July 12, 2021 City Council Meeting

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

The audio was unacceptably difficult to hear for most of the meeting. This is unfortunate because there were many important things discussed that Clarkston taxpayers may have wanted to learn more about. The notes below are the result of best efforts, considering the poor audio quality.

Agenda item #1, Call to Order

The meeting was not formally called to order.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:06):

Pledge said. Haven said that it sounds a lot better in person.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:39):

Haven welcomed everyone to the first in-person meeting in fifteen months.

Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, and Joe Luginski were present. Sue Wylie was absent.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:59):

Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Avery; second by Casey.

No discussion.

Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:01:28):

Robert (no last name provided):

• • He’s spoken to City Manager Jonathan Smith a couple of times. There is a substantial gap between the top of the pavement and the existing property after Miller Road was recapped. He raised the sidewalk and put some topsoil in there, but there are still 4”-5” grading issues. He knows that Smith is working on it, but he wanted to put it on the record just in case something was to happen because he didn’t want to be held responsible in case cars went off the road.
  • The second thing is the amount of speeding is a problem throughout the city, and he’s called the police a couple of times regarding people just blowing through the stop sign on Glenburnie going 50-60 miles per hour. He was curious if we could have more police out. He didn’t know how the legal aspect works, but if someone gets a ticket, he thought the city would get a percentage of the ticket. Maybe having more police out there would pay for itself. This is something that the council already knows about; he’s just bringing it up again.

Chet Pardee:

• • I encourage you to reconsider the capital expense priorities that are reflected in the current budget. Maintaining the city’s assets is the responsibility of city council. With very limited funds, city hall furniture, replacing the fencing in the storage area behind city hall for cosmetic reasons, and purchasing signposts for future use should not be the focus of the city’s current capital expense budget. It will be a challenge to obtain three quotes for the $8,000 of sidewalk repairs budgeted based on larger project choices for contractors.
  • The road surface of Clarkston Road at North Main continues to worsen. The standing water area has covered the westbound roadway recently. The city should accept that no storm water drainage solution considered comes without the risk of contaminating Upper Mill Pond, Lower Mill Pond, and Parke Lake and costing millions of dollars.
  • MDOT has no M-15 work in its 5-year plan, and even MDOT connecting with Main Street storm water lines brings the potentially contaminated water to Parke Lake. The current road surface has lasted for more than 12 years. Just resurface the roadway.
  • The city manager has experience with the Road Commission of Oakland County and using a relatively small contribution from the city to successfully bring RCOC repair efforts to City streets.

No other public comments.

Public comments were closed.

Agenda Item #6, FYI

Item 6a – 2021 Clarkston Garden Walk (Video time mark 0:05:11; page 3/63 of the council packet)

Haven said that our garden walk is an annual delight. It will be held this year on Wednesday the 21^st of July from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Haven noticed that the restaurants are contributing to this as well in terms of attractive meal prices and that sort of thing. Tickets are available for $15 at Bordines, The Gateway, and the library. Tickets are available for $18 on the 21^st at the library only.

Take advantage of the garden walk. It’s always beautiful. Invite others to Clarkston. This is a great time for people to be able to walk about our town at a pedestrian event as well.

Item 6b – Oakland County Local Business Connect (Video time mark 0:05:59; page 4/63 of the council packet)

The other item on the agenda is from Oakland County. They’re offering local businesses supportive resources with some seminars, and going down the list, it looks like the closest one is in Ortonville on the 21^st of July, the same day as the garden walk. Haven asked if Jonathan Smith was going to that one, and he said yes. These are for small businesses to support and link up, and they are trying to help our small businesses here in the County. The online packet also contains the agenda and the matters that will be discussed in them.

Haven erroneously stated that vaccination dates are available at the Groveland and Springfield Fire Departments. He then noted that this was an old agenda item (video time mark 0:06:43).

Agenda Item #7, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:07:17; page 6/63 of the council packet):

Haven said that the city manager’s report is in the packet as well and he asked if anyone had any comments or questions for Smith.

Clerk Jennifer Speagle asked if she could make a comment/reminder about the upcoming election in November. Petitions may be picked up from Speagle and they have to be turned in by Tuesday, July 20^th. She has all the files and has everything ready for anyone who wants to come up. There are three seats up, and they are Gary Casey, Ed Bonser, and Jason Kniesc.

Avery asked if we were pretty much finished with the signs, and Smith said yes – not with the posts, but the signs are done. Avery thought Smith did a great job. Smith said that the sign committee did an excellent job, not only on the design and installation of the signs, but also the idea of the sign auction. This was very successful and raised $5,100. That money will buy a lot of posts to finish up the sign project. Smith noted that Pardee made a comment about the possibility of using the money for roads, but we feel that because the income came from signs it should go back into signs. It will allow us not only to buy the posts to finish the parking signs and all the other various signs, but it will also allow us to have some spare posts. Again, thanks to the sign committee. Haven said absolutely, they did a great job.

Bonser asked about the things that were given to us by the state to support the restaurants, for example, the greenhouses. He wanted to know if those items are coming back to us or if we are also going to have an auction for those. Smith said that we’ve talked to the businesses, and if they can use the items that we procured on their behalf, we decided to leave those with them. They are benefiting from it. We’ve seen the greenhouses disappear from the scene, but they still own them, or they still have possession of them. Bringing them back to the city would be a logistical problem. Smith talked with a few of the business owners, and they all thought if the items could be left with them, that would be great because they can use them next winter. That’s ultimately what Smith decided. The items didn’t cost us anything, and they benefit the businesses.

Agenda Item #8, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:10:59):

• • 06-14-2021, Final Minutes (page 7/63 of the council packet)
  • 06-28-2021, Draft Minutes (page 9/63 of the council packet)
  • 07-12-2021, Treasurer’s Report (page 11/63 of the council packet)
  • 07-07-2021, Check Disbursement Report from 06-01-2021 – 06-30-2021 (page 12/63 of the council packet)
  • Thomas J. Ryan, P.C., June invoices (page 15/63 of the council packet)

Haven said that he would entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. This is the minutes, the Treasury report, draft minutes for 6-28, and final minutes for 6-14. Does anyone want to pull anything out of there or just move to accept them?

Motion to accept the consent agenda by Kniesc; second by Luginski.

Smith had a correction to the Treasurer’s report. About half-way down, it says Tom Ryan May invoice; that should say June. The numbers are correct, but it should say June, not May.

No further discussion.

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

Agenda Item #9, Old Business

Item 9a – Resolution: RPDD [Residential Planned Development District] Proposal (Video time mark 0:12:20)

• • Planning Commission Recommendation to Council – Align the RPDD Ordinance Language, Scope, and Standards with the Master Plan (page 19/63 of the council packet)
  • 02-03-2021 Memo from Richard and Ben Carlisle, Carlisle/Wortman, Subject: Residential Planned Development District (RPDD) Ordinance Review and Recommended Amendments (page 21/63 of the council packet)
  • Article VIII, RPDD, Residential Planned Development District, zoning ordinance (page 27/63 of the council packet)
  • Article VIII, RPDD, Residential Planned Development District, zoning ordinance, with proposed changes, marked up copy (page 41/63 of the council packet)

Haven noted that there is a substantial body of information that has been provided in the packet, with a summary statement from Rich Little [Planning Commission (PC) Chair] that was very succinct and well-done. Haven asked if Little would present.

