2009 Commission Meetings January

05 Jan 09

In the excused absence of Mayor Ellison, Mayor Pro Tem Carlo Ginotti chaired the 05 January 2009 CITCOM meeting. He proved an assertive chair: Without cutting anyone off, Ginotti repeatedly nudged discussion along and inserted his own thoughts to colleagues and Staff, then moved to the next agenda item.

Four of the original 53 budget-related items on the "Solution Today" list were discussed. Although Administration decisions were accepted, CITCOM's micromanaging mindset came forward in requests for still more information or reactivating dead items. And several more budget-related items were added to the list. Two substantive points were raised: (1) The General Fund will gain tens of thousands of dollars from retroactive application of an accounting change relative to allocating the cost of clerical help provided to the Solid Waste Fund. (2) The Police Department has both previous experience and research knowledge to justify not moving to 10- or 12-hour shifts. Commissioner Semchena requested that one of the budget-related working documents be posted on the city's website, for easy reference by both city officials and residents.

The financial report prepared by the city and evaluated by outside auditor was adopted unanimously. Commissioner Miller requested City Attorney Gillam to develop a resolution to appoint a city commissioner as an alternate on the Audit Review Committee.

One of the three speakers during Public Comment suggested the city ban pit bulls. Commissioner Drinkwine suggested that Staff review the city's animal control ordinance to see if or how it applies to such a request.

12 Jan 09

By taking no action, let the Staff-recommended demolition go forward at 1511 Ottawa.
Authorized the City to apply for up to $1,000,000 of federal funds for the Abandoned and Foreclosed Properties and Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
Discussed but made no firm decisions about the sponsor-versus-taxpayer funding of the Holiday Parade and of the Dream Cruise.
Postponed considering the approval of a development project adjacent to Worden Park until after representatives from the Planning Department and from the developer attend the next Parks & Rec meeting to answer questions left hanging at the group's latest meeting. Mayor Ellison cut off the rambling discussion about what those questions and answers might be, since that information will be available to CITCOM after the next Parks & Rec meeting.
Denied the Traffic Committee's recommendation to remove Permit Parking signs from a street near Royal Oak Middle School, until at least 51% of nearby residents approve the request. Presently, 50% have agreed. Parking had been a problem when the school was Dondero High School.
Denied the Traffic Committee's 2-1 recommendation to close Hudson Street, near the industrial area. (The city's own traffic committee -- Fire, Police, DPS, etc. -- was unanimous in recommending to deny the closure, primarily because of safety issues and "Closing one street moves any problems to another street.") The citizens Traffic Committee's vote came from a meeting in which, although a quorum of four was present, only three voted.
Viewed and listened to a presentation re Mass Transit by former city commissioner and now State Rep Marie Donigan.
By proclamation, honored term-limited Ilene Hill for her 12 years of service on the Downtown Development Authority. (An item on the Consent Agenda appointed former commissioner Pat Capello to the DDA.)

Two agenda items -- Ice Arena Oversight Committee Update and Discussion of Michigan's Open Meetings Act -- which had been added to the agenda by Commissioner Miller were removed at his request when he notified the city that illness would prevent him from attending.

02 Feb 09

Whether Royal Oak should consider banning ownership or possession of specified breeds of dogs was the most sustained topic of discussion. The matter was placed on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Drinkwine, who prefers preventive protection for residents -- and for people and dogs at the dog park. Commissioner Andrzejak is concerned about making arbitrary decisions re whether dog problems are the result of breed or of training. Although no vote was taken, consensus was that CITCOM should make it possible for citizens to make known their thoughts.

Speaking of dog problems, a handful of dog owners have posted on RoyalOakSoundoff their dismay at the dog poop problems at the new dog park.

There was considerable friendly chatter about six budget-focused items on the agenda; they approved one staff-proposed method of handling Interest on Receivables; they learned that staff has already implemented the use of Solid Waste funds for dead tree removal. In-depth discussion about the budget items was postponed to the next meeting, because Commissioner Miller, who had asked that 5 of the 6 items be placed on the agenda, was absent.

Discussion re the Ice Arena Oversight Committee was postponed for the same reason.

The nearest thing to, very brief, contentious dialogue came while Commissioner Semchena was asking a series of questions about the dead tree matter. Andrzejak wondered whether detailed discussion should be done at The Table. Mayor Ellison moved the discussion along with the proposal, accepted consensually, that Staff provide a memo answering Semchena's questions, after which CITCOM can decide whether there is a need to conduct detailed discussion for the public's benefit.

