[0:00] imately 24.5 miles from the city limits the

[0:05] drive time to the residence is approximately 40 minutes Mr law hopes to

[0:10] maintain this as his permanent residence he also has family that lives in the

[0:14] immediate lington area and he will have access to stay with them on his work

[0:19] days and in case of inclement weather the police department would like to make

[0:23] a formal request for residency waiver allowing Mr law to keep his permanent

[0:28] address and I so make that motion to um approve the employee employee residency

[0:35] waiver

[0:39] second okay we have a motion by councelor maneski second by councelor

[0:42] trano to approve the employee residency waiver any comments or questions I do

[0:47] have a question yes Kathy um is this has this been done in the past this I'm new

[0:53] to this to so have we allowed this waiver to be applied in any other

[0:59] fashion any other time that you know off yes we have okay so our precedent

[1:07] has been set already Yes okay what is the

[1:12] current um distance in this that you must live in the city what is it again

[1:18] 20 20 okay 20 miles perfect so he's 20.4 24.5 and he does have relations in town

[1:26] that he can stay with if he needs to any other questions or

[1:34] comments all right um all those in favor of approving the U

[1:40] application for employee residency waiver signified by saying I I post same

[1:46] sign motion carried thank you and that's all we have

[1:52] tonight all right uh we move on to building licensing long range planning

[1:55] and Industrial Development councelor trano

[2:00] thank you your honor I have no report we do have one action item that's adopt the

[2:04] ordinance number 5 49-24 United development ordinance I

[2:10] know coun has amendment that down so I'll make a

[2:17] motion to adopt ordinance number 59-24 as

[2:25] amended as amended like the changes that we all have had before not these changes

[2:32] that are okay all those changes no that's a laay down yep but there were

[2:39] format changes and stuff that were made I'll support that

[2:46] motion okay we have a motion by councelor Tano support by councelor

[2:51] stibitz any comments or questions your honor if I may sure I did distribute a

[2:57] proposed uh Amendment m m to a couple of sections of the

[3:03] ordinance um the

[3:07] uh First Amendment would be to the uh section

[3:13] 15.03 uh and uh the reason for the amendment is that

[3:23] essentially we want to continue the same practice uh that we've had under the

[3:29] under the previous ordinance uh the problem is that the

[3:35] proposed ordinance added a a

[3:41] non-exempt uh category for saying that you could just build

[3:47] certain accessory buildings without even a

[3:52] uh zoning permit uh the problem is that by

[3:58] definition you could set up a building that's just under 10x 20 ft with a roof

[4:05] in three sides and you could if you don't have a

[4:10] permit you could move it literally right to the property line without the city

[4:20] inspector uh or zoning uh administrator under the new ordinance uh

[4:27] ever being contacted uh additionally under the new ordinance

[4:32] there's a uh zoning or rather a building

[4:38] envelope and uh these accessory structures have some obligations uh uh

[4:46] to be placed within the envelope or the appropriate envelope and again if the uh

[4:54] zoning administrator doesn't look before the building is put

[4:58] up uh the neighbors could have a legitimate

[5:03] complaint that it's you know too close to the property line without our ever

[5:08] having looked at it uh so the changes I'm proposing first of all

[5:15] 15.03 B is the chart or the table of uh

[5:21] approval processes and uh so I'm my motion would

[5:26] strike the first line of that table entirely uh the second part of

[5:37] the uh motion would strike the word nonexempt and the parenthetical

[5:45] reference uh C subsection C from what's now become the new first

[5:52] line of the chart uh and again that's because

[5:56] we're uh not uh adding this new non-exempt uh

[6:03] category uh the final change to the section would strike the entire section

[6:11] 15.03 pointd uh which is the language that

[6:15] adds the non-exempt uh uh procedures um so I guess I would inquire

[6:25] since I'm amending two different sections perhaps I should treat that is

[6:29] two separate motions with that so my my first motion then would be to make the

[6:37] Amendments uh proposed to section 15.03 as

[6:44] drafted

[6:50] second okay um Madame clerk question um Is this Voice vote or roll call vote for

[6:57] these these motions uh of for to amend the ordinance itself

[7:03] is aoll right the amendments are just voice voice vot thank you all right uh

[7:10] motion by councelor Baler support by councelor Tano uh as excuse me does This

[7:16] Not Duplicate uh commissioner large's uh ordinance Amendment last at the last

[7:21] meeting where we did take a roll call vote is it not the same thing the same

[7:28] process they called through a voice yeah it was

[7:32] close ask for aoll call to clarify okay all right good thanks

[7:37] you're right okay thank you any comments or questions on this first

[7:42] motion councelor chair I don't I don't needan to put you on the spot but can

