July - December
|
|
2008 Commission
Meetings July - December |
| Commission meetings are often
boring, sometimes interesting, occasionally irritating, and rarely
exciting, but attending them or watching them on television offers insight
into issues and personalities which would be difficult to achieve any
other way. That's transparency. Below, occasional observations and impressions. Some readers confuse two similar terms: Public Comment is that time early in the meeting during which individuals are offered up to 5 minutes each to talk about almost anything. A Public Hearing is the discussion period focused on a specific agenda item like a lot-split or an alley vacation. See Does Public Comment serve democracy? Check out the city's excellent website: www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us. It's thorough, has an excellent search capability, and staff actually responds to communication. Also see: Civics 101 and How to watch a commission meeting and City Hall news & comment. For the official minutes, go to the city's website. Under "City Commission," click "City Commission Meetings." Then click the date. |
|
The worst CITCOM decision of 2008
. . . It's a dumb policy. Repeal it. The awkwardness was neither as intense nor as prolonged as when then-Deputy City Attorney Jim Marcinkowski had to sit through a CITCOM discussion about searching for a new City Attorney after Chuck Semchena retired. It had been made clear that the commission would not consider promoting Jim to the position. But there was discomfort in the air as the guys rambled a bit about Commissioner Drinkwine's request that thought be given to how to proceed if and when City Manager Hoover leaves. A couple of Drinkwine's colleagues and he seemed to have difficulty separating (a) the recommendation that Staff develop a manual describing procedural and policy options to follow in any search for a new manager, from (b) an undertone which seemed to be calling for beginning the search now. Here is the range of thoughts, all quietly expressed:
The commission voted unanimously to direct the Human Resources Department to prepare the "game book" Drinkwine requested. (The vote was 6-0; Commissioner Miller was absent.) Not at all contentious was the discussion, urged by Commissioner Semchena, about moving forward to address the long-standing request of retailers for permission to use sidewalk signs, usually in the form of sandwich signs. The direction the effort is taking is to develop a policy statement, which is then referred to by the Sign Ordinance, but will not be a part of the ordinance. The advantage is that a free-standing policy can be modified as experience dictates, without having to go through the more cumbersome procedure of amending an ordinance. In any case, the need exists to hold the city harmless if signs become permitted on the public right-of-way. There was a bit of quiet emotion during the discussion of approving the expansion of the parking lot of Fresh Approach, the long-time grocery store and, now, also a flower vendor at Campbell and Lincoln. Ellison and Andrzejak, who serve on the Plan Commission, were surprised when eight residents spoke against approval, because only a couple of homeowners adjacent to the property had appeared at that commission's public hearing. Andrzejak reminisced that many who grew up in that neighborhood, including him, worked in the neighborhood grocery store which has been there through several owners. The expansion and related loading zone license were approved unanimously. No action was taken on a Staff-generated recommendation that every sidewalk Cafe must have cigarette containers whose dimensions and shape would be specified by the city. The chief objection took the form of "Enforce the rules which mandate that each establishment is responsible for keeping its area clean -- whether or not the establishment itself is non-smoking." There was agreement that smokers entering a non-smoking venue tend to discard their butt as they enter. The DDA's modified policy re valet parking was approved, and the city manager was directed to implement and enforce the revised policy. There was an overlong dialogue about whether valet-used lots should be on private or public property and whether the DDA should strive for "four or five" cluster-locations instead of the eleven now being used. Part of the discussion overlapped with that about sidewalk signs. The transfer of an escrowed liquor license was approved with no discussion other than the recommendation of the Liquor Control Committee. There were two
presentations to CITCOM. §
Apparently at the request of DPS director Greg Rassel, a vendor
pitched a program which will help move Royal Oak's energy
conservation efforts "into the the 21st Century." The solar
equipment and system described -- which will be sponsored by others
and cost the city nothing -- came across to me as over-hyped. But I have
written about solar for 30 years, and I have to guard against
letting my skepticism become suspicion of a scam. Rassel has been
directed to follow up with the promoters of this Adopt a Watt
program and prepare a contract.
