The Ferndale City Council met on Monday, August 24, 2026 at 7:00 PM at City Hall. The meeting covered consent agenda items, public comments, a failed lease agreement for a parking lot, and unanimous approval of updates to the vacant property and short-term rental ordinances. The council also received departmental updates on parks, fire services, and state budget cuts.
The consent agenda was approved unanimously (5-0) and included:
The proposal was to lease the lot at 165 E 9 Mile for $1 to create 23-24 parking spaces, with estimated site preparation costs of $15,000-$17,000 and restoration costs of $10,000-$20,000 (if not taken over by a future developer). Potential monthly revenue was $6,900. Risks included uncertain term length, unknown maintenance/snow removal costs, and potential loss in a worst-case scenario of $8,000-$13,000. No feasibility study was performed. Council debate noted the auto parking fund's limited capacity and the lack of data from other parking initiatives (restriping Breckenridge, valet parking). Valet parking efforts were paused at the DDA level despite a fully negotiated contract with Credit Union One. The motion failed 3-2 (Kelly, Mikolski, Sabatini opposed; LaSalle, Leaks May in favor).
Code enforcement staff presented data: 102 confirmed vacant properties (72 residential, 20 commercial, 10 industrial); 34 properties registered and inspected; 17 removed from registry after ownership change; 66 tickets issued (12 paid, 13 dismissed due to burden of proof, 38 pending due to unlocatable owners). The amendments change interior inspections to exterior-only (cutting inspection time from 1 hour to 10 minutes), require notarized affidavits and driver’s license information, and add an in-house abatement provision. Success stories included converting a former nightclub and several dilapidated properties. Questions addressed handling probate, hospitalization, and long-term absences. The motion passed 5-0.
Proposed changes include: requiring posting of license with max occupancy, installation of noise monitors, mandatory meeting with city manager after 6 complaints (with possible revocation), extending the violation window from 12 to 24 months, and a 24-month ban on operating without a license. The previously proposed two-night minimum was removed after consultations with short-term rental owners. The city reported approximately 140 complaints to police and CED, with 12 properties having active violations. Council members praised the ordinance committee’s work. The motion passed 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 PM.
Ellie. Present. Mikolski. Sabatini. Leaks May. Here. And approval of the agenda. The agenda as presented. Support. All in favor. Aye. Aye. We have no presentations tonight, which brings us right to call to audience. So if you'd like, you can come up to the podium and speak on anything on or off the agenda. You have three minutes. Please state your name and your address. And I'm opening call to audience at 701. Hello, Council. Simon Cohen, 954 West Marshall. I'm here as a member of FIAC to strongly endorse the two candidates on the consent agenda. We got some ambitious plans coming up, and we're going to need all the warm bodies and seats. And I've been, I know these two fine individuals from outside organizing, and I think we couldn't really have any better perspectives and brains on this council. So look forward to working with them. Thank you very much. Hi, I'm Bill Robertson, uh 244 La Prairie Street. Um just wanted to address some of the um concerns I have over the uh proposed amendments to the short-term rental um policy. Um I want to say that we do own a uh one short-term rental property. We've been doing it for about four years. We have a perfect record. Um as far I agree with pretty much everything that's on there except for the limiting to one-day uh rentals. Reason being is um I just feel that that that limits uh what the owner can do. We personally don't advertise that we rent for one night. I will open it like on the first of the month, I'll open it for one night for any remaining days for that month only. That just fills in the gaps. It also brings some income to the city. Um I'm wondering if there uh if there's other concerns with uh why these proposals are made to uh for these amendments, if there's something that could be done, perhaps a group created between council and and a handful of uh short-term rental owners that you could come together and just discuss both sides of the issue and everybody can get both you know the perspectives from both sides what the concerns are. And let's see. Are we having problems? I'm sure we are. Um what are the statistics on that? Um as a proportionate to the amount of uh short-term rentals that are in the city. Are these preventative things that are are being proposed because of things that have either happened in our city or other cities? Um if we I'm sure we do have the complaints, but is it scattered all over the entire spectrum of of short-term rentals in this in the city, or is it concentrated on certain locations that are repetitive? Um things like that. I just hate to see us go down a road where you penalize everybody when it's only a handful of people or a handful of properties that are causing a problem. Um that's basically it. Those are my concerns. Thank you. So if anyone's here regarding uh the uh uh a potential appointment to a board and commission, you can come up and introduce yourself as well if you'd like. Hi, council, my name is Lauren Reidenauer.