Ludington City Council September 26, 2022: Beastly Acts

[XLFD]

Animals, specifically deer and chickens, turned out to be the objects of controversy at the September 26, 2022 meeting of the Ludington City Council.  The agenda packet showed that neither of those issues, namely contracting for a yearly deer cull or approving an ordinance to ban chickens and other farm animals from the city limits, were going to be acted upon this evening, but most of the meeting centered on those two items.  

Ten citizens would speak out during the first comment period, five spoke of chickens five spoke of deer.  Those that spoke of chickens argued on their behalf for exclusion from the ban, those that spoke of deer were divided on the proposed cull.

Susan Davidson and Mary McVicker began comments by supporting the deer cull, Susan talked of car accidents and ticks, Mary focused more on grazing behaviors and deer poop.  Cheryl Whitehead would then change the subject to explain how she lived nearby to chickens and dogs, and how the chickens were unnoticed, while the dogs had several nuisance behaviors.  She noted that chickens eat ticks.

Terry Grams would give the first of two brilliant comments by noting that deer culls don't work and cited the Big Rapids city manager who has funded them for 20 years without solving the problem.  He noted that political pressure has a tendency to continue deer culls once they are started and that the money used could be better used for something like school security.  Cheryl's husband Michael Whitehead would then follow her lead and argue in favor of chickens, seconded by Chris Simpler who argued that local policy should be about animal behavior rather than by species and challenged the council to find any real issue that arises from properly regulated backyard chickens.

Claudine Meyers was surprised that chickens were not allowed in town, stressing that raising chickens is great for kids and self-sufficiency when you get their eggs.  Josh Wickham noted first off that he liked chickens and eggs, before getting into his main point in arguing against the proposed sign ordinance and how it would negatively impact his property (the City Center Building) and how his tenants could use signs.  

His comment would be the most impactful this evening; the council would later review the proposed ordinance on signage and decide to send it back to the Planning Commission for more work and public input so as to hopefully alleviate some of the new issues created for certain properties.  My comment followed, in which I alluded to a 5 year contract for deer culling mentioned in the agenda and in the ordinance language in the packet.  This turned out to be mistaken, the contract would only be for three years (for now at least) and $58,500, a mistake they would later admit to and amend for their first reading.

XLFD: (17:00 in)  "Kudos to Councilor Stibitz for providing a survey of citizens on deer cull topics in the packets, I hope as an educator she will defend the accuracy and methodology of the survey as a statistical tool to gauge the popular opinion about deer and their control in the city limits.  If I see any limitations, there seems to be a disproportionate number of survey takers in the wildland urban interfaces of the City and few from the more insulated areas that comprise the 3rd, 5th and 6th wards, where citizens are less likely to have issues with deer and more likely to reject a cull of questionable benefit and elevated costs.

The survey results indicate that a majority of citizens are not comfortable with a deer cull even when the fiscal reality and legality is not under consideration.  As outlined in the Final Rule, municipal ARPA spending must fit into one of the following four categories:  

• Responding to the public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic  
• Providing premium pay to essential workers 
• Providing government services to the extent of revenue loss due to the pandemic 
• Making necessary investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure  

Funding a deer cull does not come close to fitting these categories or their subcategories, hence after the City is successfully challenged on this funding mechanism, and it will be, the cost of this 5-year contract, around $100,000, falls squarely on the citizens of Ludington. Per the survey, only 1 in 6 citizens do not enjoy seeing deer in the community.  This council in this republican form of government is supposed to represent the people who elected them to office, voting yes on a deer cull would not only go against the wishes of your constituents, but it would also saddle them with debt should you go against those wishes."  [END comment]

Angie Beyer would round out the comments advocating for a deer cull saying that it would save money and human lives.  As noted, this was the first reading of an ordinance to contract for a deer cull, and each councilor gave an indication of where they were on the topic.  