Public Comment
The first of three speakers reported that new sidewalks for which he is still paying the assessment were damaged by fallen Detroit Edison wires 18 months ago. Since then, they continue to crack and disintegrate as the weather changes. According to the resident, both Detroit Edison and City Hall, specifically "Engineering," have said there is nothing they can do, and he considers it unfair to have to pay to repair the sidewalk. In desperation, he brought it to "you guys."

He showed pleasure and appreciation when Ellison told him to call the city manager and City Manager Hoover gave him his telephone number.

Speaking of sidewalks, the second Public Comment speaker wants the city to pass an ordinance or somehow punish people who don't shovel their sidewalks after a snowfall.

The third speaker was Library Board member Ken Rosen, who reported on the Library's Internet experience and long-term strategic plan. Andrzejak complimented the Library, and both men agreed that CITCOM and the Library Board will stay in closer touch.

Good meeting. Short and well-chaired.

16 Feb 09

One hour and twelve minutes was all it took for CITCOM:

Listen to four speakers during Public Comment.
Approve the Separation Agreement between the City and outgoing City Manager Tom Hoover.
Approve the appointment Finance Director Don Johnson as Interim City Manager.
Request the press to inform the public about the Dog Park Fee Structure.
Postpone again, for further fine-tuning, approval the developer's request for a license to proceed with erecting a business structure adjacent to Worden Park, conditioned on using a portion of the park for parking.
Approve a couple of Traffic Committee resolutions.
Approve several Liquor Control Committee resolutions.
Agree to requiring annual operation plan updates from every Class C Liquor License holder.

The Separation Agreement re Hoover and his 1-sentence letter of agreement need to be read carefully to understand the mixture of continued pay and retirement/health conditions which will apparently apply until Hoover finds other employment or 15 August 2009, whichever comes first. VersagiVoice will keep the Hoover documents on the website until that time. Hoover refers to the "city's desire for a change in direction."

02 Mar 09

§ The Zoning Board of Appeals's request for a temporary reduction in the cost of the application fee when seeking a variance when improving a single family home was put on hold, and Staff was directed to provide more financial details about the overall impact of implementing the request. Proponents for the reduction, from $700 to $200, argued that in these economic times Royal Oak would benefit in several ways from making it easier for homeowners to improve their houses.

In Commissioner Semchena's absence, the vote would have been 3-3, so Commissioner Lelito withdrew his motion, to allow time for Staff to provide the requested information. It can be expected that the detailed pro and con arguments will be repeated when next the issue appears on the agenda.

§ The multi-month process for granting a license agreement to permit a developer to create and maintain a 30- to 40-car parking lot in Worden Park, adjacent to a new building, continues. The intention is that the "final agreement" can be voted on at the next CITCOM meeting.

§ The Human Resources Department was directed to initiate the process for searching for a new city manager.

§ During the brief discussion of budget matters, Commissioner Miller asked that changes be made more readily identifiable on the Solution Today report. . . . Several appointments of volunteers were approved.

During Public Comment, resident Bill Shaw engaged Finance Director Don Johnson and Mayor Jim Ellison in a mini-debate about whether the City is being as transparent as it should be about the details of pensions being paid to retirees.

16 Mar 09

Royal Oak's zoning ordinance was a major player in this CITCOM meeting, both as an agenda item and in Public Comment.

The motion to deny a recommendation to reduce the residential application fee was passed, 5-2, with Commissioners Drinkwine and Lelito voting no. Although Commissioner Semchena voted with the majority, he suggested the zoning ordinance need looking at: Over the years, has a pattern formed of the same variances frequently being requested? . . . Should temporary variances of any type be prohibited? Drinkwine, who voted against the resolution, insisted that a $700 fee is excessive for such frequent requests as updating a nonconforming house. He agrees with Semchena that the zoning ordinance needs to be revisited.

Not the zoning ordinance but the Zoning Board of Appeals was addressed by four of the dozen speakers during Public Comment. The issue was the ZBA's refusal to renew last year's temporary variance which permitted Bordine's Nursery to set up a sales area in one of the vacant spots among the deserted industrial zone near Coolidge and 14 Mile. Commissioner Andrzejak challenged one of the speakers to specify which hat he was wearing (attorney, ZBA member, resident). VersagiVoice's report out of that ZBA meeting starts elsewhere on this page.

Public Comment speaker Bill Shaw once again exceeded his time limit as he addressed his concern that not enough attention is being paid to the impact of legacy costs on the city's budget. Shaw touched on such matters as reducing the number of collective bargaining units and the wisdom of letting an executive unit bargain for themselves. He has provided VersagiVoice with the 8-page report re legacy costs supplied to him by the city. Mayor Ellison and Interim City Manager Don Johnson clarified some confusion about the impact of legacy costs on the General Fund.

