Ludington City Council Meeting 11-28-2016: Whitewashing the Alarming

The Ludington City Council meeting of November 28, 2016 offers the perfect example of how our local newspaper covers what actually happens at these meetings.  For surely, their normal representative, Kevin Braciszeski was there and saw the same meeting I did, observed the same meeting you can view when you see the video below, and yet his summary of the meeting left out completely perhaps the three biggest things to come from this meeting.

In the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) the next day, Braciszeski generated three articles concerning that meeting entitled:  "Carferry Seeks Grant to Help Replace Old Docks". "City to Apply for OxyChem Grant to Help with Splash Pad", and "Water Wastewater Upgrades Ahead".  Each of them stuck to the topic of their headline, in print and on-line.  The Mason County Press did not show up or have any article on it.

A review of the meeting's city council packet show that while two of these were on the agenda (the Oxychem grant was a late agenda item put on at the beginning), there were other things going on, and then there was a surprising public comment from a county official that merited some coverage just because it was a bit unexpected.  The COLDNews instead reported on two grant applications and a previously known schedule of utility constructions.  Ho-hum.

At this meeting, City Manager Shay gave his annual speech on the budget and capital improvement plan he introduced, but all you would know about it is that it has millions of utility improvements ahead.  This marked the first time the new charter amendment was followed, where the city manager can reveal the plan and give his message at the second meeting in November rather than the first.  It should be noted, however, that Shay has more often than not, missed that deadline in the past. 

The city did make a cosmetic change to their pension program the Municipal Employee Retirement System (MERS), reducing the multiplier from 2.5% to 2.25% to reduce it's pension costs, according to John Shay in page 148 of the packet.  While making this change was for the better in getting the city's fringe benefits under control, its overall effect was negated by the other action they took-- exempting themselves from Public Act 152 of 2011, a reformative act by the state to help cities better control fringe benefits concerned with health care. 

I reviewed that over the weekend in this article, The Lunatic Fringe Benefits of Ludington Officials, and felt strongly enough about it to devote my two public comments to it, the first at 2:45 minutes into the meeting (the transcript follows the video):

November 28th, 2016 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"In 2011, the state passed into law the Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contributions Act that limited the amount that local public employers pay toward employee medical benefit plans.  The law does allow a city government to exempt itself from the reforms of the act, but only if their council votes to do so with at least a 2/3 vote.  Since 2012, this council has unanimously decided to exempt city employees and officials from these caps, stating that they are better able to make such decisions about their personnel better than Lansing bureaucrats.  They add that they have a sworn duty to manage city affairs in order to be most responsive to city voters, taxpayers, and residents.

I look down the latest budget figures supplied in this council packet and I have to shake my head.  Our city employees are paid fair and equitable wages, but noticeably their fringe benefit packages are growing out of control.  Our two city managers are paid a combined salary of $145,700, but receive fringes over $104,000, that's 71% of their base wages.  Those types of benefits are well beyond the average of our private sector, which rarely crests the 30% mark. 

But the manager's office is not the exception for our city, every department has fringe benefits ratio at the 70% level or higher, whether it is the clerks office at 73%, or the DPW at the incredible rate of 78%.  Your "yes" vote on this resolution at this meeting to exempt city employees from the state reforms will show that you have decided to allow these entitlements to grow without bounds in the name of being responsive to the city residents and taxpayers.

Those city residents and taxpayers may work over forty hours per week at two part time jobs with absolutely no benefits, as many do.  Now they may have to work more just to keep up with the increased costs you will vote for tonight; those residents and taxpayers will have to pay for those increased costs which you have previously declared was your duty to raise above state caps.

 

So feel good once again after your "yes" vote, that you have allowed DPW workers to get over three quarters of their wages in fringe benefits, while those outside of city hall are lucky to get a quarter of their own salary in fringes at their real jobs.  Real leadership, which our city lacks in its management, demands that these costs get under control, because they are simply outrageous and unsustainable, especially with all the challenges we face with our infrastructure.  Thank you."

At the 32:20 point, I was once again facing the council chiding their unanimous decision to keep those rates unreasonably high, without any discussion about the issue or views on how to someday get it under control.  I was reasonably sure they were set to vote for it, and that they would avoid getting deep into it.  But they didn't even bother justifying it at the end of the meeting-- probably because there is no clear justification other than they don't have the guts to cut any benefits of their fellow officials even when it's deserved:

"I am disappointed but not surprised that the city council resolved to exempt the city from meaningful fringe benefit containment, and decided to raise fringe benefits for city employees to 70% and beyond.  If the fringe benefit rates of the city were more aligned with the private sector, being in the 20% range rather than the 70% range, the city would realize savings upwards of one million dollars per year, which is very significant when the annual budget is about $5.5 million.

So thanks once again for doing your duty to, or should I say on,  the residents, the voters, and the taxpayers of Ludington in managing city affairs so that our city officials and employees have a fringe benefit level that puts all other private and public institutions to shame.  Of course, we will be honored and privileged to support all those benefits, maybe we can finally push the level up to 100% and beyond... but before that, why don't you actually work to bring in jobs to the area that have the same rate. 