Little:

The RPDD [Residential Planned Development District] zoning changes has a history. They’ve spent a lot of time on this, going back to the fall of 2018. There’s a future land use map, where we looked at the current zoning of the Village and looked at ways to help accomplish some of the goals. For example, aging in place. We were looking for ways to help people who wanted to move out of big houses but wanted somewhere to go in a smaller unit somewhere. In that regard, we were looking for ways to encourage different options, ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], some of those kinds of things. You’ll see a lot of that in our Master Plan, and a lot of it we’ve already accomplished in a lot of ways.

You approved the Master Plan in 2019, and we have always thought we should match our ordinance with our Master Plan. In this particular case, with an RPDD, the plan that we’ve had in our ordinance is a little bit cumbersome, a little bit out of date, and we wanted to match that up with our Master Plan. As you know, our ordinance is 304 pages. It needs work in a lot of areas. We’ll probably be back in a month or two to talk about some of the things we’re working on.

We’ve been to you two or three times on the RPDD. The most recent time we were here, you looked at the parameters that we had around density, setbacks, heights, and those sorts of things and said keep marching forward. We had a hearing on May 17^th and had a lot of comments and discussion about land use, just as we did in the fall of 2018. Little thought that was positive and they received a lot of comments from the public.

We’re here tonight because we kept going forward and we’ve now written the language. Ben Carlisle is also here from Carlisle/Wortman. He can take you through the language, the parameters, and answer all the questions you have. We’re hoping to get approval tonight to make those ordinance changes.

Ben Carlisle:

Carlisle thanked everyone. He had the chance to appear via Zoom or in person and he jumped at the chance to come in person.

Little did a good job of summarizing the past and where we are at today. Carlisle wanted to add a few more small points before he went into the details and answered council’s questions.

Carlisle wanted to start by saying that zoning is a very imperfect tool, and it can be rather inflexible. An RPDD uses similar language and similar terminology found in all zoning ordinances, so this isn’t anything unique to this community versus other communities in the area.

The RPDD tries to allow flexibility in the zoning process. What it does, on a case-by-case basis with the public, the PC, and ultimately the city council, is to allow flexibility from certain regulations based on providing for better development that wouldn’t be achievable under conventional zoning. It’s really a tool that is used by communities to allow for better development.

Recognizing that zoning is not perfect and that there should be some flexibility in the process, we reviewed your current language for an RPDD and found it to be very inflexible, so that you wouldn’t be able to achieve a lot of your management goals in your Master Plan. It would be very difficult to do.

In light of that, we proposed some changes to the PC, they looked at it in concept and sent it to this council for draft consideration. You said it looked fine, it went back to the PC for public hearing and public comment, and the PC voted unanimously to bring it back to you with the recommendation for approval.

There are really four significant changes that Carlisle wanted to highlight. The first is regarding density. The current RPDD permits a density that’s capped at what the underlying zoning is, regardless of what the future management plan says. You may have a property that has future land use for village commercial, a future land use for residential mixed use, higher density, but if it’s zoned single family, you don’t have that tool to allow for a density that is above what the single-family zoning allows. That doesn’t allow you to implement your own Master Plan that you spent a lot of time working on.

What we have done is we tied the underlying density allowed through the RPDD process to be consistent with what your future land use plan calls for. That allows for consistency between planning and zoning. It’s pretty standard language that we use in all of our ordinances. In addition, there may be cases, on a case-by-case basis, where you may want to allow for a little bit more density for development if it’s commensurate for the public benefit. For example, there could be a request for a few more units in exchange for public parking on site, or allow for increased setbacks, or preservation of a natural feature. We have created a provision that allows up to a 25% discretionary bonus on density if they go through this process.

The second significant change is with regard to height. Your current maximum for height in the RPDD process is two-and-a-half stories or thirty-five feet. We are suggesting that there be an allowance for a maximum of three stories and forty feet. Again, that height increase would be commensurate with the benefit achieved by the height increase and should be what we call contextually appropriate. Contextually appropriate means consistent with surrounding properties. Is there a topography issue, where three stories would be appropriate? Are there certain architectural styles that are more aligned with a higher building than there would be with a lower building? Is there a public benefit achieved by having the additional height? For example, if they wanted to provide public parking at grade or underground but doing so would require that they go a half-story higher, that may be considered a public benefit.

The third provision that we are recommending you change is to allow for what we call an accessory mix of uses. Your current ordinance only allows residential uses in your RPDD. The Master Plan calls for certain areas to be more of a mix of uses. For example, your village commercial or residential mixed use calls for mixed uses. You can’t achieve that through your current ordinance. What we are proposing is that you allow for up to 10% of the floor area to be a non-residential use. There may be developments adjacent to downtown where there is a small office or a small coffee shop where it may be an appropriate part of a larger residential development. This allows some discretion.

Lastly, the fourth major change is regarding standards. Based on those three previous changes – height, density, and non-residential uses – we thought it was appropriate to beef up the standards and to allow the PC and the council the authority to review these under appropriate standards that are consistent with future amenities, goals, etc.

Those are the four significant changes. There are some procedural changes that were made that make it a little more clear for both the city and the applicant.

Carlisle wanted to note that the RPDD is a process. It requires a public hearing at the PC and two readings with council. You are not giving away your zoning authority with these changes. You are allowing your land use to have some flexibility which allows you to be more consistent with your Master Plan than you are currently allowed under your RPDD. This is a discretionary approval with this council, it has to go through a full public process, and you have the ultimate say on whether you approve these districts or not.

Haven wanted to know if he was correct in understanding that this must be consistent with our Master Plan, which typically talks in terms of generalizations regarding our future. He said that when you get down to writing or modifying an ordinance, you are bringing out specificity to that and sharpening your pencil to get closer to what we intended by the generalized language of our Master Plan. Carlisle said our Master Plan is the policy – our wants, goals, and desires. Our zoning ordinance is our law. You want those to mirror each other. Right now, we don’t have a tool to realize the goals in the Master Plan. This allows more consistency to match up the land use, the Master Plan, and the zoning ordinance.

Haven asked how Carlisle would define an underlying zoning district. Carlisle said right now, every property in the city is zoned. Carlisle didn’t believe that there are any RPDDs on the map yet. If someone asked for rezoning to RPDD, you would use the current zoning.

Haven asked if there were any other questions and noted that it was on the agenda as a resolution tonight.

Kniesc said he thought he understood what Carlisle was saying. If all the buildings on Main Street were thirty feet, and someone wanted to put a forty-foot building there, it might be a little out of place. Is that what the point about the height was? Carlisle said yes, and he also discussed a property is significantly lower than the property adjacent to it.

Avery wanted to know if this was really about Waldon and Main. That’s the only property that’s really available for development. He said that Carlisle was talking about mixed-use because there was talk about maybe putting some commercial in there, he talked about allowable height because two-stories wouldn’t be enough, and more density because we want more people in those units. Avery thought that this was tailored to that piece of property, but the problem he sees is that when you make it a generalization, then people could come to the Washington and Holcomb apartments and say, gee, we’ve got these new requirements and maybe we could make ours bigger and better. Avery said that concerned him.

Related to that, Avery said that our Master Plan isn’t necessarily a legally binding document, but ordinances are. The Master Plan is a wish list; it doesn’t mean that we have to follow it. City attorney Tom Ryan said we should follow it. Avery said that there is nothing specific in the Master Plan language that we have to have four-story buildings. Ryan said that’s true, but this is a flexibility tool, and he would disagree with Avery that this is just targeted to Waldon and Main because there are other properties in the city that could benefit from this.