Out of the city for the 21 July CITCOM meeting, I reviewed the online
video of the brief session. I came away feeling that the dominant tone
was one of unease/suspicion about the merits or structure of the Bond
Proposal, concerning which a special meeting was scheduled. Awkwardness
is a polite word to describe how the matter of police promotions was
handled. The tone of
CITCOM meetings pops up during conversations with the civically minded, a bit more frequently since Chuck Semchena
came onboard. There is speculation about how the tone might
change if neither Gary Lelito nor Stephen Miller seeks
re-election, or runs and loses. Their terms end in 2009. Among
likely candidates already being informally vetted by notable citizens, for example,
is Jay Dunstan, advertising executive, past Chairman of the
Charter Review Committee, civically active volunteer, current president of the
Royal Oak Historical Society. The other highlight of the meeting seemed to be the
Public Comment presentation by Brendan Wehrung, who continues to
make his case about the anti-citizen, anti-democratic impact of paid
parking at the Farmers Market. Brendan suggested creating free time
during meetings of CITCOM and the DDA, and providing a paper form
which citizens can place on their windshield when attending those
meetings. Long-brewing Staff disenchantment with the city commission erupted, quietly, when a spokesman from the Royal Oak Police Department suggested that if the commissioners feel competent enough to override the recommendations of the city manager and the police chief, CITCOM should eliminate those two positions and manage the city themselves. At this same special meeting, there was unhappy talk about an apparently leaked internal memo which generated a not fully accurate report in The Daily Tribune concerning police department restructuring. And there was angry repetition of commissioners' complaints about the lack of timely and sufficient information from the administration. I only sampled the special meeting, but I saw enough to become concerned that the commissioners seem so intent on discrediting the administration that they are taking their eyes off the specific problems which need solving. It doesn't take too much of this unhelpful behavior to reach that level of governmental dysfunction as has happened to Royal Oak's south and north. I left on vacation on CITCOM Day and viewed the video after I returned. Obviously I had a better evening than these poor elected and appointed officials. As I write this, I have already decided to attend the facilitated Special Meeting they scheduled to begin addressing in detail the report about long-term budget strategy that Finance Director Don Johnson presented -- interrupted by comments and questions from commissioners who seemed unable to respect the customary protocol which calls for listening to the whole before commenting on or questioning the parts. Through too much rambling, repetitive, even inarticulate thinking-out-loud, clear thoughts and feelings came through:
Some of the same attitudes came forth in a previous discussion about granting a tax abatement to a company which purchased and rehabbed an industrial site on Delemere and is establishing a high tech operation, which Mayor Jim Ellison contends will attract related businesses to Royal Oak. Almost everyone who spoke agreed that tax abatement should be granted. The argument was for how many years.
CITCOM approved 12 years, with Andrzejak and Miller voting no. The commissioners worked hard, and they moved matters along, but a little self-control over their temperamental preferences would have prevented the mood from turning as sour as it did. These guys are better than that, and I hope they can cool it during the Special Meeting. A city commission meeting that lasted only an hour. For a few moments there was danger that the sour mood which permeated the previous Monday's meeting might break out, but facilitator Brett Tillander was able to refocus the discussion on the future, not the past. The first order of business was to establish the process for a series of meetings devoted exclusively to long-term budget strategy. This night's meeting would be devoted to the presentation of City Hall recommendations. To follow are separate meetings devoted to Police, Fire, then to the Court and other departments. City Manager Hoover suggested three moves for further detailed discussion: (1) Combine departments and share counter space. (2) Fill the Secretary 2 spot in the city manager's office with someone from another department, thus eliminating one position. (3) Accelerate attrition, to reduce payroll faster. The mayor and each commissioner commented briefly for a few minutes. One or two departments were mentioned for likely outsourcing, but no decisions were made, one probable reason being to avoid upsetting ongoing collective bargaining. CITCOM unanimously approved Hoover's request to spend $500.00 for a subscription of some sort. Commissioner Drinkwine said the commission shouldn't really expect to have to approve such small expenses