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 sound quality was better this meeting, but there is still room for improvement.
Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:00:00):
The meeting was called to order by Sue Wylie.
Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:00:11):
Pledge said.
Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:00:28):
Sue Wylie, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski were present. Eric Haven and Gary Casey were absent.
Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:00:48):
Motion to approve the agenda as presented by Avery; Kniesc second.
No discussion.
Wylie noted that they don’t have to do a roll call.
Motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.
Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:1:15):
Chet Pardee:
-
- Thank you for last council meeting’s discussion of the city’s financial situation. As an alternative to the financial workshop encouraged by the city manager, a council member suggested having the auditor and treasurer come to a council meeting to provide further financial status understanding.
- I support council’s further understanding because I believe that council risks the resignation of the city manager by not providing adequate revenue to properly maintain the city’s assets.
- There is no plan to provide the revenue reflected in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP is likely to become the CII for Capital Improvement Ideas, without a supporting revenue plan.
- Why did no finance committee member question what caused the significant change in the proposed budget for 2021-22 from that last reviewed by the finance committee on May 12th to what was presented in the city’s public hearing on May 24th? The projected fund balance was reduced by more than $240,000, but no finance committee member asked why.
- The mayor sees the opportunity to increase revenue by adding paid parking to the Depot lot. Council voted against implementing this parking committee recommendation two years ago. It is clear from Mr. Catallo’s comments in the last council meeting that there will be push-back against any additional paid parking.
- When council suspended paid parking due to COVID, it impacted monies available for the 2021-22 budget but had no impact on the city’s 2020-21 budget performance. For 2020-21, the city received $27,000 less revenue than the almost $1 million revenue budgeted: $10,000 in state revenues, $8,000 in permit fees, $5,000 in Act 51 equipment rental, and $2,000 less in cable TV fees; these five accounts providing $25,000 of the $27,000 in reduced revenue. The $55,000 in unbudgeted Bisio damages had much greater impact.
- Council will shortly approve the consent agenda which includes the city’s revenue and expenditure report through June 30, 2021, the end of the 2020-21 budget year. The books closed with an unbalanced budget, despite last meeting’s amended budget approval. It is not clear why the $144,000 from the fund balance and $100,000 from the parking fund were never applied. Does that mean that the $100,000 from the parking fund remains in the parking fund?
Pardee said that he thinks the term is finders-keepers.
City Manager Jonathan Smith said that the park fund is at zero. It just restarted.
Pardee said that he can’t see the $100,000 from the parking fund in the June 30, 2021 revenue and expenditures report. Smith said that we used it for roadways last year. Pardee said there is an issue in the June 30th report because it never made it to the column. We ended up negative. Pardee thought we were negative because of monies from the fund balance and then subsequent monies that looked like parking fund monies had not been moved to the column that would have offset the negative number.
Smith said that it is true that the parking fund balance is not shown separately. He can get Greg Coté [Clarkston Treasurer] to show the balance, but it is effectively at zero. There might be a couple thousand in it.
Smith said that Pardee put a lot of numbers down on paper, and for now, he can’t justify them all. But it’s true that last year, our revenues were down, and our expenses were up, and that’s a big part of the swing in the fund balance. You said that it swung by the $240,000, and Smith didn’t understand where that number came from. He’s happy to sit down with Pardee and go through these, but it did drop, and it was primarily because of those two things we just talked about – to the tune of about $75-$80,000. Because of increased costs and reduced revenue, it swung the fund balance in a different direction. At one point, Greg renewed the fund balance calculation. That’s what happened between May 12th and May 24th. Pardee said that’s the $240,000 swing, because he remembers getting all cranked up in the virtual finance committee meeting because if, in fact, we had that much fund balance we ought to be spending it. The $240,000 is the difference between the information the finance committee reviewed on the 12th and then what was reflected in the public hearing on the 24th.
Smith said that he has both of those reports, but he doesn’t have the fund balance on May 12th because we didn’t print it at that time. He has the budget as of May 12th, and it only changed by $75-$76,000. Pardee said he was looking at the document on which Smith usually shows fund balance. For this year 2021, and turn the page, it’s the fund balance for 2022.