Avery asked if we didn’t already have the tools to do this. If someone came to us on the corner lot and wanted to put four stories up, can’t we make an exception? Ryan said that just because we are small doesn’t mean that we can’t be flexible. This is upscaling a little more to make it mixed use, which is preferred to allow a better mix of uses in an area. Right now, we can’t do that because our ordinance doesn’t allow it. Carlisle said we don’t have the tools right now to approve anything other than 2.7 units or six total units on that site. Avery said that to be honest, he’s OK with that. It’s residential property and always has been residential property. We’re a residential town. It makes him nervous when we start allowing these different uses in a neighborhood. Carlisle said that was an appropriate position, but it is inconsistent with our Master Plan. Avery said he voted for about 90% of the Master Plan. He remembers having a discussion about that property. When they drew up the map, it’s always been residential, but the Master Plan put it in as some sort of mixed use. Little said residential mixed use, six to eight units. Avery said that he understood, but it’s always been residential, and they could put one unit per lot. Little said it’s zoned residential, and Avery agreed.

Luginski wanted to know how this worked with the historic district because the ability to put in a forty-foot building may not fly with the HDC [Historic District Commission]. Luginski was assured that this doesn’t take precedence over that. Carlisle said if the HDC said they were strongly against it, the council isn’t bound to approve new developments. You would take the recommendation of the PC and the HDC. This is intended to allow for flexibility with residential property. The 10% is just a component. Right now, you don’t have a tool to implement a lot of what your vision is.

Kniesc thought that what Avery was trying to ask was what problem are we trying to fix here. Avery said he likes it the way it is.

Kniesc said since we are talking about Waldon and Main, is Carlisle saying that we could only do residential there, but if we do the RPDD, that would allow us to have mixed use shops on the first floor and residential on multiple floors above it? Would this give us the flexibility to do that? Carlisle said that right now, you could only put six units there.

Carlisle said since they are focusing on that property, when the builder came in, he was asking for 90 units, which is totally impractical. In discussion with the PC, they felt that perhaps six units was too few, but 90 was way off. That’s how the discussion started. When they asked us to look at our current ordinance, what we advised the PC was even if we wanted seven, eight, nine, or ten units, we couldn’t achieve it with the current ordinance. We’re not saying that we’re going to get twenty, which is the highest number you can get. It means that you can go between six and twenty, and right now, you don’t have the flexibility to do that. With regard to the units within residential, 10% is a really small number in terms of how much mixed use you will get. He suspects that it’s so low that many people would just do residential.

Kneisc asked about other properties, and Carlisle said that any property in the city has the right to go through this process. Little said that when they’ve talked about this, they’ve always focused on two areas. One is the little area next to Deer Lake Beach, which is sort of a smaller enclave of houses. They’ve also talked about Steeple Ridge, which is on Clarkston Road by Parke Lake, a very nice, tastefully done little enclave of condominiums.

Kniesc said that when they say mixed use, he’s thinking retail. Carlisle said that most mixed use is first story commercial and maybe second story residential. Perhaps a really small office, or a really small coffee shop, that is a very small component of a much larger development. It’s discretionary and on a case-by-case basis.

Avery wanted to know if it could be used to tear down houses along Middle Lake and put in condos, and Carlisle said that they would certainly have the right to apply, but it would be reviewed based on the Master Plan and other factors.

Frank Schoebel said that we’ve given this a lot of thought, and he agrees with Avery. He likes it the way it is, but he thinks it would improve the character of the town and also meet the desires of the citizenry. He’s done some polling, and there are a good number of existing city residents who would line up to buy condos or brownstones. It’s all part of our Master Plan of aging in place to give our citizens a chance to stay in the Village. He doesn’t envision five individual homes there and thinks that would be a desecration of that property. First of all, logistically, the max you could have is twenty with well-positioned architecturally and historically correct structures. You could end up with twelve or eighteen, but in his opinion as a master planner, five individual homes don’t fit at all on that corner.

Shoebel said that this is a perfect transition from village commercial to residential. We’re supplying a need here, every community in the country is following these guidelines of aging in place, and this is the best way to do it. We really do have control, versus someone building a garage in their backyard and putting mom and dad in it. He thinks this works. We could get rid of the 10% if we needed to if it’s a stumbling block, but the underlying principle of this concept is really solid. It would never detract from the community character – ever. Through all of our commissions, we wouldn’t allow it to happen.

Cara Catallo said no disrespect to Schoebel or Little, she realized that the PC worked very hard, and she appreciates and respects that as a person who lives in the community. She can’t think that there is any logical way that we can predict that an apartment building would be better than five homes. That’s just throwing darts and taking guesswork when we’re not even looking at what these could be and there is no sense of these imaginary circumstances. Catallo has so many different questions. The way you speak, it doesn’t seem as though you are working for the city. It seems as though you have a different client, so that confuses her, and she doesn’t know if we can bring in someone who could sort of represent the concerns of the city too and not just not one particular piece of property.

Catallo said that the 10% is huge to her. She has commercial businesses at her back door. With the 10% it takes one rogue council, not you, but down the line, who just decides that the house next door that used to be a doctor’s office would be a perfect place to put some business in at 10%. It’s 10% of any of our buildings; it’s not just our bending over backwards to accommodate that one piece of property. It’s all of our properties. It’s people who’ve worked very hard to make zoning have teeth and we want to be residential. Now we are saying, let’s just loosen it up; it’s inflexible. That’s what zoning laws are. They are supposed to be inflexible. It’s a residential community, and even with that you are ignoring the fact that there’s a residential community right across the street on three sides.

Catallo wanted to know who determines the public benefit? At this point, she doesn’t see the public benefit. It’s just buzzwords – inflexible, better development, change the Master Plan. She thinks that we are bending over backwards to accommodate the Master Plan, but maybe that’s the flaw. She doesn’t want to make everyone mad, but Schoebel said people want to age in place – those are rentals. We have rentals in plenty of places.

Catallo remembered specifically that the developer said that those would be rentals, not condos; that’s how they make their money. Catallo feels like this shouldn’t be rushed through. She knows that a lot of the community doesn’t realize that this is happening tonight. She didn’t want to come, and it’s early for her to be in a room full of people. She would prefer to watch online, but she didn’t know if you can do that yet. Catallo feels this is being rushed through to accommodate one developer.

Pardee asked if anyone else recalled the amount of tax dollars would come with the original proposal? He thought it was around $166,000. Smith said that the initial estimate included all taxes, including schools, and Smith thought it was around $75,000. Smith thinks that was with thirty-six units that they were proposing. Pardee said that what’s currently being proposed between six and the max; if this is approved, twenty. Little said that they’ve clearly told them that and have also told them that we want condominiums, not apartments.

Pardee wanted to know if the fire department is OK with forty feet. He doesn’t know if the township goes to forty feet or not. Haven thought they would have to approve it.

Anne (no last name given) said she had a few random thoughts. One is the higher density for the public benefit. Twenty units is forty additional cars in and out. It’s ridiculous to think that would be a public benefit because it would increase the traffic congestion at Waldon and Main. It’s awful now, and forty extra cars twice a day would be absurd. In addition, there is nothing in the Village that is more than two stories tall. If you allow one building to go with 10% commercial, you know someone else is going to say that their property is right next to downtown and want to have an office up front. It does seem like this is one property that this is directed towards, but it sets precedent for any other property.

Pardee asked if someone could relate what the steps are regarding the timing of public hearings, and he wanted to know if there are two public hearings. Ryan said that there would be a public hearing at the PC and two readings at council on the ordinance amendment.

