, she did state that she did not plan to make any further changes on the entryways for the porches and that she was replacing the railings with like-for-like materials and style. So, I did suggest that she follow up with the building department on that to get clarification on the code regulations for the railings. And I did talk to – Smith said Dave (unintelligible) – (continuing), Paterczak said Dave, Dave, yeah, I talked to him about that. He said he would clarify for them what they are doing for the railings because that’s outside of the HDC scope, along with any approvals that are needed for changing use or whatever that building’s going to use. That’s not an HDC decision.

And then we did request, I did request a formal direction from her to close the loop on that Notice of Denial just so we have a stated plan and that we just want to have clear documentation for that notice so there’s no confusion if any other changes can occur.

And on a final note on this project, there’s also some questions about the siding and what was allowed to put on that building and the COA that was issued to remove and repair the existing siding allowed two options on the COA. The first option was if the existing siding was removed, was found to be salvageable, that they be replaced and restored, could be replaced and restored on the building preferably on the street side. So, using as much wood as possible on the street side of the building. And then the remainder of the siding would consist of similar (unintelligible). The second option was if the siding was found to be not salvageable or rotted, then they could be replaced with hardy board or hardy plate siding, which was stated in the, Ron Campbell’s report also. And that would apply to almost any building with existing original wood siding too. So, I just wanted to make those points so we’re all clear on the work that was done so far. It has been approved and there’s no other applications pending or open to the issues before and after the meeting.

So lastly, my last note, this is a different subject, that HDC is holding a special meeting on Wednesday 29th to discuss the city’s application for replacing the bricks on the west side of Main Street. And then there’s a few other applications that came in that we’ll hear. And special meetings are pretty rare. We might have one or two, I think. I don’t know. But those are, we hold those when time is of an essence, if there’s a safety issue or leaks or repairs that have to be done right away or if there’s contract or constraints when we want to get those in so people can get their work done before the weather.

And then too, as a reminder, anyone is welcome always to attend any of these meetings and with the council and city staff. Haven’t had anyone come by this year so far to any of our meetings? So, you guys are always welcome to sit through all of that. And our next regular meeting is scheduled for August 11th.

And then one of the final things is I’m getting a lot of calls from applicants about the application process. The application itself and how to find it on the website. It’s difficult to fill out. They have a hard time attaching documents. It’s just not very user-friendly. So again, if there’s a time or an opportunity when changes are being made in the website or updates, we would like to have that application process looked at or streamlined to make it more user-friendly for applicants.

Rodgers said does anyone have any questions for Paterczak?

Forte said I was just going to second that. I just put in an application for our house. I was going to say that I did both. I did the online form, and I did the PDF because I wasn’t quite sure which was right or which – Paterczak said and it’s confusing. We’ve had people come into the office and they’ve asked for printed out applications that they can write and get back to you guys. And the format that comes to us and the email, it’s very encrypted looking. Forte said yah, that’s what Smith said previously. Paterczak said yeah, so if anybody has any ideas, suggestions for how to.

Forte said yeah, I previously created all those PDFs. I’d like those to be on the website at some point, if we can. Smith said so, we would have to connect you to the website developer so that he’s involved, he or she is involved, which is not something I can just flip the switch. So, let’s schedule some time. Again, we’ll schedule a meeting with the website. Forte said yeah. Smith said (unintelligible) will get that. Forte said because I created PDFs for each of the forums like a year ago. Paterczak said then you can actually type in something. Forte said yeah, you can type in that are available and like clickable, blah, blah, blah. But I’ve had a kid since then, so that’s fine. Yeah, but yeah, I’ll schedule something with you. Paterczak said yeah, and I would be happy to participate in that too. Forte said I can send you what we have already and if there’s anything you want to change to that form, you can just update it.

(To Paterczak), Rodgers said we have one more question. Quisenberry has a question for you.