During the 2-hour meeting, CITCOM also:

Denied "Q" Detroit Barbecue permission to transfer a liquor license from outside the city. The vote was 4-3, with Ellison, Lelito and Commissioner Ginotti voting against the move to deny. The petitioner, also owner-operator of Royal Oak Brewery was praised by everyone. The sticking point was the reluctance of the majority to bring in yet another Class C liquor license, even to allow a desirable new business.
Agreed with City Attorney Dave Gillam's recommendation not to forward any negative comments to the State re current liquor license holders. No serious problems with those license holders were reported by the city's Building, Fire, and Police Departments, but cashflow-centered Commissioner Miller requested that a monthly report be provided CITCOM re progress on late tax payments.
After months of essentially procedural delay, the license was granted for a commercial developer to create and maintain a parking area in that portion of Worden Park adjacent to a facility he is erecting.
After Human Resources Director May Jo Dipaolo provided background information, decided that all members of CITCOM should be the selection committee in the search for a city manager, and scheduled for 30 March 2009 a special meeting of that committee.

06 Apr 09

I have previously described CITCOM as increasingly dysfunctional. During its 06 April 2009 meeting, the commission began to move from dysfunctionality to disintegration.

Minutes before the meeting ended, Commissioner Miller -- declaring an emergency -- walked out while Mayor Ellison was offering his thoughts about the controversy on the the table. Miller has sent an email explanation and apology to his colleagues, but skeptics contend that Miller too often uses an emergency excuse and consider his leaving payback for previous walkouts aimed at him by Drinkwine and Ginotti. (As an aside, I am disappointed that neither Drinkwine nor Ginotti has ever apologized -- not to Miller, but to their constituents.)

The commissioners cast unanimous votes about several procedural and civic matters, like free parking from 10-till-2 for the Oak Apple Run, and action plans related to Block Grants, and scheduling budget meetings. With Miller gone, they even voted unanimously about the WROK matter, after a bruising battle. It was about that issue, in which Ginotti was really the focus, and about the move to unseat ZBA member Jim Rasor that CITCOM's disintegration showed.

In outline, let's begin with the decision to hold a "Public Hearing" so that CITCOM can decide whether Jim Rasor should be expelled from his seat on the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Four of ten Public Comment speakers, one way or another, criticized the commission for even considering this action. They see volunteers suddenly threatened by a process they have neither encountered nor been informed about, and the need for the commission to focus "on community matters, not on personal differences."
Few serious city hall observers accept City Attorney Gillam's declaration that he, personally, chose to bring forth this move against Rasor. Gillam's position was not helped by his saying he would/could not provide details of the charge until later.
That the so-called Public Hearing is more like a Trial is suggested both by Gillam's statement that details would be provided and the development that Rasor "and his counsel" will be notified of those details and about possible dates. We have here a lawyer, Rasor, needing a lawyer, to defend his actions as a volunteer.
"Volunteer' gets confused when the focus shifts to Rasor's actions on behalf of Bordine's, when that company attempted to renew last year's variance to place a seasonal operation in the industrial area on Coolidge, north of Fourteen Mile. Puzzling to some, that representation seems not to be the point at issue, but we'll have to wait and see.
Partisans are having fun trying to decide how much this attack is based on the fact that Rasor has pulled petitions to run for commissioner in November.
Laymen had to be further confused when Ginotti, himself an attorney, asked Gillam to provide CITCOM with guidelines for conducting the Public Hearing, including "rules of evidence."
Drinkwine said it is unfortunate that the commission was spending time "flyspecking a volunteer," then added that the hearing should be held to offer Rasor the opportunity to clear his name. The vote to hold the hearing won, 5-2, with Lelito and Ginotti voting no.
Gillam advised the elected officials not to speak to the press and not to post blog comments about the Rasor affair, until the matter has been resolved.

Longer and more involved with personages than with substance was the debate about setting policy for WROK concerning whether and how the cable channel should use elected officials. Watching this debate was disappointingly sad for those city hall observers who like the people at the Table, respecting them as individuals even through disagreements.

