Category: Tax Increase

Introduction:

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

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

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

Agenda Item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (video time mark 0:00:02):

Wylie said everybody would please rise. We will say the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge said.)

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #3, Roll Call (video time mark 0:00:24):

Wylie said next on our agenda is we need a roll. (To Jonathan Smith), Wylie said oh, Angie’s [Guillen, clerk] not here, so you’re doing it, I guess? Smith said OK, she’s at a conference today. She was going to try to call in, but I don’t see her.

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

Jones was absent.

Wylie said thank you.

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

Wylie said Item #4 is approval of the agenda. I’ll need a motion and a second to approve the agenda as it’s presented.

Motion by Rodgers; second Avery.

Wylie said comments or questions from council?

No comments.

Wylie said from the public?

No comments.

Motion to approve the agenda passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (video time mark 0:01:19):

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

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

Wylie said Item #5 is public comments.

(Wylie read the rules for public comments.)

Wylie said is there any public comments?

Cara Catallo said I’ll make one.

Catallo said I started getting texts last, at the last meeting that I missed some point where I was supposed to speak and I didn’t know about it because I wasn’t on the agenda. But I didn’t know if you want me to talk about Main Street now or if you’d like me to be on the next agenda and talk a little bit about Main Street Clarkston then. I’m open to either. Wylie said as far as I’m concerned, it’s up to you. If you want to do it now, if you’re prepared to do that, if you prefer. Catallo said yeah, I mean, it’s sort of loose, but that sort of, I think, fits.

Catallo said one thing was that Clarkston got, we have this recognition for being in the affiliate program. So, I’ll hand this over to the table so you can do what you’d like with it. But yeah, so we have a board that’s largely of new people. It’s a bigger board than we have had, it’s, which is great because we need the help.

Wylie said who’s on your board? Catallo said Forte is on the board. And then we have Darren Smarch, who is the eye doctor in town. And then Erich Lines [Catallo’s brother’s business partner], and Cindy Lundberg, who is a property owner, but also she brings with her great financial knowledge, which is deeply needed. And then Paul Angelini is now on the board, as of today. He’s our newest member. And let me see, am I missing me? Bob Hahn is also on the board. So, we have a good mix of people who are business owners and property owners and residents, so that it keeps sort of a cohesive structure where we’re all working towards, like just sort of propping up and moving Clarkston like in a great light is basically what we do. We’re the stewards of trying to sort of keep the economic vitality going and beautification and all the sort of the gaps that happen in town.

Catallo said and our biggest concern right now is, and we hope to bring this forward to the greater community, is that we have access to a really delightful grant that we can use from the Ralph C. Wilson Foundation. So, we’ll come before you to let you know. We hope to have sort of a planning session to hear from the community about what maybe matters most or how we could use it. It can be for organizational purposes. It can be, they really love the outdoors, so it could be something park-related. So, we have some sort of preliminary ideas that we’re floating around, and then we hope to have like some sort of event or survey. We’re not quite sure which one is the best way to sort of get input from the community.

Catallo said but, but yeah, we don’t have any events coming up right now because we’re sort of in the process of sort of hammering out the details because the organization was a little bit quiet for the past year or so. So, we’re just getting back up to speed, but it’s super exciting and it feels great. We had a meeting this morning. And Forte can fill you in on a regular basis, but I’m also usually sitting over there, so if you have any questions. But I think it’s exciting and I’m optimistic. And yeah, that’s about it. If you have any questions.

Wylie said do you want an opportunity to present quarterly like the, like the HDC [Historic District Commission] does? Catallo said yeah, it’s probably not a bad idea, although it does feel like we move a little bit in a snail’s pace, so it might. Wylie said maybe two times a year, maybe if it’s not. Or maybe you could say there’s nothing else. Catallo said I could say that and be like, nothing now, but yeah. Wylie said because then you can be on the agenda and prepare a little while you’re coming? Catallo said yeah, that would be great. Wylie said OK, great. Catallo said so, yeah, I mean, if anybody has any questions or ideas, again, we hope to have information coming out where we can discuss opportunities that might exist. But yeah, we’re still in that preliminary planning. And there isn’t a, like really strict timeline right now. They expect communities to take like one to two years. We’re one of a multitude of communities who have this great opportunity because we’re, we’re considered more rural than not. Wylie said I’m sorry, now you’re talking about the grants, OK. Catallo said the grant. Wylie said the grant. Ralph Wilson? Catallo said yeah. Wylie said OK.

Wylie said anybody else, questions, comments?

No comments.

Wylie said anybody in the audience?

No comments.

(To Catallo), Wylie said thank you. Thanks.

Chet Pardee said are the board, new board members’ names anywhere? Catallo said well, we’re just getting started, so we’re trying. We don’t have like a website established, but that’s sort of our next step. Pardee said OK. Catallo said but yeah, we’re still sort of a little bit on the fresh side. Pardee said OK. Catallo said we’re trying. Wylie said good. Thank you. Catallo said but yeah.

Wylie said anybody else have public comments?

No comments.

Agenda Item #6 – FYI: (video time mark 0:06:19):

Wylie said Item #6 is FYI. There’s nothing for FYI.

Agenda Item #7 – City Manager’s Report (video time mark 0:06:23):

• • 08-10-2026 – City Manager Report (page 3/37 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #7 is a city manager’s report, which is included in our agenda. (To Smith), Wylie said did you have anything you wanted to highlight? Smith said no, I don’t think so.

Wylie said anybody have questions or comments on the city manager’s report?

(To Smith), Rodgers said I just have one for you and you might not have an answer for us tonight, but what is going, I was asked this this morning, what is going on with the Mill Pond, and where are we at with, the study was done, is next steps being planned, on hold for financial reasons, all of the above? Smith said the hearing that they had a couple weeks ago basically approved the district. So, they did say this would be the district that would receive the assessment. So that has been approved by the judge, by the courts. So that part of it was done. The next step is to actually determine how much, you know, how much funding would be requested of each. It’s been so long, I think they need to revise their quotes, their cost estimates, and then they can put together, basically, an assessment of what each homeowner would – Rodgers said so the levels and everything, that’s all been figured out? Smith said that’s all been finalized. Rodgers said OK, so we’re just waiting to make it financially? (Smith nodded yes.) Rodgers said OK, thank you. Smith said we’re probably still a good year, year and a half away before it’s done.

Forte said for the Church repaving, were the sidewalks and ADA ramps originally part of the contract, or? Smith said yes. Forte said OK, that’s all I’m (unintelligible). Smith said there were some that were identified that were not ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliant, so they’re fixing all those. Forte said OK, thank you.

Wylie said on this IT support, I know we were having server issues. Is that part of the problem? And I assume that has not been resolved? Smith said it is, and it’s also my laptop. This laptop is driving me nuts. So only about half the keys work on this keyboard. So, I have to just keep tapping until it does work. My auxiliary keyboard works fine at the desk, but in here where I don’t have that, it’s problematic. So, it’s rather frustrating, their lack of response. They wanna do everything remotely. They are so eager to do everything remotely. And I’ve said, can’t you just come out and look at this? Well, we have to schedule somebody. And they’re not in Michigan anymore. Wylie said oh. Smith said the new company, they say they have representatives all over the U.S., but they’re not here, so they don’t wanna include the expense of sending somebody here to look at my laptop, so. Avery said well, how old is your laptop? Smith said two years old, two and a half. Avery said what brand is it? What’s the brand? Smith said it’s a Dell. Avery said oh, it’s a Dell. I don’t think it’s an IT problem. I think it’s a hardware problem.

Quisenberry said didn’t we about two, three months ago talk about an IT and looking at other options and out for bids and stuff like that? Smith said we are looking at other options. I’ve inquired with other city managers about the services they use. The vast majority of the cities use VC3. Unless they’re large enough to have their own in internal. Quisenberry said so, this wasn’t something that we recently went to? Smith said no, we’ve been, we went to IT Right after leaving Oakland County, after Oakland County kind of encouraged us to leave the nest. And we went with this IT Right, and then IT Right was bought out by VC3. And the service has degraded. So, we’re still looking around.

Wylie said OK, anybody else?

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said yes, same question as the last meeting. Do we know what the costs will be to finish up Church Street repaving? (To Pardee), Smith said I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, no. So, I do have them, I can calculate them, but I don’t have them in front of me. Pardee said and we’re not invoiced from F&V [Fleis & Vandenbrink] yet? Smith said we have been invoiced. They’ve been invoicing us as they go. So, it’s a process as they go, and they get paid, so.

Wylie aid anybody else?

No comments.

Wylie said thank you.

