Ludington City Council Meeting, November 27, 2017: Numbers, Notices and Donations

Beyond the usual routine actions, there were effectively four different issues on the city council agenda for the meeting held on November 27, 2017 at Ludington City Hall.  

The first item was City Manager John Shay's annual presentation of the budget which came 9 minutes into the meeting.  For those interested in city economics, this can be interesting stuff, and I invite such people to look closely at a budget that seems to have moving targets in its numbers.

In Shay's 2016 budget message (p 1) he gloomily projected that in 2017 and 2018 the city would run so much of a deficit that they would dip below the 25% mark in reserve money, the rainy day fund.  Projections showed deficits of $104K and $155K in 2017 and 2018.  In his 2016 message he reported that they managed to stay above 25% in 2017 but would go south of that in 2018 and 2019, with 2017 actually having a surplus of $9100, and projected deficits of $264K and $125K in the next years.

That figure for 2018 was bandied about when the city was looking at ideas for more revenue since that projection was made, showing up regularly in the city's media (see our The Myth of Ludington's Future Budget Shortfalls).  Mysteriously, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) reported without comment that this $264,000 shortfall bandied about all summer went down to $50,000 on 11-26-2017 as it did in the councilor packet, but then the same reporter told us the 2018 deficit was back up to $68,000 today.  In his message or in the budget/message (starting at p. 20), the difference of these numbers were never explained, and were not challenged by a council who heaped praise on those who prepared the budget, and get paid handsomely for the privilege.  Nor did they question the reserve loot which was firmly at the 28% mark even after this year.

The budget public hearing will be next Monday at 6:30 PM.  Not at 7 PM, which became the first issue of controversy and the first item on my citizen's agenda.  At the council this evening they would consider finalizing the change of zoning district for the fire station property by passing an ordinance to make it formally so.  The City has moved in this direction for a couple of years, so it was a definite pass, however, I noted that there was a problem with protocol at the Planning Commission level.  My public comment began at 3:30 into the meeting and its beginning is transcribed below, with links for further information and verification provided:

November 27th, 2017 Ludington CIty Council ,meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  "Tonight the council is slated to decide whether a parcel on Tinkham meant for the future fire station will be rezoned from limited commercial to government service.  If they do so, they will do so in violation of section 1200:6:2 of the City's zoning laws, to whit, a public hearing must be noticed and held by the planning commission.  

While the minutes of the November 8 commission meeting reflect a "hearing" was held, it also reflects that no opportunity was allowed for the public to comment, and that a neighbor to the property had received a notice that said the hearing was for 7 PM, when the meeting, "public hearing" and vote had already taken place for this property at 6:30.  It also noted that a commissioner abstained from the vote without explaining why, a violation of section 2-72(1) of the city charter. 

As the public hearing was not properly noticed, the hearing was not valid under terms of city law.  If you do not table the vote on rezoning this property until a legitimate public hearing can take place, you will do so in violation of city law, the rights of the neighbors of that property, and any other person who wished to attend the hearing but came late because of the city's error in their notice of public hearing..."  

As this was a matter of law, the city attorney and non-practicing attorney Councilor Mike Krauch took it upon themselves to try and say that the City did it right, and if they didn't, the city attorney would defend their actions.  Their discussions begin at the 40:00 point, Councilor Winczewski affirms the accuracy of the minutes.  Attorney Wilson claims PC member Schuyler's abstention was understood as she was a neighbor to the property, but that isn't a reason for abstaining; nor is she a neighbor, the business she works at is.  

Michigan Planning Commissioners must abstain when a conflict of interest results, the meeting minutes fail to reflect the conflict she has, which violates city law.  But the bigger point of contention is that they voted on an issue at a public hearing at 6:30 PM that was never noticed for that time.  After it was known at 7 PM that they made that error in notification, they did allow the people to speak, effectively extending the public hearing, but without a new vote, the comments were meaningless under laws of conducting public hearings-- the votes come after the public is heard.   

At the end of the meeting, I appended my second comment with my further thoughts:  "As regards to the planning commission, when they held that hearing for changing the zoning on the lot, they voted for that before they allowed the people to speak at 7:00, which is what the hearing notice said the hearing was for.  When they did that, they reopened the public hearing and required another vote."  My time was up. 

Mysteriously in the LPC minutes, Ms. Carol Ann Foote left off that the public hearing was ever closed before the LPC voted on the change as is protocol, something which she routinely has put in authoring her other many years of minutes.  

Two other topics were on the agenda effectively approving the City's new way to charge for industrial wastes, like BODs, without a clear idea made public of how much additional revenue this would create and who, beyond the House of Flavors, the ordinance would affect negatively.  Nobody affected has objected, so they must believe it's fair enough.

The data sharing agreement with the State of Michigan seems troubling to those interested in government transparency.  Localities will assess their assets such as water/sewer systems and roads in a comprehensive manner in an effort to develop a systematic way for replacement and maintenance of those assets.  Under the guise of security, the Michigan State Police will safeguard this information and determine what is permitted to be available to the public through FOIA requests.  

As an open government advocate, this is scary since the state legislature made it nearly impossible to get public information from state agencies in 2013, by saying that all claims against the state would go through an unelected Court of Claims, and therefore not accountable to the people.  If you take a case against the State into this court, don't plan on winning because these people have a major conflict of interest in finding the State innocent of any wrongdoing.  I can't find a decision by this court yet that found against the State.