Quisenberry said I do. And it’s regarding the property of 71 North Main, it’s the garage there. It appears, there’s been several people that have contacted me and they’ve indicated that they believe that that garage is noncompliant in several areas regarding HDC rules. The fact that it was moved up closer to the road and some other factors with it and also may not even be in compliance with some planning and zoning in that I know last year we had an issue with the garage over on Madison, the backside of a home on Holcomb. And it appears that that was not compliant in several areas. It was too tall and it was one of these things that slipped through the crack, and we have to be more careful about that now, but – (interrupting Quisenberry), Paterczak said and I understand, I know which one you’re talking about and I believe the height was an issue on that property which is not something that the HDC approves or disapproves. That’s a building ordinance that we don’t police. We do look at scale of the, the application on the property itself and does it fit and how does it take up space within that property. But as far as dimensions and height that is a building ordinance that was not something that, you know, there was this, – (speaking over Paterczak), Michael Moon said I don’t mean to interrupt because yes, we do. We do look at the height – Paterczak said well, we – (continuing), Michael Moon said because it has to be with respect to the buildings next to it. Paterczak said yes. (Continuing to talk over Paterczak), Michael Moon said and that, in that case and then the 71 North Main case we looked at those very carefully and they all met the requirements. (Michael Moon continued to talk over Quisenberry and Paterczak.) Moon said so, I think what you’re talking about on Madison Court, yes, I know people thought it looked big but I know Smith had it measured and it did not go beyond the requirements.

Rodgers said I think he was talking about 71 Main Street, right? Quisenberry said yeah, 71 Main, but I was also making reference to the one on Madison. The one on Madison also had some other issues that would have been, should have been picked up by planning and zoning having to do with a bathroom upstairs, a kitchen upstairs and all that. (Michael Moon attempted to talk over Quisenberry but his comments were unintelligible.) Quisenberry said correct. Moon said but height we definitely do and it met the requirements. It was stated in the COA for both of those units and both of them met the requirements that were sent out. Quisenberry said and the 71 Main doesn’t conflict with any HD restriction about the way it was moved closer to the street? Michael Moon said I don’t think there’s any, I don’t recall any question about it.

Paterczak said there was a scale, there was a survey drawing that was submitted with the plans and those were reviewed. The scale and size of the building was reviewed. I think there were several meetings that it went through. I’m not sure all the times. Quisenberry said somebody had a chance to look at the plans of that and the upstairs of that room also has something that could make it be a living area contrary to what our ordinance is as well, but it should have been picked up by zoning and planning as well. Paterczak said right, and those were, those are always when somebody is using a garage in the last one, but the one that’s, you know, on the list from earlier this year, you know, we do tell applicants that there’s ordinances that you might have to check with the building or planning department on what is allowed in the building. We are reviewing the exteriors of these buildings and the size of these buildings to be approved as appropriate for the space that they’re in. But anything that’s happening on the inside, we have no – (interrupting Paterczak), Quisenberry said I understand. There’s three different components that these people were looking at. One is zoning, one is planning, one is HDC. And there were issues that these people were seeing that were violating each of those three areas, that this was being kind of moved along without being properly inspected and controlled, similar to what the Madison building was.

Paterczak said is there anything specific that we can look at or review? Quisenberry said I can certainly get back with them and ask them to be specific and let me know. Paterczak said I’d be really interested to understand what, yeah, what the violation – (interrupting Paterczak), Quisenberry said yes, there is. They’ve told them to me, I just don’t remember what they are right now to be able to tell you, but I certainly can get back and say these are the concerns that some people are having with that site. Primarily, nothing we can do about the Madison one, that’s done and over with and stuff. But this one here is still in progress. Paterczak said OK. Yeah, I will definitely review any questions or issues that they have from our HDC portion. But once we go through the appearance process of it, it’s up to zoning and the building department to stick to the ordinances that are set. But I can say we’ve got all our COAs and all the decisions we’re based on – (interrupting Paterczak and speaking over her), Michael Moon said our COAs, in specific cases like this, just like the building on Madison Court and the one at 71 North Main, the COA stipulates height because of the, they must comply with respect to the historical building next to it, OK. Also, the same goes for the new garage on North Holcomb. All of those, there are stipulations. And again, from Madison Court, we know a lot of people said, oh, it’s too high. But as I stated before, when Smith measured it, it was fine. It’s just their impression.