Ted May:  spoke in favor of the cull as he sees deer regularly in his yard

Kathy Winczewski:  spoke against, noting alternate ways to reduce opportunities for deer and limiting Ludington's carrying capacity for deer.

Cheryl Stibitz:  reviewed her stats (p. 19-22 in packet) showing a lack of popular appetitie for a cull, advised planting shrubs and plants unattractive to deer as an alternative

John Terzano:  questioned Stibitz's deer harvest limit of 40 (she would point to an email from City Manager Mitch Foster (absent from the meeting) who put the number up).  

Les Johnson:  wanted an alternate solution since he is not sold on the cull

Wally Cain:  said he leaned towards a deer cull.

John Bulger:  was ambivalent at this point.

This should be an interesting vote next time, it currently looks like three councilors will vote against it, two will vote for it, and the ultimate decision will rest with the two Johns.  The councilors would also spend some time with the Animal Nuisance Ordinance as it pertains to chickens, ultimately giving the indication that they would likely pass it at the next meeting, but subsequently work on adopting another ordinance in the future for excluding chickens if they do so.  

In other business, they would pass two ordinances changing zoning code in relation to mobile food vendors and fences.  The former would set more requirements for lots with more than one food truck thereon, the latter would ease standards for privacy fences.  They would also pass a lead service line replacement ordinance that would set rules for those households that needed lead service lines replaced by city contractors.  One last ordinance was passed to hire a law firm for consulting services in the charter revision process which should last into next year.

The council would approve a change order for F dock replacement in the city marina reflecting inflation in the floating dock costs, and parade applications for LHS' pep parade and homecoming activities taking place on the 29th and 30th respectively.  

Councilor Bulger noted an email sent to him and other councilors dealing with the rezoning of the Foster School property to multifamily arguing that spot-zoning was being done and density was being ignored.  Nevertheless, it was noted that Longfellow Towers was erected while in the midst of a residential area without major issue, and the council adopted the rezoning ordinance.

The second comment period featured four people that spoke earlier.  Terry Grams led off by mentioning some of the legal issues that may arise if a deer cull is approved: a statute that prohibits firearm discharge within 400 ft. of a residence, local law banning firearms at Copeyon/Cartier Park, which are to be used only for park purposes, statutes prohibiting firearms on school property keeping school forest from hosting a cull.   

Grams illustrates how the deer cull hasn't been thought all the way through, the councilors inability to regularly offer specifics on this culling contract this evening highlighted that further.  Mary McVicker and Cheryl Whitehead effectively repeated their earlier comments in support of a deer cull and chickens respectively, leaving me to finish off with an old topic about the treasurer appointment:

XLFD: (1:45:30 in)  "One week ago this council made a decision normally given to the citizens of Ludington and selected the next treasurer to serve the City.  The public was not made aware of the applicants for this position and it appears that councilors were not given this information until the day of the meeting.  They chose unanimously without any relevant debate a treasurer with decades of related experience in the private sector one who will likely be competent at the job after a transitional period of training.  

What was surprising was that the candidate who lost the interim treasurer spot, Linda Rogers, had served as treasurer or assistant treasurer for Ludington for ten years before honorably retiring in 2018, just four years ago.  Two members of the selection committee, Deb Luskin and Jackie Steckel, served with her during those ten years without any apparent problems, yet both decided someone without any municipal treasurer experience was a better choice for the job.  

A couple councilors also served for at least five years during Ms. Rogers stint as city treasurer and accepted the recommendation last week without question.  Their lack of consideration of Linda Rogers, the selection committee's unqualified rejection of her, and the City's overall secretive behavior throughout has me and others wondering why an experienced city treasurer ready to hit the familiar ledgers running was totally overlooked, while one without any experience in municipal finances was chosen over her.  [END comment]

No city official would offer any explanation during the remainder of the meeting, nor would any supply an answer afterwards, so it looks as if I may have to explore the mystery further with some FOIA requests.