In a sense, the debate began during Public Comment, when WROK Committee member Timothy Constant said he was puzzled that the resolution being presented that night didn't reflect his memory of what the committee decided. [See]
When the WROK matter came up, Andrzejak opened by saying that the WROK committee meeting was not scheduled at the request of any commissioner.
Drinkwine sees no need to ban elected officials from participating in civic and public events. "We're as much a part of the community [as other citizens]." He moved that CITCOM adopt a resolution reflecting that point of view.
Miller countered that CITCOM should stick with Interim City Manager Johnson's approach.
Ginotti, adopting the questioning format used in depositions and in court, asked Constant a series of questions, followed by questions to Johnson.
Constant confirmed that contract employee Richard Wilson, who serves as committee chairman, made it clear that he felt pressured to hold a committee meeting after attending a meeting which included Andrzejak, Miller, and Johnson.
Under Ginotti's persistent questioning, Johnson acknowledged that the meeting was called at Andrzejak's request and that Miller also showed up.
Andrzejak opined that the meeting was "just conversation, not pressure." He recalled that as far back as 2007 he had raised an objection to elected officials being used in the way Ginotti was operating. Andrzejak also said that he had been promised that the situation would change [that Ginotti would be replaced] by July of 2008, then by year-end 2008, "but it never happened."
Either Andrzejak or Miller described the meeting as "a cordial exchange."
Andrzejak said he was "OK" with moving the Ginotti-hosted Royal Oak Show to the Community Media Network, through which Wilson is contracted to Royal Oak.
Semchena mentioned that the previous contract employee, who had worked with Ginotti, had been convicted, before going on to suggest to Constant that the WROK committee should consider using non-elected people on their shows.
Ellison maintained that "the people sitting at this table are strangers to most residents," and he encouraged all the commissioners to become more visible at civic events and gatherings.
It was during Ellison's comments, the last after almost an hour of dialogue by the others, that Miller left the commission chambers.

So -- in a single CITCOM meeting -- we had 7of Royal Oak's finest, 9 if you include Johnson and Gillam, using real or supposed matters of principle to threaten or diminish the activities or reputation of a contract employee, a civic volunteer, and one of their own -- further souring the tone of CITCOM meetings.

I began this report by suggesting that Royal Oak's 44th City Commission has gone from dysfunctionality to disintegration. Other city hall observers use terms like "disenchanted" and "disgusted." And, the word "recall" has been seriously inserted in the dialogue.

Coincidentally or cause-and-effect, residents are, sourly, asking how they can clean house when they become unhappy with [politically motivated?] volunteers on such governmental entities as the ZBA.

Again coincidentally or cause-and-effect, VersagiVoice readers have asked me to summarize how appointments are made to such city panels and whether young newcomers "need not apply."

I'll probably have something about that next week.

About that WROK meeting
I attended the meeting of the WROK committee at issue in the 06 April 2009 CITCOM meeting. After I made it clear that Frank Versagi, not VersagiVoice, was sitting there, the Chair was kind enough to permit me to comment and ask questions. Because I was not "covering" the meeting, I made no notes, so I will not pretend here to quote anyone, but I came away with both knowledge and impressions about what has been going on. In no particular order:

When, before the CITCOM meeting, I read Commission Letter # 82-09, I was surprised that it did not describe the decision I heard made at the committee meeting. As I remember it, the WROK committee had been directed to propose a policy about using, or not, any elected official in its programming. After much discussion their conclusion was, to paraphrase, "Developing such a policy should be the commission's task, since the issue here is not programming but politics."
In my mind, Johnson's resolution to CITCOM which read, in part, "recommends the City Commission establish a policy that elected officials may not actively participate in WROK broadcasts" does not capture the spirit of the committee's conclusions. A more accurate reflection of the committee's thinking would be something like, "The WROK committee recommends that the City Commission establish a policy which makes clear the commission's intentions about the degree of involvement, if any, of elected officials in WROK programming."
What Andrzejak described as a "cordial exchange" was definitely considered a threat by the WROK committee, after hearing the Chair's report on the meeting which included Andrzejak, Miller, and Interim City Manager Johnson.
At the CITCOM meeting, Andrzejak said he would be "OK" with moving the Royal Oak Show to the Community Media Network (CMN). At the WROK committee meeting, when the Chair was asked about that by committee members, he replied that what he heard was that if CMN ran the Ginotti-hosted show, the city would have to take another look at CMN's contract.
The uneasiness and tension at the WROK meeting was too intense to have been caused by a "cordial exchange." Concerning who called what meeting, when, and what was said, one must conclude that either (a) intelligent and competent people seriously and repeatedly misunderstood each other or (b) for purposes best known to themselves, one or more individuals are lying.

As happens too often with this city commission, debate over an issue was distorted by personal or political animosity.

The issue is valid: Is it appropriate for an elected official, especially in an election year, to have the advantage of repeated TV exposure on a popular, ultimately tax-funded cable show?

However, the debate was distorted by the animus against Carlo Ginotti, who conceived and set in place the Royal Oak Show which is at the core of this debate.