Agenda Item #8 – Consent Agenda (video time mark 0:10:53):

• • 07-13-2026 – Final Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 4/37 of the council packet)
  • 07-27-2026 – Draft Minutes, Regular City Council Meeting (page 7/37 of the council packet)
  • 08-10-2026 – Treasurer’s Report (page 10/37 of the council packet)
  • 08-08-2026 – Check Disbursement Report for the period 07-01-2026 – 07-31-2026 (page 11/37 of the council packet

Wylie said Item #8 is consent agenda. We’ve got the final minutes of the July 13, 2026, regular meeting; draft minutes of the July 27th regular meeting; and the treasurer’s report from August 10, 2026. And I’ll need a motion and then a second to approve the consent agenda as it’s presented.

Motion by Rodgers; second Quisenberry.

Wylie said questions or comments?

Wylie said I do have a correction on, I don’t know if Guillen got it. I emailed Guillen, I gotta go back to it. I think it’s the July 27th meeting. It’s not a big deal, but she, or whoever wrote it up, it says that I opened the meeting and I led the Pledge of Allegiance and I wasn’t there, so I assume it was Rodgers who did that. So that’s a correction. That’s a July 27th draft minutes, it should say Laura Rodgers. And I did not. Your name only jumps, that’s what you do. You read first, like you skip your name.

Wylie said anybody else have any corrections?

Wylie said so, I make a motion, I guess we need an amendment to accept the consent agenda with that correction on the July 27th draft minutes. And that has to be from Rodgers and Quisenberry.

Forte said oh, sorry.

Motion by Rodgers; second Quisenberry.

Wylie said OK, any questions or comments from anybody else on council?

No comments.

Wylie said from the public?

No comments.

Corrected agenda approved by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said then the consent agenda is approved.

Agenda Item #9, Unfinished Business (video time mark 0:12:32):

Wylie said Item #9 is unfinished business. And we have none.

Agenda Item #10, New Business (video time mark 0:12:35):

Wylie said Item #10 is new business.

Item #10a – Discussion: Primary Election Recap (video time mark 0:12:38):

Wylie said and we have primary election recap is Item #10a. Is Guillen going to try to do that? (To Guillen), Smith said can you hear us? Wylie said I thought I heard somebody come on. Smith said she’s connected. Wylie said oh, she is, OK. Smith said so, we may have to defer this to the next meeting – Wylie said OK – (continuing), Smith said but I can tell you that everything went very well with the election. We had a good group of workers, and everything went with Guillen’s guidance. Guillen’s such a perfectionist about every aspect when it comes to the election. So, with her guidance, everything went very, very smoothly. So, I’ll leave it at that. If she has more details, she wants to provide us in the next meeting – Wylie said OK – (continuing), Smith said when she’s back.

Wylie said OK, so we’ll move this to the next meeting.

Wylie said anybody have questions or comments on elections, primary election?

No comments.

Item #10b – Discussion: Historic District Commission Response to Questions in the July 27 Council Meeting (video time mark 0:13:47):

• • 08-05-2026 – Summary of Concerns E-Mailed by Councilmember Ted Quisenberry 08-05-2026 (page 19/37 of the council packet)
  • 11-25-2026 – Certificate of Appropriateness for 71 North Main Street (page 20/37 of the council packet)
  • Photos (page 21/37 of the council packet)
  • 12-30-2024 – Certificate of Appropriateness for 71 North Main Street (page 24/37 of the council packet)
  • 12-03-2024 – Detached Garage Plans (page 26/37 of the council packet)
  • 07-11-2026 – Certificate of Appropriateness for 71 North Holcomb (page 31/37 of the council packet)
  • 01-23-1992 – Second Story Garage Addition Plans (page 32/37 of the council packet)

Wylie said Item #10b, discussion of Historic District Commission response to questions in the July 27th council meeting. And Quisenberry had some questions, and it looks like Lisa Paterczak [HDC chair] is here. I assume you’re going to talk about it. Thank you.

Paterczak said thank you for adding me to the agenda. I was making public comments until five minutes ago. Wylie said and Paterczak’s president. You’re president of HDC. Paterczak said chair. Wylie said chair, OK. I’ll get it right someday.

Paterczak said so, yeah, I did want to address the questions that we had at the last meeting that council member Quisenberry was very (unintelligible) about claims of violations that were happening at 71 North Main. You had stated that the claims included all three departments between the HDC, building, and planning departments, stating that the issues, this is the quote, that we had issues, these people we’re seeing, were violating each of those three areas, the building, HDC, and planning departments. And this is the statement I get the most issue with. That it was said that the work on the property was being moved along without being properly inspected and controlled. So, this is really what I want to address today. Since these are very serious accusations that were made, I asked for specifics so we could address any concerns of violations. And Quisenberry did come back and provide information. Thank you for giving me the, more of the details behind the comments.

Paterczak said the first thing I want to address that you brought up were the HDC standards and guidelines. So, you had mentioned that a couple of residents mentioned that there were alterations of the historic character and context of the property, the size, the scale, the architectural features. So, this new garage is being built to the plans that were provided to the HDC and the Secretary of Interior standards that we used when we were evaluating all of that, the three main standards were standard 3, 9, and 10.

Paterczak said just to give a quick summary on each one of those, standard #3 discusses that each property will be recognized as a physical record in its time and place. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties will not be undertaken. So that was a heavy consideration that we made on the design of the new building that was put up, or the plans for the new building. The house itself is a Greek revival, yes, and the structure is differentiated from that architectural style. It’s not to mimic or try to replicate any other feature from the existing house. Standard #9 addresses new additions and new construction, and it will not destroy spatial relationships that characterize a property. New work will be differentiated from old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to the project to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. And then standard #10 deals with, again, additions and new constructions that will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will not be impaired.

Smith said so, those were the main items that were looked at with this building and application when it was presented to us to do the garage. There was a small garage storage structure that was there for a really long time, and two of the commissioners at that time had gone to do an evaluation of the existing garage space that was there. And at the time, the chair was Robert Hauxwell, and he’s a builder. And he looked at the structure and saw that it was completely unsafe. It wasn’t built in a very, it wasn’t built to code whenever it was done, probably in the early 1900s, maybe 1920s, as he suggested. A lot of different materials were used. There was flooring, there was moldings that were on the roof, and it was just very unsafe. So, there was an application that was submitted and approved, a COA [Certificate of Appropriateness] was issued to dismantle the building, which they did, and they took it down in a way that they could reuse the lumber from that structure on the new structure, which was kind of unique and thoughtful, I thought. So, they did incorporate that old structure into the new building.

Paterczak said but as I mentioned, in all of these standards, there was a lot of consideration taken to the property itself. And the scale of the new building that’s there is admittedly much larger than what was there previously. However, it’s still, when you look at the survey that was done and the plans that were done, you can see the scale and how it fits onto the property, which also brings up another question that was brought up are the setbacks for the garage. And when Kim [Trumbore] was here, the owner, she had mentioned that when you were answering, asking the question about the potential violations and setbacks in the garage itself, the new structure is a little bit closer to the front property line. However, it’s still very safely behind what’s required. There’s a 30-foot minimum from the road to any structure. They’re at 86 feet. And then also, the setback from side, the north border of the property, the old structure was impeding into that quite far. And the new structure is within the 15-foot limit from the north border. So, they did get that back into code as well. So, there’s no setback issues.

Paterczak said and then the third thing that was brought up was a neighbor had reported that there was, the upstairs may contain a bathroom in the structure. It does not. So that – (interrupting Paterczak), Quisenberry said it doesn’t? Paterczak said it does not. Quisenberry said I thought in the plan, I see. Paterczak said it’s clearly on the plans that it’s not. So, if you look at the COA, you can see the design of the building. And on the second floor, there’s nothing up there. That’s storage.

Forte said but it says on the proposed first floor. That there was a bathroom. Paterczak said on the first floor? Forte said yeah. So, there might not be one on the second floor. Quisenberry said yeah. Forte said on the first floor. Paterczak said there was like a mention of a wood shop. I think they were putting in a wood shop or some equipment that would go in there too. Forte said yeah, it says wood shop. Bath, linen, and mechanical.

(To Paterczak, holding up a document), Rodgers said so, what is this for? This one has like the kitchen, couple bedrooms. What is that? Paterczak said what am I looking at? Paterczak said that might be – (interrupting Paterczak), Quisenberry said is it lunch? It’s got lunch in it or something? (Continuing), Paterczak said be, I don’t know. I don’t see what that is. Rodgers said it has, it says, there’s like three things, three areas. And this one has a living room, a bedroom, a bathroom. Paterczak said is that for the 71 [North Main]? Is that from the application of the 71 North Main or is that from – (interrupting Paterczak), Rodgers said I don’t know, it’s just in this packet. Forte said it says – (interrupting Forte), Rodgers said I might be looking at something different, but just – (interrupting Rodgers), Forte said well, this one I think is for upstairs, whereas that’s for the main floor. So, ‘cause this one says garage, renovation, apartment design. (To Smith), Paterczak said is that the information that I sent? Smith said yep.

