Ludington City Council Meeting, August 27, 2018: Here's Your Sign

[XLFD]

The Ludington City Council meeting of August 27, 2018 was more interesting than it should have been.  The agenda really only had a couple of things on it, most concerning some very minor amendments to the Bowling Alley Block Development contracts (as was done for other minor amendments at the previous meeting), a zoning change approval to accommodate the housing development at 705 S Madison discussed at the previous meeting (and passed without issue at this one), and an ordinance allowing the city manager to approve special events signs (discussed at last meeting, naturally).  

The only other things brought forth was the first reading of a new sidewalk policy and a couple of updates not addressed in the packet for the meeting.  After City Manager Steve Brock gave his first invocation (and did a great job at it) I got up at the 2:15 mark to give him some praise, a way to tweak the sidewalk amendment to the City's advantage, and just in case you thought I was going soft, a reasoned plea for the restoration of a property right.

August 27th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  "I would like to commend the interim city manager for introducing an amendment to the recently passed sidewalk exemption policy, which has its first reading tonight. Summarized, if a property gets a sidewalk exemption, it still must pay the City half the amount it is estimated to put a sidewalk in. This money will be put in a dedicated fund for sidewalk maintenance and construction for priority sidewalks and shall forever satisfy the owners of the exempted lot's obligation to pay for sidewalk construction. This is an improvement for an exemption policy that could have been a disaster.
Since sidewalks do not last forever and need to be maintained by their lot owner, I would suggest that the 'forever' be reduced to a finite period that one might expect a city sidewalk to last without major repair, like 60 years. Thus those who exempt themselves and pay the sidewalk tribute rather than construct a sidewalk would not exempt a future owner if new construction is done after 60 years. This gives even more equity to those who opt for sidewalks and the added maintenance costs and frees up more future money to the sidewalk fund. Think about that tweak.
I hope the city will vote down the ordinance to change the approval of special event signs from a power of this council to a power of the city manager. This power should have never been the council's prerogative in the first place, rather it should have been the right of the lot owner the sign is placed in front of. In relevant part, current zoning law section 800:1 says signs permitted by the City on a temporary basis can be located in a public right-of-way. 800:4:1 says there are seven types of temporary signs that can be placed without permit, one of those are special event signs, one of those are for construction signs, two of those are for commercial or industrial districts, three are geared towards residential units.
Each of the residential unit applications: election signs, real estate signs, and yard sale signs, require the approval of the owner of the property that the sign placers are putting the signs in front of. It seems only natural that property owners have this right of approval for special event signs, not the city manager, as they are trusted with the care of this strip of land they technically own by law. The public easement contract does not apply to special event signs, but for travel and utility purposes."[END]

The council would later pass this event sign ordinance unanimously without any thought that property owners had any part in the process, their only concern was to provide sets of criteria for the city manager to use in deciding issues regarding special event signs. 

Councilor Winczewski would talk of a survey that was mailed out to homeowners along Ludington Avenue and said that overwhelmingly, the owners indicated the signs were okay.  There is no reference to the survey other than the councilor's words anywhere, not even to using this method in any of the subcommittee meeting notes available, so I'll be asking for this 'overwhelming' survey via FOIA. 

Brock indicated later on in the meeting after the first reading of the sidewalk amendment that the idea was for perpetuity but indicated a consideration of my tweaking proposal.  But he added that from the existing ordinances he suggests (with the city attorney's blessing) that a transfer of ownership could trigger the requirement for sidewalks to be installed (9:35 in), with possible exemption claimed and this payment in lieu of the construction.  

The corresponding part of the code that deals with sidewalk and transfer of ownership (Sec. 46-82) only mentions problems with existing sidewalks.  I just don't see anything there regarding installation, so until they can show otherwise, this should be a rejected argument.  Councilor Winczewski wanted to have further discussion and understanding about the issue at a committee of the whole, but her motion was never seconded and it died.

The updates consisted of a basic timeline and procedural for how they are searching for the next city manager, and for ushering in a new process for picking up yard waste (leaves) that would split collection from one to two days.  The north side of town will be picked up on Monday, south of Ludington Avenue will be picked up on Tuesday.  

Chuck Sobanski led off comments by showing the council a recent picture of Copeyon Park from the paper with a lot of geese near the water.  He expressed his concern about the goose poop, children in bare feet, and the spread of disease.  Brock and Holman addressed that geese were bad.