if the Administration judges the expenditure useful. The vote to rejoin SEMCOG, though, was 4-3. I couldn't identify the voices which voted no, but Commissioner Semchena did ask to delay the vote, because as a relative newcomer he hadn't heard previous discussions about the pluses and minuses of belonging to that intergovernmental group. The decision about promoting police sergeants was postponed after Hoover's assurance that Police Chief Quisenberry agreed his department can handle Dream Cruise duties without those promotions. (As in the Military, "acting sergeants" can be appointed, I assume.) For the time being, small increases in revenue will have to come from increasing and adding fees, charging for services which have traditionally been "free" (read: tax-paid). No one seems to be willing to address the need for taxes. Instead, the focus is on cutting services until the public makes it clear that further cuts are unacceptable. (Only a handful of residents attended, two of whom spoke during Public Comment.) Facilitator Tillander said that the idea of a 5-year forecast is sound, "even if it proves wrong here or there." Mid-course corrections can be made. And there was consensus that it may be possible "to do less but to do it better, more efficiently." The longest discussion, which wasn't really long, had to do with Noir Leather's application for a permit to mount street performances (actually, sidewalk performances). Even though Commissioner Andrzejak led the questioning of Police Chief Quisenberry and City Manager Hoover after Commissioner Semchena pulled the item off the Consent Agenda, CITCOM'S Puritan faction split on this one. The vote was 5-2, with Semchena and Miller opposed. Then came:
Mayor Ellison gavel-pounded the meeting toward adjournment after allowing commissioners Drinkwine and Miller a few minutes to engage in essentially personal accusations and counter-accusations. Drinkwine had requested the item be placed on the agenda to respond to "corruption" comments made by Miller in a VersagiVoice "conversation" report. It would be a mistake to assign too much, civic, importance to the Drinkwine-Miller squabble. Yes, it would be nice if all our public officials liked each other. The test, though, is whether they let their feelings about each other affect their votes. They don't. Despite Miller's past generic "they're stupid" comments in frustration over financial understanding; despite Drinkwine's publicly calling for Miller's resignation after his alcohol-related driving event; despite Drinkwine's and Ginotti's walking out of Commission Chambers during one shouting match with Miller -- despite all that, CITCOM decides roughly 95% of matters unanimously. Of 26 Split Votes which VersagiVoice has tabulated, Miller and Drinkwine have voted differently 13 times. Analyzing those 13, one finds that their disagreements were based on previously stated principles about such matters as the Ice Arena Committee and liquor licenses. In 2006, Drinkwine voted no, alone, more times than anyone else, but over time others also stood alone: Miller, Ellison, Andrzejak, Ginotti, Lelito. Then there are such unexpected combinations as Miller, Drinkwine, Semchena; and Lelito, Ginotti, Drinkwine, Semchena.
I'm writing this on Tuesday morning. Tonight CITCOM will be discussing Police Department budget-related topics. I would be surprised if last night's brief tiff seriously affects those difficult deliberations. CITCOM has launched its effort to develop a 5-year plan which provides acceptable, if minimal, city services in the face of uncertain revenues. This meeting was devoted to the Police Department. An earlier meeting heard several initial suggestions about making City Hall more efficient. Subsequent meetings will deal with the Fire Department, then with the Court and other departments. The A for effort results from the fact that the differing philosophical approaches CITCOM offered for addressing the Police Department can serve as a template for studying all departments. The grade for substance drops to B because the dialogue went off-focus a bit too often, if only briefly. The tone of the meeting was serious but gentlemanly, broken occasionally by laughter. The dialogue opened after City Manager Tom Hoover laid out an overall approach developed by him and Police Chief Ted Quisenberry. Details aside, here are the major concepts and mindsets which emerged from CITCOM's deliberations. The words may not be those used by the participants but reflect my decades of management consulting. § Implement the 5 years of expected attrition now. That way, we can realize the savings immediately.
§ CITCOM should decide priorities for the services the Police Department must provide and assign the department's budget, then leave it to the Chief to move his staff around and make promotions as he sees fit.
§ We shouldn't make any firm decisions about Police until we have studied all departments, because what we learn as we go along may change our thoughts. § CITCOM should address staffing first. § No, CITCOM should address budget first.