Pardee thinks he said what he needs to say. Smith said we should sit down with Greg and go through the May 12th through May 24th change if you want to do that. Pardee said we can do that.
Wylie thanked Smith and Pardee and asked if there were any other public comments.
Bonser said he had a comment and asked if he should go up to the podium. Wylie said he could speak from his seat.
Bonser said this was related to the short-term rentals. The Planning Commission (PC) proposal addressing short-term rentals is defining short- term rentals as being sixty days or less. As far as Bonser knows, there is no municipality in the country that defines it for that long. A search in common communities such as Ann Arbor, New York City, Chicago, [unintelligible] State of California all define short-term rentals as being less than thirty days. During the PC public comments last Monday, the representative for Carlisle/Wortman stated that the municipalities that he works with define short-term rentals as twenty-eight days. So why is Clarkston becoming the outlier in this common definition? In doing this, Bonser believes that the proposal the PC has drafted could potentially place the city in another costly lawsuit, one in which the plaintiff would be supported by rental, real estate, and property rights organizations. The language defined by the PC proposal should be changed to less than thirty days or that proposal should not advance to the council.
No other public comments.
Public comments were closed.
Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:10:25)
Clerk Jennifer Speagle said that we don’t have any FYI.
Agenda Item #7, Sheriff Report for June 2021 (Video time mark 0:10:37; page 3/23):
Lieutenant Hill was not on the line.
Wylie said that the report is in the packet, and she confirmed that everyone had a copy. Wylie asked if anyone had any comments.
Avery said obviously there’s been more attention paid to speeding on the city streets because we can see that we went from very few citations to double. That’s good to see. Avery saw deputies out on Holcomb Road, which is also nice to see. He hasn’t seen them in the last few days, but that’s OK. Smith said that he thought it was feedback from the council meetings, but he hasn’t talked to Lieutenant Hill about it. Avery doesn’t want people to get tickets, but he doesn’t want speeding either.
Kniesc asked about property crimes and whether it was concerning. It seems like it’s on the uptick. Smith had no details about that. Wylie said that in 2020 it said year to date was twenty, and in 2021, year to date is seven.
Wylie asked if anything else was going on in Depot Park – how is the vandalism? Smith said that it’s much improved. Some of the kids involved in the vandalism during the summer were identified through the help of the liaison at the high school, or middle school, or some combination. They did reach out and make contact with the parents. Smith has to believe that made a difference because it’s been a whole different world. It’s been nice and quiet in the park. Let’s hope that continues, but there were some contacts, some kids identified, and parents contacted. Wylie said that was good to know. Smith said that the security cameras made a big difference. There is a bang for the buck with the security cameras. As you know, Smith wanted to put cameras out in the park too because our cameras see figures but can’t zoom in close enough to recognize faces. He’d still like to do that as a phase two.
No other questions or comments.
Agenda Item #8, City Manager Report (Video time mark 0:13:55; page 4/23 of the council packet):
Wylie said that that everyone had the report. She asked if Smith had anything to add, and if not, maybe someone had questions or comments.
Smith wanted to comment on a couple of things. We are expecting to receive the funds from American Rescue Plan that he mentioned in the last meeting. It went up a little bit to $96,400, in two payments, one this year and one next. Smith received good news this morning on a Michigan Municipal League conference call. They had someone from the State on the call. Smith submitted a question, and it was answered. One of the criteria that allows you to get the funds is whether you’ve lost revenue due to COVID. We did – we lost parking revenue. But that in turn funded road paving, and road paving isn’t one of the infrastructure improvements they allow. They only allow water, sewer, and broadband. I was asked if we lost revenue, and Smith said yes, so they did confirm that if that’s what you would have used your lost parking revenue for, then yes, you can use it for roads.
Wylie said that was really good news. Smith agreed, and we will get around $48,000 this year and $48,000 next year. Pardee was very concerned at the last meeting that we’re not doing enough on roads. We don’t have any money this year, and it will be another year before we do anything. That may still be the case, but at least we have monies coming.
Smith said that the other thing he wanted to talk about are board and commission appointments or reappointments. Somewhere along the line, we’ve gone a little astray of our appointment process. As you know, all of our boards and commissions have terms, whether it’s two years or three years. When someone comes up for the end of their term, they should be reappointed or replaced. We tend to just assume that everybody will just stay on for another two years.