I then addressed an issue found in the agenda packet on page 12:

XLFD:  (38:00 in)  "I can't help noticing that the city attorney is charging the City over $7500 in attorney fees this period for work dealing with the Bowling Alley Block and the Fastlane Grant. Nearly $4000 of that is for the FASTLANE grant and in the three meetings this has been bantered about, including a passed resolution and ordinance, nothing has been said about the City recouping the tremendous legal costs which the city attorney is requesting from our taxpayers. Why isn't Lake Michigan Carferry directly paying our attorneys or their own attorneys to get this substantial gift from the American taxpayer?
Instead, Bob Manglitz and Pat McCarthey from LMC comes before a city subcommittee in May this year looking for some help from the City to front the project costs so that LMC would not have to borrow from other sources. A handout from a City going tens of millions in debt to maintain their water and sewer and make a new fire station. Over three months later, the City has yet to make a yes or no decision at an open meeting, but they are at least fronting the costs for legal expenses.
The bowling alley block has the same issue. A $16 million dollar project by a developer who has made many other multimillion dollar projects is getting legal help courtesy of the Ludington taxpayer. Why do we have to pay Bob Manglitz's and Bob Jacobson's legal bills without any compensation? It's probably the same reason we the people wind up financing their supposedly private dock project and building project?"  [END]

After a few mundane announcements, Attorney Richard Wilson responded to that premise:

Wilson:  "Contrary to rumors you may have just heard, the city attorney is not providing legal services to either the developer of the bowling alley block or the Lake Michigan Carferry. Under the terms of our agreement with the City, special projects such as the federal FASTLANE grant and the bowling alley block are billed outside of the retainer work and that is exactly what is happening here, and both the bowling alley block developer and Lake Michigan Carferry have their own attorneys, and as a result the city attorney is representing the City's best interests in all of those negotiations.

I would also point out that it has been made clear and Lake Michigan Carferry acknowledges that the final agreement that we are working on will include a reimbursement to the City for all of my attorney fees. That's not the case with the bowling alley block, those are not reimburseable, because they could not be under the MSHDA program, but the City will be receiving a municipal services fee from the bowling alley block that will include enough money to reimburse you for those legal fees over the next twenty years, and I'm sure it will not take that long to reimburse them, but I do not work for anybody but the City when I'm handling city matters, and so I did not do work for either Lake Michigan Carferry or the Bowling Alley Block in regards to any matter dealing with the City."

Mayor Kaye Holman: Thank you (echoed by another) I knew that.

Wilson: I know you did, but there were rumors.

Councilor Wally Cain: I think we all knew that (general laughter by the panel).

Arthur Schopenhauer once noted that "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  The city council is stuck in the first stage, I hope you are either at the third stage or can be placed there by noting that the City Attorney in a roundabout way has said that there is no way currently in place for the City of Ludington to recoup his expenses he is charging to the City, and everybody who pays taxes and/or utilities here.

Consider, we can agree the council voted to pay his bills earlier in the meeting, that money comes from the City's revenue sources, primarily from you.  Wilson admits there is nothing in place yet to recoup the money from LMC:  "(LMC) acknowledges that the final agreement that we are working on...".  Wilson admits the BAB cannot by law reimburse the City directly, that the money to reimburse his already-paid fee is coming to him in the future via a municipal services fee.  That's crazy talk, he's already been paid, that MSF amount hasn't even been agreed on yet.  

So you and everybody else paying for local taxes and utilities just paid over $7500 for legal fees concerning the BAB and FASTLANE grant, and Bob Manglitz, Bob Jacobson, and all those private entities using the services of City Attorney Wilson in order to realize the $5 million federal subsidy known as a FASTLANE grant and the millions in state and local subsidies for the BAB development, spent either nothing or just their 'share of taxes/fees'.  

I repeat:  "Why do we have to pay Bob Manglitz's and Bob Jacobson's legal bills without any compensation? It's probably the same reason we the people wind up financing their supposedly private dock project and building project?" 

Wilson may work for the City of Ludington as a contracted city attorney but the work he did here was for the benefit of private individuals who do not even live in this county or near it, so city taxpayers are indeed paying this out-of-county legal contractor for doing the work that these Bobs need done to effectively realize their much larger gifts from the public.

I think we all knew that (sighs of sadness).  Their attitude just shows how greatly out of touch they are with the common people who foot their excesses-- and that's no rumor either.

[Freedom Seeker]

Good catch, X, on another example a fishy billing by Richard Wilson.  The funny thing is that I don't find that funny at all.  Whatever the obfuscation involved with Wilson's attempt at explanation, it probably doesn't benefit the taxpayers and certainly doesn't look good.

[XLFD]

It's morbidly funny in that Wilson explains it in a way that admits I am correct that there is no way in place for the public to ever get the money back for loan of the city attorney's services for the grants, loans, PILOTS, etc. for these millionaires suckling on public pork.

And they think that just because Wilson explains that he did it while working for the city's interests (and billings), they are vindicated for agreeing to use over $7500 of local public funds for these rich entities that are getting richer thanks to the undereducated public (including Ludington city councilors) paying their expenses.  My mirth was in large part due to the narrow-mindedness prevalent in the council's attitude that would not ever understand that they are being used as dull-edged tools by the Bobs.

[Freedom Seeker]

well now, with the morbid laughter set aside, and playing the devil's advocate, let's assume that Wilson is bashing details out for the city in the city's interest, (best or not, is subject to personal interpretation).  But given that, and that fees are paid over 20 years for the BAB that recoups more than the attorney fees, then the fast lane grant work fees will be repaid, what's the problem?  What is considered "under retainer" by Wilson and what goes beyond that?  Maybe he works so many hours a year and then comes billing above that?  

