Ludington City Council Meeting, April 24, 2023: Braking the Rules

[XLFD]

The April 24, 2023 meeting of the Ludington City Council had a light agenda packet without any action items coming from the committees, and the major topic, a resolution to adopt rules for public comment, moved to the mayor's section rather than the very beginning of the meeting.  That resolution, included in the first two pages of the packet in its prior form only, had underwent changes that made it better, but actions by the council would actually improve it more.

But before we look at that, let's cover what happened prior to that topic coming up.  The council was down to six with the absence of Kathy Winczewski, but there was a seventh councilor present this evening giving an invocation.  Ordained minister Pete Engblade of St. John's Lutheran Church, former 5th ward councilor for the twelve years staring this millennium, was given the task of speaking an invocation.  And even though it was fairly standard as far as content, it would seem to have an effect on what would happen later, particularly with the current 5th Ward councilor.

The first comment period was likely to be the last public comment period made without what looked like draconian rules being imposed (it should be noted that City Manager Mitch Foster did supply me with a revised rule resolution before the meeting, which was much less objectionable than the one found in the packet). 

Nobody else spoke other than me, so I took the moment to use my internet alias I identify with (other than my Christian name) and the name of this website (other than my street address) to introduce myself.  Surprisingly, I wasn't interrupted by Mayor Mark Barnett, however, after I spoke he did mention my name and address to the city clerk, for the record.  I took the time not to comment about the main issue of the night, but rather to further support my claims about the mistake we made with the Lofts on Rowe project:

April 23rd, 2023 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD of the Ludington Torch, 

"At the last meeting, City Manager Foster related that nobody tried to claim that Lofts on Rowe was ever meant to be affordable housing, but I rebutted by saying that many of the principals involved had said this very thing and I would additionally mention this:

“The renovation and complete remodel of the Haskell building into an amazing multifamily workforce housing facility will not only make an incredible impact on the immediate neighborhood but also (will) begin to address the greater housing issue,” said Mitchell Foster, Ludington city manager in January of 2021.

Wiki defines Workforce housing to mean affordable housing for households with earned income that is insufficient to secure quality housing in reasonable proximity to the workplace.  In more definite terms workforce housing is defined as being affordable to those households making between 60- 120 percent of the area's median household income.  If you and your spouse were on the low end of that ladder, at Lofts on Rowe, you would be spending about 70% of your gross income on rent alone if you were in a two-bedroom apartment.  That's not affordable or workforce housing.

He also indicated that these projects wouldn't be done if governments wouldn't be footing the bill for a significant portion, in this case over $10 million.  One should note local developer Mitch Bogner who has truly created quality affordable housing units in his Pineview Apartments, received nothing but grief from the City and other governments.  Truly, the only people that needs these subsidized housing projects, beyond the developers and banks who make a killing, is politicians making their videos about how they made such a difference by spending everybody else's hard earned money to build these useless boondoggles.  They don't use those words, however, nor do they recognize their own parts in creating almost every housing crisis in this country."  [END comment]

When you're a developer and get over $10 million in grants from government and NGOs (mostly from local sources) for a project slated to be $14 million (and likely less than that, when they start having to use their own money), you become a scumbag profiteer when you offer the apartments well-above their market-rate values, rather than offer them up below market rate, as Bogner does with his much better apartment stock.  When you allow scumbag profiteers to use public money without regard to the public who will only see the average rents go way up because of this outrage, you are a scumbag politician.  You're double that when you try to pass this off as a great thing for the community.  

To Mitch Foster's credit, he didn't extend the debate by telling any more exaggerations of facts or anything else.  He should know that his courses of actions over recent years has been antithetical to the concepts he brought to Ludington with Chuck Marohn and his Strong Towns philosophy.  It's sad this happened, because I was somewhat excited when the initial developer of LOR came in and said that they would only be seeking minimal assistance in doing this project and all those promises made were thrown out when they left and were replaced by an entity that not only went after every subsidization they could find but went after even more of our local dollars before asking for rents well-above normal for the area. 