Paterczak said OK, so there’s, I think I did include the, yeah, the plans for the other property that was brought up on Madison, which is actually Holcomb. The property is actually, the address is South Holcomb, but the garages face Madison on that, on those properties that might – (Forte said so this isn’t – Paterczak said so that is, and that was the other thing I wanted to bring up is, I think there’s some confusion and this is getting into the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] discussion, which I don’t want to do because that’s not anything to do with the HDC. And the only thing I want to talk about with that, and the reason that I’m bringing up the Madison garage is it was brought up in the meeting. And that one, there should be no comparison or confusion between what was done on the Madison garage to what’s being done on 71 North Main. Maybe there was some confusion in what the plans were on the garage that’s facing Madison. There was a second story added to that, and that’s what was brought to us. The footprint of the building, the existing garage itself did not change. The only thing they were asking for was a second story and the height of that building would match the other garages that were next to that property along Madison Court, so.

(To Paterczak), Quisenberry said on that drawing right there, on the far right-hand side of it, written sideways, it says 71 North Main, OK? Paterczak. Yeah, that’s the 71, yeah. Quisenberry said and look, and there’s a bathroom there over that area. It’s a bathroom. And what is that above the bathroom? Lunchroom? Paterczak said that’s a bathroom. That’s all their, what, I think mechanicals for the workroom or whatever. Forte said yeah. Quisenberry said and then the other bigger room in the front? Paterczak said and then that’s the garage. Quisenberry said no – (continuing), Paterczak said and then this is the second story, so you see where the stairs go up? Quisenberry said yeah. Quisenberry said that’s the second story. I can’t tell what it says in the, we’ll call it the lower corner, left-hand corner of the first floor. What is that room called? Smith said workshop. Quisenberry said that says workshop? Smith said um-hmm. Quisenberry said OK. Paterczak said yeah, they were talking about that. They were gonna have, like, saws and things. They do a lot of woodworking, I guess, so just in case this upstairs was planned for lumber or material storage. Quisenberry said OK. Paterczak said so, it’s not to be heated or used or anything. Quisenberry said but it could be. It could be converted into an ADU. Paterczak said you could conjecture what anything could be used for in these buildings, yeah, but we’re not discussing what goes on in the inside, so I’m not discussing that either.

Wylie said is that part of HDC’s – Paterczak said no – (continuing) Wylie said approval? No, not at all, no. And on the Madison, the reason that I put the Madison plans in there is to show the difference, and that was something, like I said, they were adding a second story to it, and the plans that were presented in the application on that had written on there that it was an apartment, and you can see all of the plans they had for that space. But when we reviewed the property, we made it very clear, and we said this in the meeting, you want to find out from the city if this is even going to be allowed, if you can have these types of fixtures inside the building. We’ll review the outside, we’ll review the scale, what they wanted to do with the windows, and how it was going to fit with the existing house that was there. So, we did review the exterior of that building only, and as Dr. [Michael] Moon [HDC commissioner] had mentioned, we did check the height of that building that it matched the others that were on the same street, so they weren’t going to be any larger in scale than what was there. So, that was very clearly stated to them that they needed to ask to find out if anything like that would be allowed inside the building. Same with this one.

Paterczak said and, you know, one of the things that I want to suggest to the council is that when we do our quarterly reports, that we can have a building and planning representative here to be present, too, to answer these questions. Forte said yeah, because I’m on planning, and I’m like, they’re not supposed to have bathrooms. Paterczak said I mean, I can tell you that once – (interrupting Paterczak), Forte said they’re not supposed to have bathrooms, right? According to our ordinance? Smith said well, no, there’s nothing that prohibits them from having a bathroom in the building. They’re not supposed to have living space. That’s usually, it’s more of a kitchen that they put constraints on, because they don’t want you even sleeping there. Paterczak said this, yeah, was just proposed as a bathroom. Forte said I thought it was bathrooms, so I’m sorry. Smith said no, it’s not bathrooms. It’s kitchens, really, that they, they wrote about.

Wylie said but again, that’s not what you guys would be looking at. Paterczak said not at all, and I want to make that very clear. Forte said but just to go off, what do you say? Rodgers said well, it’s probably hard to do. Forte said yeah. Agreed.

Paterczak said and to, to continue with this, like I said, I don’t want to talk about ADUs. That’s not anything that we are discussing or looking at. We don’t look at the inside. I mean, they present the plans to us that were reviewed, because they just have the plans drawn, and we’re looking at mostly the survey of the property, where they’re, if a building is being added, and then what the exterior of the structure is. So that’s what we’re looking at.

Avery said are you the first stop on the trail for them, though? Paterczak said yes, yep, so that’s kind of what I want to talk about, too. And you know, on this property, the 71 North Main, the COAs were issued for it. When the applicants came to us, they had the full plans, and the property survey were submitted with the application, and we reviewed all of the work to be done as planned. And that work that’s being done now is still to the plans that were submitted back in, I think it was December of 2024. And, no, maybe it was ‘25. No, it wasn’t last year. It was December 2024. I know the date. Wylie said for 71 North Main? Paterczak said the COA, yeah. Wylie said wow. Paterczak said so, they had gone a year.

Paterczak said they started the project, and they came back a year later because the building department, you’re supposed to have your work done within one year. That’s the rules, that’s the ordinance. And we extended, they asked for an extension for another year on the building. They ran into electrical issues on that property, so they had to do a lot of upgrades to make sure that all the electrical was up to code. So that set them back probably about six months because that was running into wintertime. So, they asked for a year extension. That’s why it’s still under construction right now. So, everything has been done, and you know, just to clarify, the comments that were made about the property being moved along without any inspections or being properly controlled, that is not true. All the plans after, so what happens is they come to the HDC, we review the plans, the external plans, and we approve or disapprove and ask them to make changes or whatever, but once the COA is approved, they’re okay to go to the building department to get their permits, and then that starts the next phase. So, once it goes to the building department, they are the ones that, I guess, are policing the project after that. So, the inspections are, the permits are pulled, the inspections are done after the work is done, and they’re not allowed to get a certificate of occupancy or completion until all of those permits are approved and finalized.

Paterczak said so, that’s the building department. That’s what the city and you guys, I guess, are managing and making sure that all the ordinances and all of the you know, all of the specs are followed. If there are changes that are made to the structure at all, then they do have to come back and get, you know, a re-approval or a new COA for any changes that have to happen, but – (interrupting Paterczak), Avery said well, how do you become aware of that? Let’s say – (interrupting Avery), Paterczak said the building department should come back to us or the homeowners and we tell them if there’s any changes that we would have to make to a COA, but we don’t know if there’s any changes that are made unless the plans are changed and the building department is notified that there’s plans being changed and they’re supposed, the building department is supposed to be checking to the plans of what were submitted when they got the permits. So, we have no control over that. We don’t have any vision or insight to that whatsoever once the project is started. So, I don’t know, you know, how we would close the loop on all of these projects and that’s why I’m suggesting that maybe we have the building and planning department come when we are giving our COAs so everyone is clear on, you know, the work that’s been approved and this is what’s coming to you guys, the building department. So, they can be ready to review it and then as projects are completed, maybe they can report to us anything that’s been closed out.

Forte said yeah, just to piggyback off of what you’re saying, I know this is kind of like becoming a larger topic and this goes beyond the HDC, but maybe when you guys come and give your reports, we could have a report from the building department just of what’s happened since the last, just so we have a report and documentation. Paterczak said yeah, because clearly there’s a lack of communication that’s going on. If these kinds of questions are coming up and I think you said several times at the meeting that what happened with Madison, we can’t fix that now, that’s already done, but you know, that’s unfortunate that nobody was watching that. I mean, the HDC did our part. We gave the COA and then whatever happened after that, we gave the warning to the applicants that, you know, you’re gonna have to check to see if this is even allowable, what you’re doing inside. so.

Avery said was that when we were transitioning over to the township? Was that how it? Smith said it was at that time, but Dave Moran and I both met with them on Madison Court. We reviewed their plans for upstairs and we talked to them about the fact that you cannot have living spaces up here. You can have a bathroom in the buildings (unintelligible) but you cannot have bedrooms, kitchen up here, and they said, well, we will change the plans, and they did. Paterczak said they didn’t change anything on the exterior, though? Smith said no, nothing on the exterior, it’s just on the interior. Just changed those to storage rooms. Now, in the future, could they modify that and start? Paterczak said sure, I suppose they could if no one’s looking yet. Smith said but that can happen at any property and anywhere in the city. People can be modifying their garage without telling us. That can happen anywhere. Same here, if it’s really up to the building department as they’re driving around, looking at things, as I’m driving around looking at things, as residents bring it to my attention that, hey, there’s three cars parked in front of this garage every night, and people going in, I don’t see them come out until the morning. You know, that’s a red flag that maybe somebody’s using that building as a living space. That’s how we, we don’t have any other really means for checking to make sure somebody’s not violating the building code and city ordinances. So, it’s really, as people bring things to my attention, and they do, I check them out. If I need to bring Dave Moran in from the Independence Township Building Department, I do, and he and I have consulted on a number of properties, look at things to see is this legitimate. But in the case of the Madison Court one I just want to reemphasize that we did talk to him in the property upstairs. We looked at it, he’s got rooms divided off. That’s not a violation. But when they start living up there, that then becomes a violation. So, I informed them of that fact, that if you start living here, your kids are, your college-aged kids are using it for living space, that’s a violation.