Not as valid was the debate about the emcee for DDA-sponsored parades or the hinted-but-never-publicly-raised concern about Drinkwine's popular outdoors column every Sunday in The Daily Tribune.

The WROK committee was wise to pass the baton to CITCOM.

Reader Reaction

The written response to VersagiVoice's report of the 06 April 09 CITCOM meeting began within an hour of the update. Disturbingly, comments by civic activists whose names many residents would recognize -- men and women who have cordial working relationships with elected and appointed city officials -- fear reprisals of one sort or another if they are identified. Worse, some posit deeper suspicions than can reasonably be inferred from my CITCOM & WROK reports. Below are samples of thoughtful comments from responsible individuals, all of whom I know personally. -- FJV

§ Thanks for the update. Just to let you know, Richard Wilson is not contracted to the city through CMN. He has his own company, Camco, which contracts directly with the city. -- Deb [Deborah Anderson serves as Royal Oak's liaison to Community Media Network.]

§ [From VersagiVoice report] What Andrzejak described as a "cordial exchange" was definitely considered a threat by the WROK committee, after hearing the Chair's report on the meeting which included Andrzejak, Miller, and Interim City Manager Johnson.

Frank--Just between you and me, I wonder how Miller was made aware of this meeting. Was it the City Manager (he said he didn't know Steve was coming), the WROK Rep (I rather doubt it), or Mike A.? Someone thought it was necessary that he be there. Given Steve's reputation I could certainly understand how the WROK rep might feel "threatened". I DO NOT wish my name being used with this observation if you should so decide to use it.

§ I was at the meeting on Monday and have been looking forward to your update to see if your perceptions of the events at the table were similar to mine. They were. In a private hall discussion with the gentleman from WROK, there was no doubt in his mind that their funding was being threatened. My question for you is, given the bold and blunt answers from Mr. Constant (correct name? ), what are your thoughts on an internal investigation? Although you correctly and fairly point out that Ginotti's on-air presence raises reasonable questions of fairness, elected officials cannot do as they see fit to achieve their objectives.

§ There is a lot brewing at the city commission, and the electorate is rightly soured.

20 Apr 09

Mayor Jim Ellison was less than the nice guy he usually is when conducting a CITCOM meeting. And we all benefited from his firmness, as the commission addressed two sticky issues: (1) what can for now be called "the Jim Rasor Affair" and (2) the tension between City Hall and the Downtown Development Authority.

Commissioner Chuck Semchena was absent, but that didn't prevent three other lawyers from having-at-it as they attempted to make clear to the public if and how a proposed public meeting to get rid of Rasor differs from an administrative hearing or a trial. Doing legal battle were City Attorney Dave Gillam, Commissioner Carlo Ginotti, and ZBA member Jim Rasor.

About that hearing: "Rules of evidence" won't/don't apply. . . . The specific charges against Rasor will be made public when the meeting notice is published. . . . The City and Rasor will be able to bring witnesses and to provide documents -- a bit like what happens during legal "discovery," . . . but this isn't a Deposition, so . . . Got all that?

Rasor won the CITCOM debate, even though Ellison properly cut off Rasor's tendency to talk too much. He won, first, because the very fuzziness of the proposed proceeding and the lack of specific charges after all this time make it easy to sympathize with the individual against the system and, second, because Rasor was successful in getting the normally calm and collected Gillam to lose his cool.

COMMENT: Having served several times as an expert witness, I can attest that such a preliminary psychological/procedural "victory" does not assure success in the actual public -- ugh -- "gathering," which is tentatively scheduled 7 p.m. Tuesday, 02 June 2009. -- FJV

Addressing the DDA Budget
The institutional tension between City Hall and the DDA is mentioned in VersagiVoice coverage of last week's DDA meeting. During that meeting, the tension was evident but muted. During this CITCOM meeting, though, the tension was almost tangible and resulted in a quick decision to send back the DDA's proposed Development Fund Budget, with planned revenues of $2,825, 475. (Its Operating Budget, with $50,000 income, was approved.)

Commissioners Drinkwine and Miller, joining in the chuckles elicited by the unusualness of their agreeing on something, questioned specific line items, like Marketing Revenue (read: sponsorships) and Marketing Expenditures. Asked whether he would prefer that $300,000-plus be spent on security cameras for the parking structures or for hiring three more people, Interim Police Chief Chris Jahnke made it clear he'd prefer more manpower.

Commissioner Mike Andrzejak summarized the apparent attitudinal differences between the DDA and City Hall, suggesting that the DDA must not be seeing the same financial picture that CITCOM sees and that "their priorities seem to be different from ours."