In 2004, several "Service Delivery Committees" were formed as part of involving residents in developing the budget. Jay Dunstan chaired the Police Service Delivery Committee, and he brought copies of that committee's final report to this CITCOM session. A look at the document, which I may publish next week, shows that there is little new under the sun. We all know what we expect from the Police Department, so it might be better for CITCOM to spend more time resolving their different philosophies than working with the, by now, overused concept of "prioritization." There were two or three other Service Delivery Committees who reports might serve as templates. Citizens who want to follow these budget deliberations more closely can attend the special meetings. There were two handfuls this time, compared with one handful the prior meeting. More on target, make it a point to follow the ongoing reports in the three Royal Oak newspapers. All three attended this one: The Daily Tribune's Cathy Cavanaugh; the Review's Jeremy Carroll, and the Mirror's Megan Pennefather. 'Twas
a night of ill-feeling The trio's tirades seem to be part of a drive to remove Hoover. Since it is reasonable to expect that they had sampled their colleagues before this meeting, they must have known they didn't have enough votes to accomplish that goal, so how wise is it, in the midst of the series of special budget-focused meetings, to poison the waters with personalized attacks? CITCOM meets again Saturday. The ill-will demonstrated during that discussion carried over into the final, added, agenda item: Andrzejak wanted to bring Black Finn management before either the Liquor Control Committee or before CITCOM to address a complaint that Black Finn employees were soliciting business by passing out coupons in competitive establishments. Drinkwine, who chairs the LCC, said he would not engage in a "witch hunt." Police Chief Ted Quisenberry said, of his investigation of a specific complaint, something like, "what is alleged to have happened didn't happen." Further discussion seemed to suggest that Miller was involved in registering the complaint. The core of the debate was whether competitive business practices qualify as a liquor-control matter. Andrzejak's motion to bring in Flack Finn was defeated 3/4, with Drinkwine Ellison, Ginotti, and Lelito voting no. CITCOM did conduct some other business. I'll summarize it next week. And end-of-meeting kudos for retiring City Clerk May Ellen Graver -- with her pounding the closing gavel -- left the group laughing. -- FJV: 09 Sep 08 Before all that:
Special Budget Meeting 13 Sep 08 CITCOM & Administration show courage The meeting focused primarily on the Fire Department, the Department of Public Services, and the Court. About 15 of the 20 citizens attending the meeting were apparently firefighters, because they left after that department's review was completed. Two or three of the remaining people were from DPS. Commissioner Miller was seen leaving the Salter Center as the closed session ended. The attrition policy in-place, which was requested by CITCOM, will lead in the next three or four years to such results as (1) Fire Department shift-staffing dropping from the current 16 to 13; (2) The Court reducing staff by three "equivalent fulltime" positions; and (3) DPS dropping three equivalent fulltime positions. "Equivalent" takes into consideration that the latter two entities use several part-time employees. The effect that Fire Department staff reduction will have on everything from participation in regional initiatives to fire protection in different parts of Royal Oak was discussed. It was after Commissioner Drinkwine labeled the attrition-based Fire Department scenario "unacceptable," and Commissioner Ginotti asked Finance Director Don Johnson to provide the cost of having a staffing minimum of 18, and Commissioner Andrzejak suggested the discussion was moving off-focus from decisions made during the closed session -- it was then that "millage" came into view. Ginotti thought it absolutely necessary for CITCOM to be informed specifically how much it would cost to reach the 18 staffing level. Andrzejak was reluctant to "speculate" about tax increases when we don't know how much millage might be needed to "maintain what we have." Ellison distinguished between "acceptable" and "desirable" and referred to the 2004-05 reports of those ad hoc Service Committees which clearly laid out what citizens consider a desirable level of service. The mayor mused that we may be crossing the line between "acceptable" and Drinkwine's "unacceptable." There was consensus that the city owes it to residents to inform them about any potential further drop in the levels of service from several departments. And the public should be told what revenue is needed to fund those differing levels. Further dialogue, all of it intense but civil, led to Johnson's being directed to provide two or more sets of cost-data by the first CITCOM meeting in November. The consensus seemed to be "we have to know, we have to let the public know" the revenue required to maintain the desirable levels of service before either a dedicated millage or a general fund millage can be proposed. Investigating the feasibility of selling some city assets came up as part of the Administration's general recommendations, which also included surveying regional salaries for city employees. "Some of ours are probably lower and some higher,' Hoover said. About city assets: CITCOM and the Recreation Board plan to tour the city and look at 15 parks and two other properties as possibly suitable for sale. A preliminary review concluded that selling off 15 of the city's 51 parks will still leave a park within half a mile of every residence. There is the added consideration that there may be deed restrictions or other conditions which may require voters to approve the sale of this or that site. Boys & Girls Club Executive Director Brett Tillander facilitated this meeting and before turning it back to Mayor Ellison recommended that an item be placed on the agenda of each first CITCOM meeting of the month which calls for a progress report or decision about actions agreed upon during these Special Budget meetings. CITCOM adopted Tillander's recommendation. -- 13 Sep 08