Smith didn’t think that was the right thing to do. We should have a process whereby we start earlier, before the expiration date, and reach out to them, ask them if they want to continue, ask other people if they are interested in joining that board or commission, and make it an option. Then we would review the people on the commission.
What sparked all of this is Smith had someone call him to ask how they could get onto a commission. Smith said that there were no openings right now. The person asked when the terms came up, and Smith said that they come up every year because somebody rolls off or is up to renew. The person asked if they could get on the list.
Smith talked with Haven about this, because Smith thinks that we need to consider other people who are interested in serving on a board or commission, rather than just assuming the same five or six or seven people will carry over.
Smith would like to establish a process. He will put an outline together of his recommendations, how it would start, and we would start reviewing when the terms are up. Smith said that if city attorney Tom Ryan has examples of what other cities are doing, Smith would be open to that. Smith wants to put together a process that says here’s what we will do, and at some point, if people are appointed or reappointed, that’s a process we would go through.
Lastly, Smith is excited about our new phones. Speagle was able to negotiate a very attractive deal with Comcast for new office phones. If you call the office, you know that our voicemail does not work, and we can’t retrieve the voicemail; it just kind of goes off into space somewhere. We are very excited about getting new phones with new technology. We already had Comcast service here for internet, so this ties in with that very nicely at a very attractive price.
Bonser asked about the board and commission appointment process. He wanted to know if Smith was asking the council to do that. Smith can put the draft together with a recommendation and council can approve it. That’s what he would like to do.
Bonser said that an issue is if there is one opening and two people want it, is there a vote on it or something like that – is that what you’re looking for? Smith said that’s what we should talk about. Maybe you have one person who has been on there, has a lot of knowledge, we think that’s important, and they should stay on for that reason. Or you have a new person and you want to change the mix up a little bit, you want a younger person on the commission or board, here’s someone who’s interested, and you might decide to make a change. The decision-making process is totally the council’s decision; Smith just thinks we should have a formal process that we follow every year.
Wylie said that as it is now, she thought that the mayor appoints or nominates. Wylie asked if anyone on council can nominate? Luginski said the mayor nominates and council can oppose and approve. If you have multiple openings, and sometimes there are two or three people that are up if the board or commission is big enough. It’s just a matter of going through the process.
Luginski said that what we usually have done in the past, maybe we didn’t start in May, but we tried to get ahead of it and announce it at a council meeting, put it on the website, put in the Clarkston News, whatever it might be – telling people that we have these openings on commissions or committees and if anyone is interested, please let us know, and if anyone from council knows anyone, they can recommend. Typically, there isn’t a lot of response, and that’s what happens. Maybe it’s one or two people, but it’s not like people are lining up to join. Luginski knows that there are some people who have been doing it for a long time on certain commissions or committees and they want to bow out. He gets it. They’ve been doing it for twenty or thirty years or whatever, they aren’t here as much anymore, they may love being on it, but they are only here maybe six months out of the year, so we have to find some new folks for sure. He thinks that it’s a good idea to get in front of it.
Wylie looked at the City of Rochester on their city’s website, and they list all the boards and commissions. They have a process where you can fill out a form saying that you are interested in a board or commission. Wylie always thought that was a nice thing to do. They list the qualifications and qualities.
Smith said that with all the real estate sales lately, we’ve had quite a big influx of people into the city, and one of the people who called him was one of the new people. They had an interest in participating, and we should give them that chance.
No other questions or comments on the city manager’s report.
Agenda Item #9, Motion: Acceptance of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:22:50):
-
- 06-28-2021 – Final Minutes (page 5/23 of the council packet)
- 07-12-2021 – Draft Minutes (page 7/23 of the council packet)
- 07-26-2021 – Treasurer’s Report (page 9/23 of the council packet)
- 07-21-2021 – Revenue and Expenditure Report for the period ending 06-30-2021 (page 10/23 of the council packet)
- Carlisle/Wortman, June invoices (page 16/23 of the council packet)
- Hubbell, Roth & Clark, June invoices (page 18/23 of the council packet)
Wylie asked for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented.