This was effectively what was on the agenda, but the second part of my comment dealt with something within the City's financial report for the period.  This started just before the 5:00 mark, and concluded in my second comment, transcribed as follows:

XLFD:  "...I also must point out another significant violation of state law in the invoice distribution report.  A check was made from the DDA funds to Needlefast Evergreens for what is claimed as a "Walk of Trees" donation.  While the "Walk of Trees" was mentioned in the last DDA meeting, they never held a vote to donate $220 to this project.

Those unfamiliar with the walk of trees should know that it is a program where folks can sponsor a Christmas tree at the James Street Plaza for a donation of $20, so either a DDA administrator without authorization of that public body sponsored 11 trees or they just donated the $220.  The trees at the plaza show that the DDA is not a listed sponsor, so where did the donation go?   According to the City of Ludington Daily News in a November 16 article, it goes directly to the Shop with a Cop program.  

Ergo, the DDA, whose discretionary income derives almost completely from a 2 mill tax and 12% tax increment financing taxes, donated $220 of this tax money, taken under threat of government force from citizens of our county, to the city-ran charity Shop with a Cop.  That should raise a red flag, because it is illegal and goes against the Michigan Constitution of which most of you have sworn to protect and defend...  

(second comment period) "...Unless specifically authorized by statute, municipalities, and their DDAs do not have authority to donate funds, even to non-profit organizations. Article 9, section 18 of the Michigan Constitution prohibits cities from loaning their credit for any public or private purpose unless provided for by law.  This means that cities may donate public funds only when statute specifically allows them to. 

No statute allows for a DDA, which is further limited by law in the use of their funds to benefit the downtown, to donate funds to another quasi-entity within the City of Ludington budget, the Shop with a Cop program, in order to facilitate cops shopping with needy kids, which is a noble, but non-public purpose.  Ironically, the DDA is actually working against the downtown's solvency and their own goals by donating to an agency that will make over $10,000 in purchases outside of the downtown district, at Meijer's and Walmart.  

So not only did some city administrative official leave $1412 unaccounted for last year in the Shop with a Cop program, with every single official ignoring or running interference for the oversight, we have a DDA official making illegal donations to a private, but city-ran, charity.  These are among the same people who we are supposed to trust with a $5.6 million annual budget and $30 million in water and sewer upgrades.  Thank you."

Consider that if you refuse to pay your taxes, the local government has the ability to use their power to seize your property/money and even your livelihood.  Yet, our city government then uses this money took through threat of force to donate to shop with needy kids that may have bad perceptions of law enforcement officers who serve these local governments in exercising the very powers that may have bred that perception in the first place.  

They may be needy or even homeless precisely because the City or County has tripled the taxes on their parent's property without reason, as happens.  Their father may have had to engage in larceny for supplemental income, their mother may have needed to escape through drugs or sell them because of the unforgiving bean-counting officials trying to rob them of their meager household earnings.  Great news though; these same guys that took your folks away are back so you can buy your incarcerated parents Christmas presents with the gall to use the money they took through taxation.  

Using tax money to donate money back to themselves to use for non-public purchases is criminal, but for some reason the city's cops aren't interested in these brazen robbers in Ludington.

Views: 436

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well done X. Another excellent City Council report. These reports should be mandatory reading in Ludington High School government classes. If young people are ever going  to learn how government should and should not be run they need to be exposed to information like this. If I were a teacher I would make your information part of their studies.

 

I humbly agree that this was a textbook case of a meeting where city (and even state) officials had an agenda that went either against the interests of the people or against ethical propriety and it should be ingrained in our next generation of young minds being taught by government employees in the public schools that government is good, whatever they do. 

The floating decimals of budget numbers, the public hearing where the people were disenfranchised because of official error followed by officials claiming otherwise, the failure to disclose a viable conflict of interest by an official, the state's (and city's) push towards even more operational secrecy, and the use of public DDA funds as donations to a city-operated charity.  These are all government official excesses or mistakes that affect us all adversely.

How can the Chief just sit there at every meeting after praying and listen to crimes committed right in front of him by those he prays for, and not do the right thing?  He needs to step down! He won't even answer to his own corruption yet he can harass, intimidate, wrongfully investigate, assault,arrest and hold others accountable for made up crimes. Disgusting!

Well said guys all, and it's getting more ridiculous every month and year. I've been going on and off to city council mtgs. since the early 1980's, and I can firmly state, the last ten years of local governing is the most anti-local, anti-city charter, anti-State of Mi. laws, anti-ethical, anti-conflict of interest conduct I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. To just brush off any type of restraint and legal propriety to achieve the end goal, is at an all time in history flagrant recurring habit that is impossible to believe, if it wasn't happening in Ludington. The fact that Chief Barnett sits on his duff and witnesses all this repeatedly, is unbelievable for any law enforcement official. To witness the fact that any city mgr. and city attorney also back up any obvious illegal and unethical behavior is also unbelievable, except, that their narcissist minds are incredibly above the law, charter, and honor. The OMA, Open Meetings Act, was severely and routinely broken again, as in the past so many times recently, and it just continues to grow. Very Shameful!!! And they and the LDN will just say, hey, it's All okay, sit down, shut up, and mind your own business!!! And lastly, the Walk of Trees charity, while fine in theory, had Ben Nickelson stating he already had all the donations needed from sponsors and donations, so why is the DDA then also making a illegal contribution? The Nickelson family is rightfully wealthy, James is likely Ben's dad, whom I went to school with. So, why in the interest of providing Xmas trees to the poor and downtrodden, do they seek any donations to begin with if they are so charitable? Makes a person definitely wonder. And then they claim any remaining funds over the desired goals, will again, be given to the SWAC program?

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service