[7:46] you talk a little bit about these amended changes I I noticed that you

[7:50] seconded this the stting you know that you as the person that helped work on

[7:56] the Udo think that this is a good thing to do can you explain

[8:03] why it's really both of these amendments are really clarification one of as we

[8:09] all know uh councelor buer

[8:14] has I think he's now read it four times five

[8:18] times got nothing better to do and a lot of it is like you know the

[8:26] changes that were in there there were format changes and citation ch

[8:30] so this these are really just clarifying some

[8:33] inconsistencies perfect thank you any other comments or

[8:41] questions hearing none all those in favor of this motion signify by saying I

[8:46] I I those oppose same sign that motion carries thank

[8:51] you councelor buer uh my second motion would be to amend Udo section

[9:02] 15.9 uh the intent again is to continue the

[9:11] present practice under the current ordinance and uh what brought this up is

[9:19] that under our present ordinance if you were only

[9:24] proposing to put up a fence or uh put up a sign that required

[9:33] action U by the building inspector uh there was a form developed

[9:41] uh that uh allowed you to do that but didn't

[9:47] require a uh building permit or an occupancy permit

[9:53] which most of the uh uh construction under the current ordinance

[10:00] and and the Udo uh most things do require uh all three of those steps so

[10:09] we started out intending to preserve our current

[10:14] practice and in fact uh some of the drafts uh which we've

[10:20] seen uh have had different language uh in each of the drafts trying

[10:27] to to do that but it never quite got all the way there

[10:33] now the amendment to 15.9

[10:40] A.1 uh 59 or excuse me 159

[10:48] b.1 and 1509 uh Point

[10:53] b.2 excuse me uh is a language change to make all three of the

[11:02] sections have the same operative language uh which is no intended use

[11:10] premises parking area building or other structure or parts thereof regulated by

[11:17] this ordinance in the process of trying to

[11:20] accomplish what we set out to do we ended up with all three of these

[11:26] sections having different language that it applied

[11:31] to uh but quite frankly that didn't make a lot of sense and even worse created

[11:38] some ambiguity which might cause uh problems

[11:43] down the road so the first three amendments simply make the same language

[11:52] in each section that applies to building permits and occupancy permits

[12:00] uh this also proposes to add a new section 15.09%

[12:30] and in trying to get there we kind created some ambiguity in the other

[12:36] three so the purpose of this is to uh number one make sure that

[12:43] our uh building inspector is not having to make three trips for somebody putting

[12:50] up a fence or hanging a sign on their building uh so

[13:00] the other reason to do this is if I'm putting up a fence I sure would hate to

[13:07] uh have three trips from the building

[13:13] inspector and pay three fees uh we're trying to make this

[13:19] ordinance more user friendly and that's in my opinion just the

[13:23] opposite so I would uh move to amend uh you o section

[13:32] .09 uh as drafted in my proposed ordinance

[13:37] Amendment

[13:42] second okay any we have a motion by councelor Buu second by councelor trano

[13:47] any comments or questions regarding this uh this

[13:54] motion okay hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I

[13:59] those opposed same sign motion carries thank

[14:04] you uh councelor buer I just want I believe that we skipped over after we

[14:10] voted on the 15.03 pointb sections I believe we skipped over 15.03 D which

[14:17] you had raised in the initial discussion and then you decided to separate that

[14:21] out as a vote and I don't know I don't know that you came back to it after that

[14:24] so I was just if that was a discussion point that you wanted

[14:29] I think his motion said to amend 509 that's language I'm Sor I was going

[14:36] back to the first discussion well I think my

[14:40] amendment ination was to uh adopt St Udo section

[14:50] 15.03 or adopt the amendment uh as drafted so that I if I'm

[14:57] not mistaken that would include striking the section 15.03

[15:05] pointd okay okay okay great sorry my confusion apologize all set all right C

[15:16] Jano so um I guess I make another motion as

[15:23] amended support so I move that uh we adopt ordinance number 54 9-24 the

[15:30] United development ordinance as amended support and the

[15:36] first time you said as amended but you your intent

[15:38] was very good okay thank you all right um and councelor B you supported that

[15:46] yes I do counc sbit is that okay

[15:52] okay all right we have motion by councelor trano support by councelor

[15:56] Bulger uh to adopt Ord 5 49-24 unified or udio uh as amended um any comments or

[16:05] questions councelor large yes I do so we brought this up last last uh uh meeting

[16:12] about the 40ft lot I just want to go over this one more time

[16:17] because I don't know if everybody's taken as counselors has had as many

[16:23] emails or contacts that I have about this and every time I get one it has got