Quisenberry said and by changing the plans, all that is is words on a blueprint. You could change a bedroom to a knitting room, and now all of a sudden it’s good, but it still has the same concern. And that’s what this, what the homeowner that was concerned with over there told me about this. And I know a lot of the language in the HDC guidelines that you read off, they can be vague, and they can be up for interpretation. And when you talk about size and scope of a new building or something like that, the way it was put to me, the size of the replacement building certainly is different than the previous one. The scope of it is certainly different than the previous one. The previous one was just a small little shed with rafters in the ceiling, and you could maybe put a one-car garage in it. Paterczak said on 71 you’re talking about, right? Quisenberry said correct, yes. This new one, now not only is three-car garage, it’s far bigger, and it has, whether you want to call it living quarters, it has space to do things in it, right? Paterczak said storage, yeah.

Paterczak said so, if you look at, if you pull up, since you have this document, pull up the survey, the land survey, if you could show the – Forte said just scroll up – Paterczak said yeah, there you go (unintelligible), you can see how and where that, I don’t know if you guys can see it from that angle, but you can see there’s a dotted line here that was the original – Wylie said yeah – (continuing), Paterczak said little spot where it goes really close to the, the north property line. So, this new building, this is the scale of that building compared to the house, and you can see that the setback is still well behind the actual existing house here. But it is much larger than what was there. However, when you look at the scale of the entire property, this is not overpowering in any way to the existing structure or to the property itself. It’s not crowding it.

Quisenberry said and therein lies the objectiveness that I mentioned that somebody else looked at it and realized that the scope is far different and the size is far different – Paterczak said from – Quisenberry said from what it was, from that little tiny – Paterczak said yes, yes – (continuing), Quisenberry said broken down garage.

Avery said right, but that’s not the standard. The standard isn’t what was there before versus what is being proposed. Paterczak said right. Avery said it is what’s being proposed as it relates to the surrounding. Paterczak said it’s the exact same situation we just had on the Holcomb COA that we just gave. Sol’s [spelling?] property, they are removing an old, dilapidated garage that was not original to the property or anything, but it’s passed its safe, useful life, and they’re replacing it with a new structure. So, you know, we did the same thing. We evaluated the size where they wanted to have it on the property. Does it fit? And they came up with a plan which had to be revised because it was too tall. And so, we reissued or made a revision to the COA for that. And we’re going to see another application tomorrow night at the, at the HDC meeting for a garage that they’re asking to make an addition to, to add another bay so it could be a two-car garage instead of a one-car garage.

(To Paterczak), Rodgers said I think that’s where, both as a homeowner trying to do things and as people watching things, where it gets kind of hard because we use the word scope and size to relative buildings, but there’s no like hardcore numbers that are attached to that. Like, there’s no like, you can’t go above seven feet or beyond three feet tall. Why? You can’t have, you know, there’s no like, so I think, I think that’s where the objectiveness comes in. And I’ve been on both sides of that, you know? Right or wrong, I think that’s where you get all the questions because there is no like, there’s no teeth to say like, it’s within the scope because it’s five feet from the house and two feet up high and six inches or, you know, there’s just no hardcore numbers. It’s all just what the committee itself feels like. It’s, and you guys are educated, I’m assuming enough to know what that is, but to anybody looking in, it just seems to be very objective. Like, is that wall that I have in my yard, is that too, you know, that should be an inch lower. So, you know, you got, why? Like, well, it’s the scale and the scope. Well, what is that scale and scope so that when I hire somebody to do something for me, I can say, this is a scale and a scope. And maybe there’s no state regulation to do that. So that is just an explanation as to why I think people in the community get a little bit uneasy when they feel like it’s super objective – Paterczak said right – (continuing), Rodgers said because there’s no hardcore numbers.

Paterczak said and I don’t think it’s the HDC’s purpose to keep people from improving their properties. Rodgers said no, absolutely not. Paterczak said because everyone wants to make improvements or make additions. I mean, you can drive around and look at any of these houses that you would be hard pressed to find one that hasn’t had an addition done to it. At least one. You know, and people still wanna do more. And I can tell you, I went through it. On mine, the first plans that I submitted, I have this little tiny house and I wanted to put an addition on the backside of it and an upstairs addition too. And I brought my plans and they looked at it and they said, oh, that’s way too much for this little property. It’s overpowering. And I was denied. So I went back and I made revisions and actually I’m very pleased with how it turned out. And I think if they would’ve let me do what I originally wanted to do, it would’ve looked really, it wouldn’t, would’ve turned out as well as it did. So having that review and again, you know, there’s a lot of standards that are published. There’s a lot of guidelines that are published by SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office], by the historic preservation groups. And, you know, we’ve got manuals and things, guidelines to refer to, to look at and, you know, see what’s been done in the past. I think we try to do our best to make sure that things fit in a scale where they should. Sometimes it’s difficult to see what it looks like before it’s built. In the case of the garage on Madison, it looks a lot different in scale than the garages next to it, but it is in fact the same height, strangely. But there is a lot of subjectivity to it, but we do try to be fair and, you know, help people make the right decisions for their properties. You know, we don’t want to say, no, you can’t do that at all. And we want to say, OK, let’s do this in a way that’s going to be best for the space, I guess, and use. And the scale of this house is, you know, quite grand and doesn’t seem, you know, when you look at the survey and the property itself, the property is large. The way that they situated the garage, I think was quite thoughtful behind the trees that are there. So, you don’t have a lot of street view to that structure itself even.

Paterczak said we were actually, I have to tell you, we were more concerned with the north side of that building being such a long expanse without any features or anything that the neighbors to the north would have to look at this big, giant wall. So, there was some discussion about how to minimize that without, you know, we can’t give direction and say, oh, you shouldn’t put a window here. You should do this landscaping. We’re not making those decisions for the applicants but just making them consider different aspects of what they’re looking for, what they’re asking for, so. Wylie said great.

Wylie said questions from anybody else or comments from anybody? Let’s see, council.

Wylie recognized Forte for a comment.

Forte said so, can, at the next HDC report, next quarter, can we have the building department give us a report like similar to the HDC? Smith said so, I do have a report that they give us monthly already. Forte said OK. Smith said I can share that with council if you want to see it. Forte said yeah. Smith said it is all the open building permits throughout the city. Forte said yeah, just add it. Smith said whether it’s a kitchen sink replacement or a garage or a major addition, they, they have it all listed. I can have somebody from the building department come to the meeting too, but that report lists the outcome or the current status of their re-building permit. Now, when Paterczak issues the COA, it could be another year before it’s actually done or two years. Paterczak said well, the ordinance is that it’s supposed to be completed within the year of the issue of the COA. So, if there’s an extension that’s needed, then we get that, but yeah, that is true.

Wylie said I think, to me, the written report would be sufficient. Forte said yeah. Avery said yeah, if we have an issue – Wylie said then we can always – Paterczak said well, I would like to have somebody to answer questions. I mean, Quisenberry brought up a lot of questions at the last meeting – Forte said yeah – (continuing), Paterczak said that were not something that the HDC would have answers to.

Quisenberry said and I certainly understand where your limitations are as far as the historic value of a property and not so much some of the other things that would fall under planning and zoning and building and that. And that’s some of the ones that I mentioned in that letter work. But to me, what was expressed to me about the 71 North was somebody had a difference of opinion when you look at things like scope and size from what yours on the HDCs was and what theirs was. They thought it differed. And you looked at deteriorating historic features where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, and that did.

Quisenberry said coincidentally, when I was doing my house – Paterczak said wait, wait, wait, back up. I want to be clear on understanding your comment. Quisenberry said OK. Where the severity and deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture – Paterczak said OK, so, let me stop you there. So, you’re saying, you’re talking about the original, that little garage – Quisenberry said yeah. They were replacing that garage because it was deteriorating to the point that it couldn’t be fixed. Paterczak said right. So there’s a distinction that we do make when we’re looking at these structures. Was it original to the property? Was it added in 1980? Was it added in 1950 or sometime later? The house itself is from the 1850s or 1830s, something like that. That garage, that little structure was added sometime much later. There were no architectural or historical features to that thing. It was very put together, very hodgepodge. So, it didn’t have any historic value on the property where, you know, the house and the features of that house, and maybe if that was a carriage house at one time that belonged to that house, it would be considered much differently than this small structure that was – Quisenberry said and I certainly understand the distinction you made, but that distinction isn’t in the verbiage here in this standards. It doesn’t say whether the building that is deteriorating to the point that it needs to be replaced, whether it’s historic in nature or what. Paterczak said well, the chairman at the time, who was a builder and has a building license, looked at it and he said it was very unsafe and not a safe structure to – Quisenberry said in 2021, the builder that was doing my house was called over to that place to look at it, see if they could structurally save it. He walked through it and says, no, this was not good at that time. So, it’s clear that it was deteriorated to the point past where it could be rehabilitated, but then it talks about if it is going to be, then it has to match these different standards. The new one.