Quisenberry said does anyone know the result of what the zoning board meeting was when they were looking at that property on North Holcomb down by the end where just the trees are? Avery said I think they approved the variance. Smith said they did approve the variance to allow one side to be, well, both sides would be 10-foot setbacks. Instead of 10 and 15, 15 and 10, whichever, that was allowed to go to 10 and 10. So now their house, instead of being 25-foot wide, could be 30-foot wide. So that did get approved. Quisenberry said and up close to the road, in line with all the other houses? Smith said absolutely. It has to be along the same streetscape as the other homes on Holcomb. That was made very clear.

Rodgers said any other questions for Paterczak?

An unidentified woman (the homeowner) said I can answer more questions about 71 if you want. Paterczak said well, let’s hear, let’s get what the violations are or what the (unintelligible), the procedures or supposed violations are because we’ve got all of our documentation that we could go through and answer any questions that might be on there. Yeah, so.

(Paterczak sat down.)

The homeowner said but I can tell you, as the homeowner, right, so I’m the homeowner at 71 North Main. And so, I think the building, we’ve had maybe, I’ve lost track now, five or six different inspections through the township. And we have not come up with any, come up against any kind of – Rodgers said violations – (continuing), the homeowner said violations or zoning ordinances. The building is set 15 feet from the northern boundary and 86 feet from the eastern boundary of our property. So, if that was, that was a concern, that falls well within the zoning ordinances. And the height of the building is less than 20 feet. So that also falls within the zoning ordinances. If you could remember the other things, I’d be happy to talk to you about those. Quisenberry said OK. Rodgers said thank you. The homeowner said yeah.

Rodgers thanked Paterczak and recognized Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said I would just sort of throw in there too that I do think there’s sort of a blip in processes if it’s the community, because I hear a lot of things that should be going to planning but aren’t going to planning. Change of use is one example, like a, for a business in town, if there’s a change of use, generally that goes to planning. And also the ADU [Accessory Dwelling Unit] issue definitely, it shouldn’t just be overlooked. It should, that should also go to planning. And if it’s, if it’s clear that it’s going to be a residence, then it needs to be discussed within the community, but planning would be the place to start there as opposed to ZBA [Zoning Board of Appeals]. Rodgers thanked Catallo.

Rodgers said anybody else?

No comments.

Item #11c – Discussion: Michigan Legislatively Directed Spending Initiative (LDSI) Grant (video time mark 1:16:07):

• • 07-13-2026 Press Release, Mike Harris (page 29/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said all right. Next thing on the agenda is a discussion about the Michigan Legislatively Directed Spending Initiative, LDSI grant. This is the one that I jumped the gun on earlier today.

[Rodgers read the press release.]

(To Smith), Rodgers said congratulations to you. (Applause.)

Pardee said I have a question. Is there a clock on the grant in terms of when we must have spent the money? Smith said December of 2027. Pardee said 2027. Smith said yes. Nothing will happen this year, maybe some planning, but all of the physical construction will be done in, until late 2027.

Avery said the engineers are going to start putting all that together. Smith said right. Avery said and then we have to come up with about 200 grand. Smith said correct. Coté and I are working on that and we feel comfortable with the local road fund and our parking fund that we’ll be able to fund it without any taxpayer money.

Rodgers said anybody have any questions or comments?