The main presentation for the night was made by Dawn Lund of Utility Financial Solutions, a contractor=consultant hired to look at how the City needs to handle water and sewer rates over the next five years in order to keep each enterprise fund solvent.  She did this by showing first what would happen to balances if no cost increases were planned, and then proceeded to indicate how UFS figured out what rates the City would need to charge to keep ahead, presuming lead-line replacement of $500,000 per year would continue, other planned projects, and expected depreciation of assets would continue.  

The water rate offered was the current rate annual increase of 7.5% to continue for three years, followed by an increase of 3% in 2027.  The sewer rate offered was 4.9% over the next five years.  The council have not adjusted those rates at this point, but the rates offered seem almost reasonable considering the inflation going on all around us.  Additionally, don't be surprised to see a bond project of about $5 million in couple of years in regard to the sludge ponds come before the council.  The full report is in the packet.

Councilor Cheri Stibitz indicated in her report that the artwork scheduled to be put along the Cartier Park pathway have been decided upon, it's the three shown here and also found in the packet.  Without issue, the City passed the two ordinances before them contracting with AXON five years for LPD body cams at a little over $27,000 per year and with the LASD for three years for supplying them with a SRO from the LPD. 

They acknowledged that the City was contracting with Safety Decals to make sesquicentennial cups for $2400, the company owned by city official Heather Tykoski and her husband.  This is the first time they have did this, they should have done it many more times, but the notice found on p. 149 of the packet fails to disclose that Tykoski, as the Community Development Director, did any sort of action to make sure that this would be the best choice for the City of Ludington of where to get these cups made at the best cost to the taxpayers.  I am going to be seeking evidence that there was any effort by the CDD or her superior to get the best deal, so that this isn't the conflict-of-interest that this looks like-- regardless of this disclosure.

After the council approved the 2023 Ludington Triathlon, their 19th, they addressed the topic of the evening about their meeting rules for public comment codification.  As noted, the offered resolution at the top of the meeting was the old version the new version isn't offered yet by the city but this is what it is, with red markings describing the changes made in the evening:

Mark Barnett led off the discussion by offering his opinion in a poorly crafted essay at 59:50 into the meeting, and then reading the new version.  I use 'poorly crafted' because he does not depict history accurately and he offers a lot of pablum that doesn't support the reason why this measure is being considered in the first place, that street numbers needed to be stated, offering transparency as the main reason.  It went open for approval.

Fortunately, Councilor Jack Bulger recognized the problem that some members of the public will be reluctant to speak by giving out their home address, and allowed the option by a motion to amend  for the speaker to say what ward he was from as an option to the street address.  After discussion, Councilor Ted May and Cheri Stibitz voted no to this amendment, but the rest approved it.  

Another amendment offered by Councilor Wally Cain was made after more discussion to strike the clerk's duties in section A3, where the argument suggested it was out of place in the resolution.  This was approved without much ado.  One last amendment was offered by Bulger, to strike the misdemeanor language in section B2, but this failed when he Cain and Councilor John Terzano voted for it, the three others went against it, and Mayor Barnett cast the tie-breaking vote, who unsurprisingly voted no.  

The amended resolution was passed unanimously.  Worthy of note was that Councilor Cain offered a surprisingly refreshing support (1:36 into the meeting) of the public's accessibility and the right to comment at these meetings, whether he agrees or disagrees with the comments made.  Engblade's invocation helped his 5th Ward successor see the light.  

I ended the night by being the first to test the new rules, and like the mayor in his reading of the new rules, I had to tweak my prepared comment, the only one made at that time.

"Tom Rotta, Third Ward, representing the Ludington Torch,

I wrote this for the second comment back on March 13th, however you wisely tabled the resolution adopting absurd public comment rules then , so I saved it for when you revisit the action.