Luginski asked about 10%, and to Catallo’s point, it could be any property in the city that could try to get this. Carlisle said that any property has a right to apply.

Luginski said that his house could be converted to a business very easily. He would never do that, but if he wanted to, he could come and request that. To Anne’s point, the slippery slope, if you start to do that, then all of a sudden you get, for lack of a better term, spot zoning. All of a sudden, you have three residentials, this RPDD which is 10% commercial, and three more houses and another RPDD with commercial – is that potentially something that could happen? He understands that it has to be approved; he just wanted to know if that was the potential. Carlisle said that it’s a potential, but it’s also a potential that you could ask to rezone your property to commercial. Anyone has the right to request rezoning.

Luginski said that going to strict commercial is different than the RPDD, because the RPDD assumes that part of that property is going to be residential, 90%. That’s different than going to 100% commercial. Carlisle said that it would be predominantly residential. Luginski said he’s just trying to understand. Carlisle said it would be highly unusual and perhaps very unlikely that a single-family homeowner would come in and ask to have the property rezoned RPDD just to be able to put in 10% commercial. Ryan said it’s for development of vacant property or property that can be packaged together like Avery said. Someone could combine a bunch of lots in the city and try to redevelop them. It’s not about someone’s house on Main Street trying to be rezoned because that doesn’t make any sense.

Avery said that he could see instances where someone thinks that bigger is better, or someone might want to buy Luginski’s house and put a law office there. Luginski said there would be room for parking in back. Ryan said you don’t need rezoning for that, for a home occupation. Avery said that people would be coming in and out, and Ryan said that wouldn’t be 10%. Ryan said if the house is 5,000 square feet, you would have 500 square feet. Avery said that you could put an office in there.

Carlisle said you could go through lots of one-offs about what may happen, though it’s highly unlikely. Anne said that’s the point; you can’t predict.

Ryan said that you can’t fixate on any particular property. That’s not what planning is all about. If your objection is to the 10%, that’s something that they can deal with. If you want strictly residential, that’s OK. The trend is to allow some kind of mixed use, and they tried to moderate that by making it 10%. The point is that this is a future ability to have a little more flexibility with how development occurs in the future, if it’s going to occur.

Avery said that it seems to him that we are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. If we had multiple vacant residential properties in disrepair, he could see that it might be an issue if we were trying to spur development to make it easier. But how many empty lots are there besides the one at Waldon and Main? That’s essentially it. Ryan said there were other small ones. Avery said he would have a different mindset if we had a problem, but he doesn’t feel like we are in that position.

Ryan said that all this does is to provide a reasonable developer to provide a quality product. People would kill for what we have in Clarkston – a walkable downtown, a dynamic downtown, and if you put some high-end units wherever near downtown, people will flock there because that’s what people want. All they are saying is we need some flexibility. Avery said he doesn’t necessarily see the need for a high-end development in his city. The reason that people come here and pay top dollar is the character of the city.

Pardee said that he views this as how do we use the unoccupied lots, because that’s the only way that tax revenue will grow. His concern is that the city doesn’t have enough revenue, and this is an opportunity.

Schoebel wanted to stress that these would be condominiums, not apartments. Assuming five houses, the number of cars may be comparable to a condominium development. He’s talked to a number of realtors, and they think the price for them would be in the $360,000-$400,000 range. He wouldn’t consider that to be sky high in this marketplace, but the original intent of this was to work with our Master Plan and give people flexibility. We know people who want to sell their house and move right there. They just want some maintenance-free property that they can walk to downtown from. It’s an opportunity to do some good for the city and the residents. He doesn’t have any skin the game other than trying to benefit the community. Avery said he hasn’t talked with anyone who had any interest in condos.

Carlisle said that this wasn’t written for one property, but if this is not passed, you will be back in the same spot a year from now with another developer. If the PC and council don’t want apartments, they won’t be approved. It just sets the stage because you couldn’t do this under the current zoning law.

Kniesc wanted to know what the process the developer would have to go through if this passed, since it doesn’t rezone the property. Carlisle said they would review the ordinance and make a financial decision whether they could work within the parameters of twenty units maximum. If they can, they would submit a site plan and an application that would be reviewed by the PC. There would be recommendation by the PC as well as a public hearing where the public would be allowed to offer input. The HDC also offers a recommendation. After the public hearing, there would be a recommendation for or against. It would come to the council, and you would have two readings on it and determine whether it’s rezoned or not. This goes through multiple reviews before it ever comes to council.

Kneisc said at that point, all that happens is the property is rezoned. Nothing would be built. Carlisle said the rezoning would be contingent on the site plan. If you say no, it stays as the underlying zoning and goes to the next person. Luginski said at that point, we have the ability to say no rentals, condos only. Carlisle said you would make it very clear to the applicant what you would support. Haven wanted to know if it could be written into the ordinance. Avery thought he wouldn’t want to defend that in court, but he’s OK with a certain density of a condo versus an apartment.

Ryan said he didn’t know this was an issue. He would say that every community worth their salt has a provision like this. The public benefit is a term of art and determined by the local community as to whether or not this is a public benefit. It allows people to get a little bit of a bonus in exchange for a benefit to the community, allowing that number to go up a little bit. They are going to get a little more density, and the city is going to get a little more benefit, whatever that benefit is. This is fully controllable; they are terms of art and not set in stone. It’s dependent on the circumstances and what the community thinks is worthwhile, whether it’s architectural standards, saving resources, natural features, or whatever. We don’t know what property we are talking about yet. The PC backs it first, and then the council looks at it and determines whether or not it needs something. A lot of developers are turned down during the process throughout the state because there is no public benefit determined. It’s up to the community to say what’s a public benefit.

Carlisle said that you don’t want to define a public benefit as say, parking, because it will change with the time and based on the development location. It’s up to this community to define what a public benefit is. He always reiterates that the public benefit provided should be commensurate with the bonus, which is the relaxation of the zoning. If they are asking for the highest density possible, they need to provide a very, very strong public benefit. If they are making a small request, then maybe the public benefit doesn’t have to be as strong. You don’t want to define it and be locked in. You want the flexibility to make that determination. The public will have a chance to say what the public benefit should be at a public hearing and whether it’s commensurate with the higher density.

Casey thought we might be getting a little far afield. Is the task before us tonight to take these revisions because they are more consistent with the Master Plan? Are we trying to make this more workable? Little said our future land use in the Master Plan specifies six to eight units per acre. What we are saying here is this flexibility here allows us to be in sync with the Master Plan and the ordinance. We’ve used Waldon and Main several times as an example because it’s obviously sitting there and has been for twenty-five years. It’s a good example of where you could do something. But it’s bigger than that.

Casey said he understood, but the task here is not to resolve the issue of Waldon and Main. Little said that’s correct. Casey said that it’s to say are these consistent with the Master Plan and should we approve. Ryan said it’s also to authorize the PC to go forward with the ordinance process. Haven said that’s why you are bringing it to us, because it’s consistent with the Master Plan.

Anne asked how we got to twenty units from six to eight. Haven said that it’s six to eight units, times two for two acres, plus a 25% variable. Anne wanted to know why there was a variable – if the designation is six to eight per acre, why can’t it stay six to eight per acre? Haven said that would be consistent with the Master Plan. Anne asked why they wouldn’t stay with sixteen rather than going to twenty because you’re allowing the potential for any property to go beyond what the Master Plan is encouraging. Haven said that is the differential, sixteen to twenty, and he guessed the question is whether twenty is too much for that parcel. Little said that determination would be made based on the project, and Ryan said also the amount of the public benefit, because you don’t get over sixteen if there isn’t a public benefit and that’s determined in the process. Carlisle said you don’t even get to sixteen without providing some public benefit. It’s still discretionary. Little said that property is approximately 2.2 acres.