Pardee said I guess my other question. In fact, Representative Harris emphasis is on pedestrian safety. Can he help us with our crosswalk situation? Smtih said well, certainly if there’s any work in the crosswalk area, we’re still talking with MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation]. It’s our hope to still look into the possibilities with MDOT to put a bump out at the Church street/Depot crossing there to allow pedestrians to get further out before they have to actually step off the curb. And that crosswalk would be included. So, anything in that area, any crosswalk paint would be included as well. Pardee said but the crosswalks that were left over from Clarkston Road and – (interrupting Pardee), Smith said that was not part of the scope. The scope of this was really the downtown, two downtown blocks. Pardee said thank you.

Rodgers said anyone else?

No comments.

Item #11c [the second c] – Resolution: City Clerk Professional Development Training Cost (video time mark 1:20:18):

• • Resolution – MAMC [Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks] Professional Development Training August 2026 (page 30/65 of the council packet)
  • Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks Advanced Certification Application (page 31/65 of the council packet)
  • Administrative Support Professional Development Training (page 33/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said all right. This is a resolution for City Clerk Professional Development Training Cost.

(Rodgers read the resolution.)

Rodgers said do I have?

Resolution by Avery; second Forte.

Rodgers said is there any discussion?

Quisenberry said yeah. Where did we get the mini grant? Rodgers said I don’t know. Where did we get the mini grant from? Guillen said so, my relationship with (unintelligible) was offered three days before. Rodgers said so, you got your own grant. Forte said thank you. Good job. Rodgers thanked Guillen.

Rodgers said any other questions?

No questions.

Fisher said is there a second on that? Rodgers said there was. Fisher said thank you.

Rodgers said resolution, do we have to do a roll call? Avery said yep.

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

Item #11d – Resolution: Sewage Disposal Fee Increase (video time mark 1:22:30):

• • Resolution – Sewage Disposal Rate Increase (page 35/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said all right, next is the Sewage Disposal Fee Increase.

(Rodgers read the resolution.)

Rodgers said do I have a resolution or a motion?

Resolution by Avery; second Casey.

Rodgers said any discussion on this?

Fisher said is there a reason why they raised the price? Rodgers said is there a reason why? Smith said the constant ongoing repairs to the water main. So, I mean the GLWA [Great Lakes Water Authority] and Water Resource Commission rates, did they raise their fees? Smith said yes. Fisher said why did they raise their fees? Smtih said well, it’s not the Water Resource Commission. They were part of the announcement, but it’s the Great Lakes Water Authority fees that are going up. Rodgers said yeah, why? Do they give you a reason why they’re raising them? Smith said it’s just ongoing costs of maintaining the water infrastructure. Rodgers said here or just everywhere? Smith said everywhere. Yeah. Everywhere. Avery said I assume they’re passing this along to all communities that are part of this. Smith said yeah. Avery said it’s not just us. Smith said yes, that’s county wide.

Rodgers said any questions from residents?

No questions.

Rodgers said want to take a roll call? Guillen said yes.

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

Item #11e – Resolution: Oakland County IT Agreement Renewal (video time mark 1:25:15):

• • Resolution – Oakland County Interlocal Agreement for IT Services (page 36/65 of the council packet)
  • Agreement for IT Services Between Oakland County and City of the Village of Clarkston (page 37/65 of the council packet)
  • Exhibit I – Online Payments (page 49/65 of the council packet)
  • Exhibit III – Pay Current Taxes (page 51/65 of the council packet)
  • Exhibit X – Data Sharing (page 53/65 of the council packet)
  • Attachment A to Exhibit X – Contractor Data Sharing Services Agreement (page 56/65 of the council packet)
  • Attachment A to Exhibit X, Appendix A – Contractor Insurance Requirements (page 63/65 of the council packet)

Rodgers said all right. Next up is the Resolution for the Oakland County IT [Information Technology] Agreement Renewal.

(Rodgers read the resolution.)