Motion by Luginski; second by Bonser.
Pardee said that the 7-12-2021 draft minutes indicate a presentation by Ben Carlisle and a proposal to be brought back on the 26th for a first reading. Kniesc said that they were supposed to bring a proposal back this evening; that was the plan. Smith said that Pardee was correct. They thought that with Haven and Bonser – and Wylie said that for a while, they thought she wouldn’t be here either – they decided to pull it off the agenda. It will come back on August 9th. Wylie asked if that needed to be changed? That’s what happened at the meeting.
No additional questions or comments.
Motion to accept the consent agenda passed unanimously by voice vote.
Agenda Item #10, Old Business
Item 10a – Discussion: November 2, 2021 Election Update (Video time mark 0:24:50)
Speagle didn’t put any documentation in the packet on Thursday because candidates still had the right to pull their petitions by Friday, which no one did.
We have three seats of for election – Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, and Jason Kniesc. The current candidates running are Gary Casey, Paul Angelini, and Steve McLean.
We also have a petition to place proposals on the ballots that is due tomorrow by 5:00. It’s from the Oakland Cares Coalition for initiation of a charter amendment to end the city’s prohibition of medical marihuana facilities, to assist medical marihuana patients with critical medical conditions, and to create a city department of medical marihuana with local regulatory authority. Speagle said that she received that petition. The ballot wording of the proposals have to be in by 4:00 p.m. on August 10th.
Write-in candidates file Declaration of Intent forms for election no later than October 22nd.
Smith said that the man who submitted the medical marihuana proposal called today. Did he have sufficient signatures? Speagle thought so, but she was going to go over it with Ryan tonight. She believes that the answer is yes.
Ryan asked when it was submitted, and Speagle said last week. Ryan asked if it was submitted to Speagle or the County, and Speagle said it was submitted to her.
No additional comments.
Agenda Item #11, New Business
Item 11a – Motion: Depot Park Duck Food Dispenser (Video time mark 0:27:02; page 20/23 of the council packet)
Wylie said that she was hoping that Alina, Adora, and Aviva would be here tonight. No one was online.
Smith said that he received a call from the mom, Krista Coventry, on behalf of her daughters and asking if it would be possible to put a coin-operated duck food dispenser in Depot Park. They have witnessed a number of people serving bread to the ducks, which is not fatal necessarily, but it’s certainly not good for them because it expands in their stomach. Her thought was let’s give people real duck food to serve to the ducks. So, she and her daughter put together the presentation that is in the packet. Their rationale is that it’s not healthy for the ducks, it has no nutritional value, it attracts other rodents and things, and it’s harmful to dogs and other wildlife.
She’s proposing $.25 for duck food. Smith wasn’t sure how much it would be, maybe a handful. They sell machines that look like gumball dispensers that serve duck food. The downside is that they have to be covered. They say on the website they can go almost anywhere, but not anywhere that it rains because they aren’t waterproof, and the water will clog it all up. You have to put it in some kind of structure to protect it from rain. That was Smith’s biggest concern – what would the structure look like? Smith didn’t mind the look of the dispenser, though it’s council’s decision. They show that some kind of little house would be required to protect it from the water.
They have a location they are recommending next to the west bank. Smith would rather see it closer to the bridge at the entranceway to the park, because that’s where people are feeding the ducks from all the time; they always seem to go to that one spot to feed. The location is still somewhat TBD, but what they are proposing is that they would purchase the feeder and the materials to make the house, and Alina, Adora, and Aviva would promise to maintain it, keep it full, they would give 20% of the sales to the Village, and the remaining amount would be used to purchase more duck food.
That’s their proposal, and Smith said that if they couldn’t be here tonight, he would present it to council.
Wylie said that someone brought this up once before. Smith said that there was a proposal put together and there were a few people involved in having signage made, and one of the people pushing it backed out of it because she had heard that if you’re not careful, some of the food can make the ducks sick. You have to be very cautious on the type of food that you select. When this one person learned that on the previous committee, then the whole committee disbanded, it kind of fell apart, and no action was ever taken.