COMMENT: Don Johnson, Interim City Manager and Director of Finance, was quiet during the vigorous but quiet DDA budget discussion. In his capacity as city manager, he is a voting member on the DDA, and he did make comments during the DDA meeting itself. However, in this CITCOM meeting he sits as city manager, and there is the possibility of a conflict of interest for him. Indeed, Tenet 5 of the Code of Ethics of the International City/County Management Associations states, in pertinent part: "Conflicting Roles. Members who serve multiple roles -- working as both city attorney and city manager for the same community, for example -- should avoid participating in matters that create the appearance of a conflict of interest."

For the rest, CITCOM unanimously approved five routine recommendations from the Liquor Control Committee, which had accepted proposed changes in plan of operation from The Inn Place, Royal Oak Brewery, Lily's Seafood, Comedy Castle, and Oak City Grill.

The meeting ended at 8:43. 'Twas a short, tense, useful meeting.

04 May 09

Despite an occasional soft-voiced display of personal pettiness, an analysis of the split votes at the 04 May 2009 CITCOM meeting demonstrates that our elected officials voted on principle, not on personality.

Issue	Vote	No-Votes
Waive portion of event fee for Clay, Glass and Metal Show	4-3	Andrzejak, Miller, Semchena
Permit for Noir Leather Street Performances	5-2	Miller, Semchena
Extended Sidewalk Cafe for Muse Cafe in front of adjacent business	5-2	Drinkwine, Ginotti
Woody's modified Plan of Operation	6-1	Ginotti
Permanently amend Wood's Plan of Operation to permit Music on Woody's 3rd floor for one Chamber of Commerce event/year (FAILED)	3-4	Andrzejak, Drinkwine, Ginotti, Ellison
Amend Plan of Operation for this year only, to permit Chamber event on Woody's 3rd floor	4-3	Andrzejak, Drinkwine, Ginotti

. Unanimously or without vote, CITCOM agreed to:

Reconsider, and approve, Royal Oak participation in safety-focused modification of intersection at Woodward and Twelve Mile. The issue was brought back to The Table by Commissioner Miller.
Approve a modification the Library's budget to permit purchase of a sump pump.
Direct Staff to design a census-type survey in an appropriate geographical area to measure rentals, in anticipation of the need to amend the city's property ordinance.
Approve Sidewalk Cafe permits to La Feast, on South Main, and to What Crepe, on South Washington.
Accept Interim Police Chief Chris Jahnke's reasoning against attempting to move away from 8-hour shifts.

Commissioner Miller focused on the budget impact of this or that item several times during the meeting. Mayor Ellison effectively chaired the meeting, especially by summarizing and bringing back into focus the convoluted conversation during the debates over the Clay, Glass, and Metal Festival and Woody's Plan of Operation.

18 May 09

This was a long, but productive meeting. Before adjournment, at 11:20 p.m., CITCOM:

Listened to several city workers whose jobs seem to have been targeted for elimination.
Formally began budget deliberations and confirmed dates for working sessions and a public hearing.
Rejected 4 of 5 amendments proposed by the Charter Review Committee and returned the 5th for a re-do.
Approved 3 of 4 recommendations from the Liquor Control Committee and reversed the LCC's decision on the 4th.
After considerable discussion, directed the City Attorney to prepare two versions of a proposed Bistro License ordinance.

Budget
There will necessarily be much to-ing and fro-ing as budget deliberations proceed. During this meeting, two "dimensions" stand out: (1) The number of inspectors will be cut, and (2) If the city continues to draw on its reserves, we'll run out of cash in 2014. The devil is in the details, of course, and the details will be introduced and debated in work sessions scheduled for 20 and 21 May. A couple of comments extracted from Finance Director Don Johnson's cover memo are enough establish the tone of what to expect:

"Regardless of how you prefer to look at it, it is not a pretty picture." . . . "We are not going to solve our long-term problems in two or three special budget meetings." . . . "This budget isn't really balanced in any of the five years . . . we will be living off our savings."

City Charter
§ The proposal to permit only a summary of a new ordinance be published in an official newspaper, with the full document placed on the city's website was returned to the CRC, with instruction to consider relating the proposal to another section of the charter which refers to timelines for voter response. -- Unanimous

§ Reduce the number of signatures, from 500 to 250, required to qualify as a candidate for commissioner or mayor. Rejected. 4-3 (Andrzejak, Lelito, Semchena)

§ Permit a sitting commissioner to remain in office while running for mayor. Rejected. Unanimous

§ Extend the mayor's term from 2 years to 4. Rejected: Unanimous

§ Allow the next highest, but losing, vote-getter in the previous election to fill a vacated commission seat, so long as a specified percentage of the votes cast for commissioner were cast for that candidate. Rejected: 5-2 (Andrzejak, Miller)

Liquor Control
LCC unanimously approved amendments in operations for Peking House, Oxford Inn, and Memphis Smoke.