Rodgers said is there anything in this agreement that’s different that I need to read? Smith said no. Rodgers said because it’s super long. Smith said it is very long. It covers more than the city only uses, as I said in the resolution, only uses this for online payments. The county offers a number of other services that are included in this agreement that we don’t even use. We only use their online payment system. And we don’t, it doesn’t cost us a dime. Any use of the system is paid for by the end user. If they wish to pay their bill online, they will pay a (unintelligible) fee to cover that cost. So it doesn’t cost the city at all. But there is a lot of verbiage in here that doesn’t apply to us, but it’s kind of a standard contract.

(To Fisher), Rodgers said and you’ve already looked at it and everything? Smith said he hasn’t looked at this one. This is just a clone of the previous one. That’s why it’s just exactly identical to the previous one.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: So, no one read the agreement except maybe Smith???]

Rodgers said any discussion?

No comments.

Rodgers said any discussions from residents?

No comments.

(To Guillen), Rodgers said OK, want to?

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

Item #11f – Discussion: Establishment of a New Public Safety Millage (video time mark 1:27:38):

Rodgers said and last on the agenda is a discussion regarding the establishment of a new public safety village.

Smith said so, we did not include the document in the packet because it wasn’t clear as to whether council would wish to discuss this in a closed session with the city attorney. This is kind of a groundbreaking territory that we’re going into. We want to make sure the council is comfortable with it. So, we do not include it in the packet. I sent it to you separately for your review. But it’s not included in the packet. It’s, at this time, it’s up to the council whether you want to talk about it in an open session or would prefer because it’s still a work in process, maybe you would prefer to talk about this in a closed session. And then we turn it into an open session to make any decisions.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: There is NO option in the Open Meetings Act to allow the council to hold a secret session outside of the public view because something is a “work in process.”]

Avery said I didn’t see it. So, if you sent it, I’m not sure that I got it. But that’s probably on me. I don’t know if anybody else has had a chance to look at it. Quisenberry said I got it (and handed a copy to Avery). Avery said thank you.

Rodgers said thoughts on?

Smith said Fisher crafted or drafted the document. Fisher said and I believe that this is consistent with the direction given by, there was not a motion, but just the consensus of the discussion that we had.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Notice the city attorney’s cagey comments. The council is prohibited from reaching a “consensus” in a closed session because this would be a vote, something that must be done in open session. If, as the city attorney also characterized, there was a “direction given by” the city council, that also would be a decision that must be done in an open session. In response to a FOIA request, the city revealed that the topic of the last secret closed session was Fisher’s memo titled “Legal Opinion on City Finance for Public Safety.”  There is no record of a vote taken in open session in the minutes of the last meeting to reflect the “direction” or “consensus” of the council. This is likely another violation of the Open Meetings Act which is rather shocking, given the city attorney’s extensive municipal experience.]

Quisenberry said and for us to have a ballot on November or have a vote on the November ballot, what’s the latest we can vote to, on this and still have it be there? (To Guillen), Smith said so, the deadline, as I recall, was April. I’m sorry, August 12th. So, we would have to have a council vote before that and give Fisher a couple of days to get the documents together and so that’s up to the state, or to the county, it’s actually. Quisenberry said the next council meeting is the? Smith said it’d be too late, I think. So, the other option that I think should be considered is the possibility of a special election in May. So that would give us more time to weigh the pros and cons of the different directions that we could go and hold a special election in May just to talk about the millage proposal. There are pros and cons to that. And we’ve said previously, if we did do a public safety millage, that we would want to work with a public relations firm of some sort that has a history in working on this kind of thing and talk to them about the best approach. Either way, whether we do this in November or whether we do it in May, I think we’re going to want to use a PR company or some sort of firm.

Avery said so, if we’re going into closed session, it’s to discuss the slicing of the millages, the mills, filling in that mills language. Is that what we’re trying to? Fisher said or just to make sure that this is the way you want it to go as compared to the other alternative that we discussed at the meeting.