Of course, in order to entice them here, you'll have to exempt those potential employers from the onerous taxes we are forced to pay to sustain the Ludington aristocrats at a level acceptable to them.  Tell your fellow public employees to enjoy their Cadillac health care plans paid for by us eternally grateful residents, voters, and taxpayers who can't afford our own health care premiums."

But then at 34:10 in, just after I sat down, County Commissioner Bill Carpenter (whose district covers the 4th-6th Wards in Ludington) walked up to the podium and gave a speech that was memorable, in that it wasn't the usual back-rubbing comment made by our local officials to each other:

"I got a heads up for you for the next spring.  I had to spend $1200 to have the trees treated outside my house.  They belong to the city and the lice and fungus on the trees contributed to black sidewalks, a black house, sap-stained cars, and a general mess for my guests, that required hosing down and Simple Green detergent spray at the guest entrance doors to the house.  I think we need to find a resolution to this.  I've spent as much money as I can afford to spend this year, and pressure-spraying the house three times and the entryway to the house five times.  So if the city can take care of the algaecide(?) and fungicide to the trees along Ludington Avenue and Emily Street, that would be good. 

Also, as everybody has noted this year the leaf pick-up has been slow, and I suggest you clean the storm sewers of leaves when we got the chance, because we've had leaves left for three weeks piled up over the curb, and it hasn't been taken care of in the way it has been in the past.   So I just wanted to leave you with that. 

The tree thing we gotta fix.  We gotta have a resolution to that somehow, thank you."

Mr. Carpenter owns the Lamplighter Bed & Breakfast at 602 E. Ludington, the address he gives out, and attends most meetings of the Ludington City Council, though rarely speaks.  When he has, he spoke in favor of a Bob Neal tax break in 2013, and to announce his candidacy in 2012, this was definitely unexpected.

Or maybe he was as frustrated as me to find out (from me) that our DPW workers are getting paid over three-fourths of their salary in benefits just so that they can ignore curb-side leaves for three weeks and toxic trees on Ludington Avenue. 

The one problem I have with Commissioner Carpenter's comment was that he believes the fiction that the city owns and is responsible for those trees that are situated between the sidewalk and the street.  A branch of folklore the city propagated in order to launch their Tree Advisory Board earlier this year.  Those are his trees and his responsibility; cut them down if you have problems with them and plant new ones, Bill.

At 36:40 Lake Michigan Carferry's Veep of Shore Operations Pat McCarthy, talked about the carferry seeking grants.  While this was covered to a point by the COLDNews in its article linked to previously, here is what I found incredibly interesting in his presentation:

"Anything outside of what's covered by the grant [i.e. $3.3 million of an 8.3 million project], we will seek other funding sources through the State of Michigan and some other routes we've already decided to go down."

As not noted in the newspaper, LMC had to expand the scope of the project up to $8.3 million to qualify for the full $5 million, and it is likely that the project could be finished at a lesser cost.  But even if it's not, the State of Michigan just may cover the rest.  Isn't this the same company that complained quite loudly about a few million in public funds used to establish the Muskegon Lake Express line a dozen years ago?  And that was a loan, not a grant.

The meeting ended with Kathy Winczewski defending the City testing for lead in the water of the schools that she once taught in, trying to claim that being twice over the maximum contaminant level (MCL) was no big thing, and not the city's responsibility.  In Flint, as in Ludington, nobody is claiming that the water from their utility plants are pumping out leaded water; what is a point of contention is how is that water affecting the older pipes before it gets drank.

 

Let's review some salient facts:  for the last three years our kids have tested highest or second highest in the state, well above Flint.  We are doing $30 million in upgrades to a seriously neglected water and wastewater infrastructure.  We have not had a regular NPDES permit for the WWTP without conditions since 2011.  John Shay has lied about our lead tests.  He and Rob Allard oversaw the dumping of 2 million gallons of raw sewage into the PM Lake in 2012 without alerting proper authorities, admittedly bypass-pumping these toxins into the lake.  Defend that ecological record, Councilor Moonbeam.

Views: 625

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It won't be long until fringe benefits exceed salaries. One of my pet peeves is people raking their leaves into the street for pickup instead of leaving them off the road and next to the curb. It is a shame that the Badger's owners want a Government handout. They had my respect with their self reliance attitude but now they are no better than the other private companies who want to feed off our tax dollars.

Willy, to my knowledge the only place the city vacuums up leaves on the on the grass is on the ave. all the rest of the streets they use their pay loader with a special bucket attachment which they just push them down the road till it gets full making a mess all the way down the street.If the leaves are right next to the curb the equipment will just push them up onto the grass, then you have to rake them back off again. I do think they do a good job of picking up the leaves, I would hate to bag and haul them to the leaf corral . So people , look at it that way and stop bitchin .