Anne referenced the discussion on aging in place. What if a unit goes up for sale across the street? Avery said that he thought she was misconstruing the public benefit. What are they going to give us – is it parking spaces, a park, something in addition to what we have. Anne asked if it outweighs the increased traffic.

Luginski said that what is on the table tonight is simply to go through the process. We aren’t approving anything other than to go through the process of the PC, the public hearing, and then come back and we vote on whether or not we approve. Ryan said that they want to know if council is OK with putting this in the ordinance so that they can go through the amendment process. Carlisle said the PC wrote the draft, they brought it to the council, you considered it and said it’s OK, take it back, they have a public hearing, the draft language is in front of you tonight, to adopt or approve this draft language, that gets us to the public hearing at the PC and then two readings. If you approve this language, it doesn’t approve or change any property in the Village at this point. It allows a developer to go through the process as amended. You are approving the draft changes to the language but no rezoning or development.

Kniesc agreed with Anne on the forty feet issue. If you are lower than that, and you could see the tops of the buildings, that would look really bad. He would want them to be taller so you can’t see the tops of the buildings.

Little said we would also require a traffic study and that’s all spelled out.

Casey made the motion to adopt the resolution; second by Bonser.

Haven asked if there was any additional discussion.

Kniesc wanted to know if this was considered the first reading. Ryan said he looked at the February 3^rd memo, the redlined version of the ordinance, and a mention that the PC doesn’t approve ordinance language but will do so once they receive direction from city council. Carlisle said that the memo was what they brought in February. It was a summary memo for all of the zoning changes.

Kniesc asked if Ryan had reviewed the final, and he said he did. Ryan didn’t know if council would be approving the ordinance tonight; it’s not even listed as a first reading. Ryan said that since they have the old ordinance and a redlined copy, he would suggest that they put this on the agenda for the next meeting as a first reading of a proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The PC has had their public hearing already. Ryan didn’t think we needed to have Carlisle come back, but he was confused as well. He thought that council was going to go back and ask them to prepare the ordinance, but they already had the hearing in May; Little agreed. Ryan said it’s a little confusing, but he thought that the first reading should be at the next meeting.

Haven said that there is a motion and second on the floor – what do they do with that? Ryan said it has to be withdrawn and set for a first reading.

Casey withdrew his motion, and Bonser withdrew his second.

Haven said that they had quite a discussion and it seems to him that there are some things that are irritants that might be able to be modified. There is a sentiment certainly toward purchasing individual family units, not renting. The other thing was the 25% as an expander of the density. These could be modified.

Little said that you might not want to remove the 25% because things change over time, and you might want to have the ordinance capable of looking at something. If the 10% is an irritant, he wants to let them know they had a lot of discussion about the 10% at the PC and it wasn’t easy. If that’s an irritant, that might be one we can talk about.

Haven asked about the density requirement, and Little said it’s units per acre of buildable. Do we know how much buildable there is? Little said that we’ve never gotten that far with a developer. Haven said the next step is only the proposals, and he noted the public fear of what some future council or PC would do by exposing us to more density than we already have. It’s moot because we’ve already decided what we were going to do – put it on the agenda for a first reading.

Ryan said it’s customary to try to incentivize to get the best project possible in these ordinances, to incentivize the developer to spend extra dollars to get what they want and what the community wants, to get the best bang for our buck. Ryan didn’t think it should be taken out because it doesn’t mean that the project is going to qualify. It just gives the developer a reach to try to get that, but it’s discretionary.

Little said that council had the final say on any development, and Haven agreed.

Catallo wanted to clarify that it’s whatever the next council and the council after them does. You don’t know what’s coming ahead. Haven said that they are trying to be responsible, but there can always be a rogue council.

Haven said that this land is vacant, then it became five lots, and then it became multiple. Historically, if something has not been built on it in the past, history begins today. There is no precedent, no issue of recreating or restoration. Even though it’s in the district, there’s no precedent for historic buildings; we are starting from scratch. Little said that the meetings that we had with that developer, if we are still talking about Waldon and Main, included the HDC. They have a role in everything. Haven said they have an opinion, for sure, but it’s not about preservation because there’s nothing to preserve.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a – Resolution: Code Enforcement Service Contract (Video time mark 1:15:00)

• • Code Enforcement Services, Division of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., Agreement for Local Ordinance Code Enforcement, Building Administration, and Inspection Consulting Services, effective date 07-12-2021 (page 56/63 of the council packet)

Haven said the question is whether we can spend the money we put in the budget. Haven asked Smith to comment on the need for us to be enforcing our local ordinances.

Smith said it’s important to have the right skill set. We previously had an employee who enjoyed this kind of work and was diligent about finding ordinance violations. That’s a special skill set. Smith doesn’t have that skill set, has no interest in doing this, and he didn’t know if our staff has the time to do this.

This has been something that Smith has been talking about for a while. It started before the budget process. We don’t need a full-time or even a part-time employee; we just need an occasional person. This is very similar to our building code enforcement – do you have enough 2 x 4s in your wall? That’s a specialized skill. You not only have to like that kind of work, but you also have to have detailed knowledge about what’s involved. Obviously, with building trades, you have to have very detailed knowledge, you have to go to a state certification, and you have to stay up with it. Code enforcement is not really all that different.

Leaving your trash cans out, not mowing your lawn, or having junk cars out in the front yard is pretty easy, but there are other violations of our ordinances that go into much more detail. We need to have someone that has an eye for that and an interest in that.

Smith said that since it’s very similar to our building code enforcement, he started a discussion with Craig Strong of Carlisle/Wortman regarding how other small municipalities deal with this. The person that Strong and Smith are proposing for this service is someone who has been policing Royal Oak Township, a big area with a lot of homes, for a number of years. She’s familiar with the code and would have to become familiar with ours. Smith didn’t think it would be that different and she could come up to speed very quickly. It is a specialized service. Smith said that Strong said that they do this for small and larger municipalities, they are familiar with the process, and he came back with a recommendation.

Before the budget process started, Smith asked if we could get a part-time code enforcement officer who would be able to patrol our streets, look for violations, and issue violation notices if appropriate for $7,000 per year. Strong said that would be enough on an annual basis, that’s what’s in the budget, and this is an authorization to allow us to proceed with that.

Smith said he didn’t get three quotes. Carlisle/Wortman is our partner, they have skills in this area, they know our city, we’re well-connected with them, and this seems like a logical extension of our existing contract with Carlisle/Wortman. Ryan said it’s a professional service, and you don’t have to bid out professional services. Smith agreed. Haven said he could if he wanted to, and Ryan said he’s not obligated to.

Smith said he asked Strong what we could get before he set the budget. Smith came up with $6,000, and Strong came up with $10,000. Smith said he wouldn’t get that amount of money, and they settled with not to exceed $7,000. If she’s driving around and not seeing violations in two weeks, or if Smith doesn’t call her and say come out here, she might get by for less than $7,000.

Haven is interested in calling or summoning her for service, while Smith is viewing it as a service/review function. Smith said it’s both. He gets calls from neighbors about trash, and he could call her for that. But there are other violations that involve lesser-known codes that she would be able to follow through on because she would know what to look for and Smith would not. Smith can recognize long grass and junk cars, but she might find other things.