Two split votes resulted during consideration of the request to transfer a liquor license from out of the city by "Q" Detroit Barbecue. Commissioner Drinkwine and the LCC (2-1) opted to deny the transfer on principle. Drinkwine maintained that Royal Oak's "no-transfer" rule must be consistently applied. However, the rather rambling discussion about how "Bistro-esque" Q's plan of operation is led to the first split vote. The vote to deny the transfer was defeated, 3-4, with Commissioners Ginotti, Lelito, Miller, and Mayor Ellison voting no.

The second split vote came on the motion to approve the liquor license transfer, 4-3, with Andrzejak, Drinkwine, and Semchena voting no. Drinkwine said he can never again reject a request to transfer a liquor license from out-of-town.

Bistro License Ordinance
There was much discussion of the "Bistro concept" during the debate over Q's request. Seating limits, indoor and outdoor; square foot dimension; what "occupancy" means and doesn't mean; food/alcohol sales ratio, and the like. The word "Bistro-esque" was used often.

That debate led smoothly into the discussion of a proposed ordinance to allow Bistro licenses in Royal Oak as one way to discourage mega bars while encouraging the responsible sale of alcohol in smaller restaurants. Previous exploration of the concept by both the LCC and CITCOM had covered much of what was said during the Q debate. Added were debates over such items as how many Bistro licenses should be permitted -- at first, then annually -- and whether to permit small dance floors.

Andrzejak raised concern over too-broad a measure of "bistro-esque." He pointed out for example that some existing restaurants have paid for Class C liquor licenses, even though they seat fewer people than some of the bistro advocates are promoting. The city attorney was directed to draft two ordinances, one permitting dancing and one not.

DDA, CITCOM budget tiff eases
DDA and CITCOM budget discussions crossed paths this month and barely avoided crossing swords.

City Hall watchers will recall that CITCOM sent back the DDA's proposed budget. Addressing that rejection during its 20 May meeting, the DDA came close to resubmitting the same budget and stressing that the document reflected their best judgment after long deliberations. Had the DDA vote been taken early in this meeting, I was certain the unchanged budget would have been returned, accompanied by a request for a joint meeting to resolve differences.

The DDA mood changed when Pat Capello asked Interim City Manager Don Johnson what options CITCOM would have if the same budget was returned, other than to accept it or reject it again. Johnson said CITCOM could pass a resolution demanding that DDA would need to seek CITCOM approval on every expenditure, line item by line item. Visibly stunned, the board failed to ask Johnson under what authority such a resolution could be justified, but they listened more attentively to Planning Director Tim Thwing's suggestions about reaching a compromise. Consensus was reached that to throw the budget back would exacerbate the already contentious relationship between the two city bodies.

Without going into detail, the DDA and CITCOM differ about the importance of installing security cameras in the city's parking structures. More specifically, the debate is about how the cost of that proposed project impacts the existing financial relationships between them. DDA Chairman Kevin Kalczynski has provided a statement summarizing the DDA's action.

Coincidentally, CITCOM had its first working session on the budget in the same chamber seats just vacated by the DDA, and the agency was praised by Commissioner Andrzejak for cooperating with the city commission.

DDA Chairman Kevin Kalcynski's Statement

Background:
For several years, the DDA has paid the full debt service on the bonds that were issued to pay for the 5th and Lafayette Parking Structure totaling approximately $600,000 despite the fact that the DDA's contractual obligation is to pay approximately half of that amount. The DDA's voluntary assumption of that debt has provided substantial benefit to the City in that it allows the City to save funds that would otherwise have to come from the parking fund or other City sources.

Each year, the City Commission is required to approve the DDA's budget. This year, the DDA proposed a budget that provided for the DDA paying only the amount it was contractually obligated to pay on the debt service (approximately $300,000) and shifting the other $300,000 to a line item for installing security cameras in two of the parking decks. The City Commission considered the DDA's proposed budget and passed a resolution directing the DDA to reconsider its proposed budget.