Wylie wished that they were here so we could talk to them, kind of judge how old they are, and see if that’s something that they really want to take for long-term. If it is successful and they outgrow it, Wylie can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be someone who would step up and maintain something like that.
Wylie agreed with Smith regarding the location. The kids come off the playground, and between the playground and the bridge, that’s where all the feeding takes place, on the little stream by the rain garden.
Bonser asked Smith about the location. Smith said on this side on the Mill race, but probably over to the right. Speagle said that a lot of people go to the fence at the beginning of the pathway and feed the ducks there. Smith said by the flagpole and the garden. Smith said that every time he sees someone feeding the ducks, that’s where they are.
Avery agreed that’s more visible because troublemakers may get into that. Smith said that’s true. Avery said it would be closer to the road where it could be seen, and he doesn’t want people or kids climbing into the bed area trying to get a quarter in. It seems easier. He is for it and would suggest a six-month trial period to see how they do, if they’re good with it, and if they maintain it. It’s kind of like the book thing – it was a great idea at first. Smith said Avery would be amazed how many people look at that little library every day. Families of all ages will stop and peruse through the available books. It gets a lot of attention. Wylie said that she puts stuff in there and the next time she checks, they’re gone; people are taking them.
Bonser asked if these kids were Village residents, and Smith said that he didn’t believe they live in the Village; he believes they live in the township. Bonser wanted to know how close they would be if they have to come here every day to do this. Smith thought it would be once a week. He wasn’t sure how often it has to be refilled.
Smith said his main concern was the appearance. In every step that we do in the park, we are really trying to dress up the look of the park and keep it very nice looking. He didn’t want just some homemade thing. He wants something that looks really nice and professional.
Wylie wanted to know if the Friends of Depot Park (FODP) want to have any say about this. Smith said that it should be presented to them. This came up in between meetings and Smith can take it to them at the FODP meeting next week. Avery said that it’s probably a good idea to get their input.
Kniesc said that he has four small kids that he’s sure would love this. Personally, he doesn’t know if he’s that big of a fan of it. He hates to be the Debbie Downer person. He gets it, things happen, and if they move on to a bigger and better adventure, we are really accepting responsibility for it in his mind. Avery thought we could move it fairly easily. Kniesc thought the moveability of it is nice, but his number one concern is that he’s always heard that it’s bad to feed ducks. He doesn’t know if it’s the right thing. He’s not a hug environmentalist but doesn’t even know if this is a good environmental move.
Avery said it seems like it’s the same duck population that is here year-round. They don’t seem to want to move. They stay here through the winter. As long as the water stays open, they’ll stay here. There was one lady who was bringing a bag of food here a day, and there were million geese here. She went away and it stopped. Kniesc said that if there is a problem and there’s too much wildlife, then we can tear it down and it will go away.
Wylie said we could table it, someone could make a motion, and we could wait for FODP. Avery would rather wait for FODP to weigh in on it and make sure they don’t have a problem with it. Let’s go through the process. It is Depot Park, and that is their bailiwick. Wylie said they may have some overall vision that includes feeding ducks that we’re not aware of.
Smith said that they can speak to it more detail than he can. He will call and maybe they can come to the next meeting. Wylie thought that would be nice.
Wylie didn’t know if we are tabling it. Kniesc wasn’t sure if there was a request to make a decision on it. Wylie said that it is written as a motion. She said they could postpone it to the next meeting.
Pardee asked Smith who has the responsibility for the design of the protective enclosure and who has the responsibility for installation. Smith said that they would purchase the machine itself, they would purchase the materials to build the house, and they would install it. The only thing they are asking us to do is to provide a concrete slab to dress it up, just a 2’ x 2’ slab underneath it. The rest of the cost would be borne by the Coventrys.
Agenda Item #12, Adjourn (Video time mark 0:39:29):
Motion to adjourn by Kniesc; second by Luginski.
No discussion.
Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Resources:
-
- Link to video recording:
http://216.11.46.126/CablecastPublicSite/show/3517?channel=2 - 07-26-2021 City Council packet
- Link to video recording:
[Note: at the time this was posted, the Independence Television link doesn’t seem to be working, even though it’s the correct link. I assume that the probl