Our ordinances should be enforced, but we haven’t done so because we didn’t have anyone to watch for them. Haven said that there are other provisions that need to be there that haven’t been written in. We are finding situations right now where there are some undesirable scenarios that probably need to be addressed in our ordinances.

Haven noted that there is a resolution but no resolution form. Avery said we already approved the budget. Haven said he was used to the box checking form and wanted to know if that went away. Smith said no, but he felt that what Strong had written and provided to him represented all of the points that would go into a resolution, so Smith would just ask if someone could make a motion.

Ryan said it’s a resolution because it’s about money and it would authorize the city manager to sign. Haven said that he is used to the whereas, whereas, whereas, therefore let it be resolved as, and he prefers that format.

Avery asked if they couldn’t just authorize the city manager to enter into a contract not to exceed $7,000 to hire an ordinance code enforcement officer, and Ryan said yes.

Avery said he would make that resolution; second by Luginski.

Bonser asked if this person should look at our ordinances and then drive through the Village, or do our ordinances need to be fixed up? Smith said that there are definitely things that need to be updated, and we’ve talked about the need to spend some time to update all of our ordinances. Smith thought we had a quote from Carlisle/Wortman to just give us not the full analysis but kind of an outline of the things we need to focus on. It might be a three-year process. A lot of the ordinances are out of date. Some of them go into an incredible amount of detail about things that really don’t happen much anymore. Other things are skimmed right over with no mention of them at all. It’s quite a wide spectrum of problems that an update would check. It doesn’t mean that it all needs to be rewritten. It could be as little as 10% need to be modified and another 10% added.

Bonser feels uncomfortable having somebody enforce something that we need to fix. Avery said Bonser is making the assumption that our ordinances are all bad. We aren’t asking her to do brain surgery. Some of them are pretty obvious and pretty standard. We just need to have someone consistently drive around the city, identify them, and send out the appropriate letter. In some ways, it adds a little buffer between Smith and the residents, so he doesn’t have to be the bad guy all the time. Avery thought it was a good idea to have someone solely dedicated to looking at the ordinances to make sure they are enforced.

Avery said to Smith’s point, and we talked about it at the finance committee, he thought that the PC got a quote of $35,000-$40,000 to do a complete rework. Luginski said that once they’re into it, they’re going to want to do it. Avery didn’t think our financial condition at the moment lends itself to spending that kind of money. There isn’t much of a financial benefit for us. Maybe some years down the road we will be able to afford it.

Haven said that we have been criticized for not enforcing the laws that we have on the books, and that’s a legitimate consideration. The other consideration for Haven is the qualitative environment. We love the quality of our Village, and we want to see it maintained. To the extent that our ordinances help us get there and they are not being enforced, then we are lacking in an area where we could close the gap. Avery thinks that people are generally following the ordinances. There are a few where a poke is needed.

Smith said that boats and motorhomes tend to be the biggest items. There are a couple of homeowners that obviously don’t like being harassed. Overall, there may be some things that this brings to the forefront. When this ordinance officer comes to me, and she will probably come to me first to say, for example, there’s this house that has a boat that’s been sitting in their front yard for three weeks. We talked to the homeowner, and he said that he’s between cottages right now and will move it and we don’t take action. Another time he says the heck with you, I have the right to store my property on my property. So, it’s going to bring up some issues for us to address. We need to require some of these ordinances, and having a professional officer bring these to Smith’s attention will be eye-opening and good background information for the ordinance rewrite stage.

Avery said we are getting a lot of turnover in town with people buying houses and coming from the township and other areas. They may not necessarily be used to living in the city and assume that whatever was good where they were at is good in the city and that isn’t necessarily the case. It’s all education.

Smith said that his goal is not to be a pounding on the table kind of manager. Let’s work with these people. Smith didn’t think we want to be that community that finds that one blade of grass that is too high. We need to find that happy medium where we are enforcing it but not going overboard and upsetting our residents unnecessarily. Smith liked this person. Strong said that she knows how to talk to people without putting them on the defensive, she’s almost got like a psychology degree. Smith thinks it’s important to have someone in this role that’s not going to make people upset. Just talk to them about their options, what the code is, and why we have this ordinance. Just talk to them. He likes the skill she will bring to the table.

Haven said that there’s also a maintenance code. We’ve had issues with a couple of residences. There are some code violations that are not in our ordinances, just a generalized building code that we’ve adopted as a city. He asked Smith to explain that a little bit.

Smith said that the international building and maintenance code is something that a lot of cities have adopted, and we are no exception. Haven asked if this officer would enforce that code as well, and Smith said yes. Smith said he’s following up with the couple homes that we talked about on Main Street, but he would like her to be the liaison with these homeowners. Knock on the doors, talk to them, get to know them, and follow up – OK, I talked to you two weeks ago, and you were going to have this part of your house painted and scraped. Smith thought she would follow through on all of these things.

Bonser asked about the monies raised and whether it would be a nominal amount. Smith said it would offset some of the $7,000 but the goal isn’t to be a profit center. Just like parking enforcement, it’s not our goal to make money on that but it does take the sting out of paying the bill.

Resolution passed unanimously.

Item 10b – Discussion: Financial Workshop (Video time mark 1:33:46)

• • Financial Workshop Survey (page 61/63 of the council packet)

A financial workshop has been suggested and the council has a worksheet in the packet that helps us begin the thought process. There are three questions – should we schedule a workshop? If yes, should it be an offsite facilitated workshop or part of a council meeting? And, what topics should be addressed?

Haven asked Ryan if there was any requirement that it be at a council meeting, and he asked if it had to be a public meeting. Ryan said it had to be a public meeting, but it doesn’t have to be at a council meeting. Haven said it would be at their discretion.

Haven said the first question is whether we want it at all, and he asked Smith if he wanted the sheets handed back to him to be tallied. Smith said no, he was using them as a way to start a discussion and was looking for some verbal feedback from the council. There have been a couple of email chains that have gone around. The general indication is yes, this is training and education and it’s always good, more knowledge is good, but he wanted to have that on there as his first question.

Haven asked if anyone was against it. Avery said he wouldn’t participate in it. Kniesc said he didn’t know if the intent was to inform the public, but Kniesc didn’t think that people are going to show up. He didn’t really understand.

Avery wanted to know if this is something through MML [Michigan Municipal League] that is out there already that any council member could go to if they so desired. He doesn’t have a problem if some council member wants to educate themselves about city finances and that sort of thing.

Kniesc wanted to know who the audience is and what the topic is.

Smith said a resident had brought up the fact that we should be concerned about our financial future. We have cut back in this year’s budget in what we could put aside for capital improvements. That’s what triggered the discussion – we seem to have a problem, and we need to look at our financial situation. No one wants to raise taxes, and Smith didn’t think anyone was proposing that, but there are some ways and things that we can do that might not be a huge change or swing, it might just be a couple of small incremental changes in what we are doing to reduce expenses and increase revenues and turn the whole outlook around dramatically.

Smith said that with regard to the financial workshop, the thought was, and it doesn’t have to be all of council, that you are all involved in the decision-making process. Should we have Rana [Rana M. Emmons, PSLZ, Clarkston’s auditor] come in and talk about best practices and things that other municipalities are doing that are in our similar situation? Granted, Smith still thinks a portion of this was driven by COVID in different ways. Our expenses were up a little bit, our income was down a lot, and at the same time we had a lawsuit that we had to pay for. So, there are a few things. Does that sum it up entirely? No, Smith thought there is a general indication that we are just getting by. Smith doesn’t think it’s a bad thing to have a financial workshop and at least explore the options. He doesn’t see any bad coming out of it and thought it won’t be the fun-est thing to do if you’re not a numbers guy.