Everybody's talking about last week's CITCOM
meeting
CITCOM did act unanimously on several topics before the fight broke out. [See] This meeting began with Melanie Halas being sworn in as City Clerk and ended with Commissioner Stephen Miller announcing that he intends to run for mayor in 2009. Between those two personal events, CITCOM conducted some routine business. § Caught slightly off-guard by the pace of developments, as was the DDA in its earlier meeting, CITCOM approved 5-2 the Walt Disney-related series of Family Fun events being arranged for Friday, 03 October, by the Chamber of Commerce, Stagecrafters, downtown retailers, and restaurants. There are two dimensions to the concerns: First, the rush is calling for breaking more than one precedent, including providing several hours of free parking. Second it's not certain that the sponsoring groups can get the word out fast enough and in sufficient quantity to generate the hoped-for thousands of visitors. Andrzejak and Drinkwine voted no. § The Oktoberfest planned for the Farmer's Market includes serving beer and wine. That caused a bit of discussion about the propriety of and potential liability of serving alcohol on city-owned property. CITCOM learned that the organizers of Steppin Out are able to obtain the 1-day permit needed and to supply trained servers of alcohol. The Market's request for a Special Even Permit was approved unanimously. § Andrzejak's motion to invite Grand SAWKA to address a special meeting to present an overview of their long-range plans regarding the property at Coolidge and Thirteen Mile was unanimously approved. CITCOM's concerns are multiple: Replacing the revenue loss as Beaumont shuts down the Northwood Shopping Center. Assuring convenient retail operations in the area. Protecting existing or assuring nearby recreational activities for residents. Mixed in with all this is the matter of taxable vs. nontaxable Beaumont construction. A surprise is that the new proton facility will be privately funded. Another surprise is that even on non-taxable hospital property, Beaumont pays the usual personal property tax on some of its medical equipment.
§ The second reading of the city's Bond Authorization Resolution passed, with Miller voting no. He objected to the purchase of one piece of property included in the the resolution. § Semchena pulled from the agenda his request for discussion of Sidewalk Signs, to give Staff the time to prepare to address retailers' concerns about a fee and the length of the season during which signs can be displayed. Miller had added an agenda item to deal with "Discussion of City Commission and Meeting Decorum." The commissioner took the opportunity to repeat his complaints about being interrupted multiple times. He said Ellison was either unable or unwilling to control meetings. He recalled that Drinkwine and Ginotti walked out of Commission Chambers while Miller was speaking one night. He saw no legitimacy in Drinkwine's adding to a meeting agenda a discussion of Miller's comments in a local blog conversation. Miller had made most of those points in an email sent to his fellow commissioners, to some Administration officials, to some press, and to VersagiVoice. That strongly worded email concluded with vigorous language, including "Now I am going to take matters into my own hands and if I am interrupted again, you are not going to like my planned reaction." Some interpreted that as threatening language and passed the email along to the Police Department. At the end of this night's review of his concerns, Miller announced his intention to run for mayor in 2009. No one commented when Ellison asked if anyone wished to continue the discussion, and CITCOM adjourned. What a CITCOM meeting! The cluster of anti-Coolidge & Thirteen Mile development comments aside, Public Comment ranged widely. Concern over losing block grant funds for seniors. Restaurant Association contributing another $10,000 to the Boys & Girls Club. Irritation over keeping or removing traffic Stop Signs. Disapproval of divesting any city assets, especially parks. Proud progress report on increasing use of the Farmer's Market as an event venue. Sidewalk signs. Deteriorating apartment building. Citizen involvement at its best.
CITCOM adopted three motions unanimously: (1) Approving the Liquor
License Committee's recommendation re Kyoto Royal Oak. (2) Specifying a
30-day timeline for businesses seeking a Merchant's License. (3) Taking the
first steps toward selling two small city-owned parcels, one at Fourteen
Mile & Rochester, the other at Woodward & York. Adopted 4-3, with the Threesome in the minority, was the motion to deny beginning the process to divest three parks (Bassett, Realtor, Rotary) and the city-owned parcels mentioned above. Defeated 3-4, with the Foursome in the majority, were (1) A separate motion to begin the moves necessary to sell Basset Park. (2) A motion to lower the Administration-recommended initial fee of $300 for a license to display a sidewalk sign to $75, and to review the matter after one year [error: see]. (3) A motion to have the city manager and city attorney draft a purchasing agreement related to the proposed Sakwa development at Thirteen Mile and Coolidge. [See tabulation of split votes.]
