WLHS: Steps Forward and Steps Back

Work as a community, incremental steps, and there is no need for power grabs

The Brief

• You need to attend the zoning listening sessions and influence the zoning if you care about Harbor Springs

• The City Manager is attempting to change the agenda procedure for city council meetings, removing key executive power from the mayor

• Sign up for City Emails: Link

• The City Council meets on Monday January 20th at 7 p.m. Agenda Zoom YouTube

• Planning Commission meeting Thursday, January 23, at 5:30 p.m. Zoom YouTube

• There are 4 Zoning meetings this week! Attend a Zoning Update Town Halls & Listening Sessions to influence the zoning Link

• View our website or provide comments on our facebook page

You Need to Take Action to Get Zoning Correct

This is the moment to decide whether to affect the zoning for, against, or otherwise. If you do not attend, we will again be in a ditch. Please study the issues.

ATTEND THE MEETINGS AND ASK OTHERS TO ATTEND

We have heard you say:

• I have a specific problem

• I do not want any zoning changed

• I need to understand why we need to do this

• I am fine with some updates, but do not want any Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC) and Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) influence.

These zoning meetings are arranged in a discussion format (no 3-minute limitations), and you can speak up for, against, or anything in between. If the majority expresses the need to minimize change, you are likely to get your way. So…..

• Attend a session in person or via Zoom: link Tuesday the 21st at 6PM is a good meeting to zoom.

• Write to the planning commission: assessor@cityofharborsprings.com

• Ask others to attend

Details

City Council Agendas

For Monday night’s City Council meeting, the City Manager has placed on the agenda an item that fundamentally changes what items the community will discuss before City Council.

According to the current City Manager, Victor Sinadinoski, for decades, the City Manager has set the meeting agenda and “runs it by the Mayor for review.” Then the item would come up for discussion. As Sinadinoski points out, it’s worked well here for a long time under the previous City Manager.

He is now proposing a different strategy that the agenda be approved by the Council before any discussion is allowed.

The amendment appears to suggest that if the Mayor rejects Victor’s proposed agenda, the City Manager could still bring it to the City Council, where the majority of the City Council could approve it. This seems like a clear attempt to centralize control into the City Manager’s hands, bypassing the Mayor’s authority.

What is an agenda according to Robert’s Rules? According to Robert’s Rules, each meeting should follow an agenda. During the meeting itself, the agenda should be followed in order from top to bottom, and each point needs to be addressed or voted on before moving on to the next items of business. The agenda should always be prepared in advance by the president or chairman (also known as the presiding officer) or the secretary.

This gives the Council veto power over what is brought up for discussion. Just as we saw the Behrmann-Motschall-Melke faction block the Mayor’s choices for volunteers to city commissions by refusing to second nominations or even have discussions about the applicants proposed by the Mayor. This strategy and this same voting bloc will simply not allow items they oppose to be put on the agenda.

The City Managers move bypasses the long-guided and accepted protocol of proper order and the presiding officer role and transfers that power to the City Manager whose position is not legislative but administrative. Victor is out of line to remove this procedural mandate and say what he is doing is in accordance with Robert’s Rules. And if Council chooses to not remove this item from the agenda before acceptance so that they can properly research the protocol and legalities behind it, it will open up the city to further problems.

City Council is for the people of the community, and the elected officials have an obligation to hear any topic placed before them, whether it be by the City Manager or another Councilperson, or the Mayor.

Michigan Municipal League: Meetings: Agendas and MinutesMeetings: Agendas and Minutes

Sinadinoski goes on the say, “This makes good sense because the agenda is ‘Council’s agenda,’ and Council should ultimately decide which business it would like to discuss.” He can only say this because, at this time, Sinadinoski controls the 3 to 2 voting bloc.

In U.S. municipalities, the mayor is afforded the authority to set the agenda precisely because the office embodies a unitary executive principle at the local level—namely, that a singular, elected official should ultimately be accountable for the direction of government. This alignment ensures a clear chain of command, which fosters efficiency and avoids the confusion that can arise when too many competing voices attempt to steer legislative priorities. By having the mayor determine which issues come before the council and in what order, the city can quickly mobilize resources and address emergencies and priorities under cohesive leadership. The mayor’s elected status also confers direct accountability to voters, thus helping maintain transparency and responsiveness in decision-making. Overall, this structure not only preserves order and continuity in the face of everyday governance challenges but also enables swift, unified action in times of crisis.

