Ludington City Council May 9, 2016: Summary Breezes

[XLFD]

A recent annoying trend with Ludington government is to pass laws, make resolutions, address public health issues, and submit applications-- most of their usual business-- and then create a false summary or narrative explaining what they just did.  This was on display at the May 9th, 2016 meeting of the Ludington City Council as it has been on other occasions of recent vintage.

The meeting also illustrated that one vote can make the difference sometimes.  Only five members were present this evening (MIA was Winczewski and Castonia), and state law says 3/5 of the members of a council must vote "aye" to put a charter amendment on the ballot.  This equates to 5 of 7 councilors, so for any of the five potential ballot issues to survive, all councilors had to vote affirmatively.  Two of them had one dissenting vote and failed. 

The first was a proposal to make the clerk and treasurer appointed positions, rather than the elected positions they are.  Councilor Krauch was the lone dissenter, having made known his opposition was due to his fear that it would fail and take other proposals down with it.  I've yet to find someone outside of city officials that support this, so I believe Krauch was correct. 

The second was to effectively remove the residency provision for the city manager.  Receiving only four votes it failed.  Councilor Holman offered the rather arbitrary "no" vote on principle.  Both votes occurred before City Attorney Wilson located the 3/5 rule; Clerk Luskin noted the next day was the last day to put these on the ballot for August 2nd.  The three remaining ballot issues regarding the time for submission of the budget, emergency appropriations made by the city manager, and the change of term for the city manager will all make the ballot (we will review those at a later date).

These weren't the main issues of contention for this meeting, the fight over zoning the property at 916 North Washington had many of the principals from both side at the meeting for a first reading of the proposed changing of the zoning to allow potentially 80 unit multi-family dwellings to develop at the site of what is now a single family residential zoned house and acreage. 

The main bone of contention appears to be the setbacks between developments and the neighbors, and to a lesser extent 'fence issues'.  Developer Mitch Bogner offered six conditions (see p. 208 of the LCC Packet), in which they would foot the bill for half of a privacy fence betwixt them and the private school they abut if someone else furnishes the other half.  He also proposes not to share the environmental assessments that he has already paid for with the city unless he attains and develops the property.  I find that position rather infantile if there is an area of concern there, and may illustrate he has little concerns for the community above trying to get the property. 

An interesting note is that the property is advertised with the existing large (2200+ square feet house on it as being solid and capable of being renovated to its earlier charm and splendor, while the seller and the realtor have publicly said that the house was obsolete and ready to be torn down.  Amazing what the money of a developer will do to this selling point. 

The opposition forces were present in the form of Mike Mesyar and Heidi Walden, neighbors to the proposed project.  They both urged additional work on the conditional zoning and were mostly conciliatory in tone.  As noted, Councilor Katie Moonbeam, whose ward encompasses the area and who sits on the Planning Commission, wasn't present to tell them about the greater good.  They spoke at the two public comment periods.  That began about 2:30 into the meeting.

The first speaker this night would be Cheryl Kelly, Mason County Clerk, who effectively told us that she was running for office and looked forward to working with city staff.  She kept her comments brief, but looking at the agenda, I don't see her candidacy as being on this agenda, a previous agenda or even a matter of public policy.  Ms. Kelly is a patriot, however, because her political advertisement shows that the new public comment policy of 'agenda items only' does not have to be followed.

I followed her infomercial (3:00 in) with some meaty topics about the continued use of public money to help the private business interests of two of our city officials wit the last name of Tykoski.  As would be noted by City Attorney Wilson later on in the meeting (1:23:30 in), the city needs to address this continuing ethics issue by openly disclosing the conflict of interest whenever they use Tykoski's business, Safety Decals, for projects where over $100 is spent.  The city attorney's chat on it was softball stuff, and the ethical lapse that he noted was also applicable to his latest $50,000 tax grab from the citizens for Rural Development work, that high level corruption is in this link.

The second topic was the proposed changes in the tall grass penalties for those who allow their grass to grow over 10 inches high, as discussed here.  This was touched on when Councilor Rathsack read the summary of that ordinance (34:00 into the meeting).  What is ridiculous is that the summary and the law, presumably drafted by the city manager/city attorney team, are two different things.  Here is the summary (p. 211 of the packet): 

Which the councilor read off and they made certain to say that my interpretation was wrong.  This is the city whose officials prefer to look at summaries of water test results and sediment contamination reports which run counter to what those tests actually show.  Here, there is a very clear difference of what the summary and the proposed ordinance says: 

A 'violation of Article II of section 18' is having your yard's grass over ten inches tall.  The minimum fee due according to the ordinance for a first offense is $250, plus any costs you incur by trying to challenge it in court if you are unsuccessful, and you probably will be.  The fines for a second and third offense is no less than $350 and $500, as clearly stated.  These are in addition to the high mowing fee, the 25% surcharge and the new 10% late fee, if applicable.   The summary and actual proposal do not come close to matching; you get caught with high grass and you're automatically paying an extra $250 minimum, before anything is cut. 

When it all comes down to how this law is enforced, the city code enforcer won't look at the words in the summary they use to pass this ordinance, they look at the ordinance.  They and the judge will read the ordinance, and you will need to pay $250, or they will not be following the words of the law. 