Andrzejak's correction: Easily the worst CITCOM meeting ever Andrzejak set the mood by accusing Hoover of trying to hide a claim for reimbursement. As the meeting progressed, we experienced: Two more split votes with the now-familiar threesome/foursome mix. . . Miller accusing Drinkwine of an "ambush" when Drinkwine introduces a resolution . . . Semchena finding another way to express his conviction that the Administration continues to provide less than enough information -- and too slowly . . . Drinkwine chiding Semchena for expressing that complaint this time, and suggesting that Miller had previously "ambushed" CITCOM about something or other . . . Hoover and Gillam getting testy while justifying a $300 license fee for a sidewalk sign, continuing a ridiculously long 10-month debate about this serious threat to public health and safety . . . Ellison cuttin Ginotti short when Ginotti started to complain about Miller's addition of a millage-focused agenda item based on a comment Ginotti had made at a previous special meeting . .. Ginotti asking the City Clerk to provide an audio tape of that meeting or, at least, of his comment. We might consider following the European practice of providing a relaxing shot of brandy at The Table. Fourteen of the 18 speakers during Public Comment oppose the proposed Grand Sakwa development at Coolidge and Thirteen Mile. There were a couple of out-of-the-box comments which went beyond the usual residents' sometimes emotional complaints about traffic and children's safety and noise, One fellow suggested adding a second story to the batting cage (or was it the driving range?); a woman suggested that a development in that now "peaceful" area would endanger mental health; two people sniffed that Royal Oak has enough grocery stores and retailers and that people can walk or drive the mile or so to existing locations after the Northwood Shopping Center dies. One could come away from this meeting thinking the Sakwa development is already dead, but given the confusing actions and non-actions of CITCOM and the Administration, that's not certain. [See] I'll publish my complete report of this meeting next week. Last week I described the emotional tone of the 20
October 2008 CITCOM meeting. Now, to the substance of that gathering.
First, matters about which the commission voted.
Unanimous decisions Approved paying for Police Gun Range improvements, using
drug forfeiture funds. Approved paying all claims except reimbursement to City
Manager Hoover for his attendance at a national conference. Adopted a policy requiring two public hearings before
offering any city-owned property for sale. Approved a 1-yeat trial of charging $75.00 (instead of
Administration-recommended $300.00) for a sidewalk sign license. Split votes Defeated (3-4) the motion to require Hoover to resubmit
his reimbursement request, sans travel costs. Yes: Andrzejak, Miller,
Semchena . . . No: Drinkwine, Ginotti, Ellison, Lelito Approved (4-3) reimbursing Hoover's
original request for reimbursement. Yes:
Drinkwine, Ginotti, Ellison, Lelito . . . No: Andrzejak, Miller,
Semchena Other matters When Public Comment ended, Andrzejak
made a statement about the possible fate of the Grand Sakwa
project which brought shouts of glee and applause from the anti-crowd.
They rose to leave. Drinkwine suggested they might want to stay to
hear the discussion about selling city-owned property, but they
all seemed to leave. The residents weren't being disrespectful of the
commissioner. They were simply being dismissive of any possible concerns
about neighborhoods other than their own. Hoover responded to Andrzejak's
accusation that Hoover buried his request for reimbursement on page 12 of the long
claims-document by reminding everyone that his contract specifies he
will be paid for attending that national conference and that he did not
attend in the first three years of serving Royal Oak. His reply to the
commissioner's suggestion that "credentialing" can be accomplished by
"extensive reading" rather than travel was to the effect that his duties
as city manager, working with a reduced staff, leave him no time for
"extensive reading." There was a bit more of such toing-and-froing
about, for example, the paid-for trip of the Fire Chief to Florida to
look at equipment. Semchena* found two or three occasions
to remind his colleagues and the Administration that focus on budget
should "form the context" for almost all CITCOM deliberations, for most
agenda items. A prime concern for him is the city's "deteriorating tax
base." Ginotti's comment re millage, made
during a special budget meeting, seemed clear to me at the time he made
it, but several of his colleagues seem confused. His request to Finance
Director Don Johnson was straightforward: So CITCOM can know the
magnitude of the city's financial needs, give us the numbers in dollars
(which obviously would need to be converted to millage). Dollars to
maintain the current operations and dollars to return to optimum
operations.* Some commissioners
and some residents interpret Ginotti's request as a first move toward putting a millage on the ballot,
** not
as a straightforward request for information. * See Conversation with Semchena re Grand Sakwa affair. ** I've been told that a return to optimum performance will require a millage increase of 4 to 6 mils. -- FJVNot counting two votes to approve agendas, CITCOM voted unanimously seven times and split six times. In an unusual twist, the first vote, split, came before the conventional preliminaries, like announcements and Public Comment. The resolution to schedule a series of Special Meetings to address 50-some "Solution" items was defeated (3-4) with Andrzejak, Miller, and Semchena being in the minority. At issue was whether many of the items on the list to improve city operations were matters which require or deserve CITCOM policy-level deliberations. Discussion before that vote revealed again an anti-Administration emotional tone coming from several commissioners, as did later discussions about contracting out some Parking System management and about sending RFPs re the to-be-demolished former Fresard properties on South Main Street.