[16:28] nothing to do do with being positive everything is not in favor of and I

[16:34] don't really have a percentage I I would like to have a percentage but it to me

[16:38] it just seems like that we are adopting something that I don't think a lot of

[16:45] the people want here and my question to everybody here if you think or if you

[16:51] believe that by adopting this ordinance you're doing the thing that your

[16:57] constituents resident of your board wants by all means vote

[17:02] Yes but if there's any doubt which I have a ton

[17:07] of that you should vote no because I believe this particular thing that is

[17:13] sticking out right now is for the people that are coming in not the people that

[17:17] live here not the residents that voted for you it's for the people that are

[17:22] coming in so I am still solid no on this and I'm hoping that you guys would come

[17:29] along with me and send this back so we can strike this 40t lot thing and get it

[17:34] for the people that want this city to stay the same the way it is thank

[17:40] you anyone else I'd like to just make a comment to um Tim you do know that we

[17:48] voted to okay that 40 the six dividing into 40 foot Lots we voted on that last

[17:54] time and it went through although you and I both voted no on it so you know

[17:58] but I just wanted to remind you that too um I'd like to just address the

[18:02] committee that worked on this too you know for three years they put in a lot

[18:06] of work they had a um an advisor that helped them with that and really even US

[18:13] city council people were not involved on the day-to-day stuff with that I went

[18:17] into some meetings and and worked with them on it and listened to some of it

[18:21] but to them it became part of their life I mean they put a lot of lot of hours

[18:25] into that so this is kind of their baby then when we had that combined city

[18:31] council meeting with the committee that did the

[18:35] Udo um Sparks flew a little bit um we had some real strong ideas on how we

[18:43] felt we didn't live the whole thing they had but they were willing to look at our

[18:50] strong objections and strong concerns and I want to give you a lot of credit

[18:55] for that because that was I think extremely important you guys could have

[18:59] just put your foot down and said this is what we've done for three years this is

[19:02] what we propose and some of you did but um this is what we propose but you came

[19:07] back to us and said okay what could we do to make this livable and for those of

[19:12] us that didn't live it day and night you listen to us and you took into account

[19:17] our our biggest concerns so I do want to thank you for that um it is a review in

[19:22] six months I think that's a great idea and a review every year after that which

[19:26] I think is really good too zoning hard it's tough we're going to probably not

[19:31] have everything 100% when we go on this but I want to hand it to you that you've

[19:36] done a lot of work and a great job and and I'm ready to go forward with

[19:42] it anyone

[19:47] else any other comments Mr I'll just I'll just Echo councilor larg statements

[19:52] to me it just comes down to uh do you represent the the people in your ward or

[19:57] not and I know the majority of the people I spoken to are

[20:00] heard from in first Ard not in favor of again entirely because of the 40 foot uh

[20:06] creating new 40ft lots that don't already exist no one wants that one I

[20:12] can be able to vote for it thank you anyone

[20:17] else all right Madame clerk would you call the uh the motion is to uh by

[20:23] councelor Tano supported by councelor buer to adopt ordinance 549 d24 four

[20:29] unified development ordinance or Udo Madam as amended Madame clerk would you

[20:33] call the role councelor Baler yes councelor King I councelor large no

[20:41] councelor wineski yes councelor may no councelor stietz yes councelor Tano I

[20:51] five eyes tun motion carried thank you yes

[20:58] I appreciate your com your comments Chessie um and I would like to

[21:05] just acknowledge again the extraordinary work of the

[21:09] staff hether Kowski Community involvement

[21:15] director administrator building inspector and C enforcement officer Sean

[21:20] Reed and kenman of course G um the work that they did not only in terms of um uh

[21:29] spending time and and helping the zoning committee do this um but then they had

[21:35] to go back and do their own jobs you know and and catch up and we took an

[21:40] extraordinary amount of their time uh and I want you know that uh it's deeply

[21:46] appreciated and uh we wouldn't have gotten where we've gotten without their

[21:50] assistance uh I like to thank uh Council on all sides right I do agree that study

[21:57] session that we had

[22:00] very beneficial um and that's part of the

[22:04] process right you do it we have something that uh is this uh

[22:09] extraordinary and and and and comprehensive um uh it does take a lot

[22:15] of eyes to look at it um we talked ferus talked repeatedly about a six-month

[22:22] review well we're not waiting till June to review it we're actually going to

[22:26] start in January uh uh in terms of this uh uh meeting

[22:32] with folks that uh that have some concerns so it's an ongoing

[22:36] process so I thank you thank you all right we'll move on to

[22:44] um Public Safety Public Utilities councelor main thank you your honor I

[22:49] have nothing to report and no action items tonight okay thank you uh item D