Another thought is that Wilson immediately gets defensive in saying that you said he is working for the private companies.  I didn't hear you say that.  At any rate, yours seems like a reasonable question that could have been answered reasonably, without defense and bully laughter from the mayor and Cain.  Maybe you could sign up for an answer like the Mayor seems to be making up rules as they go along .. but wait, haven't you tried that and got no answers?

[Freedom Seeker]

I read and reread the transcripts of the dialogue of X and Wilson regarding the billing for services.  Assuming your transcriptions are accurate, X, which they have been in the past, Wilson says, "... under the terms of our agreement with the city, "special projects" such as federal fast lane grant and BAB are billed outside the retainer work ... So what qualifies a "special project"?  Is it one that takes more work than Wilson is willing to accomplish under his retainer?  

Still have to say "good catch" X and as only one tool in the shed, you are so much sharper than all the finance committee and the committee of the whole put together that their tactic when challenged is to ridicule you.  It's a shame that the mayor (or council by recommendation) doesn't have the humbleness to find a way to use your skills for the city's best interest.  A smart man (or woman) recognizes skills in others and puts them to use--one of the most important traits in a manager and a leader.  But it takes a humble spirit to admit that anyone is "smarter" than self and that is what I think was wrong with the former city manager and the city council-- too important in their own eyes and unable to admit someone else is right.  Hopefully that ego will be weeded out by sharper tools, soon.

[XLFD]

Each year the city attorney drafts an agreement and it is voted on in the last meeting of December.  It explains in a couple of pages the differences between 'retainer work' and special projects.  With the ambiguous way this agreement/contract is worded, either FASTLANE grant or BAB legal work could easily fall in the special project category.

But that distinction wasn't much at issue here other than these two special projects were done strictly for the benefit of the two private entities and charged to the public since it wasn't deemed part of the civil retainer work.  

A reasonable answer with a reasonable amount of civility likely wouldn't have played so well with their base, who jump at any opportunity to show their solidarity behind their fellow officials and contempt for the words of their more uppity citizens. 

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for that information, X.  Any idea how much Wilson gets paid an hour?  Median national average for a city attorney is $56.81 an hour.  Assuming that there must be some work which is the city's responsibility and necessary for these developments, can we figure out many hours Wilson worked the period of billing, or had it been an  accumulation of work for months?  And what about the $147 for the "depot?"

[XLFD]

Wilson and any of his 57 colleagues at Mika Meyers take down a cool $210/hour for 'special projects', which often gets snuck into other categories other than the 'City Attorney' category of the budget.  These can all be found in the Aug 27, 2018 Council Packet , perhaps that's why Richard Wilson is making jokes and misrepresenting what I actually say:

Another fun fact:  when Mika Meyers use paralegal interns for a lot of these mundane special projects, they still charge the Ludington taxpayer $210 per hour for the work of these $57-an-hour-or-less lackeys.  Isn't that special?

[Freedom Seeker]

Regarding dull tools:. Abraham Lincoln said, "If I had six hours to cut down a tree, I'd use four of those hours sharpening the axe".  One thing is a little encouraging, X, it seems that Steve Brock at least listens to your presentation,  he's not so personally vindictive and brings a little levity with his bowling pin.

[XLFD]

Steve Brock had a long career at Farmington Hills and there really didn't seem to be any red flags I saw with him other than his association and admiration of John Shay, which may have been an expedient bit of psychology to land this job. 

He appears to be the full package, I just hope he has the character, charisma, and cleverness to change the torpid mindset that city officials have developed over the years under Shay and Henderson.  That would be a difficult task to do in less than a year's time.

[John Doe Jr]

Moonbeam simply could not catch a ride to her Mother Ship...

[Freedom Seeker]

That is an amusing thought John, flying away on a mother ship, but if you are referring to Winczewski asking for a second on wanting the whole to review the sidewalk ordinance, I would have seconded her!   I think the whole council should be more aware of what is going on in every committee.  I see no where in the sunshine laws that suggest that two or three council members out of seven should be making decisions for the whole or deciding for the whole on how to vote by their or the city manager's vote .  There should be more open deliberations by the whole committee.  So now they make another committee to do that.  That's rather idiotic.  They should just let the Councilors attend any subcommittee, the more the merrier and open them up to the public as well.

[AQUAMAN]

Regarding the City Attorney's work on privatized projects: I would ask some questions too. Whom authorized his work on these 2 projects as special? Was it Shyster Shay again? Was this done with any knowledge or vote of the city council? Or, did he just do it for his Shyster Lawyer Buddy on his own? $7500 isn't exactly petty cash either imho. And I believe the taxpayers need a further explanation of reason and honesty, for the sake of transparency and legalities. As it is, the CA gets $54K/yr. for his retainer of  $4500/mo., and he only works part-time in this capacity, and that's far more than the medium income of this area totally for the entire year. This alone is about 15% of the yearly retainer, and that's supposed to be considered a tip? Lawyers charge too much as it is, and don't need tips from taxpayers. And the entire response at the end of this mtg. gets the usual arrogant jollies laugh from the council and Mayor, pathetic. Plus, if the city is going to be reimbursed for one of these special projects in less than 20 years, why doesn't Wilson wait and get that money later? Because he's greedy and ruthless in his position, and shouldn't be if he's so honest and giving for the public good.