We elected Tom Graham Mayor, to lead Harbor Springs. The community can currently bring a subject to the Mayor, and have it placed on the agenda where the Council would (without veto power) discuss the agenda. This form of community representation is the core principle of the Community-Mayor-City form of city government, which has worked since 1932 without many grievances or difficulties.

The RRC and the Economic Development Plan

Also scheduled on Monday night’s agenda is a second review and discussion for City Council of the Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC) and Michigan Economic Development Economic Corporations (MEDC) Economic Development Plan for the next 5-20 years! It is based partially on only 37 inputs in a recent survey from residents. The strategy includes decreasing the average age of the community.

The community should ask City Council to put aside the Economic Development Plan until Zoning is sorted out.

Trying to plan the Harbor Springs economic development for the next 20 years feels a bit wobbly. Building it from survey responses of 37 people and one City Manager is yet more tenuous. It takes the community to determine the ‘right’ land use and development strategy for 1.3 Sq mi, all the land we have.

Will they listen?

Mayor Tom Graham says…

The role of the mayor is to manage and direct the counsel and manage the business affairs of the city. I will love our town the way it is and make it better with common sense implements and the market will take care of itself.

Good decisions are made in the right order of importance and not in a hurried manner.

Zoning Listening Sessions

It was clear from the first listening session that the common ground the community is finding is based on stewardship and simplicity issues. It was a successful meeting toward the principle of Preserve and Protect.

We have an obligation to the folks that currently live here, not to the businesses we might want to attract. We are as a community, making good progress from within to collaborate, understand, and discuss how we will use our resources. Groups in a room get to common ground quicker than rigid Planning Commission or City Council meetings.

We are already trying to talk about developing functional neighborhoods based on residential and commercial needs. We continue to urge district-by-district discussions. Each area of Harbor Springs has a unique character for a reason.

For items not raised by the community, the Planning Commission Chairman Bill Mulder needs to explain to the community the premise of each of the zoning changes discussed at these Town Halls and Listening Sessions. We will ask: Are the reasons for change to build better living conditions, weather resiliency protections, infrastructure upgrades, visitors opinions, tourist attractions, downtown businesses expansions for more money or solid reasons like property owners asking the zoning administrator to attend to their needs?

Will these ideas garnered be used to envision the future? Are they products of our local people? The changing dynamics of modern needs? A sensible discussion might lead with … “the zoning reforms were based on our findings…”.

Common Sense Survey Discussion

It seems common sense that taking surveys on various local issues would be a good idea. You want to know what your town thinks? Ask them! Harbor Springs has conducted 31 alone since 2019, on everything from Trick or Treating to Geese on the Beaches to the Zoning Code. So when the City says, “Surveys are one tool for obtaining community input. The results can act as a guide for possible changes,” they’re not kidding.

The problem with surveys is that they are very difficult to write in a way that ensures their validity and professionalism. It’s more science than art. Good intentions don’t guarantee good results.

When your survey is only concerned with finding out how to deal with geese, the validity isn’t that big of a deal. When 80% of 170 people say geese are a problem, even with what they call ‘sampling error,’ (when your survey doesn’t reach all of your population), you can probably bet more people than not aren’t fans of the goose at least when they congregate.

When your survey is about collecting opinions you plan to use “as a guide for possible changes” to the zoning code, validity becomes a big deal.

Besides not getting information from the whole population (say getting information from only people who have both online access and are computer-savvy), results are also skewed when the tone and wording of the survey create bias, conscious or not. Both the questions that are asked and the ways they are phrased affect how people will answer.

This is why governments and companies pay independent professionals to write surveys. Flawed surveys have questions that use leading language or photos; ask the basic same questions using different words; ask questions that people cannot answer because they’re too technical or too vague.