Action at yesterday's meeting:
In line with the City Commission's resolution, the DDA reconsidered its proposed budget and, after vigorous debate, passed a resolution changing the originally-proposed budget by restoring the full funding for the debt service on the 5th and Lafayette Parking Deck by shifting the funding slated for the security cameras back to the debt service line item. The resolution includes a provision recommending to the City Commission that the Administration be directed to explore ways to fund the installation of the security cameras as well as a request for a joint meeting between the DDA and City Commission. In effect, this action fills in what would otherwise be a $300,000 hole in the City's budget and allows the DDA and City to jointly explore ways to fund the proposed security cameras for two of the City's parking decks. -- 21 May 2009

01 Jun 09

CITCOM adopts 2009-2010 budget
With several commissioners taking the time to praise Interim City Manager-Director of Finance Don Johnson for his work and guidance, CITCOM adopted the new budget for the next fiscal year. On their part, our highly paid elected officials deserve a bonus for the time and effort they expended during the process.

The budget draws on the city's savings to balance the General Fund's revenues and expenses. The pertinent 7-page document can be reviewed through a link in the agenda for the meeting, on the City's Website.

At the start of the meeting, Mayor Ellison announced the appointment of Chris Jahnke as Chief of Police. Jahnke has been serving as Interim Police Chief since the resignation of Ted Quisenberry.

For the rest, the commission approved -- unanimously, except for one no-vote -- such matters as putting insurance policies out for bid, the DDA development budget, and the collective bargaining agreement with the Detectives' Association.

During Public Comment, Dennis Cowan, who will be representing Jim Rasor at tonight's Administrative Hearing, challenged Commissioner Miller's qualifications to serve during the hearing and questioned the appropriateness of City Attorney Dave Gillam serving as both witness and advocate. Told that the hearing will neither be telecast or video-taped, Cowan suggested he might bring in his own record-keeping capability to supplement the automatic audio recording which the city conducts.

Long-time city hall monitor Brendan Wehrung chided CITCOM for devoting so much time, and expense, to the Jim Rasor/ZBA matter, when there are more serious matters, like taxes, to address. Two or three commissioners reacted at length to Wehrung's suggestion that they "talk taxes" every budget-year, election-year or not. Their main point: in 2005, voters shot down a modest millage increase, 2-to-1.

15 Jun 09

Using a legally questionable move, CITCOM ordered Commissioner Stephen Miller to leave his seat at the commission table. The vote, taken just after the Call to Order and before the Invocation, was 4-2, with Andrzejak and Semchena voting no. Miller left the table without comment. That done, CITCOM moved smoothly through a lengthy agenda which included:

Approving increased fees for Building Permits and Rental Licenses. (During Public Comment, on resident questioned the appropriateness of increased inspection fees on rentals, when interior inspections are rare and "drive-by" inspections are the norm.)
Sending back to the Traffic Committee the charge to make suggestions for highlighting the bump-outs on portions of Main Street.
Approving, but without a waiver of Parking Fees, the DDA's request to mount a Kids Cruise on 11 August.
Approving the First Reading of that version of a Bistro License which prohibits dancing.
Approving an ATM installation in Farmers Market.
Approving a Memorandum of Understanding with a potential developer of 600/700 Main Street. In the interim, some of the space will used for metered parking.
Removing from the Agenda Lelito's request for a "Review" of the 02 June Administrative Hearing re the proposed removal of Jim Rasor from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Lelito said he needed more information, which is forthcoming.)

During Public Comment, two or three speakers praised Miller, after acknowledging that their comments were coming too late. Two or three suggested the City needs to revitalize the old or create a new Code of Ethics. Jim Rasor recommended/demanded a City investigation of attempts to influence ZBA votes, independent of any Sheriff's investigation. He cited the difference between a criminal and a procedural/ethical proceeding.

Whatever their specific topic, about half of the 10 speakers expressed disappointment and anger at the overall performance of CITCOM, the main complaint being that the panel is being distracted from "the peoples' business" by trivial insider-issues.

The bright spot in the meeting was when Ginotti was able easily to roll Italian words off his tongue as he read the proclamation honoring Luigi Cutraro. Italian Knight, un Cavrille.

===

VersagiVoice here:
Parliamentary Law and Robert's Rules of Order are clear that a resignation is valid only after being accepted by the organization's' governing body. CITCOM is our governing body and operates under Robert's. I have found nothing in the City Charter which pre-empts that conventional understanding.

The motion which ousted Miller cites "Mayor Ellison's June 4, 2009 acceptance of resignation . . ." The mayor is not the City's governing body.

I am well aware that in the legal arena a matter which seems clear to the layman gets muddied when lawyers have at it. However, we have here a conflict between politics and governance which demands considerably more transparency than has so far been demonstrated. The public is not being well served.

Unfortunately, this, too, ain't over, and because it is tied -- in large part because of some public comments by Miller himself -- to the ZBA, the election, even the Police Department, there will be ongoing input from all sides. -- FJV: 16 Jun 09

Return to Top of Page