Four candidates are seeking three seats on the Suttons Bay Village Council.
Incumbent council trustees Colleen Christensen and Roger Suppes are seeking reelection.
Christensen has a bachelor’s degree in community services/ family studies from Michigan State University as well as a master’s degree in elementary education/child development.
She has worked teaching and in school administration for 46 years and has been a village resident since 1978 and has served on the council since 2012.
Incumbent Suppes has served as a council trustee since 2016 and served on the village Planning Commission from 2020 to 2024. He spent 33 years working in automotive dealership management. Suppes is an Air Force veteran and volunteers for Hospice of Michigan and as the tax program coordindator for the Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency Bill Perkins is a familiar face in the village. He has served on the village Planning Commission, including some time as chairman.
Perkins current sits on the village Zoning Board of Appeals.
Jared Pontius is seeking one of the seats on the village council. He too, is familiar to many in the village. Pontius graduated from Northwestern Michigan College’ culinary school, operates Korner Kottage Bed and Breakfast and works as the Suttons Bay Township park manager. Pontius is married with children and currently serves on the village planning commission.
We asked candidates to respond to three questions, limiting responses to 75 words.
Here’s what they said: 1.) Developers are looking to bring more affordable house to Suttons Bay. Peninsula Housing, a nonprofit organization, has requested zoning amendment to facilitate multi-family housing twice last year, which were recommended for approval by the village Planning Commission. However, the village council shot down these proposals twice last year over concerns about the proposed two-and-a-half instead of three stories and thus not in character for the village. Do you agree with this decision? Would you work with Peninsula Housing and the planning commission to facilitate this development.
Christensen: The proposed zoning amendments only requested an increase in allowed residential density. Increased density isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but additional standards addressing sensitive environmental areas, municipal services, aesthetics, and community character should have accompanied the request. I’m not opposed to considering increased residential densities in certain areas of the Village, but simply increasing allowed density without considering the standards mentioned above could result in unintended consequences. I’m open to further discussions.
Perkins: No, I do not agree with the village council to shoot down the zoning amendment to add multi-family housing in Suttons Bay village. I would vote to allow this in the village. Two village council members voted to allow this.
Pontius: As a member of the PC for the last 6 years, I voted for these amendments on PC and would do so on VC. One of the main concerns were wetlands, which has since been addressed. While the proposed amendment changed stories allowed, it did not change maximum height requirements. This was also limited to South Gateway district, a mixed-use district with opportunity, not the entire Village. What is the “character” of South Gateway?
Suppes: I would work with developers and the planning commission to follow the master plan and support zoning that advocates for affordable housing in the village, township and county.
2.) The village recently hired a software company for about $9,000 per year to monitor shortterm rental (STR) listing and operate a hotline to field complaints. After a “challenging” setup process by the company, the village received just three complaints. IF STR owners continue to generally comply with village ordinances, would you vote to continue the STR monitoring contract?
Christensen: The setup process was challenging. The kinks have been addressed with the STR monitoring company and I support contracting with them for another year to allow and measure expected improvements to their services. The minimal number of complaints speaks to the village staff and the monitoring company’s success in identifying unlicensed STR’s. The goal is to reach the village’s cap on STR’s through attrition, allowing opportunities for more long term housing in the village.
Perkins: I would let the software company monitor shortterm rentals for another year to see how many complaints are gathers and then make a decision as to if it should continue to be engaged to monitor STRs.
Pontius: I would continue to vote “Aye” initially as I believe one year (rollout year) isn’t adequate to make an informed decision. I would question the accuracy of the report, how many residents were aware of the hotline and reporting process, and details of complaints. If I was to come to an opinion of necessity or not, I would vote accordingly. I will say that I would advocate for responsible and targeted spending.
Suppes: The contract for monitoring STR’s was less than $5,000 for the year, not $9,000. The village needed to establish a baseline to determine the extent of compliance with the STR moratorium. The STR license includes a portion of revenue that basically costs the village zero dollars and no additional employee duties. Having an independent company also eliminates any partiality for the STR owners and village employees. The contract should be reviewed annually.
3.) The village council determined that it was not economically feasible to replace Waterwheel Park’s eponymous decorative waterwheel, which was damaged when a sinkhole opened in 2022. The park is fondly remembered by residence and the waterwheel is still missed by many of them. Would you support motions to move funds around to rebuild it? Or should the park development a new identity and perhaps change names?
Christensen: The decision to restore the stream without the waterwheel was economical. (Restoring the stream to its natural state without the waterwheel saved taxpayers over $100,000.) The decision was also based on the uncertainty that the State would even allow a waterwheel replacement. The project resulted in a stream bed restored to its natural state which is healthier for stream life and safer for citizens. I do not support additional funding for a new waterwheel.
Perkins: No, I would not support putting the waterwheel back in Waterwheel Park.
Pontius: I agreed with the VC regarding the water wheel. I grew up having fond memories of this landmark myself, Mother Nature thought otherwise. History should be preserved, but at what price, especially with modern day regulations regarding waterways into the Great Lakes? I believe the right decision was made and would advocate the water wheel to be displayed in the park, or in a Suttons Bay History Museum. The name can be considered afterwards.
Suppes: It was fiscally responsible to approve the redesign. However, if there is enough public support to consider restoration of a waterwheel in the park and funding could also be considered.