In our case, the surveys since 2019 were all done online, as comments are all time-stamped, so they were electronic surveys. That’s understandable, as they are cheap and easy to administer. Yet, as hard as it may be to believe, not everyone has a smartphone or computer, the skills to fill out a survey online, or the knowledge to manage a QR code. These people would have been reached had surveys gone to them via postal mail, which would have prevented the glaring sampling error.

Again, the consequences of a bad survey don’t matter so much when we’re looking at smaller issues, but the zoning survey was different. You can’t use bad data and get good results.

Over the 31 surveys, the number of respondents varied from nine to 380. The average number was 150 (12% of residents), but the average doesn’t tell the story as much as the actual numbers. The low of nine was for Renewable Energy, and the high of 380 was for the Noise survey. The Zoning Code survey came in at 298. The higher the respondents, the higher the interest, and the higher the priority to get it right.

Another issue with most surveys is that it is impossible to verify whether the respondent is a voter, full-time resident, seasonal resident, city employee, or visitor. Without knowing who is responding, it’s impossible to understand their perspective and relationship to the town and factor in their opinion.

An example of a poorly worded question is: “What is a reasonable minimum/maximum size requirement for a dwelling unit?” Words like “reasonable” skew answers and are confusing. What is reasonable-sized home for a single person is not reasonable for a family of six.

Another poor choice of words in surveys is “appropriate.” Harbor Springs is known for its’ unique and historical architectural variety. There are many beautiful small homes and many beautiful large homes. That’s called variety.

The question of “how many zones should be in the city” is good example of a question few people can answer and adds to the poor survey quality. If you were asking a roomful of city planners who had studied Harbor Springs you might get some good information. Asking people on the street, not so much.

All in all, no doubt information from the 31 surveys brought clarity to City staff on some issues. But, unfortunately, the 2024 Zoning Update Survey falls short.

Letters to the Editor

January 9, 2025

Please accept this letter for publication in the Letters to the Editor: Say NO to the Redevelopment Ready Community certification (RRC).

The City Council enacted a zoning ordinance which the voters evaluated and rejected via a ballot referendum last November.

The zoning ordinance proposals that were rejected included some good updates, but many undesirable things such as a burden of qualifying as a Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC), an issue that was originated and encouraged by the City Manager. Even though the City Zoning Board claims falsely they never discussed RRC in their meetings, it is clearly the backbone of many sections of the rejected zoning ordinance and requires our community to continually qualify.

There is even a City RRC Board which acts like the decision to meet the RRC certification is not so much about why we should adopt it, but when. Among the draconian provisions of the RRC is the requirement that the City “maintain an updated list of at least three priority (‘development ready’) sites” each year that are “actively marketed” with a “vision that includes desired development outcomes.” Read: “More density and more tax money.”

One Council member said the RRC certification provisions were being proposed again to obtain financial “grants from the State.” However, Michigan State Senator John Damoose made it clear last spring that Harbor Springs is not a special exception, stating “…one thing I will not do is look for a special exception for our town if that is the request…Harbor Springs should have to play by the same rules as everybody else.”

Among the extremely disturbing parts of the rejected zoning ordinance was the elimination of oversight by neighbors and the zoning and building departments for such things as constructing duplexes and adding accessory dwelling units (ADU) on existing lots. No oversight! “By right” are the words, as described in the RRC documents, that eliminate any input or objection by neighboring property owners in their districts.

Another item that is back on the Planning Commission table for zoning issue discussions is the proposal for adopting a minimum lot width of 52 feet and minimum allowable side-yard setback distance of only 8 ft. These smaller dimensions will allow developers the ability to increase the density on many HS lots. The Planning Department is dredging up plans on changing the zoning classification on larger portions of HS lands to make room for higher density development. The clear motivator here is an increase in density and the resulting tax revenues once developers get their hands on rezoned available land. Whether we like it or not. That’s the reason the property owners that live in certain districts must speak up.

Remember the important facts that over 62% of the residents of Harbor Springs do not vote here and are responsible for paying approximately 80% of the HS taxes!

To be clear, Harbor Springs residents want to retain the charm, density and beauty of our community and do not want increased density via Harbor Springs becoming a certified Redevelopment Ready Community.

Mike Kilbourn
703 Dellwood Lane
Harbor Springs, MI