Quisenberry said I think we said no, we didn’t want that. Fisher said correct, and that’s why I prepared it this way. Avery said unless you feel like there’s a reason to have us discuss it one more time, if there’s additional information that would be helpful to us, then that’s fine, then I’m willing to go into closed session. But if it’s just rehashing what we’ve already talked about, I’m not sure that we need to.

Pardee said was there a finance committee assignment given a month or two ago in terms of, you know, talked about establishing a separate kind of meeting? Fisher said yeah, we did have a meeting. Pardee said and then we said, well, let’s start the finance committee work on that. Fisher said we did. Pardee said was there? Fisher said yes. Pardee said was there a finance committee meeting? Fisher said yes, yes. Pardee said I don’t think so. Avery said you didn’t make it. Fisher said you weren’t there, but there was a meeting. Smith said Wylie was there. Pardee said it wasn’t a public available meeting. Smith said it was a public meeting. Pardee said well, you know, I didn’t get it. And I’m the public guy about funds.

Guillen said it’s on the calendar. Pardee said huh? Guillen said look on one of the calendars too. Pardee said it was on the calendar? Smith said the city website. Pardee said for what date? Smith said I don’t know. I’d have to go back and look at it. I don’t know.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: Guillen and Smith said this public finance committee meeting was on the calendar. That was a false statement – the meeting was not on the calendar. And even though he’s not obligated to do so, Smith always emails Pardee about the time and date of finance committee meetings. He chose not to notify Pardee this time, ensuring that no member of the public would be present while city officials and the city attorney secretly plotted about the best way to raise our taxes during a meeting that is not recorded and no minutes are taken.]

Pardee said OK, well, that’s, that finance committee meeting was in a sense your special session? Avery said no. Pardee said no? Avery said we had a special session after last meeting. Rodgers said last meeting. Avery said last council meeting. With the full council to discuss. I mean, you sat through the finance committee meetings. Pardee said sure. Avery said we’ve talked about this public safety millage or millage multiple times. So, this is just the – Pardee said and once you thought of saying, what would the, well, what events need you to occur by when an order is getting on the November ballot? And tonight I’m hearing, and I know the August 12th business from prior legal discussion about this was that we have to have our wording for, that whats’s to be on the ballot submitted to the state by the 12th of August. I think that’s the 12th of August date. Fisher said that date to the county. To the county. Pardee said I thought, well – (interrupting Pardee), Quisenberry said there was a budget – Pardee said I was talking about state. Quisenberry said there was a council budget meeting on June the 6th at 2:30. Pardee said yes. Quisenberry said excuse me. July the 6th.

Pardee said so another, so are we in a sense saying that we’re gonna not be on the November ballot because we’re going to run out of time? Avery said no. Rodgers said no, we’re not saying that at all. We’re discussing that right now. Pardee said oh, OK.

Smith said in that July meeting, we had talked about, and Avery and Quisenberry, in that sort of that meeting, but we had talked about the possibility of a special assessment instead of a millage. And so that was discussed back and forth. And in the last council meeting, it was decided that they did not want to pursue a special assessment approach and instead pursue the budget – Avery said the millage. Smith said the millage. For the ballot. So that’s, that’s the current direction. And to me, it’s just a question of if you want to proceed with this, it’s just a question of timing. Do we try to go for the November ballot, or do we try to go for a special election in May? Either way, the money doesn’t get to us until July 1 of 2027.

Avery said yeah, I don’t want to go through the expense of having a special election in May if we can get some clarity on it by November. Right? We’ve been kicking around in the finance committee for a year. So, it’s time to just, just let it go. Let’s put it on the ballot and see what people want. That’s how I look at it. Quisenberry said I do too. Fisher said which means passing it tonight or as special council. Avery said well, I guess, I mean, what we’re looking at is the final form other than filling in a couple of numbers.

Rodgers said and the way that you explained it was that the cost of the safety, fire, police keeps going up. And we can’t absorb it into our budget. It has to be paid for.