 I recommend mulching/mowing the leaves while they're freshly fallen into your lawn.  I've done this twice over at my parent's house (I till the few leaves at my lakeside house into my small backyard garden) and the lawn looks better than the neighbors who have worked hours raking their leaves out into the street, only to have them blow back to their lawn or over onto my lawn-- and how rude is that.  Think of it this way: you and the City of Ludington is using a lot of resources to haul away organic matter that your yard and garden could use to better effect.  From the Mother Nature Network:

"Instead of raking leaves mow them with a mulching mower – a lawnmower with a specially designed high deck and a mulching blade that chops leaves into fragments as tiny as confetti. As the shredded leaves decompose, they will act as a natural fertilizer and weed control agent.

For those who insist on a spotless lawn year-round and might be concerned about what the neighbors will think of the brown leaf bits the mower leaves behind, don’t worry. The shredded leaves will filter through the grass and disappear from sight. In northern lawns that go dormant or in grasses such as Bermuda or zoysia that turn a dormant brown color in winter, the shredded leaves may even blend right in. Better yet, if you continue this practice each fall, in a few years mulching can help you have a luscious spring and summer lawn free of dandelions and crabgrass that will be the envy of people up and down the street."

I have never hauled a single leaf off my property. I have done just as x has suggested. A good mulching mower will make those leaves disappear. It is much easier and faster to mow them then it is to rake and bag them. My lawn is always thick and lush. I never need to fertilize or spray, only mow.

One of my concerns is on streets with bike paths and where there are no sidewalks which causes pedestrians and cyclists to walk/pedal further into the street. This is a real problem on Lake Shore Drive.

It is a misdemeanor to block a bicycle lane with a vehicle, but Lakeshore Drive technically has no bike lane, just a shoulder that for all intents and purposes is a dedicated bike lane.  However MCL 257.676b states:  "1) A person, without authority, shall not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state"

As the tacky people that live in those nice houses on the lakeshore are wont to do, they totally block the shoulder with their leaves and have the side of the road blocked with their fences and landscaping.  This clearly impedes pedestrian traffic on the public street and makes things a lot dicier for bicycles.  Will LPD ever charge these louts with blocking traffic?  No, but Chief Barnett will threaten to charge bicyclists with impeding traffic for lawfully traveling over 20 mph down a 25 mph residential street.  Now that is the epitome of loutish and tacky behavior.

I'm just trying to verify if the trees in the city's right-of-way indeed belong to the property owner.  The city plants those trees, trims them, cuts them down if they are diseased, etc.  I'm curious to know if there is some sort of city policy or ordinance as it relates to those trees.  I always though the city owned the trees between the curb and sidewalk, not the property owner. 

I've reviewed Michigan law, and Googled enough places doing research on the topic to be fairly certain that those trees near the street are the property owners trees, with limitations.

Numerous Road Commissions (Like K-zoo County) throughout Michigan have FAQs that have that question within them, they universally say that dead/dying trees located in the right-of-way are the responsibility of the property owner for removal.  They advise against planting trees in the ROW due to the liability and stress that they or utility companies may trim or remove them if they become a nuisance.  They note that the state legislature has also expressly prohibited anyone else from “cutting, destroying or otherwise injuring any shade or ornamental tree or shrub growing within the limits of any public highway within the state of Michigan without consent of the authorities having jurisdiction over such road.” 

Which means for you to do anything in this ROW zone you must get the approval/permit of MDOT if you're along a state highway, your local road commission if you live outside city limits, and by extension, the City of Ludington if you're along a local street in town.  Likewise public utilities can trim or remove trees from this area if they interfere with their easements. 

Even the Ludington city code Ludington City Code sec. 18-33 has the dictum: 
"All persons who own or manage, lease, rent or occupy any premises or vacant land within the city whatsoever shall be equally responsible for keeping the premises from having growths of weeds or grasses in excess of ten inches on any property in the city and to prevent bushes, trees or shrubs from extending over the sidewalk."

Consider, if you fail to trim the roadside trees so that the sidewalk through your property is unusable you will receive a fine just as if you refuse to cut the grass there.  They are solely the property owner's responsibility, for they are owned by just them-- with the limitations mentioned. 

Ergo, a tree council or any other part of the local government has no power to plant, trim, or remove a tree on your property (provided it does not interfere with public utilities or traffic on streets/sidewalks) without getting the property owner's permission first.  And ergo, Bill Carpenter should be talking with MDOT for those trees he complains about on Ludington Avenue and getting permission to take them down.

At tonight's city council meeting (12-5-2016), I addressed the veracity of the city's official statements about lead in the water, and seemingly touched a nerve with Councilors Winczewski and Krauch.  Earned their wrath, was given even more erroneous 'science' by Moonbeam, had Krotch go into another fit of rage, but they gave no useful answers to the users of their utilities about why lead keeps showing up and is such an issue with our kids in this zip code. 

Pathetic, but expected by now.

UUUGGGHHHH!!!!!!

Unbelievable how the media cares so little for the city it represents... and even almost non-existent response from citizens.  I've seen no news reports even with LDN LASD fountain replacement, on social media, or any where else.  Unfortunately, I expect no positive active reaction from CC or CM.

How dare these Councilors personally write their own checks to themselves without challenge, as they wish, with the citizens money. The citizens in this town should be absolutely "appalled" outraged. Such entitlement. Corruption.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service