[22:55] Cemetery parks recreation and Waterfront councelor sbit thank you we have um no

[23:00] action items tonight but we do want to facilitate a discussion about smoking in

[23:04] Parks so we've brought this smoking ordinance to council several times and

[23:09] each time we have brought it back voicing several concerns the big concern

[23:15] the last time we brought it back to committee was what does adjacent

[23:19] sidewalks mean well we facilitated this really great discussion about what

[23:24] adjacent sidewalks are and unfortunately they're different to everyone

[23:29] so we took ccor bulger's um opinion into consideration where you know in the

[23:35] court of law what does an adjacent sidewalk mean and hoping that the

[23:39] smoking didn't go toward go that far because of all the different bullet

[23:43] points that we've made which are educating um the offender talking about

[23:48] it removal from the area and then potentially citing well we couldn't

[23:53] really come up with an agreement about what is an adjacent sidewalk and then we

[23:58] couldn't come up with an agreement about whether or not we wanted smoking in the

[24:02] Parks or not and so instead of just coming up with something we we want to

[24:07] hear from you guys what do you want out of this smoking in Parks ordinance and

[24:12] if you were on the parks and rec committee what would you want to have

[24:17] come out of that meeting so if anyone would like to kind of explain how

[24:21] they're feeling about the smoking in the Parks ordinance and we can kind of

[24:25] gather those thoughts and go from there if anyone has any opinions feel free to

[24:31] speak up well I'm on the parks committee and we did have a lot of discussion over

[24:35] the last few months on this and the easiest thing that I think to do for a

[24:40] lot of reasons for enforcement for um promoting public health is to just ban

[24:46] smoking from Parks the beach and one other playgrounds playgrounds so that's

[24:54] what I proposed to look at um at at the Parks committee and that's what I'd like

[25:01] to see I guess it it is a maybe a little radical um idea but someone had a good

[25:07] idea too they said well if you're at the beach and you're at the beach with your

[25:10] kids and stuff and you have to go to the bathroom you have to walk up to the

[25:13] concession s to go to the bathroom and then if you need to smoke a cigarette

[25:17] you just need to walk to the sidewalk on lakes Shore Drive and you can smoke a

[25:21] cigarette so it's not that you can't smoke it's just restricting it away from

[25:27] where families are and where kids are so yeah I could live with

[25:33] that so I do have one question also so I read through the uh the amendment what

[25:37] was stricken from the um proposal whatnot and it had in there

[25:44] that no smoking in public parks or what except for on sidewalks and parking lots

[25:53] public sidewalks and streets you should say public sidewalks and streets my

[25:58] concern on it is public sidewalk if you can't smoke in a park the sidewalks that

[26:04] go through the park are they public no no well I don't know that's my

[26:09] interpretation they're part of the part I don't know either so that so it kind

[26:13] of gets gray there I totally agree with what council wineski is saying except

[26:18] for the public sidewalk part adds a lot of um

[26:22] gray Chief I would totally defer to the

[26:27] attorney on Council that I'm not biting on that one we

[26:33] play sorry I'm only LIC to practice that's why we're looking at

[26:40] Ross I mean I think it depends on how it's drafted and so it would depend on

[26:44] the ordinance itself and the provision so if the if what you're saying is

[26:48] there's one of the drafts where it talks about the public sidewalk walk going

[26:54] through an actual Park then I think you would have to conclude that that is it

[27:00] is a publicly available sidewalk and it is going through a park I don't think

[27:04] that there's probably any line property line that delineates a difference

[27:08] between that sidewalk and the Park area so it's I don't think it's probably less

[27:13] likely to be a kind of Transportation infrastructure related sidewalk more

[27:16] than the Meandering you know sidewalk from a park so it again it's going to

[27:21] depend entirely on how it's drafted and how you uh uh set up the structure and

[27:27] the context around it that will govern kind of how that ordinance provision

[27:31] would be approved or you know it depends on if you approve it or not as well if

[27:35] if I might add to that in our discussion we had to decide what a sidewalk is and

[27:40] what a pathway is and a sidewalk going through a path going through a park is a

[27:46] pathway not a sidewalk a sidewalk has to be adjacent to a road

[27:52] so and you clear yeah like I said it depends on how you define those terms

[27:57] and that's going to govern and how they're interpreted in subsequent

[28:00] ordinances so and it depends on who's defining them and how they're defining

[28:05] them and we're I feel like we're a point about that well it's just that if you

[28:09] don't Define it if if you if you decide to move forward with a smoke free parks

[28:14] ordinance but you don't Define it then you leave the question open and then

