Clawson council votes against placing Renshaw Senior Apartments sale on November ballot after extended debate

The Clawson City Council voted 4-1 on Aug. 5 against placing a proposal to sell the city-owned Renshaw Senior Apartments, at 121 Renshaw, on the Nov. 4, 2025 general election ballot.

The vote followed a prolonged public-comment period and detailed discussion among council members about the building’s condition, possible legal exposure, protections for current residents and how any sale proceeds would be used. Council member Shepherd was the lone vote in favor; Mayor Millan, Mayor Pro Tem Moffett and council members Anderson and Scott opposed the measure.

Why this matters: Renshaw houses roughly a small set of long-term senior residents and provides deeply subsidized rents; speakers and council members concerned that a sale could displace residents or leave them uncertain about their housing. Staff told council the Renshaw fund balance is approximately $440,000 and that a fair-market value estimate for the property is in the $1.1 million to $1.5 million range. Current one-bedroom rent at Renshaw was reported as $495 per month.

Residents and advocates urged the council not to move forward without additional planning. Joanne Coley, a Renshaw resident, told the council she has lived at Renshaw 12½ years and said, “at the current rent of $88,740, it’s more than what it cost the city to maintain this building,” referring to annual subsidy totals she and others discussed. Heather Rinkovich, who identified herself as a community advocate, said, “the city of Clawson wants to sell off an asset,” and urged workshops and planning to avoid displacing seniors.

Council members pressed staff and legal counsel for more specifics before asking voters to decide. Council member Anderson said he would not support any plan “that doesn’t support the current residents,” and asked for a financial plan and protections for people now living at Renshaw. Council member Scott said he supported taking the question to voters in principle but wanted greater specificity on how sale proceeds would be used and what protections would be provided to current residents.

City staff and legal counsel framed constraints the council faces if it sends the question to voters. City Attorney Neuschay told the council that ballot language must be concise and that detailed contractual protections are typically negotiated after a vote authorizes a sale. “The ballot language has to be very simple and concise by, by operation of both state law and the constitution,” Neuschay said during the discussion. He and staff also briefed council on an ADA audit and the risk that future substantial renovations could trigger Americans with Disabilities Act obligations.

Council members discussed several options raised during debate: (1) put the question on the ballot for voters to decide now; (2) hold workshops and develop a detailed plan that would include specific protections for current residents and intended uses of proceeds; or (3) delay action and study the financial and legal implications further. Multiple council members recommended a public workshop or information campaign so residents could make an “informed decision.”

The motion on the floor — to place the sale of Renshaw Senior Apartments on the Nov. 4, 2025 city ballot — failed on the roll call: Mayor Pro Tem Moffett: No; Council member Scott: No; Council member Shepherd: Yes; Council member Anderson: No; Mayor Millan: No.

What comes next: Council members and staff repeatedly said the matter can be revisited; several members urged a workshop with expert presentations (e.g., on ADA triggers and on options for using proceeds) before putting a sale question to voters.

Votes and formal items related to this discussion are recorded in the actions section below.