Paterczak said if it’s a historical material where it has some significance to it, then that’s where the standard is, is requesting the applicants or the property owners to please restore that historic feature or that historic, I know there was, just for another example, there was a pillar, I think, that was crashed into off of Clarkston Road. I can’t remember whose property that was, but a car had hit it, and it was an old stone pillar that was the entrance to one of the properties there. And, you know, I – Wylie said on Wompole, right? Paterczak said yeah, I think so. Yeah, right when I was like one of the first things that was brought up when I joined the commission. And they were very meticulous about how they were putting that back together because it had been there for a very long time. It was a distinctive feature on that, on that street for that property. And so, it was considered in a very different way because it had some historical significance for that property. Wylie said that makes sense. Paterczak said so, it’s a comparison, I guess. It’s not a structure, but it still is a feature.

Forte said can we go through all of the properties that you’ve done for the last ten years? Or can we wrap this up? No, we can stop now. Wylie said thank you.

Wylie said anybody else have questions for Paterczak? Comments?

No comments.

Wylie said anybody in the public?

Wylie recognized Catallo for a comment.

Catallo said I just had a comment just about the discussion. It was, it was a two-car garage, so it wasn’t necessarily a shed that, that came down. But it was, as my experience on the HDC a long time ago, it wasn’t unusual that we would have people wanting larger garages because the old garages couldn’t really fit the modern-day cars very well. So, I, you know, somebody who cares about preservation, I love that that historic structure that is so meaningful to our community wasn’t touched in this process. It was about a secondary outbuilding. So, to me, and I did know the old building and that it wasn’t something that was necessarily salvageable or should have been salvaged. And I would suggest and encourage the building department to come here quicker rather than waiting for the next HDC because I think it is imperative for us to discuss the ADU situation and what is allowed because I agree with Forte. Historically, there were bathrooms put in our secondary buildings for a reason because people then could change them into an ADU, which I’m not saying is bad or good, but if we’re gonna start allowing them, which apparently they are in some situations, then we should be clear about it instead of less clear. Like it just should be a transparent thing, I think. And again, I don’t care either way. I just, I just know historically from my experience of being here way too many years that oftentimes people weren’t allowed to put a bathroom in a garage unless they had some special circumstance that would allow it. And I think that’s the case also in the township, at least Springfield Township, but I believe in Independence Township too.

(To Paterczak), Wylie said thank you, thanks for taking the time to come today and being real thorough with your explanations. Forte said we’re a team partner from all of us.

Quisenberry said before we leave it though, there was one other point I brought up and this doesn’t involve the HDC, but one of the other points that were brought up to me was the bed and breakfast on North Main that appears to be operating as a Vrbo. There’s evidence by some posts that were put out, I don’t know if it was on Bookface – Rodgers said Facebook – (continuing) Quisenberry said or some of those other rating systems, they were given, paying high compliments after using – Avery said oh, it’s absolutely an Airbnb. I don’t think there’s any, and it’s been operating that way for a few years. Casey said oh, yeah. Avery said so we need to stop that, right? I mean, I don’t know the history 100%, but there was a lawsuit that allowed them to put that in there to begin with, subject to certain parameters, that they had an operating kitchen, I think, and served food to the guests, I think was the – Wylie said they have to serve breakfast. Quisenberry said and I think the owner has to be on site. Avery said I believe so, and they’re not. And it’s been for sale for about two years now. Smith said about a year and a half. Quisenberry said just as recently as a couple weeks ago, it was being used as a Vrbo. Avery said oh, it is, it has been, but the people who are operating it that way have it up for sale for whatever that’s worth. It’s gone down in price, a relative bargain if anyone wants to jump in on that. They want to live there.

Wylie said I don’t even think they’re not even local, are they? No, they’re not in Michigan. Forte said the owners? Wylie said I don’t believe so. Maybe, at least I don’t think they’re in the Detroit area. (Smith made an unintelligible comment.) Avery said yeah, so I don’t know what the plan is, but obviously the building department probably should get in on that. I don’t know if it’s another thing on your plate, but rules are rules. Smith said no, it’s just that it’s very challenging to catch them in the act, right? Is the manager on-site, and are they providing breakfast, those are the two questions. Avery said questions. Tell you, my daughter stayed there a couple years ago. There was nobody on-site. They had a box they had to punch their way into, and there was no food served to them. I think they had access to a kitchen, that may have had a fridge with some food in it. Rodgers said it’s like a continental breakfast in the morning. Avery said yeah, but there was nobody there. Rodgers said there’s nobody making the breakfast. Avery said for what it’s worth, it’s beautiful. So, they did a really nice job, by the way.

Wylie said all right, thank you.

Item #10c – Resolution: Establishment of a New Public Safety Millage (video time mark 0:52:18)

• • Resolution Proposing A New Millage to Continue Providing Police, Fire, and Emergency Response Services (page 35/37 of the council packet)
  • Appendix A, Proposed Ballot Language (page 37/37 of the council packet)

Wylie said we are on Item #10c, Resolution: Establishment of a New Public Safety Millage.

We are on 10C, resolution: establishment of a new public safety millage.

(Wylie read the resolution.)

Avery said there’s a typo in that. Wylie said where is it? Avery said emergency, it says “reponse.” It should say “response services.” At least in mine. Wylie said mine says response. Yeah. Oh, it says, you’re right, it does say “reponse.” My brain just made, yeah, OK. I see it. Avery said corrected it.

Wylie said OK, so we do have this resolution and with resolutions, we need somebody to resolve and somebody to support it.

Resolution by Avery; second Casey.

Wylie said and open up for discussion first from council members.

Forte said I’ll start, unless you’re going to. So, the amount isn’t in this for like, or it is, I guess. I guess my question is, this will cover us as they increase our bills every year? Or how will that work with like – Wylie said you’re talking about Independence Township? Forte said yeah. Wylie said we are through their contract. Smith said maybe Gerry [Fisher, city attorney] would best answer that. It’s the difference between the authorization and the levy. That’s a key difference.

Forte said what does that mean? Fisher said so, what we’re talking about is the authorization that the people are approving is for seven mills. Are you with me? Forte said yeah, we’re pulling that out of the general fund. Fisher said right. Forte said specifically for police and fire. Fisher said that’s right. Forte said so, it can’t be used for anything else. Fisher said it can’t be used for anything else.

Fisher said and in the first year or second year, there’s no obligation to levy the whole thing. Forte said what does that mean? Fisher said in other words, there’s no obligation to put the whole thing on the tax roll that people have to pay. Forte said I don’t know what that means.

Rodgers said so, you can do five mills? Fisher said you can do five mills. Avery said right. Forte said you can go down, but you don’t have to go all the way up to seven. Avery said well, we can do, right. Right now, they’re saying we would be collecting $457,000. But let’s say the total of the police and fire contracts is $400,000. Forte said what is that? Avery said the charge, or approved, the ultimate amount to raise that because we could do it for less. We’re just authorizing us the ability. Fisher said so, we don’t need to make the taxpayers pay money that we’re not gonna use for police and fire in a particular year.

Forte said so, I guess my question then is, how much is it versus how much are we gonna be billing? Fisher said well, we don’t know how much it is because township has to set that amount in the next year. Avery said well, we have one more year left in our contract, right? Year and a half. Quisenberry said with an increase built into that year. Avery said yes. Avery said so, we know what the next year, two years, budget-wise. Quisenberry said it is gonna cost us more next year. Forte said but I guess, what is that number? What is the increase? And then how does that compare to the $400? Quisenberry said I don’t remember. It might be another increase of 12%. (To Greg Coté, treasurer), Quisenberry said do you know?

Coté said yeah, we’ve got, Rana [Emmons, city-retained auditor from PSLZ], you wanna walk them through the projections? Wylie said oh, thank you. Emmons said yeah, thank you. Wylie said I think Rana Emmons is here. She’s our auditor.

(Emmons approached the council table and passed around a document that was not shared with the audience.) Fisher said pass it around? Is there enough for me? Emmons said OK. Fisher said OK. It’s the same thing? Emmons said yah, it’s the same thing.

Emmons said so, your contract, if I may, your contract is based on the millages that the township is levying on their own residents. So currently, they’re levying a little over seven mills. So then, we, the City of Clarkston is billed based on what they’re levying on their own residents. So, if they’re the 7. – Coté said 0379. Emmons said thank you. That’s what they’re levying is 7.0379.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: This does not account for the voters’ rejection of a renewal and increased millage for police services less than a week before this meeting took place. The apparent assumption of the calculations presented is that the township voters will approve in November the same millage they rejected in August.]