[28:17] it's it's an interpretation for whomever wants to make their favorable

[28:21] interpretation for their argument if you specifically set forth what the

[28:25] definition of a pathway is and if you say that it in includes those sidewalk

[28:30] like features within the park space then you're creating a different thing than a

[28:35] sidewalk right so I think that's you can do it it just has to be explicit I would

[28:40] recommend it but it becomes complicated because the road that goes through Stern

[28:45] Park is a road um you know uh uh I appreciate what you say coner onesy but

[28:54] I think that that's uh myself I think that that's too broad um the language

[29:00] that uh you came up with before with the 100 ft from the concession stand City

[29:07] buildings the only issue I had with the last draft was some consistency just in

[29:12] terms of the language

[29:17] um the reality is um um smoking is legal um um and when you are outside

[29:27] second hand smoke is less of an issue uh uh than it is uh in theine space uh and

[29:33] when you're talking about you know when you don't have so-called designated

[29:39] areas to do it um um enforcement is going to be uh quite difficult right I

[29:48] mean you're talking about uh I don't know who's going to enforce it on the

[29:52] beach in the summer when you have thousands of people sitting out there um

[29:58] well I think a lot of it when it's in a confined space and things like that

[30:05] um I think it's a lot easier to enforce and and I I agree I I think it'll take a

[30:13] lot of education and the police police are educating first um they're not going

[30:19] to ticket someone right off the bat and it'll take a while for us if we decide

[30:23] to do this to get used to this in our city but I still love the idea that we

[30:28] would promote Health healthier behaviors and keep it away from from family

[30:34] activities so I'd go out on a limb and say let's try it but it's up to all of

[30:40] us the police said that it would be easier to enforce if we just said

[30:44] playgrounds parks and the beach aside from the 100 ft or something because

[30:50] that is kind of ambiguous so yeah lot of education on it though so

[30:57] just couple quick thoughts and the thing that I can kind of compare this with is

[31:02] is dogs in the park right and it's it's it's easier to enforce you know the the

[31:08] ordinance that prohibits dogs in the park and there's reasons why just the

[31:12] same as there's reasons why the council's considering there's health

[31:16] benefits and that type of thing to ban smoking make it a smokefree thing so uh

[31:20] can you imagine trying to enforce it if if a dog in dog in the park ordinance

[31:24] for example if if you say okay well anything under 20 lbs is fine but

[31:29] anything 20 to 45 lbs that's kind of iffy and anything 45 lbs are over

[31:35] absolutely no dogs to park and so that in my mind I'm kind of a simple mind but

[31:39] that's that's kind of how I see trying to trying to grade the enforcement uh

[31:44] with regards to smoking in other words 50 feet or 100 feet from a concession

[31:48] stand I've been in the middle of the and I'm sure we all have I've been in the

[31:52] middle of that Park sitting there minding my own business and clouds of

[31:55] smoke just waft by there's no controlling it so it makes sense to me

[31:59] and my family it would make sense yeah we can get up and move and we do and

[32:03] then sure enough here comes another cloud of smoke so I I don't think it

[32:07] being that it's out in the out in out in the open negates the impact that it has

[32:13] so I certainly it makes sense to me that you would you would move as a councel to

[32:17] do something to to mitigate that problem I think there's good good reasoning that

[32:21] are laid out here on this on this letter relative to the benefits for for taking

[32:26] action in this and I I just it's the kiss the kiss uh rule you know keeping

[32:32] it simple relative to lights either on or off the dogs either in or out of the

[32:37] park the smoking either happens in the park or it doesn't happen in the park

[32:40] and you can I think we all can come up with a a way to define the the

[32:45] boundaries of whatever park it is whether it's Sterns or Waterfront Park

[32:49] or or Lavo park or whichever parks that you want to include here but I really do

[32:54] think that it's there's a lot of common sense here that could be applied and and

[32:59] and getting into page after page for each individual Park I I just don't

[33:03] think that that's practical and frankly it's going to be up to some uh perhaps a

[33:09] new officer on a Sunday afternoon going up there without benefits of um one to

[33:15] three lawyers weighing in on this thing and and making the decision and the

[33:19] chief is committed to um uh his his officers really working on as Kathy said

[33:24] working on uh on education no is looking to hide in a tree and wait for somebody

[33:29] to light one up and dive on them and write them a ticket and kick them out

[33:32] par that's just not what we're looking to do we're just looking for people to

[33:35] express or conduct themselves in a courteous manner they have a habit but

[33:39] it has impact on other people and so I think that making it just as simple and

[33:43] straightforward makes a lot of sense as much as it would saying yeah you can

[33:47] have a dog in a Parker no you can't just a highlight too because some

[33:51] of the people in the audience might not realize this um Caitlyn did a search of