Unanimous
Votes
Split Votes (see
tabulation
for details) Public Comment was dominated by bicycle enthusiasts. In their exuberance and dedication, they made claims for non-motorized transportation which included everything from individual health to reducing global warming. They were successful in getting the item added to the agenda (see above). One Huntington Woods based businessman who had bid on the Parking Structure Management project complained that an out-of-state firm was awarded the work. A Coolidge-Thirteen Mile area resident brought in a flyer he had received about the proposed Grand Sakwa development. He was concerned that the (anonymous?) information seemed to eliminate parking spaces on streets near several condos. Ellison assured him that there is no movement on the project and that should it become reactivated, the public will have opportunities to provide input. School District officials made a presentation before Public Comment began. Their primary message was that much of the public still has not understood that increased taxable base in Royal Oak, such as from condos, no longer means more money for schools. The presentation resulted from a decision made at one of the quarterly meetings of the City and the School District. CITCOM voted on one substantive issue during this meeting which lasted ten minutes short of three hours. They voted unanimously to have City Attorney Dave Gillam draft a bistro ordinance, after hearing his long and, unusual for him, rambling explanation of the context concerning "Bistro" liquor licenses. Listening to the unavoidably detailed context was almost as hard as listening to budget explanations. CITCOM's discussion which preceded the vote gave Commissioner Mike Andrzejak another opportunity to make his case for granting restricted licenses to smaller food-serving places, which won't require a bouncer or generate police runs.
The commission had no trouble unanimously
approving the Main Agenda and the Consent Agenda. Then there was a promotional presentation by Jay Weincko, director of Community Media Network, which along with the Schools and City channel and the City's channels is funded by the one percent of the franchise fee set aside for public television. Weincko encourages governmental and nonprofit bodies to learn to take advantage of CMN's high-tech production facilities.
Requests for more information and for Finance Director Don Johnson's input aborted a vote on the City's request to issue an RFP for privatizing a portion of operating and maintaining parking structures. Commissioners Chuck Semchena and Stephen Miller led the requests for further details. Apparently not convinced by Department of Public Services Director Greg Rassel's statement that transferring a worker paid out of the General Fund to the Parking Fund is not practical, either financially or physically, one request is to prove that there will be financial and physical problems if such a transfer is made. Confusion reigned because the commissioners and the mayor were unable to prevent their personal animosities from distorting what could have been a straightforward attempt to establish a policy re the selection, or not, of an elected official as an emcee for the Christmas Parade. Although it should be easy to establish policy for future years, the fuss came about because of an attempt by the Downtown Development Authority to remove Ginotti from the emcee slot only a week before this year's parade. Last week, I said It would take a Special Prosecutor two years to determine the "truth" among the charges and countercharges; about who knew what, and when he/she knew it. The personal animosities flowed through the commission chamber as they went at it, sometimes but not always trying to be polite. It would be impossible and not helpful, here, to attempt to convey accurately the who's-on-first nature of the unseemly and embarrassing scene. The baneful effect of personal animosities erupting while conducting CITCOM business is bad enough, approaching dysfunctionality, I said last week. The mood is made worse by concerns about the relationship between CITCOM and the DDA. Through the confusion, one thing seemed clear: Semchena requested the DDA to intervene in the emcee selection, and the DDA took vigorous exception to City Manager Tom Hoover's reply that, short of a policy decision by CITCOM, he had no intention of changing the rules a few days before the parade. DDA Chairman Kevin Kalczynski chose to comment about two matters in addition to the emcee argument in an email to Hoover and CITCOM, and the tone of that missive has so set teeth on edge that a handful of people is suggesting that Hoover and CITCOM remove him from office. For background, see [Overview of DDA matters] and {Conversation with Kalczynski]. To add insult to injury, it is the DDA that we can blame, I assume, for those dismally dim blue Christmas lights on downtown trees. CITCOM conducts
brief, businesslike meeting Unanimous Votes
Split Votes
