The future of any municipality is based in large part on its master plan, and the Clarkston City Council last week debated how to plan for the future.
In recent weeks, Council Member David Savage has urged the council to take a look at the master plan, which has not been updated since 1997.
At the Feb. 14 meeting, City Manager Art Pappas brought a memo from the McKenna Associates (the city’s contracted planner), saying the plan must be reviewed every five years by the city planning commission.
The McKenna memo recommended a ‘thorough review? including updated population information, a review of the city’s goals and objectives, new residential developments, a review of new trends and a public hearing/vision session.
The memo further recommended a $15,000 line item in the city’s next fiscal year budget for the review.
Some council members questioned the need for any review, while Savage went so far as to recommend a search for a new contracted planner.
‘Why do we need McKenna in there charging us $15,000?? asked Mayor Sharron Catallo. ‘If there are areas that need to be addressed, then call them in. Not that much has changed, nor do we want it to.?
‘If we’re going to eventually need the services of our planner, and we’re going to spend more money with the planner’maybe the time is right for a review of who we want as our city planner,? Savage said. ‘Maybe it becomes McKenna again, or maybe we make a switch, and that could be the first project they are involved in if we make a switch.
‘I think it’s time to take another look at a new planner,? Savage continued. ‘Based on everything we’ve gone through as a council and as a city, it is in order.?
Council Member Walter Gamble took issue with the McKenna memo’s reference to ‘developmental pressures for higher density residential and mixed-use projects.?
‘What developmental pressures?? Gamble asked, agreeing with Catallo that the master plan goes into greater detail than needed for the small city.
‘We can whittle this down to what we’re really looking for and get the cost down.?
City attorney Thomas Ryan said the planning commission could do a preliminary review to perhaps save some money.
‘We have to involve the planner at some point,? Ryan said, but the planning commission could ‘do some of the heavy lifting.?
Council Member Scott Meyland eventually made a motion to refer the issue to the planning commission and ask them to recommend ‘opportunities for further review.?
Savage objected, and eventually cast the lone negative vote.
‘I’m opposed to that without the council coming up with some vision as to what’s been happening in the city in terms of our growth and in terms of other issues,? Savage said. ‘I think it’s our job to give the planning commission some of our input prior to them going to all the trouble of reviewing the thing.?
‘I don’t think we should be dictatorial about what we want them to review,? Meyland said.
Savage used ongoing budget problems as an example to press his point.
‘As a council, it would be great if we could say to the planning commission, ‘Take a serious look at this? because we could sure use the added tax revenue,? Savage said. ‘That could help us with other problems we face as a city council.?
‘I don’t like the idea of approving something because it will increase our tax base,? Catallo responded. ‘That makes me real nervous.?