[33:56] some of the other cities that do restrict smoking um on their beaches and

[34:02] their Parks the village of pelston the village of allenson Bo city city of

[34:08] charboy city of East Jordan city of pataski um all restrict smoking in their

[34:15] parks and beaches so that's something to think about too they've done it somehow

[34:20] so I think we should think about

[34:24] it does anyone else have any other comments that they want to make about

[34:28] smoking in the

[34:31] park kind of want to hear from all of you yeah well I'm I'm just glad it's

[34:36] real clear that we don't allow dogs to smoke

[34:40] right there's no question about that that's

[34:44] next

[34:47] yeah so the effort that first started

[34:55] out uh in trying to Define

[34:59] where uh create a lot of nightmares but had so many places that

[35:06] people could smoke it was

[35:10] uh really not doing a whole lot for Family

[35:15] Health the proposal to ban smoking entirely uh

[35:22] certainly uh is much more consistent with the IDE

[35:27] idea that we want people healthy throughout all of our

[35:32] Parks uh so I you I certainly support the direction

[35:38] that we're going in uh

[35:43] I I share some of uh councelor Tano's concern about this

[35:50] being a legal adult

[35:55] activity uh but much to our surprise the state ban

[36:03] smoking in uh bars and restaurants and that's

[36:10] been amazingly successful uh and again I I understand

[36:17] uh councelor Tano's distinction between inside and

[36:22] outside U so at this point for me it will come

[36:27] down to uh the

[36:31] language uh and in addition between now one when we actually have to uh consider

[36:39] the text of an ordinance we may have a lot of public input on both sides to

[36:45] consider and that certainly would help me in making a final

[36:52] decision so I think what I would like to do is take this information that we have

[36:59] gathered here and we do have a parks and wreck meeting I think on the 17th 17th

[37:06] where we could just one last time facilitate a discussion figure out what

[37:11] direction we're going have the ordinance drafted and um bring it to council at

[37:17] the next meeting if that's okay with everyone perfect and that is

[37:25] all all righty we'll move on to city council what any items of business that

[37:31] you want to bring

[37:36] forward all right then we'll move on to city

[37:41] manager I don't have anything to report tonight thank

[37:45] you do you have some action items that you want

[37:49] to um the resolution for the hazard mitigation plan um I believe that would

[37:58] was almost completed on Mitch's uh from the former city manager uh Mitch uh

[38:05] Mitch's last meeting uh the hazard mitigation plan I believe was approved a

[38:10] a resolution was supposed to be adopted with it and the resolution was not

[38:15] included so that is just a housekeeping matter for this evening okay so you

[38:20] you're looking for a motion to adopt the resolution for the haz's mitigation plan

[38:25] um yes your honor I'll make that motion okay

[38:33] second we have a motion by councelor sbit support by Council trano to adopt

[38:38] resolution for hazard mitigation plan- local any comments or

[38:44] questions hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppose

[38:49] same sign motion carried thank

[38:54] you and then the second action item is to approve the Consumer's Energy

[39:00] authorization for changing um a standard light bulb to an

[39:05] LED light bulb um at 910 West L Street um I don't mean to put you on the spot

[39:13] but our DPW uh supervisor Andy La is here um if there are really specific

[39:20] questions um but our standard lighting contract with consumers does not

[39:25] currently allow for LED bulbs um I believe there was an existing house at

[39:29] this location and it was torn down and they're

[39:32] rebuilding um consumers quite frankly is going to put an LED bulb in that uh

[39:40] lighting fixture whether we approve this or not um it's just not in our current

[39:47] contract with them so they're asking for a waiver of that contract to upgrade

[39:52] that bulb to an LED bulb um and that is the um extent of their

[39:58] request pretty straightforward any questions will approve okay we a motion

[40:05] by councelor buer looking for support

[40:10] support support by councelor May to approve Consumer Energy authorization

[40:14] for change in standard lighting contract at uh or in the area of 910 West L

[40:19] Street any comments or questions is there a possibility of amending the

[40:23] contract so this doesn't have to happen again

[40:27] just a thought this is amending the contract for this

[40:31] location do you do you know how long our contract is with consumers I do not I

[40:38] Know M said it was adopted in 2018 so it's probably pretty infrequent

[40:43] we will look into that great question thank you anyone

[40:50] else all righty um all those in favor of the motion and the support signify by

[40:57] saying I I those opposed same sign motion carried

[41:03] thank you apparently your honor it takes seven

[41:07] counselors to change the [Laughter]

[41:15] light took three lawyers to tell us we could do

[41:21] that thank you thank you for that observation all right we'll move on to

[41:26] item number 11 I have no uh report or action items so we'll move on to item