City Attorney Wilson (37:20) stresses the fines are only for 'frequent fliers', not for someone who just missed a mowing, but that's not what the law says.  He continues saying that the citizen could land up in jail if he refuses to cut his grass after the city gets an injunction against him.  The banter then ensues over the attorney's summation , all points of which are not within the proposed law.  They continue with the myth that violations of city codes like this will not land you in jail, but that's untrue (see subsection c of section 1.7 of the city code).

Other items of note at the meeting was an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Certificate (OPRA) for the old Blue Ribbon Cleaners building was scheduled for next week, and long term city employee and Firefighter Leo Lindbloom opted for an early retirement package the city offered.  I also touched on the controversy involving John Shay sneaking in a general fund match in a resolution to send the West End Application in my comment at the end of the meeting, but since they did offer a reply afterwards that once again, did not come close to explaining the city manager's ploy, this will be visited on another article ( Read "The West End Project's Fraudulent Financing Scheme" if you want the background now when you listen to the meeting.

May 9th 2016 Ludington City Council Meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"When you pay the bills this meeting, make sure you notice the only three purchases of the DDA operating fund.  $733 for t-shirts, $250 for t-shirts, and $583 for t-shirts, each and every one brought from PM Township based Safetydecals, ran by Councilor Tykoski.  Each purchase was not of a de minimus nature, and Councilor Tykoski is benefiting directly from his wife's overview of the purchases of the DDA.  Though she attends the DDA meetings where she could justify to the taxpayers that these purchases are not being made because she is directly benefiting from them, but because they are the best deals she can find anywhere, she has failed to do so. 

She has not pointed out her conflict of interest, so she is in prima facie violation of city law while she and Councilor Tykoski are unethically involved in a scheme to put their own private interests above the public interests in direct violation of their oaths of office.  It's reprehensible, and it shows the ingrained corruption in our area that no official or law enforcement agent is doing anything about it.

The first reading of the new bigger and badder tall grass ordinance will take place tonight and I found it an incredibly unjust and punitive proposal.  According to the ordinance, the first offense, meaning the first time your grass grows over 10 inches tall and you're caught by the city, you will be charged minimally $250 just for the offense.  You will then pay a premium contract rate for the cutting and an extra 25% to the city to support their tall grass police.

Last year, I went around town inspecting city properties in May and found many of the city's properties out of compliance.  Their North Harrison warehouse lawn had weeds over three feet tall.  In the downtown community garden, weeds and grasses taller than myself were there for the whole summer along the alley way.  I've done the same this year and violations have already been noticed.

Instead of getting more Draconian in your laws and punishments to people without any intention of letting their lawn get out of hand, perhaps you would be better resolved to lead by example.  This doesn't just mean that the city should mow your own properties better, but that you should show a little more mercy in your lawcraft.  The public is not your enemy.  This change will only exacerbate problems not fix them."

[AQUAMAN]

I noted in an earlier cc mtg., that Shay said there were a great number of infractions of high grass. Is there any way to get that info. including the name of the guilty that Shay seems to have a strong grudge against? This ordinance seems to be of a vengeful nature, not routine. Then Shay waved some hocus-pocus words at the end defending the $82K in matching funds for the west end project. I didn't understand that at all, and it appears like this wishy-washy defense is not valid, but simply another fuzzy excuse. Same applies for Wilson's explanation of the Tykoski t-shirt contracts, I didn't see anyway for $1500 in purchasing to be legal, no matter how much time and freebies he donates. It's a simple matter of prima-facie conflict of interest, and any attorney with any knowledge knows that. I note that Hackert, the city marina board president, has spent over $418K of taxpayer funds to keep floating docks repaired, or about $28K/yr.. Most local marinas have not had a profit like this to spend for maintenance, and he asks for more? The city marina has about 110 docks, and only 86 are seasonal? That too sounds like a stretch to me, I see most docks full, and only the gas dock is supposed to be for transients, not the floating docks. No excuses noted for the city's own properties being overgrown in grass, yet this overbearing and unfair ordinance to be adopted?  Lastly, I want to extend my thanks and compliments to XLFD for another fine, revealing, and investigative presentation for the public interest. A lot is still suspicious, a lot is being covered up, more being given phony excuses, and plenty more just being buried from the public, so as to appear honest and fine people. Don't be fooled, as most in the audience appear to be. They are NOT HONEST, and if looks could kill, Tykoski would be arrested for the stares at XLFD as he left the podium, disgraceful and revealing of his guilt!  

[Willy]

I agree Aquaman. The Citizens of Ludington would be up schmit creek and schmit out of luck or even in deep schmit if X lived in Gay, Climax or Hell michigan instead of Ludington. Try putting those names together in a morally acceptable sentence without having to ask the Almighty for forgiveness.

Another terrific article X.

[XLFD]

If you like this, just wait until I get more information out about the West End Scheme and how it should affect the career of John Shay, if anybody bothered to take the city charter seriously when it applies to our city officials.  The shayster is trying to broaden his powers with charter amendments, while at the same time trying to narrow everyone else's rights and wallet width with oppressive and punitive new ordinances.

Willy, how about:  "After walking to hell and back, it was a bit of an anti-climax spreading Ben-Gay on my knees." 

[Willy]

Bless you X for keeping a clean mind.  I still am amazed at how the Council can go along with all of this with nary an objection. I am looking forward to the next installment regarding the West End Project.