Our Sponsors

Advertise with UsAdvertisement

Post Tags

Annette Kingsbury By Annette Kingsbury By Michael Dwyer C.O.R.E Christine Lind Hage City Council City of Rochester clinton river Crittenton Dan Stickradt Dave Pruneau DDA dear crabby Downtown Rochester Grace Centers of Hope Heidi Morris Jayna Pyke L. Brooks Patterson Mayor Barnett Mayor Bryan Barnett Mayor Bryan K. Barnett Michael Dwyer Oakland County Oakland Township Oakland University OPC Paint Creek Center for the Arts paint creek trail Road Commission for Oakland County rochester Rochester Adams Rochester City Council Rochester College Rochester Community House Rochester Community Schools Rochester High School Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Fire Department Rochester Hills Museum Rochester Hills Public Library Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce Rochester Rotary Club Stoney Creek High School Stuart Bikson The Village of Rochester Hills
Advertisement
Posts Tagged ‘City Council’
Applications still being accepted for ’12-’13 Rochester Hills Government Youth Council
Written by Sarah Hovis
Thursday, 26 April 2012 20:46
No Comments

The City of Rochester Hills is now accepting applications through Friday, May 11, 2012, for consideration for membership on the 2012-2013 Rochester Hills Government Youth Council (RHGYC).

The Rochester Hills City Council established the RHGYC to promote youth involvement in local government through active participation and the mutual exchange of ideas and experience.  There are thirteen positions on the Youth Council, which include two representatives from each City Council district and five at-large members.  Youth members serve for one-year terms with the opportunity for reappointment.  Terms run concurrent with the school year:  September 1 through August 31.

To be eligible for consideration for the Rochester Hills Government Youth Council, you must reside in the city of Rochester Hills, and be a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior in high school.

Applications are available on the City’s website on the Youth Representatives page.  Visit http://www.rochesterhills.org, and navigate to the Youth Representatives page in the City Council area of the website for a downloadable brochure and application.  For more detailed information on Youth Council, please contact Leanne Scott, Adult Advisor, at 248-841-2460.

 
Editorial: OPC mess needs fresh eyes
Written by Annette Kingsbury
Monday, 13 February 2012 11:08
9 Comments

It’s no surprise that a budget compromise offered by Rochester City Council was rejected by the Older Persons Commission governing board Feb.2. The two sides aren’t getting any closer to resolving the dispute that has dragged on since fall. If anything, the debate seems to become increasingly difficult with each passing week.

OPC Executive Director Marye Miller says lies are being spread by Rochester City Council; Mayor Stuart Bikson calls her comments “inappropriate” and reminds her that she doesn’t run OPC; the board does.  When discussing who is using the right or wrong numbers, Rochester Hills Councilman Michael Webber takes a completely uncharacteristic shot at Bikson; he later apologizes.

The positions of both sides in the budget dispute rest at least partly on principle, making it very difficult to find common ground. Each side feels that to cave in is to set a precedent that bodes ill for the OPC’s future.

In a nutshell, the dispute boils down to this: Rochester City Council feels the OPC board is being too generous with pay and benefits for its staff in a recessionary time. The OPC board and leaders of the two other member communities, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township, say the OPC board’s right to govern must be preserved.

After writing about this and a previous disagreement over OPC pensions for the past year, we have no idea how it is going to be resolved. So may we suggest that cooler heads prevail?

We propose that a committee comprised of the three OPC member communities’ CEOs take a crack at crafting a compromise: Rochester City Manager Jaymes Vettraino, Rochester Hills Mayor Bryan Barnett, and Oakland Township Manager Jim Creech.

Here’s why: None of the three has a vote on the OPC budget at any level. None serves on the OPC governing board. None has a personal stake in the outcome. All have exhibited successful management and political skills. Each can be relied upon to understand what his elected officials would and would not accept.

We have faith in these three men, but if there are any better ideas out there, someone needs to speak up. Perhaps a dozen residents would be willing to take on the task of crafting a compromise. This is a tried-and-true approach to problem solving which, unfortunately, elected officials are often slow to accept.

Let us all agree that no one wants to hurt the OPC and no one is against seniors. No one wants the partnership between the three communities that has worked so well for so many years to dissolve. And let’s end the personal attacks–now.

We all learned in high-school civics that politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. Unfortunately, compromise is unpopular these days in our national discourse, in Michigan and even in our small towns. We need true leaders to step up and seek true solutions.

 
Ballot proposal seeks to amend Rochester Hills charter
Written by Annette Kingsbury
Tuesday, 01 November 2011 14:07
No Comments

What is the proper use of a Rochester Hills city-owned park or green space? If you said recreation, relaxation and appreciation of nature, a group of residents hope you will vote ‘yes’ on a charter amendment proposal on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Earlier this year, the leaders of some of the city’s homeowner associations got together to figure out how to protect city parks from unwanted development. The move came after city council voted to build a water reservoir in a city park located next to Adams High School in a residential neighborhood.

The uproar created by that plan made council take a second look, and the reservoir was never built. But the very idea that the city could repurpose land bought by taxpayers to something very different got people thinking. What if the reservoir plan comes back? What else might they want to build in our parks? Why are we paying to protect open space?

Earlier this year, a group known as SPACE (Save Parks and City Environments) circulated petitions to put a charter amendment proposal on the ballot. After considerable back and forth, city council voted in support of the proposal. Now it’s up to the voters.

The proposal asks voters whether a new section should be added to the charter that would require the city to get voter approval before allowing a current or future public park to be used for something other than recreation or conservation. The proposal covers parks as well as green spaces purchased under a 2005 millage. It includes sale, lease, transfer, exchange and conversion to another use. It also covers removal of parkland from the city’s parks and recreation master plan.

Gary Uhl, and a 13-year city resident who is president of the Bridgewood Farms Subdivision Homeowners Association, said some people are concerned the proposal will cost them something.

“It’s very straightforward,” he said. “There are no new taxes needed to support this.”

The city charter already requires voter approval when it comes to disposing of any utility property the city might acquire. The proposed amendment, if approved, would add a new section after the current Section 11.7.

“It’s very common sense, that a park should have the same protection as a DPS (Department of Public Services) garage,” Uhl said. In addition, the amendment “reiterates and confirms the green space language in the charter now.”

At a candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters last month, both mayoral candidates said they support the ballot proposal. All but one of the city-council candidates also said they support it. Mark Tisdel, who is running for an at-large seat on council, said the proposal is bad economic and public policy which radically alters the charter by taking power away from the city.

“We’re going to need to be creatively using every single piece of property we have” to deal with the loss of revenue in the recession, he said.

“I fully support” the ballot proposal, said mayoral candidate Erik Ambrozaitis. “There was never a business case” for the reservoir, he added.

Mayor Bryan Barnett said he didn’t support the initial language presented by the residents. But after it was adjusted by a committee with city input, he signed the petition. “It’s creating the change you desire to see,” he said.

The reservoir wasn’t the first proposal for a city park to spark opposition. Over the years Riverbend Park has been eyed as a home for a commercial development and for off-site water retention for another development. Neither came to pass and the park, which is on the Clinton River, remains undeveloped. The city owns other parks that haven’t yet been developed due to lack of funding.

Uhl said amending the charter, which dates to 1984 when Rochester Hills became a city, is nothing new. “The charter has been amended over time.” The proposal “is consistent with the charter as it is currently amended.”

If approved, the proposal would create a new restriction on council, “but I don’t think unduly,” Uhl said. “It doesn’t preclude any great idea they come up with. It just better be a pretty good business case.”