[41:31] number 12 in our uh our agenda and we uh we'll open it up for

[41:37] the second round of public comment we'll adhere to the same guidelines mentioned

[41:41] at the beginning of tonight's meeting with the exception that each speaker

[41:44] will have two minutes I request that anyone wishing to address a council

[41:48] please step to the lectron and state your name street address or Ward city of

[41:52] residents and organizational affiliation if that's appropriate once you've done

[41:55] this you'll be recognized for 2 minutes and we'll ask you again remind you to

[41:59] speak directly into the microphone and address all comments to this

[42:06] [Applause]

[42:14] chair Tom R 6 W article 7 section 26 of the State Constitution states INR

[42:22] relevant part quote no City shall have the power to loan its crap for any

[42:27] private purpose or accept as provided by law for any public purpose end quote

[42:33] when the people in this council is told by our police chief that the expenses

[42:37] for a can9 unit will come exclusively from a nonprofit organization use of the

[42:43] city's credit card to buy dog food and vet insurance is a violation of the

[42:49] Constitution the city extended a line of credit to a nonprofit group and so it

[42:54] doesn't matter whether the K9 repays it or not the Constitution is

[43:00] broken everybody in front of me who swore an oath to affirm that

[43:04] Constitution should be clamoring to make sure that this doesn't ever happen

[43:09] again and yet in the general fund you see another $50,000 $15,000 expense made

[43:16] at Meyers for another nonprofit organization the shop with the cop

[43:22] program why is the program not using the funds raised through donations and Pie

[43:26] off auctions instead using our general fund to make such purchases when such

[43:32] loan of credit by the city is a direct violation of the

[43:36] Constitution if any of you tries to answer this question please don't try to

[43:41] aisc or shame me by telling me how much this program means to underprivileged

[43:47] families since you are all guilty of hiking taxes on them by

[43:53] $200,000 over each of the last two years without giving us any reason why thank

[44:01] you anyone

[44:10] else before my time starts do I get extra because I only have like 30

[44:14] seconds in the first one I'm sorry you can't bake

[44:18] it Jason Kirkpatrick 914 Maple Street all right uh just to start off I don't

[44:23] smoke and I don't drink okay so I want you guys understand that quick facts um

[44:28] very quick alcohol rated homicides um in in the nation uh 7,000 uh 334 annually

[44:37] uh 40 48% uh homicides offenders were influenced by alcohol when they created

[44:42] those homicides you guys know how how the effects of alcohol are on people you

[44:47] know families being broken because of alcoholism um so you know lington

[44:52] Michigan in 2021 the the violent crime rate was was 24.8 on the National

[44:58] Standard um National Standard was 224 so according to city data we're we're

[45:03] higher on violent crime than most of the Other Nation so kind of my point of the

[45:08] conversation here is we're going to waste an officers time and resources

[45:13] charging people for smoking on a beach like we allow people to drink on the

[45:18] beach you know they can go up to the concession stand bu alcohol take that

[45:22] out and drink way more Assa and batteries start from alcohol than they

[45:26] do from smoking so I think taking an officer and putting them out to charge

[45:30] people for smoking in public is kind of stupid in the waste of taxpayers dollars

[45:34] thank you thank you anyone

[45:45] else pck here 158 Harvard Drive um I want to respond to some comments that

[45:50] were just made um uh mayor Barnett spoke at the last meeting regarding the

[45:57] comments regarding the K9 unit I am a member of the friends of lington police

[46:02] and as you know the city actually purchased the K9 the dog Bella as they

[46:07] did the vehicles these are assets of the city that were funded through donations

[46:14] that were paid to made to the city and so the donations come into one account

[46:19] the dog was paid for by the city and internally the clerk and treasure make

[46:25] the money move back and fourth and so the notion

[46:30] that the city is acting on behalf of nonprofit the dog is not the nonprofits

[46:36] the dog Bala belongs to the city if you follow nonprofits at all this is the way

[46:43] nonprofits quite often operate in terms of they may have an asset and there may

[46:49] be a nonprofit that is funding the asset or paying for the maintenance on it we

[46:53] do it at the state park with the DNR all the time it's not this big missterious

[46:59] thing it's how accounting works and so forth and so I am here tonight in terms

[47:05] of wasn't intending to speak but when I hear these comments it really offends me

[47:10] because it's a hit on the citizens and others that have in good faith made

[47:14] donations to this nonprofit to fund a program which is for the benefit of the

[47:20] city and it is not anything that the city is doing wrong we are trying to

[47:25] take steps so that the dog food is not being paid for by the city and

[47:29] reimbursed it may in fact make us go through extra hoops from the nonprofit