There was public comment which focused on a couple of these items. There were principled questions and disagreements among the elected officials. There were no personal attacks. But a couple of watchers suspect that -- knowing the resolution would pass -- the single no-votes were cast in an attempt to dispel the notion of a "Threesome." Next week, VersagiVoice will provide background about how attitudes (of residents and elected officials and city employees) re the DDA and privatizing and land purchases color Public Comment and CITCOM deliberations. There was an unusual common focus between Public Comment and agenda items during the 01 December 2008 CITCOM meeting. Three topics dominated: (1) Contracting-out (privatizing) management of the city-owned parking structures; (2) City purchases of private property when the city is short on cash; and (3) The relationships between City Hall (Administration and CITCOM) and the Downtown Development Authority. Residents and voters must resist the temptation of assigning unworthy motives to our elected and appointed officials Sure, there are likely to be personal preferences about this or that issue, but the officials are dealing with multiple factors. These are not snap-of-the-finger decisions. Contracting-out parking structure management During Public Comment, DPS employees presented their case for keeping the work in-house. A Huntington Woods-based company which lost the contract, even though it was low-bidder, made a last plea for the city to use local talent, and a DDA member questioned the city's financial numbers. During the CITCOM deliberations, Commissioner Andrzejak suggested that -- at a time when departments are being cut -- this privatization is a run-around-end attempt to expand a department. The chief victim of all this is DPS head Greg Rassell. Greg is easily the most widely recognized department head in the city, and he generates much more praise than criticism. There are those former elected officials who go so far as to suggest, "Everyone knows that DPS is the easiest department to privatize, but we don't want to lose Greg." In this instance, you have observers wondering why the department head is recommending partial privatization of his own department. And you have the still-less-than-convincing justification for giving the contract to an out-of-state higher bidder. There is uneasiness and consternation about the behavior of Greg and City Manager Hoover through all this: Admirers of Rassel worry that Hoover is manipulating, coercing, Rassell. Part of the skepticism about Hoover results from his originally placing the item on the Consent Agenda. City purchases of private property Somewhere in that dialogue and in the public's understanding is confusion: Is the City or the DDA buying the property? If it is the DDA, isn't that still the city's money? Similar questions are/were raised over the decision to purchase the Fresard property on South Main. Answers to the detailed questions Commissioner Semchena asked during deliberations about seeking bids for demolition of the property didn't really make things clearer, especially since he included questions about the bonds the city is negotiating for. DDA/City/CITCOM considerations Our elected officials admirably dealt with all the variables capsulized above during this 01 December 2008 meeting. The on-target attitude was exemplified by Commissioner Miller. He caught himself asking too many questions, stopped, and commented that he had asked still more questions over the phone, the answers to which "wouldn't interest others." Another 5-hour ordeal convinced me that there must be hidden graft and corruption in City Hall. No sane person would put up with this dreariness for a measly $20 per meeting. But they got a lot done, took 8 votes, not counting the two to approve agendas. Then there were two or three matters discussed, about which they took no vote. And, they conducted the debates without anger or personal attack, except at the very end, when one commissioner walked out of the meeting after questioning the motivation and integrity of a colleague. Here's what CITCOM did DISCUSSIONS (without vote) About possible millage increases, the Table is split. Mayor Ellison is the most forthright in maintaining that a request to the voters is unavoidable. He would prefer to ask for the millage before the current program of attrition and cuts diminishes critical services to the point that residents are harmed. The mayor says that, until now, the cuts in services have been "invisible" to the majority of residents. Commissioner Andrzejak's is the strongest voice against even thinking about asking for millage increase until all possible expenses, including in employee benefits, have been severely reduced. Commissioners Miller and Semchena, both with accounting background, focused on the numbers, with Miller acknowledging that several of his questions to Johnson were "technical." Because of the late hour, Andrzejak put off till a future meeting all but nominal discussion of the funding or subsidizing of community promotions like the Holiday Parade and the Dream Cruise. Commissioner Ginotti introduced the issue of taking another look at the Grand Sakwa proposal for the Coolidge-Thirteen Mile development to replace the anticipated conversion of Northwood Shopping Center to Beaumont Hospital needs. There was a bit of huffing and puffing, and Ginotti's motion to have Staff take a preliminary look at the issue failed for lack of a second. This was the last item on the agenda. The troops were tired, and Drinkwine complained that Ginotti was fronting for Sakwa and began to leave the chambers just before the meeting was adjourned. UNANIMOUSLY
SPLIT VOTE
The meeting adjourned at 11:30. This, after the closed session which began at 6:00. |
Special Budget Meeting 13 Sep 08
|