Emmons said so, we are being charged the 7.0379 times our taxable value. That’s how your contract is written.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: Emmons is wrong about the police contract. There are two separate contracts between the city and township for these services—one for police and one for fire. Emmons is relying on an old version of the police services contract. The city and township negotiated a new contract in the wake of the significant increase of the charges from Oakland County. The previous police contract was as Emmons described: the city paid the township the equivalent of what the township’s police millage would yield if it were applied to the taxable value in the city (although the city paid this out of its general fund because it did not have a separate police millage at the time, like the township has). The new contract was negotiated because the township’s police millage (and the equivalent payment from the city) was no longer enough to cover the full cost of the township’s contract with the county after the county significantly increased its charges. The city approved the new police contract with the township on July 23, 2025. Apparently none of the four council members who voted for the new contract, which significantly changed the method of computing the city’s cost for police services, remembered the terms of that contract. Instead of basing the city’s payment on the township’s police millage, the new contract provides that the city will pay the township 2.7% of the township’s obligation to the county, plus a monthly administrative fee of $300 (amounting to annual administrative fees of $3600). The percentage was apparently negotiated based on the proportion of the services the Independence sheriff’s substation provides in the city as compared to the township. The contract says it is “based on the Township’s cost allocation methodology proportional to call volume and population share on an annual basis.”  The purpose was to insure that the township would be fairly reimbursed for increases in charges from the county even when the township’s police millage was insufficient to cover the full cost of police services. So what Emmons presented to the council did not contain accurate numbers.]

Forte said so our residents are getting charged the same as the Independence residents? Emmons said yes, based on their own taxable value of their property.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: Emmons’s statement is not true. The current charge to the city for police services is not related to the taxable value of city property. It is a percentage of whatever the county charges the township, plus a $300 monthly administrative fee.]

Emmons said so, on this chart here, I tried to do kind of a quick analysis of, on the top is our projected, what our police and fire contracts will cost for the next five years. So total projected contract costs, the first in 2027, it’s approximately $455,287 there. So, if you, that’s the costs going across. The, assuming that their millages stayed the same.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: This assumption was wrong and Emmons should have known that township voters rejected a police millage renewal and increase at the August 4 election. The township’s police millage expired in 2025 and was not renewed. The township plans to ask the voters again in November to approve the millage they rejected in August.]

Forte said the total projected contract costs? Emmons said yes, so that’s the expense. That’s our projected expense for the City of Clarkston.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: These figures are wrong because they are based on the township’s police millage, which is not a factor in calculating the city’s police services payment to the township.]

Quisenberry said do you know what the number is for 2026? Coté said yeah, $406,979 is the projection. Emmons said and then a couple – (interrupting Emmons), Quisenberry said so the increase from, I’m sorry. Emmons said I’m sorry, and then the total projected millage revenue is based on your projecting out your taxable value times this, using a 7.0 millage rate to start, and then I rolled it back because you’re going to get Headlee rollback every year. I did approximately 0.97 rollback every year. (Interrupting Emmons), Avery said so we have to, just, you know, I don’t want to interrupt you, but on the Headlee, we have to take the Headlee rollback even on police and fire millages? Emmons said yes, yes.

Quisenberry said so, the increase from this year to next year is going to be roughly $50,000. From $406[,000] this year to $455[,000]. Emmons said right, and that’s what prompted the whole conversation. It was a significant jump. And it’s just the general fund just can’t take these hits like this, you know, and going forward, it’s not going to get better, obviously. So basically, bottom line is on the bottom, you see revenue over under the millage levy. So, in the first year, 2027, we’re projecting you would be positive $12,000 for what you, if you levy the whole 7 mills, minus what your projected contract costs, we’ll have $12,000 extra. Now, please know that that, this millage, if approved, goes in its own separate fund. It can’t be commingled with anything else. And even cumulatively, it has to stay in its own fund. Just like major streets, local streets, mill pond are all, they’re all separate funds. They don’t get mixed up. So even if you have an accumulation over, it rolls forward to the next year. However, then the next four years after that, you see it’s negative. So, the $12, initial $12,000 will help in the first year, part of year 3, but then the general fund’s gonna basically have to kick in in year 3, 4, and 5. Wylie said OK. This chart helps.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: Emmons’s figures are based on an inaccurate estimate of the city’s expenses under the police contract with the township. She assumes the city’s expense is based on applying the township’s police millage to the city’s taxable value. But the township’s police millage has expired and, as of now, has not been replaced and, in any event, the city’s payment is not based on the township’s millage. A correct analysis of the police expense would have computed the township’s cost of police services under the township’s contract with the county and then determined the city’s cost at 2.7% of the township’s cost plus the $3600 administrative fee. Although the city council’s decision was based on Emmons’s erroneous calculations, it apparently too late to remove the question from the November ballot. We hope the city does not have to pay for Emmons’s erroneous calculations and advice.]

Forte said wait, so I’m confused. So, like, so with the – (interrupting Forte), Emmons said 7.0 is not really enough, but – Forte said OK.

Avery said yeah, I guess that’s, at least to my question – Forte said that’s what I was – (continuing), Avery said why did we pick 7.0 when it’s really just not addressing the problem? Because we’re just gonna keep dipping into the general fund to make up the difference, right? Emmons said right, but respectfully, that’s, you know, I mean, this is the first time you’re levying a public safety millage. You know, it’s, you know the will of the people better than anyone. So, if you wanted to make that more, I think – (interrupting Emmons), Avery said I know. Nobody’s gonna be happy to pay more taxes. I’m not happy about it. I mean, if we vote for this to be on the ballot and it gets approved, we’re all paying more taxes. Nobody likes it, but it’s better than going broke or not, or having some second-rate fire service or police service.

Emmons recognized Forte for a comment. Forte said I just lost it. It’ll come back to me. Emmons said OK. Forte said I was thinking of what you were saying and then lost it. Wylie said you were gonna say something maybe about how the, you don’t have a 7.0 to cover things. Forte said yeah, with your assumptions for these numbers, does this include like taxable value going up? Emmons said yes. Forte said because isn’t that why the Headlee is in place? Or am I misconceiving or misconception? Emmons said well, Headlee, well, yes. So, assessed values, taxable values. So, this is only based on taxable values because that’s what the millage will be assessed on. Forte said and tax values only go up when houses sell. Is that a thing? What is, how does that work again? Emmons said the lower of the rate of inflation or 5%, it’s capped at 5, can’t go over more than 5% a year. Coté said can’t go over 5% or the rate of inflation. Forte said but unless the house sells. Emmons said yeah. Avery said but then they’re uncapped, yeah. Fisher said then it’s uncapped. And in addition to that, any improvements done to the property that increases the value can be calculated. Forte said OK.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: This discussion is irrelevant as it applies to charges for police services because the city’s cost for police services is unrelated to taxable value.]

Coté said what’s happening here is our expenses are rising faster than our revenue. So, I looked at a couple of expenditures, and taxes increased. That’s the revenue side. That’s the property taxes. Taxes increased a total of about 25% over the last four years. And these are right from the audited statements. Police and fire increased a total of 38%. So right there, we’ve got a deficit. Then I took a look at DTE. DTE has gone up about 27% over the last five years. And once again, our revenue’s only gone up 25%. So we’ve got a 2% shortfall right there. So, it’s in multiple areas. So, we just need another source of income. I agree, nobody likes the taxes.

Quisenberry said and the 7% was an arbitrary number that we picked that because it’s somewhat close.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: [Quisenberry confuses the millage rate with a percentage increase. The proposed new millage is 7 mills, not 7%. The actual percentage increase in authorized millage would be 62%.]

Quisenberry said it’s not going to be too burdened. It’s going to be a little less burdensome, obviously, than if it’s more. But it gives us some leeway a year or two down the road. If we need to, we can do something with the operating.

[Clarkston Sunshine note: Quisenberry is forseeing another tax increase in the future, which can be done by a vote of the city council without any further voter approval.]

Fisher said I can say that the 7% came in a meeting with the experts. It didn’t come from this council.

Forte said so, I barely understand what’s going on. OK, so I have a few more questions. So, aren’t we only allowed to go to a certain millage number? Like, isn’t that a thing, like – Smith said 11.4107. Forte said like, OK, so how does that work with this? Smith said it would be well below that because we’re creating a separate public safety millage. A 7 or whatever it becomes. And then our operational millage would be, in this example, 5.4107. So, it would be well below the 11.4107 that we’re currently authorized for.

Avery said so, as I understand it, we have 11.4 that we can levy for the operational expenses of the city. Since we’re essentially creating a new tax that falls outside of the operational, that’s different. That doesn’t count against the 11.4. Forte said got it. Avery said I mean, yeah, in theory we could do 11.4, 7, and be 18. Yes, but that’s not, I don’t think anybody is thinking that’s where that’s gonna go.

