Ludington City Council Meeting, September 24, 2018: Assessing the Situation

The September 24, 2018 meeting of the Ludington City Council had a few items on the agenda, none of which appeared controversial, and as if to bolster that image, all votes were unanimous for the various items this evening and no acrimony surfaced between any of the city officials, only levity and goodwill. A controversy was introduced during the latter public comment period, but even that was dismissed as unreasonable.

Thus the PILOT ordinance for the Depot Apartments, the contract with the new city assessor, a payment of an unbudgeted $70,000 out of the water fund to close out 2017 road & utility projects, the Tree ordinance were all approved without meaningful discussion outside what the council packet contained. The other mundane approvals of road closures for events, monthly reports, and fire prevention week proclamations were routinely noted and passed.

But this was after the initial public comment period, which saw only one person get up and voice their concerns about the Tree Ordinance and what it means as part of the overall picture to a theme that I normally do not comment on. It should be noted that the Tree Advisory Board had already assumed the power to choose what trees and where they want to plant them on the right of way (aka easement), the ordinance mostly codified why you must observe those powers and what will be done to you if you resist (see packet, p. 54):

September 25th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD (2:10 into the video): "Some of my fellow citizens come before this council with either ideas or pleas about fighting blight. Philosophically, I think the best and most cost-effective way for the City to attack the issue of blight is to quit passing ordinances that continue to erode the property rights of the citizens. Property owners differ on degree, but all experience pride in what they have and a desire to make their land look as good or better than their neighbors.
While fairly enforced and reasonable zoning codes and ordinances addressing things like tall grass and junk gives city hall some ability to address blighted properties of the less proud, other city actions have unintended consequences against those without such issues. This summer, the City has already given itself sole authority in placing event signs on homeowner's easements. Tonight they will almost assuredly pass a Tree Ordinance that gives the City sole authority in planting the City's choice of tree on homeowner's easements.
These two easement encroachments do not satisfy the general terms of why the easement is there in the first place, for public travel and utilities, rather they have a tendency to interfere with both. In the past, I have fully documented over 50 intersections in town where trees in the street easement were mostly or fully blocking the approach view of stop and yield signs. In many areas, trees in the easement make it impractical to build sidewalks or utility structures.
The decision to put trees in the property easement should not be made lightly, nor should it be made unilaterally by just one stakeholder. The owner has a duty to maintain the right-of-way and a right to place permissible temporary signs there. The City and other public utilities have their own duties and powers under the provisions of the easement. Both should be in agreement on whether a tree should be planted there, and what tree should be planted there. The City may prefer a certain type of tree, but they do not have to live with that tree and clean up after it. Failing to give a property owner any say in the matter will lead only to discontent and the loss of pride in their property. Which will ultimately lead to worsening the blight problem."

Is that a valid presumption to have? Please comment one way or the other below and explain if you can. As noted, this passed later without any problems, the city officials gleefully looking forward to become a Tree City.

At 12:15 in, Interim City Manager Steve Brock related that due to the parting of ways of the previous city assessor Brent Bosley, they had a process of choosing his replacement. Councilor Cain noted that this process did not involve the personnel committee. It involved the treasurer, the zoning administrator/deputy assessor, and Brock, interviewing three candidates (see packet, p. 37), all qualified, and this selection committee chose Jared Litwiller, and said good-bye to the two others.

Indeed, the ICM has effectively admitted the City has violated the Open Meetings Act, for statute MCL 15.268(f) clearly says: "...all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act." No meetings were publicly noticed for these interviews, people in the know were not even aware the position was open. A similar case called BOOTH NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. U. OF M. BD. OF REGENTS identified a similar set of circumstances as violating the OMA as found by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Furthermore, he states that the contract terms are very similar (it is) and that the dollar amount is very similar (it isn't). Jared took the Constitutional oath of office after the meeting. I would address additional aspects of that secretive resignation and reappointing process, in the public comment period after Chuck Sobanski argued for more resources towards sidewalk maintenance.

XLFD (38:20 in): "The hiring of the new part-time city assessor leaves me with a lot of questions that were not asked or answered tonight by our city officials who are historically light on transparency. When did Brent Bosley resign? Why did he resign when he faced a bonus over $10,000 at the end of his contract? Why wasn't the public informed that he resigned? What processes did the City use to find his replacement? Who, when, why and how was it decided that this candidate was better than the others so that there is only once choice instead of three for the council? Why are the August 28 personnel committee notes so vague by just saying "Interim City Manager Steve Brock discussed the City Assessor contract and position with the committee."?
But an even bigger question should be is why are we giving the brand new assessor a 20% raise over what the last city assessor received in the contract you passed on April 9th? Bosley worked for over six years for the City under the same terms and would have received $34,200, we are hiring a newbie for $41,200 without any meaningful questions asked as to why by any of you officials that just agreed to this expenditure.
The contracts are almost identical, except the City was only liable to pay Bosley $2000 per month, and he would only receive the additional $10,200 if he served until April 2019; Jared's contract has him being paid $3442 per month without such a 'balloon payment' as incentive for 2.5 years. Looked at that way, this is a 72% raise. If I was assessing things, I would wonder how we're going to pay for this salary hike-- maybe higher property assessments."

