[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