(To Avery), Rodgers said so, with that thinking. So, on this page here, this chart was like, was totally understanding what was going on. And it said that there would be a net taxable increase of a dollar per 1,000 taxable value, $160 on a $160,000 residence, right? Casey said one mill. One mill. Wylie said but we’re almost 7. Forte said but are we only increasing by one? Rodgers said well, that’s my question. Avery said well, the total millage is going up by 1. (Unintelligible council crosstalk.) Rodgers said OK, so, why does the ballot make it sound like they’re gonna be paying 7 dollars more? Forte said because that’s what we’re breaking out. We’re dividing it up.

Fisher said because the ballot is only dealing with a new millage that is being proposed. Well, where the other adjustment has to be made is by council during the budget proceeding. And we can’t set a number because you have to have a public hearing for the budget and you can’t make a decision before the public hearing. Rodgers said so, this is just like a, if things go a certain way, we could be a dollar more net. But it could be three dollars more net depending on what the public. Fisher said I think it’s what we expect.

Forte said wait, so half of this goes, like we’re gonna put this, say we vote yes. We put this on the ballot. That’s one part of this equation. The second part of the equation is then? Fisher said this is the only thing that goes on the ballot. Forte said OK. Quisenberry said the second part will come during the budget. Forte said which is January. Wylie said no, June. Forte said June. Oh, next year? Wylie said next year, yeah. June.

Rodgers said but really the only way it would go up, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the only way it would go up 7 dollars more is if we kept the operating budget the same way and just did a new millage for 7 mills. That’s correct. Is that correct? Emmons said yes, that’s correct. Smith said yes, that is correct. Rodgers said OK. So, the way this sounds, this ballot sounds like that’s what, that’s what we’re doing. So how do you communicate that that isn’t the intent? Or does anybody really care what the intent is? This is the worst-case scenario is that you’re, we would keep, after the public hearing, we would keep the 11.4 in our operating and we would increase 7. Is that like worst case scenario? Fisher said that’s, yeah, 18 mills or whatever it is, yeah. Rodgers said but nobody knows that from this [referring to the ballot language]. Wylie said correct. Fisher said exactly right. And that’s, that’s something that these facts have to be explained to people. Rodgers said wow, that’s a task. Fisher said exactly. That’s a task. Rodgers said that’s a lot of faith, too.

Forte said yeah, and if we don’t have, like – (interrupting Forte), Fisher said especially since millages have failed recently. Forte said yeah, they keep failing. My thing is – (Casey attempted to interrupt Forte) – Forte said go ahead, go ahead. Casey said I read that five municipalities in this area rejected police and fire millages, and one of them was Independence. Fisher said yes. Forte said yes. Casey said how does that affect us? Quisenberry said does it. Fisher said well, my assumption is that their millage has not expired and they can go out in November again. Forte said so they’ll ask for the same thing again? Fisher said well, they – (interrupting Fisher), Wylie said they’re having a special meeting tonight. Forte said aren’t you not? (Unintelligible crosstalk on council.) Continuing, Forte said aren’t you not allowed to do that? Like, if the public votes it down, you’re not allowed to do that? Wylie said no, you can. Avery said you can. Fisher said school millages can’t be brought within two years. Forte said oh.

Quisenberry said but the Independence police millages have failed were for extra things. Forte said it’s like a school – Quisenberry said it was a school, adding a school liaison, and adding something else. So it was, they were asking for some extra, above and beyond what they currently have. Fisher said they were going for a renewal plus, like, .03 or something.

Wylie said but I think, was it Lake Orion? I mean, somebody’s, I think they’re desperate, I think. Quisenberry said Lake Orion’s and Brandon’s total police and fire millage was voted down. So within, I think next January, at least in Brandon, in their, I think they’re going to be putting it on their ballot again in November. But come next January, they won’t have funds to pay the sheriffs, to have police protection. Wylie said I think Lake Orion might be in the same position. Quisenberry said Lake Orion is. Fisher said and they might do a special assessment. Quisenberry said they very well, I’m sure that if it doesn’t get voted, they will. Fisher said yeah. Quisenberry said because they won’t go without. Fisher said right.

Forte said I guess, like, so that brings up the conversation that we ought to have if these things keep getting voted down locally, is what do we do if we get into that situation? And like, I mean, if I didn’t know anything about this, and like I wasn’t at these meetings, I probably would vote this down because obviously it’s a tax increase. I mean, what do we do, you know?

Smith said there very clearly has to be an education process that goes along hand in hand with the election. As you approach the November election, we have to have people that are skilled in this assist us in getting the word out on what this really means. Fisher said but just for clarification, we cannot promote a passage – Smith said correct – (continuing), Fisher said of the election of the millage. Smith said just put the facts out. Fisher said we have to get facts out. Smith said just the facts, yes, correct.

Forte said and at what cost? Like, you know what I mean? Like, if we put all this money into promotion and then it doesn’t pass. Wylie said we’re gonna have to have council discussion first. Forte said a sunk cost that wasn’t worth it. You know what I mean? That the city just incurred, you know? That we don’t have a ton of extra money in the budget for period.

Wylie said well, this is assuming that our value, our property values continue to go up, right? Yeah, Coté’s nodding, yeah. Coté said yeah, that’s the whole point.

Wylie said I didn’t realize, I guess it never occurred to me that we had these millage rollbacks. I didn’t realize how much it would be going down. Fisher said yeah, and in addition to that, the assessment of, the assessed value is generally half of – Wylie said taxable value – Fisher said the true cash value. Wylie said oh, yeah, OK. Fisher said and the taxable value can only go up, as has been discussed, 3% or 5% or the cost of living, whichever is less – Avery said right – Fisher said which means that if you have a big downturn and you’re trying to get back, you can only get back a little bite at a time. Wylie said right. Fisher said so this is, this is, and which happened – (interrupting Fisher), Wylie said there’ll be lots of problems everywhere if that’s what happens. Fisher said exactly.

Quisenberry said no, it’s what happened in ’08. Fisher said ’08, OK. Quisenberry said everything fell really fast, and it took almost 10 years to build that back up. Fisher said yeah.

Forte said can we look at like, tangential, like plans amongst us? Could we reword this to just say 1 mill instead of 7, so like? Wylie said well, we think it has to be, that’s what we’re, it has to be what we’re doing. This is legally what we’re doing, we can’t, if it says one mill, that’s all we can, that’s the maximum we can collect. Forte said yeah, that’s my point, though. Instead of waiting till the whole budget approval thing, like – Avery said well, in this particular proposal, there’s no 1 mill discussed. This is 7 mills or nothing, right? In our – Fisher said resolution – (continuing), Avery said resolution, it was proposed that we would cap, we would deduct out the 7, but we deduct out 6 and not the full 7. So, it would be an increase of 1 mill, but that’s not on the ballot. And there’s nothing, I mean, to be honest, there’s nothing to say that we get to next May and June and, oh, one isn’t gonna be enough, we need 2. Right? Wylie said right. Fisher said and that’ll be disclosed at the public hearing, probably. Avery said absolutely.

Rodgers said and so this is, but the worst would be 7 mills, which of course would be the worst. Avery said well, no, the worst would be, yeah, 18 mills. Yeah, that would be the worst. Seven plus one. Rodgers said and I’m saying an additional to what we’re already doing. Fisher said right. Rodgers said I got you. I hear what you’re saying.

Avery said it would be, if this passes, what we’re saying is that for sure 7, most likely an extra mill on the general operating, because we need it to make up for this increase of the expenses that have been occurring over the last 2 to 3 years. We haven’t really addressed it. I mean, we’ve addressed it, but we haven’t addressed the revenue side. The expense side is what it is, and it keeps rising. So, at some point we’re gonna have to make hard decisions if it doesn’t get passed.

Quisenberry said start with the premise right now, that last year we did deficit spending, because we’re not the fed, we can’t make our money, all right? But we did, we had last year, we dipped into our reserves. It’s projected next year, we’re gonna have to dip into them even more so, and then more so the year after that, unless we do something to fund police and fire. Take that out and fund that separately, adjust the operating mills accordingly to try to be as fair as we can with the residents, and still fund the city, not just police and fire, but the city.

Forte said and did we ever look into what it would look like if we worked with Lake Orion or worked with another municipality? I know Independence Township is our best and closest option, but cost-wise, is there? Wylie said yeah, it’s been looked at, and plus, most of them are using Oakland County Sheriff, and that’s where it all kind of goes back to. The county increased, county sheriffs increased what they were charging all their different departments, Independence Township, Lake Orion, Brandon also. Quisenberry said Brandon, Rochester, Commerce, all of them. Wylie said yeah, Walden, not Walden. Avery said yeah, the only way we’d be able to do something different would be to create a regional police unit, and nobody’s suggested that at this point, and that would be probably five years down the road by the time you started it now, and started trying to get any kind of buy-in from various communities. But the upside would be that it would put some pressure on the sheriffs to be a little more cost-effective because he doesn’t want to lose the business either. Wylie said the finance committee really did look at lots of, I’m sorry, sometimes I forget that there was the finance committee talking about this stuff – Forte said yeah – (continuing, to Forte), Wylie said and you were a part of that – Forte said yeah – but yeah, we did really look at it. Smith especially, I know, no, I’m sorry, I just.