I just barely got the last part of the sentence out after being called for time by the mayor who quipped: "Would anyone else like to speak, reasonably?" I thank her Honor for noticing that I was speaking reasonably, if that's what she meant.

In the April 9th, 2018 packet, p. 50, we find the terms and payments the City offered Brent Bosley for a one year contract over 17 pages. In this meeting's packet p. 37, we find a 16 page contract with practically the same general conditions, Jared will have no more responsibilities than Brent, however when it comes to the terms of payment there is a great difference; compare:

With 5 month's later:

Outside of an illegal meeting where no councilors were present, the terms were negotiated so as to give the new assessor a new method of remuneration (by property parcel) at $3441.67 per month, instead of the $2000 per month we were paying to the more experienced Brent Bosley. As noted, that's a 70% raise over what Bosley had for five months before the cord was separated (he will never receive the bonus $10,200). A closer look at the contract shows that Bosley was required to give 90 day notice, which if he did, would have put his resignation back before Shay and the City Treasurer left. Is it just me, or should it be a red flag when the city manager, treasurer and assessor all jump ship at the same time?

Former Councilor Gary Castonia finished by speaking against the new angled parking on Loomis Street as it stands, before Councilor Winczewski did an AFFEW infomercial about Japanese Knotweed primarily for over 5 minutes.  The massive raise the city assessor just got, and all other aspects I had questions about were left unanswered as the closing gavel sounded.  As usual, the Ludington Torch will investigate what went on behind the scenes, and we will prosecute those public bodies who subvert the laws of transparency and expose those officials that waste our money foolishly.

Views: 374

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting with the city assessor.

Does this mean that he will not get any future raises unless there are more parcels to assess?

What if someone buys a vacant lot next to his home and wants the two combined into one property? Will the city assessor get a pay cut?

Are any city owned lots counted in the 4,130 parcels seeing as they are exempt from taxes?

How is property owned by tax exempt organizations handled?  Are they included in the assessor's compensation?

What about the recent trend to build small houses?  Condos? PILOT apartments?

Why not pay him the $41,300 up front rather than monthly?

Will the city assessor be considered an at will employee seeing as he is doing piece work that he could accomplish from his home?

If the assessments are finished in six months will the assessor be able to live someplace else for half a year while still getting paid?

Is this another crock of Brock seeing as he backed this?

Is the clique that controls city hall to stupid to ask basic questions or do any thinking on their own?

shinblind, you're only halfway through your twenty questions, taking the Socratic method to the extreme.

I am impressed that they hired a local, qualified assessor, as Bosley had to drive 87 miles just to get to Ludington from his home in Howard City, but other than that they really did some weird stuff here. 

I feel real bad for the secret-keepers at city hall, the ones that want to get things done without the public knowing anything about it.  Before they were able to get a lot of discrete stuff done at the standing committee level, but that's going to be coming to a close soon as that continues to open up thanks to some prodding.  

That leaves the secret-keepers with administrative committees or individual administrators acting on matters that should come before the council.  That's what they did here to select the city assessor and keep everything out of the public eye except for the contract signing.  None of the naïve councilors even questioned the healthy raise decided without their help, before or after I compared it with the contract made five months previous.  So much for Brock being like John Shay, who according to Councilor Moonbeam, pinched every penny.

Rainbows, Unicorns 

Understandable council

Worships Steven Brock.

Yup, they have enough in the budget for another $43K employee, but not a measly $15K to fix the Copeyan Park fishing dock for the kids for 2 years now?  And the transparency issue continues to raise it's head again, even with Brock here now? And of course the city council ignores all this and continues to vote yes on more crapola for it's locals, pitiful, and disgusting conduct is blatantly obvious and sickening.

Aquaman, I have recently received the Cemetery, Parks and Recreation Committee (CPRC) meeting notes from December 7, 2016-- a date that will live in infamy among area fisherfolk.  This meeting took place a day after Councilor Moonbeam touted the Splash Pad's introduction into Copeyon Park as being the best thing to happen since Woodstock:

"The Copeyon Park fishing pier which is located on the west side of the restroom building, was removed for maintenance and repairs. DPW Supt. Joe Stickney received a verbal quote from S&R Construction of $15,000 to make the necessary repairs to the fishing pier to make it safe. It present condition is currently unstable and unsafe. The braces and brackets on the pier are bent, there are numerous wood boards that need to be replaced and the sheet metal on the bottom of the platform that encases the Styrofoam needs to be replaced.
City Manager John Shay informed the committee that the funds to make the repairs to the fishing pier are not included in the 2017 budget. He asked the committee their thoughts and suggested that the City not make the repairs at this time and not put the pier back in the water next spring. Depending on if or how many complaints the City receives that the fishing pier is not in, will determine whether or not the repairs will be made in the future.
Councilor Holman stated that she sees a lot of people using the fishing pier and would anticipate some complaints but agreed with John Shay and the other two committee members to not make the repairs at this time and see what happens next year."

$15,000? For Pete's sakes that amount of money is unreasonable. I find it hard to believe unless of course the new platform was priced with gold leaf decorations. I think they inflated the price to make it easier to tell the public the City could not afford it. Another thing, I doubt the entire platform  needed replacement. Sounds like another scam pulled off to fool the citizens.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service