Guess it's not over...

[Robert]

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/59925-zba-examines-wind-deci...

[XLFD]

Wanda, you are 100% correct that last meeting was only a first reading of the Cat Ordinance and that there hasn't been a vote taken on it. 

Where you are incorrect was that, beyond the comments made by two members of the public saying that the ordinance really was not needed (including one of the people who started all the hullaballoo), no city official commented on it-- there was no discussion. 

On the previous meeting they "discussed" and had decided to review the materials and meet with folks to discuss it.  Hon. CC Holman also had noted that she had received 22 calls against the ordinance, and only five positive calls.  That's a rather unscientific poll, but that's over 81% saying it's a ridiculous ordinance.  Yet, this meeting the Clerk noted in the minutes: "The changes made to this ordinance are in line with what was discussed at the City Council meeting on August 8, 2011." 

There has been no complaints regarding stray cats handled by the LPD or written complaints about stray cat problems to the City in 2011.  I don't think there's been any problems with people feeding the seagulls either.  What possible reason is there for this ordinance? 

[AQUAMAN]

Sorry if I overstepped myself, but it sure looked like everyone was Ayeing the passage. In any event, since Wanda is on the inside of this entire ordinance, what are your feelings and intent on the vote coming later? Thanks.

[Wanda Marrison]

Ordinance was first reading of what the committee came up with. The discussion was on the wording of the ordinance for final presentation which will be this Mon.

[XLFD]

Wanda, why is this ordinance being handled by the Public Safety Committee?  What does bird and cat feeding have to do with public safety? 

[Wanda Marrison]

I am not part of the Public Safety Committee, so I cannot say why.  

When first brought to the council by way of public comment, it was directed to the Public Safety Committee by the mayor. (watch taped meeting to see) Up till that meeting no one knew about the cat concern.  Pubic comments that are presented to council seem to go to a committee first for discussion. If concern warrants it. Of course not all public comments warrant a committee meeting.

At least that is how I am seeing it. Hope this helps.

BTW I have had many calls also AGAINST this ordinance and only 1 for it.

 

[AQUAMAN]

Why then are you people on the CC wasting our precious taxpayer time even addressing such nonsense? Even the original complainers have told you the problem is in check now. I've been checking around in recent weeks with the general public and your "Shay Cat Ordinance" is the joke of the town right now. People expect more from our elected officials than this....it's a real hoot! And shows where your priorities really are, it's not with locals concerns of matter.

[Wanda Marrison]

First of all those "taxpayers" that came to the CC did not feel like they were wasting their tax monies. AND it was not my call to send it to committee.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your inside information, Wanda.  What happens in Committees stays in Committees, one would think, but I hope you take into account all of your constituents concerns (but 1), and not vote for this next Monday. 

It really comes down to whether you think there is a cat problem because of a couple of oral anecdotes directed to the mayor, or whether you actually roam the City where the problem is supposed to be an epidemic, and see that it isn't. 

I have walked that area numerous times in the day and night since this was introduced and I saw one young cat in the day and one cat at night.  If you find that out, note that there has not been any written complaint to the City and no LPD police report about any stray cats, or any problems noted with the birds who have found there way into this ordinance, you may find that this ordinance has no effect on stray cats or birds-- just the taxpayer or tourist that happens to feed them and get caught by a code enforcer.

[Roman Around]

Pardon me, please: Let me clarify and be MORE specific.  There is a huge difference between ZONING ordinances and a City Charter and / or Code of Ordinances withing the city charter.  Depending upon which you are refering to, my statement still stands.  I was referencing a city charter and /or Code of Ordinances - check with YOUR atoorney if you still doubt me.

 

P.S.  I am VERY familiar with the OMA, it seems that you lack some interpretation and case law skills yourself.

[AQUAMAN]

There is also a HUGE Dif, between the original $50 pay for City Council members and what they voted for themselves just a scant few years ago too. The question then remains as clear as a bell to me and anyone with common sense, what are these people in it for? The money? Or the common good for service to the community? Not that $50 is all that fair nowadays, but that is window dressing for someone else to determine, not the CC that receive that compensation. And HOW on earth did they arrive at the figure now paid? 72 times the old rate? I never knew of anyone getting that kind of raise at any place of work in my lifetime, do you?

[XLFD]

I would presume you have some knowledge of the OMA, Roman, but back your statement up with facts please.  The Ludington City Code has inside it a section that says the City Council can only raise their salary by ordinance.  They can only pass ordinances in an Open Meeting. 

What part am I not getting, and why aren't they breaking the law if they accept such illegal gains?

[Roman Around]

IF what you say is correct (the City Code language) about raising a salary by 'ordinance' is true - where did you get your info about the salary ordinance NOT being passed in an open meeting?  Remember too, that salaries can be discussed at an 'open' meeting at a 'closed' session...per OMA.  Please understand that I am not meaning to be argumentative - rather I see both sides of the fence.  If you have dedicated council members - divide that salary by the number of hours that they are [hopefully] dedicating to you.  I know of township board members who get paid $320.00 (about the same salary you're talking about)for a 2 hour meeting...but, no one ever mentions the hours upon hours they put in [on top of their day job] to represent the 'public'.  Just a thought....