Quisenberry said there were comparisons if you look at other, small communities like ours that have their own police department, like Holly. Holly’s police budget is 1.2 million. Ours is – Avery said our total budget is – Quisenberry said yeah, so it’s very expensive, especially if you’re going to have to start it up. Start it up, add another 40% onto that. Forte said yeah. Fisher said and there’s a question of quality. Forte said yeah.

Avery said right, I mean, there’s no doubt that the Headlee Amendment has chopped away at the 15 that was originally approved by charter down to 11. And, I mean, I don’t see any other option. And if the citizens vote no, then we’ll react.

Wylie said anybody, and I’m sorry, I’m keeping it right now to council, and then once council has had discussion, I’ll open up to the public. Anybody else on council have questions or comments?

No comments.

Wylie said I’ll open it up to the public. Anybody, Robert [no last name provided], I know you’ve had – Robert said I was going to ask, if it’s going up 10% a year, so then, like, for 3 or 4 from now, like, so can we expect a 5 mill, you know, increase? I mean, that’s what I’m trying to understand right now, because right now you’re subtracting the 6, adding this. You’re plus 1, so you’re treading water the first year. Second year, if it’s a 10% increase every year that we’re projecting, by year 4 or year 5, you know, are you going to be raising that levy, I guess that was called, up to 4 or 5? How does that work? Is there, like, a timeframe for this? Wylie said I think that’s what the whole country’s dealing with. Robert said it’s a 5 year, okay. Avery said yeah, and then at the end of the 5 years, we would come back to either renew or ask for more. Wylie said yeah. Avery said I doubt that we’d be asking for a reduction. That just does not happen.

Wylie said but yeah, we’re all dealing, every country, every community, I mean, not every, the whole country, we’re all dealing with inflation, and it’s been going up, what, the last 5 years, I think I just heard today. So, I mean, it’s a problem. Robert, did that help, did that answer your question? Robert said yeah, no, that clarifies itself.

Avery said yeah, it trickles down, right? I mean, we used to get more state revenue back 5, 10, 15 years ago, and it has shrunk to just a trickle now, so that’s less money that we have coming in. So, it makes it hard. They’re just putting the burden on us, you know?

Wylie recognized Pardee for a comment.

Pardee said so it seems, and this is based on what Attorney Fisher said two weeks ago, it seems like there’s a whole lot of upside as far as council is concerned.  If, in fact, the proposal is approved in November, then we’ve really got up to 18, so we could really, with the council’s approval, they can decide that we just don’t need to do 1, that we could do 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, be it up to 18, isn’t it the new number become? Wylie said you’re talking about mills, right? Pardee said 18.5, yeah, 18.5 mills. Fisher said so, if the public approves the 7, if the public approves the 7, and we already have 11.4, so then it becomes the total authorization, not the amount that we’ve decided to levy, but the total authorization is 18.4. Pardee said right, and council could decide to do up to 11.4, because, up to 18.4, because that’s been previously approved and consistent with the charter. Wylie said but why would we do that? Avery said yes, but – Avery said we’d be raising our own taxes.

(To Pardee), Rodgers said we live in the same city as you do, where would that be an upside for our council? It might be an upside to have the ability to get funds to pay for police and fire, but – Pardee said there’s latitude that council has. Rodgers said you are right about that, yes. Pardee said without having to go back to citizens. Rodgers said you’d still got a public hearing.

Wylie said that’s only one year. That would be only one year. If we do the millage, approve the budget, each year we’d have to approve the budget. Quisenberry said each year we’d have to. Pardee said each year. Wylie said if we do that, I hope you’ll vote us all out. Avery said yeah, I would think.

Pardee said all I’m saying is that, and you may in fact, or I may in fact, view that as a horrible downside, because by the charter, it’s been previously approved, and we’re gonna do 7 here, and we’re saying it’s only gonna be 1 when we approve the budget, but there can be another 5 or 6 on top of that at the discretion of council, without having to go back to the public. Am I misstating that, sir? Fisher said you’re talking about the limits of the law? Rodgers said yeah. Pardee said am I misrepresenting that? Fisher said well, I think that what you have to factor in is number one, the representation being made in the resolution, that the amount will be lowered. The 11.4 will be lowered. It’s stated that clearly in the resolution. It will be lowered. The question is, to what extent will it be lowered? And you cannot make that judgment now, because you can’t say what is gonna happen until you have a public hearing. It’s like saying the defendant should come forward, and we’re gonna hang the defendant, and then we’ll have a trial. Pardee said it feels like that, yeah.

(To Pardee), Casey said you don’t trust us? Wylie said yeah, that’s obvious, right? Pardee said I’m just trying to acknowledge – Wylie said he’s playing the devil’s advocate – (continuing), Pardee said what it is that the law permits. Avery said absolutely, and you’re right. Rodgers said you’re right. Wylie said you’re right. Quisenberry said but as distasteful as that is to you – (interrupting Quisenberry), Pardee said and this is where we’re gonna have to go back out to the voters and say, whoops. Quisenberry said as distasteful as that is to you, it’s equally distasteful to us. Pardee said I’m sorry? Quisenberry said as distasteful as that is for you to have to have that experience, that’s equally distasteful to us. Avery said yeah, because we’d be raising taxes on ourselves. So, this is something we would – Pardee said but you do that in November, anyhow. All I’m saying is – (interrupting Pardee, and to Pardee), Rodgers said so what’s a solution? Pardee said well, I’m not coming up with a solution. Rodgers said I didn’t think so. Pardee said we’re in a pickle, and we’ve been coming here a long way. I mean, don’t get me started over the last eight years. Don’t get me started today.

Wylie said anybody else in the public or on council? Comments, questions?

(A call in comment came in.) Yeah, can you guys hear me? I have one question. This is Steven from (unintelligible, no last name provided). Can you guys hear me? Wylie said yes, please go ahead.

Steven said yeah, if I heard right, that this would go out to 2031, but we haven’t finalized the contract with Independence yet. What’s to stop them from realizing, oh, they can go up to whatever amount it is in the next couple of years. We can raise it to the max of their taxable value, like, there’s no, if we don’t have a contract yet with them, there’s no, nothing to stop them from just charging us more because they know we can pay because the voters have approved it. Fisher said we actually have a contract for another two years. Steven said yeah, but this goes to 2031. Why don’t we just do a rate increase for two years, and then we have to revisit it when we figure out what the contract is? Wylie said well, because we have to pay for elections. That’s part of it. We’d have to pay for this. Even as it stands, we don’t have enough to cover us through 2031. Fisher said right. Avery said right, and as a practical matter, you don’t want to keep going in front of people asking them to approve taxes because it’s hard, it’s going to be hard enough this year. So, let’s make it so that we at least have a base covered. Even if we don’t pass the millage, what’s preventing Independence Township from coming back to us and saying, oh, we think that you need to pay more. That’s most likely to happen anyways, so. Steven said oh, yeah, I think you’re likely to blow through all of this well before 2031. Avery said yes. Steven said and I think Independence will just keep charging me more and more, but the costs are not going to go down anytime soon. Rate of inflation has gone skyrocketing, but I just think it should be limited to whatever the current contract is so they can’t just arbitrarily say, oh, yeah, we’re going to charge you more because we know you guys can pay it, and we need the money at Independence. Wylie said thank you. Avery said no, I get it.

Quisenberry said to be fair, it wasn’t Independence that raised it. It was, and it wasn’t Oakland County. It was the Board of Commissioners that hiked these prices up that we’re now being subjected to. Avery said right. Steven said yes, no, understand, yeah.

Wylie said anybody else have questions or comments?

No comments.

Wylie said OK, let’s do a roll call.

Fisher said can I just clarify that if this passes, the typos that we, will be corrected. Yeah, so we got “inclusive,” I got “inclusive” and “response.” It’s all of this, so only thing we’re talking about is this last page? Oh, the whole rest of it. Fisher said yeah, well, the word “of.” Avery said “of,” yeah. Wylie said OK, oh, yeah, that’s right, “of.” Fisher said yeah. Wylie said and the date will be corrected on the? Fisher said 10th, right. Wylie said 10th, OK.

Wylie said anything else?

No comments.

(To Smith), Wylie said I guess you’re doing the roll call.

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

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

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn Meeting (video time mark 1:32:57):

Wylie said and we are on Item #11, which is adjourn the meeting. I need a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Motion by Rodgers; second Avery.

Motion to adjourn passed by unanimous voice vote.

Wylie said the meeting is adjourned at 8:33. Thank you very much for everybody attending tonight.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording here 
  • 08-10-2026 – city council packet