In its latest Handbook for Municipal Officials, the Michigan Municipal League has offered the following guidance in chapter 7.  "For each proposed action of a local governing body, it must be determined whether the action requires an ordinance or a resolution. In most cases, the proper
approach will be obvious. However, the choice of approach is critically important because the use of the wrong device may result in invalidation of the action taken. If the substance of a local governing body’s action requires adoption of an ordinance, a resolution cannot operate as a de facto ordinance, and the attempt to legislate by resolution will be invalid."

Section 7.1 of the city charter explains in its first subsections that ordinances must be used when there is an action to amend an administrative code or an action that imposes a penalty or establishes a rule whose violation results in a penalty.  Tonight's attempt at imposing criminal penalties for disciplinary conduct could not be done by a mere resolution.  Much like the Workplace Safety Policy back in 2011 which was passed simply by a motion, your latest attempt is legally insufficient. [END comment]

The new rules allow us not only to just state our ward, but also gives us the ability to market our organizational affiliation all before the time starts.  I have to consider this not only a major victory for those wishing to speak at Ludington City Council meetings without having to violate their own personal privacy, but as a personal victory, since I gained three objectives (the ability to speak without giving my home address, the ability to advertise for the Ludington Torch and or Pitchfork, and the ability to have an additional 5 seconds to speak because the clock doesn't start until after the introduction).  

I would thank Councilor Bulger afterwards for recognizing the rights and dignities of the people and engage the city attorney about my last comment, as I appreciate the resolution, but worry about it being challenged.  As you might think, I won't be doing that even though I think it should be an action done by ordinance

[Freedom Seeker]

Keep up the good work, X. It is encouraging that some of the Council may have some good sense in regard to speaking rules.

[XLFD]

August 28th, 2017 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Thanks for the encouragement, should I mention a fourth objective, winning a peeing match with Barnett, maybe not. 

Another thing I should comment on though.  At this meeting 1:15:50 in Councilor Terzano says:  "When I first started coming to council meetings, before I was on council, full disclosure, it wasn't all that long ago, we used to have to sign in. For a person like myself who can't even read their own handwriting, that was a little bit much I thought.  But we've always kind of asked for a street address... historically again, it's always been street address."

I'm thinking that Terzano is thinking back to his 35 years in Washington DC rather than here, because I can vouch that since the meetings have been recorded, nobody has ever had to sign in to speak at a council meeting, and street address has never been a requirement.  For example, Aug. 28, 2017, where Terzano spoke for the second time at a LCC meeting (the first, two weeks prior, is missing in the archives), he starts his comment during the second period at 42:20 into the above video by offering "John Terzano, West Court Street", without a house number!  As normal, I said "Dowland Street" two times, just as I have since 2013 until this year (with a brief hiatus on "Pine Street"). 

Hundreds of city council meetings, and no mention of a problem until Mayor Barnett cries foul as if he has a brand-new rulebook all his own.  Terzano would vote properly this night for the right reasons, but his faulty recollections trouble me, while other people who have been around these meetings since before 2017, like Councilor Johnson, Barnett, and Clerk Luskin, didn't correct him and that fact troubles me even more. You might notice me animatedly shaking my head when he's speaking falsely, but you'll probably miss the sour expression afterwards when those present decided that was true enough to be part of the established record of this meeting.

[Willy]

Excellent coverage of the Council meeting. Don't be surprised if they strike the requirement to announce an organizational affiliation. I think they would not want to have any acknowledgment  about this forum and your research being stated at the meetings.  People might get to curious about what the name represents and start paying attention to what you have to say. If it does stay in the announcement requirements it might be a good idea to announce yourself as the "Editor" of the Torch. Get a PO box and give the address of the post office. The more information about yourself and the Torch the better.

Thomas Rotta - Editor of the Ludington Torch - 201 East Ludington Ave.