Kniesc feels the frustration on things like that if we don’t know what we are going to get out of it and can’t say what we are doing. It feels somewhat frivolous for people. There are two types of cost – fixed costs, and variable costs. Our fixed costs are high, and we do not have a lot of revenue, so you can either cut costs or generate more revenue. Those are the only two options that people have in their personal life or their professional life. It doesn’t matter. You can do one of those two things. Our variable costs are so low that Kniesc can’t figure out how it would be a fruitful meeting that goes somewhere as opposed to just talking about it. Does that make sense?

Avery sees what Kniesc is saying and would agree with him generally, but this past year, year and a half has been the opposite. Our variable costs went through the roof. Costs went up because of the lawsuit that we had to pay money out for, and our revenue went down. It wasn’t something that is an institutional problem. [See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #1.]

Avery asked what the purpose of a financial seminar would be – to educate us or to dig into the city’s finances and figure out ways that we can be more efficient, help with revenue, and cut costs? That’s a city council function. Avery is on the finance committee. Luginski noted that they have a meeting every month.

Avery said that maybe we need to be better at that. The finance committee meetings are open to the public. We need our Treasurer to stay on top of it. Avery missed the last finance committee meeting, but up until that point, everything seemed fine and then the budget got brought up and there were a lot of changes. Avery thought that someone took their eye off the ball. That’s Smith’s job too.

Avery said that he was trying to figure out what the purpose of the finance workshop would be or are we just going to try as a council as a whole to fix our finances. We didn’t expect COVID to come, we probably could have planned a little bit better for the lawsuit. We knew years ago that it was being handled under a reservation of rights and we knew at some point we may have to pay some money should we not win. That’s all water under the bridge. COVID was such an unusual event. If not for COVID and the lawsuit, we wouldn’t be talking about this. What does a facilitated workshop do?

Haven said that Pardee brought the idea of a workshop up and has some ideas in mind regarding the value of it. Pardee said that his concern is that you understand all of the city’s financial condition across the table.

Kniesc asked why Pardee thought that. We don’t bring in a lot of revenue and we have a lot of expenses. It’s pretty apparent. We are doing what we can.

Pardee asked what we are going to do next year. Pardee is concerned that we went from having a capital expense budget of $244,000 and this year it’s $55,000. One-fifth. What caused that? The fact is we aren’t spending what needs to be spent. Based on the roads report, we should be spending $80-$100,000 per year. Let’s look to the year that’s coming, we say well, let’s get paid parking back in place, and if we have parking back in place, then we will be able to use that revenue to repave Miller. You haven’t done sidewalks in about three years. Mayor Haven suggested we need to spend $60-$100,000 to get our sidewalks in good condition. So, there isn’t anything coming that gives us any additional revenue.

Pardee said that we have a capital improvement plan that suggests we should be spending $200-$300-$400,000 per year in the future, and there isn’t any way of providing that level of revenue. Our level of revenue that’s been provided for the last several years to meet expenses is $80,000 in parking. That’s been earmarked. Bonser asked if we get to June and don’t have any money, can we renege on that. I think that was an insightful question. Smith’s answer was yes, we can, but if in fact we have to do that, that just indicates we’ve got a big problem.

Pardee was trying to guide the discussion and get a more accurate understanding of what our financial situation is and the fact that we don’t have the level of revenue in our future to pay for the capital expenses that need to be paid. It’s true that the capital improvement plan has these high numbers for things that we’d like to do. It’s directionally accurate. After the discussion two weeks ago, council took out the raised walkway, which was $20,000.

Pardee said that we have no plan to close the gap between revenue and spending. Pardee tried to point out that we have some bond debt millages that will be reduced in a couple of years. Pardee suggested that as the bond debt millage is reduced, we should replace that with road repair money. The bond debt millage exists because we are paying for repairing roads and sewers fifteen years ago. He isn’t in favor of raising property taxes, but he is in favor of replacing the bond debt with other debt that keeps people’s taxes where they are. In his estimation, if it was on the ballot in November, it’s a way that could have provided $200,000 in additional revenue in the next two-three years.

Ryan said it doesn’t work that way. You can’t put something on there for the future. It’s got to occur at or near the time it’s going to happen. It’s a great idea and maybe that can still happen in ’23-’24 if the council wants to put that on the ballot. You can’t do anything about it because that debt is not going away. Pardee said it’s going away. Ryan said yes, but not until ’23 and ’24 and we are in ’21. We can talk about it now, but we can’t put something on the ballot in November 2021 for something that’s going to happen in 2023 or 2024. It’s got happen at or near the time of the occurrence.

Pardee said that the 1^st of July is when the bond debt millage takes effect. Ryan said that was right, but the debt is off in ’23 and ’24. Smith agreed. Ryan said we would have to vote on that in November if the council wants to do that in November of that year, they could put it on the ballot and let people vote and see if they’ll override the Headlee cap and allow their properties to be taxed.

Pardee said he wasn’t suggesting a Headlee override, which is something different. Ryan said it has to be a vote of the people to increase their taxes. We can’t substitute a sewer debt for a road debt. It’s got to be a vote of the people that’s going to increase their taxes because the sewer debt is falling off. If people want to do that, it makes sense, it won’t cost you more money, you are just transferring a sewer debt to a road debt. That can be a good idea, and as he said in the last meeting, it’s going to fall off every year because the values are rising, and it’s capped at 5% or CPI [Consumer Price Index]. CPI is always lower than 5%, and it hasn’t been at 5% since the 90s, so every year, whatever people vote on in ’23 or ’24, it’s going to decrease every year. That’s just built into the system. There’s nothing you can do about that. You can’t pass a millage and say it’s going to stay for there forever, .3 mils or whatever. It’s going to go down every year.

Avery said that what he’s hearing is that Pardee is not happy with the level of attention the council is giving to his concerns about the finances. Pardee said he was not happy with the level of funds that are able to be spent on capital expenditures, the funds that are in the capital improvement plan and are supported by the engineer’s road report. Avery said that Pardee has every right to be unhappy, but Avery is not sure about the purpose of the facilitated workshop – so we can learn what he thinks is the proper way they should be running the city financially?

Luginski doesn’t want this meeting to turn into the financial workshop. That’s where we’re going. Let’s make the decision whether we want to do this or not, and if we do, then we will go into these discussions, and if not, then we can move on. The level of detail that we are getting into here is becoming the financial workshop. Avery said if Smith feels like the council needs to be educated on our specific financial condition, then we need to have the Treasurer and Rana come into a council meeting and talk about the financial condition of the city. If Smith feels that’s something we need to hear about, that would be proper.

Avery is not sure what the purpose of a financial workshop is. He knows that Pardee is not happy with the capital improvements. Avery always thought that some of the things that were in the budget were pie in the sky, such as things about Depot Park. He agrees with Pardee. Avery thinks that capital improvement, fixing the roads and sidewalks, that’s the number one priority as a city. Maybe that’s something the finance committee could look at harder.

Kniesc wanted to know the average. Is it a 5% spend and we are at a 20% spend on roads? It’s a high number that seems a little pie in the sky. Kniesc said that just spending $300,000, that falsely makes you feel good. There are choices that people have made up here, on signs for instance. We could have taken the money for signs and put it into the roads, and that would have gotten more toward that $200,000, but the reality is that council thought that this would be a better use of the funds. In that case, monies are being chosen to be used for different projects by council. He would love to spend $200,000 on roads.