Smith said because every time the cost goes up, it has to be absorbed by the operational side of the budget. Rodgers said right. Smith said we can’t not have police and fire. Quisenberry said which is running at a deficit and which will run at a bigger deficit next year.

Avery said so, if we portion it out, then we can address that, the largest growing portion of our budget separately. And dedicate the millage to it.

Rodgers said and the explanation for that was that then the millage that we use for that particular part of the budget will go down to compensate for this partially. Smith said the operational millage rate will go down to offset the new fire levels. Rodgers said safety. Fisher said so, it would be net neutral to the burden of the taxpayer.

Quisenberry said but that’s a question. Do we want to structure it so that it’s net neutral? My thought is no. Fisher said I think that’s the way we discussed it. Quisenberry said because if we set something up that’s net neutral, we’re no further ahead than we are right now. And we’re then setting ourselves up for it, that within the next year, we’re going to have to go back to the people again and say we need more millage to handle this. Because the costs have gone up and we’ve gotten no more revenue to make up for it.

Fisher said do you mind if I just answer that? Yeah. Basically what happens then is the authorization for the operational millage stays up. And so, if necessary, as a result of things that occur during the year, you need more money, you can authorize the levy of more of that because you have that authorization already from the charter. Avery said well, that’s where we – I don’t know. I just want to get into what we talked about in the closed session. But there was a topic of discussion in the closed session as to whether or not – Rodgers said that’s right – (continuing) Avery said that was how we wanted this. Fisher said yeah, I mean, the way I drafted it was a consensus that I remember that was net neutral in terms of the burden.

[Clarkston Sunshine comment: This is a clever way to sell the public safety millage. Fisher said it clearly. The ballot question in November would be net neutral: The general fund levy would be reduced by the same amount of mills as the public safety millage. But the total authorized millage that the city could levy (set in the charter) would stay the same so that, in the future, the city could increase the general fund millage without a vote of the residents back up to the total allowed by the charter. This is the same thing they did with the library millage: Tell the taxpayers they are getting a break because the general fund millage is reduced. Then increase it in a later year without a vote of the residents.]

Quisenberry said I was under the impression that it could be structured net neutral. And to me, I thought that makes no sense. All we’re doing is kicking a can down the road without bringing a solution. The only other solution to that is the following year we have to go back and say we need more money. Fisher said yeah, it’s just a matter of what do you want to present to the voters in offering this new millage?

Avery said yeah, I guess I’m a little bit confused as to what our options are. So as much as it pains me to want to see a closed session, I think we need to – I want to make sure that I understand completely what our options are. Rodgers said yeah, I agree. Yes.

Pardee said we could do a November or March ballot approval (unintelligible) beginning 7/1 will you be able to have established a budget when the revenue hasn’t come to us. Normally, we’ll establish the budget in May for June (unintelligible). Smith said yup. Pardee said so, (unintelligible) because I thought the projections that were given in year two, year three (unintelligible). Smith said well, we would just have to continue to draw down the fund balance and rely on the fund balance. And that’s, that’s a very limited time ability to do that, right? Because you can’t just keep borrowing from that. Yeah. It would be a challenge, no question.

Avery said well, passing a millage and waiting to do it until April or May could make it difficult to budget because you don’t know what you’re – Smith said right – (continuing), Avery said 100 percent what your income is going to be. So, it’s probably better to get it out of the way now in November so that you know how to plan going forward, but . . .

Rodgers said does anyone want to make a motion to go into closed session to kind of get this figured out and then come back?

Avery said yeah, I’ll make a motion. Do you want to second it? (No audible response.)

(To Fisher), Smith said so, Jerry, procedurally, we need to make a motion to change the agenda

Fisher said OK. I mean, you could say that we’re just going to discuss this agenda item in closed session and then come back up. Smith said OK. Fisher said because you may – I mean, you may decide to act on this. Rodgers said right. Smith said yeah. Avery said yeah.