[47:34] just to further clarify it so that the chief is not having to respond to this

[47:40] nonsense thank you thank

[47:45] you anybody

[47:49] else all righty well if there's nothing else um we'll close the second round of

[47:55] public comment and move on on to miscellaneous business anyone have any

[47:59] uh pieces of business that you'd like to bring forward if I could I'd like to ask

[48:03] director L since we've had the snowfall are we going to have more Leaf pickups

[48:08] still yes in between snowfall we're able to do you have a an end date in

[48:17] mind

[48:20] de thank you okay uh C tro yeah I have a

[48:27] good to know tonight uh as most people know the p

[48:32] auction was held on uh 1127 1127 um and they raised over $20,000 by

[48:41] way of the uh pie auction the proceeds will be used to purchase gifts for 70

[48:46] plus children and their families the shop with the cop shop with heral dates

[48:51] actually starting tonight 129 through uh 1212 and the opportunity the First

[48:57] Responders in Mason County to interact with and purchase gifts and food for

[49:02] these children and their families is only because of the generosity of those

[49:06] in our community that decided to purchase FES and make donations for this

[49:11] event uh shop with the cop uh shop at the hero is organized and facilitated by

[49:17] school resource officer uh Conor gallahue and Sergeant Austin Morris with

[49:23] great assistance provided by Mason County Sheriff uh uh office Sergeant

[49:29] Matt uh warin sorry about that Matt um the

[49:35] children will be shopping with officers from the lington police department the M

[49:39] County Sheriff's Office the M uh Michigan State Police Scottville Police

[49:44] Department as well as First Responders from the lington fire department Pier

[49:49] Marquette Township Fire Department Hamilton Hamlin Township Fire Department

[49:55] and Custer fire fire department Life EMS and other Mason County fire

[50:01] departments if that's not enough and in addition the police department has

[50:05] partnered with Westshore Bank to off and off to auction off of pig and cow to

[50:10] benefit the police department's partnership with Lakes Shore food Club

[50:15] the goal is to feed hundreds of Mason County families this holiday season 100%

[50:19] of the pig auction proceeds will be provided to the food Club to feed those

[50:24] in need um to the police department is extremely grateful to West short Bank uh

[50:31] for their generosity and in donating the Pig and the cow to the police department

[50:36] to make this event possible and the pig and cow auction is uh 1213 this Friday

[50:43] and is that online or yes sir it will be online thank you thank you I have one

[50:53] quick thing and I just kind of the teacher in me here is coming out a

[50:56] little bit but um La last week's meeting the mayor

[50:59] mentioned that you know there's there's this issue if you don't understand

[51:04] something seek to understand call the city call one of us um and and I'm

[51:10] hearing lots of misinformation here today and and even

[51:15] one member admitted that there was some confusion and so it might behoove you to

[51:20] just think about it for a second and ask see excuse me excuse

[51:29] so before we go to social media or other places like that perhaps we might want

[51:35] to call the city and say hey I have a question can you help me understand and

[51:39] then you could help other people understand too so just just remember we

[51:42] are here for you to answer questions and if we can't answer your question we'll

[51:46] find someone that can so instead of throwing it out there ask

[51:53] first anyone else I just I just have one thing too mine's kind of a one good

[51:57] thing but it's kind of a science interesting facts I'm reading a book

[52:01] called what's gotten into you and this is a quote human bodies are an

[52:06] everchanging Mosaic a colony of 30 trillion cells each made up of over 100

[52:12] trillion atoms that are dancing in riotous vibrating shuffles you contain a

[52:19] billion times more atoms than all the grains of sand in the earth's deserts if

[52:25] you weigh 50 lb you carry around enough carbon to make 25 lb of charcoal enough

[52:32] salt to fill a salt shaker enough chlorine to disinfect several backyard

[52:37] swimming pools and enough iron to make a 3in nail if you sort all your elements

[52:44] you'll find that about 60 of them are on the periodic table are represented

[52:49] inside of you if you could sell them all you'd pocket a cool

[52:55] $1,942 9 at 2023 prices how interesting is that thanks for coming tonight it was

[53:03] kind of a long meeting too thank you anyone else

[53:10] nice hearing nothing else we'll look for a motion to

[53:15] adjourn second go ahead okay motion by councelor Tano

[53:21] support by councelor wineski um any comments or questions

[53:25] hearing none all those favor signify by saying I I those oppos same and we are

[53:31] adjourned [Music]

[53:49] [Music]

[53:55] [Music]

[54:03] [Music]

[54:25] [Music] okay

Ludington City Council 12/9/2024 Part 2

Transcript