Pardee said he wasn’t suggesting spending $200,000. The roads report said we ought to be spending $80,000-$100,000 a year. Avery suggested that this was an unusual year. We lost parking revenue, whether we should be dependent on it or not. That threw the budget out of whack. And with the Bisio lawsuit, there was money taken out of the general fund. You can argue about should or shouldn’t happen, but it did. Pardee said that there really isn’t an intention to provide a level of revenue to the capital improvement plan that we would like to have. There’s a big gap this year; we aren’t going to be spending $100,000 on a road this year. We’ve already earmarked $69,000 on the west end of Miller Road, and that would have to come from parking revenue.

Haven said we have that on our plate. Restoration of parking, pick a number, $100,000 as a round number per year, revenue at a $1.00 a car an hour, no big deal. We’ve also got the possibility of opening up the Depot lot and could double that number, which makes Haven feel pretty good about getting toward what Pardee is talking about with these infrastructure corrections. This is two applications of one idea, and revenue generation should be the topic, not a bean counter discussion of moving numbers around. We spend our time doing that with the finance committee and council. Believe it or not, we are concerned about this, but we do see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Haven said that coming out of COVID, we see some increased activity in our town. Our town is a destination, which it wasn’t before, and we need to capture some of that revenue and put it back into the infrastructure. It benefits our restaurants and our residents as well. We don’t see this as necessarily a doom and gloom scenario. Speaking for himself, Haven said that there are opportunities to be exercised. We ought to encourage all of us (referring to council) as well as seeking expert help. Haven would like to seek presentations on what progressive communities are doing perhaps to raise revenue. We’ll be interested to hear those kinds of suggestions, but he didn’t see a lot of value in a meeting with the auditor or to just hash over the budget one more time.

Ryan noted that we also have some federal money coming in, and Haven said that’s true, $90,000 over two years. Pardee said that when Smith talked about this, he said that none of those monies could be applied to future expenditures that we saw in the budget for the capital improvement plan.

Ryan said that we don’t know that yet; we are going to find that out next month probably because the first tranche of it is supposed to be paid shortly. We don’t know; let’s see where it goes. They may open up the floodgates. We’re not the only community around, and just because we have something on our plan that says we want to spend X dollars a year on roads, after this year, many communities are in the same boat. We’ve got to realign things and hopefully, things will pick up and we’ll be OK. It was an unusual year.

Haven thought that we are doing really well as compared to the roads in other communities. You hear the Governor talking about fixing the roads. We’re not in dire straights here. Attention to the issue is certainly important, but the question is do we need a workshop. That’s the question in front of us right now, so Haven would like to move for a workshop, a motion and a second, and he asked if we needed a roll call for something that’s not on the agenda. Ryan said they could just do a voice vote.

No motion was made [meaning that there was no support for a financial workshop].

Haven said that Pardee shouldn’t feel like there’s no consideration. He thought that the council had expressed themselves very clearly, and they really want to go where Pardee wants to go. That’s why we have a capital improvement plan. He’s looking for positive suggestions.

Kniesc said that the intention is fully there. The reality is we are not able to right now and there are other things that take priority.

Casey said that he didn’t think that any of them have a significant disagreement with the concerns, but he didn’t think that a workshop is the way to go. Casey agreed with Avery. We know what our expenses are, we know what our revenues are, we know what the potential is, and we just need to make some choices about how to spend the available resources. He didn’t think that we needed a workshop to tell us that.

Haven said if Pardee had any suggestions for revenue generation, they are all ears.

Curt Catallo, Union Joints, asked to make a comment through the audio connection. Catallo thought that Pardee’s observations regarding a workshop dealing with the shortcomings of the budget are commendable. He is concerned that instead of a workshop, they are just turning the screws on parking and taxing the patrons of the businesses of Clarkston, predominantly restaurants, that bring guests into Clarkston to pay for this parking. He’s concerned that they are projecting $80,000 that could be $100,000. He mentioned other communities that aren’t as addicted to parking revenue as Clarkston has somehow become. He didn’t want them turning up the screws on one particular cow for the solution for a shortfall. Catallo said that the restaurants aren’t open on Mondays and they aren’t open for lunch. The industry is volatile right now. He wanted to stress that the tax that is being levied on patrons of Clarkston restaurants is parking. He wanted to make sure that they weren’t just thinking that we could just levy this tax on the patrons the way that you might have in times before COVID. [See Clarkston Sunshine Comment #2.]

Avery appreciated the comments, but it’s apples and oranges when comparing us to the township. All the lots are private lots. There’s not a lot that’s being used by the businesses for their benefit, and we have that here in town. You also have some private parking.

Catallo said he should have used another municipality as an example and said that they provide free parking that the city plows for anyone who parks there. Avery said that he’s not a fan of paid parking, but that being said, he’s not against raising some revenue to help pay for things from lots that are being used much more, fortunately, by the businesses.

Catallo pointed out how another municipality sold him property for a dollar and gave him $100,000 because they recognized the value that restaurants bring in bringing additional income to the city without paid parking. He wanted to state that the restaurants aren’t the only coffer in town to be reached. Avery said he understood.

Smith said that he had two quick comments. He will follow up with Rana one-on-one to talk about the five-year capital improvement plan and how that works. Maybe we’re misunderstanding it. Pardee is of the understanding that the five-year capital improvement plan marches forward every year and should drop right into our budget. We don’t look at it that way. We look at it as a recommendation, a suggestion, that this should be your objective next year. If we had plenty of money, we would do all of these things. Smith wanted to know if our capital improvement plan should be a lot more diligent in terms of constraining it to what realistically we will have to spend.

Smith also wanted to comment on the chart that’s up on the screen. [Referring to the American Rescue Plan monies being sent to local governments], Smith said that our number went up from $90,000 to $96,400. Divide that by two [because the money will be sent to local government in two separate payments]. It did go up by about $6,400. That’s good news, and Smith has been told that there are some cities that are turning down their monies. As a result, there may be more money that will be redistributed so that number could go up. The first tranche could come as early as early August, and he’s working on the paperwork right now.

Haven was grateful that we had professionals around us to ask for suggestions regarding how we can improve our financial situation.

Kniesc wanted to know if we did the capital improvement plan as Pardee is suggesting, even if we put $30,000 in there each year, it wouldn’t change the situation. We’d be meeting the number, but it wouldn’t change the reality on the ground. Pardee said the $80,000-$100,000 comes from the numbers that our city engineer developed for us that said this is what we should spend each year to maintain the roadways. And then we have the sidewalks.

Pardee thanked them for listening, and Haven thanked Pardee for the suggestion.

Item 10c – Resolution: Budget Amendment (Video time mark 2:06:07)

• • Resolution – 20/21 FY Budget Amendment ($6,430 “Realignment”) (page 62/63 of the council packet)

Haven said we are now considering a budget resolution, and it’s a reallocation. Smith said that this is not uncommon at this time of the year. This is the last adjustment we will make for last year’s budget just so we make sure that we don’t leave the year in the red.

Haven thought we are legally obligated not to leave the year in the red. Smith said we start the year with a balanced budget; he didn’t know the legalities, but he thinks that it’s best practices to not leave a department in the red.

Motion to adopt the resolution by Avery; second by Casey.

Motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 2:07:24):

Motion to adjourn by Avery; second by Kniesc.

No discussion.

Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously by voice vote.

Resources:

• • Link to video recording:
    http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3508?channel=2
  • 07-12-2012 City Council packet