Quisenberry So if we act on it, we can’t do that in closed session? Fisher said no. Rodgers said we have to come back out.

Smith said so the agenda item in the agenda right now is just a discussion, right? If we want to change that to be a potential, we could do that – change that to be a voted on item action. We could do that when we come back out of close session. But do you think we need a motion to change the agenda just to put a closed session on the agenda? Fisher said no. Smith said OK. All right.

Rodgers said OK, so – (interrupting Rodgers), Quisenberry said the other question is is do we feel it would be better to discuss this and come up with a – we’ll call it a determination in a closed session now or set a special meeting next week when we may have two more council people here on it. I’m fine with either. Avery said I feel like I need maybe just some more additional information and some clarity on exactly what our options are and what this would mean, this ballot language would mean.

Rodgers said so, we have a motion from Al to go into closed session. Second Forte.

Avery said I’m willing to withdraw it if we’re going to have a special session to have everybody here. And I want it done in the next week or so. Rodgers said it has to. I don’t want to dally here.

Rodgers recognized Guillen for a comment.

Guillen said can we please do after the election? There’s so much going on with the nine days of early voting. There was this next week, so is that what you’re saying? Forte said can we just do it tonight? Get it done. Would that be preferable? Guillen said well, because, so the election is 6:30 in the morning to 8:00 at night on Tuesday. Monday we’re downloading for Tuesday, so I’ll be here programming late Monday night. I guess you could have Monday night. I just wondered if you would consider maybe Thursday or something.

Avery said or maybe just do it tonight, right? Forte said just do it tonight. Avery said but the thought was to include the other two. Forte said because who knows if someone else, so you know what I mean?

Rodgers said all right, so we have a motion by Avery to go into closed session. We have a second. Forte said I’ll second.

Fisher said the wording of the motion should be – Rodgers said OK. Fisher said that it would be to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing a written legal opinion of the city attorney and corresponding resolution proposal on the subject of city finance exempt from disclosure under state law.

Rodgers said OK. We’re moving that and seconding that. Fisher said all right.

Rodgers said so, when we come back, we may or may not have a vote, just so that you all know. Depending on what comes out of the closed session. Pardee said when you come out of session, will Independence Television still be here? Rodgers said yes. I guess they have to be. Avery said well, usually she breaks it down. But if we’re going to come back, you have to stay around. Rodgers said yeah, yeah. Avery said stay around. Rodgers said yes, please. Avery said I don’t expect it to take very long. Rodgers said it won’t. Avery said 10, 15 minutes. We’ll be back.

Item #11g – Unscheduled Closed Session (1:44:29)

Rodgers said OK. It is 8:44, and we’re going to go in closed session now.

(The camera turned off.)

(The camera turned on.)

(To Fisher), Rodgers said what about that? Fisher said roll call. Rodgers said roll call.

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

(Avery walked away from the table during the vote.)

Rodgers said and so, it is now still 8:44. Thank you.

(Break in proceedings.)

Rodgers said our closed session is closed at 9:21. We’re reopening the open session.

Fisher said is there a vote to go back and open? Casey said we didn’t. Rodgers said OK. Fisher said did you hear that? Avery said no, we haven’t. Fisher said OK.

Rodgers said all in favor of going back to open? (All ayes.) Rodgers said opposed? Rodgers said hearing none, we’re going back into open session at 9:22. Forte said what? Wow. Rodgers said yeah.

Rodgers said we are not going to vote on anything tonight. We will be having a special city council meeting tentatively set for August 5th at 7:00 p.m. At which time we will talk about the establishment of this new public safety millage in more detail.

Agenda Item #12 -Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 0:1:45:24):

Rodgers said may I get a motion to adjourn the meeting if there’s no further discussion? Quisenberry said yes. Second Avery.

Motion to adjourn the meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.

Rodgers said we are adjourned at 9:22.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here
  • 07-27-2026 – city council packet