Ludington City Council, December 5, 2022: Prelude to the Ending of a Year

[XLFD]

The December 5th meeting of the Ludington City Council will be remembered primarily as an intermission between the long meetings and overcrowded audiences that besieged the council in November to debate the marijuana facilities issue and the filled docket yet to come on the 19th that was presaged by this meeting.  

When the agenda packet is reviewed, it looks crowded, but a large portion of the actions are preliminary in nature.  You had first readings of several ordinances dealing with:  1) the clerk's salary 2) the treasurer's salary (both are set to increase by a modest 4%) 3) setting water rates (set to increase by 7.8%) and 4) setting sewer rates (set to increase by 4.9%).  You also had a notice that next meeting would feature Mayor Steve Miller's send off.  

But you also had a holdover notice that a public hearing on the 2023 budget would be held at the December 19th meeting and two other public hearings on transfer of an OPRA certificate and on a Brownfield Authority Plan for 106 Laura Street, both of which are within the packet.  Since I felt these were topics that should be reviewed better by the council before then, I devoted my first comment towards this purpose:

XLFD:  "Tonight's agenda introduces two different types of corporate welfare, both of which will have public hearings at the next meeting.  Those subsidies come as an Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA) certificate for a Fourth Ward property, the other is in the form of a tax increment financing (TIF) district for a Third Ward development.  Both hope to promote growth by taking money away from the public sector and effectively investing that money in the two private developer' projects.  

Offering such incentives seem to be an act of favoritism in my view, and a slap in the face for the dozens of businesses loyal to the Ludington area who survived the government shutdowns and government-imposed restrictions over the last three years without any form of subsidization by the governments that attacked their operations.  They have no tax breaks and have to deal with the debilitating effects of inflation arising from the poor fiscal policies of our federal government during this period.  

Nevertheless, the tax breaks offered for the OPRA for 102 Second Street are reasonable in scope.  The mechanics of this tax break has the city collecting taxes for the property as if no development was made for up to 12 years, erasing the disincentive of having to immediately pay more taxes from improving your property.  This incentivizes quick and thorough rehabilitation of the property and the only potential loser is the city who would have the same income coming in as if it hadn't been developed and only minor additional stress on city infrastructure, while two businesses and living units are added.

                                                       From p. 46, 12-20-21 council packet

The TIF district is more problematical.  One year ago the county's Brownfield Authority proposed a plan for 106 Laura that envisioned $975,000 in eligible Brownfield activities, $290,000 of that would have been provided directly by the City of Ludington, leaving their TIF amount at $685,000.  Now that Ludington officials have rebelled from the county's authority, they offer a TIF amount more than three times that figure at $2.2 million to be paid at the expense of local taxing authorities who will need more funding after being drained.  Where does government get this money from?  No more TIFs please." (END comment]

                                                           From 12-5-22 council packet, p. 114

Here is the gift our city leaders gave us when they formed their own Brownfield Authority-- a tripling of the gift they were set to give developers under the county's proposed Brownfield plan paid for by you through 'taxing' all of your local taxes.   If you noticed, in just one year the costs for installing sidewalks (curb cuts, etc.) jumped from $62,000 (an incredible figure in itself) up to $315,000.  These two plans were both crafted by the same company and they describe the same improvements.  Our city leaders are giving away everybody's money under their hope that they will see this project earn them money in the near future and it looks like they're padding the bill. 

Making speculative investments with other people's money without their informed consent is often considered a criminal act, but when our local government does that, it's called economic development.

The rest of the business of the meeting was unanimous approving items, including:

- the low bid for replacing City Marina's E Dock from Hallack Contracting at $319,600 

- the LPD's POLC 2023-2026 contract (changes noted in packet)

- the revised city facility permit fees/special event fees (as shown on p. 44-45 in packet)

- the 2023 Ludrock event scheduled for July 7-9 (p. 60-4 in packet)

- the bylaws of the City's Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (p. 65-69)

It was noted by the city manager that Big Rapid Sergeant Ryan Myers has accepted the police chief position for LPD and that the DDA was to use the resources of the chamber of commerce to market their events.  The mayor noted that there was a mailbox for Santa Claus in the middle of Legacy Park, reminding folks to place a return address on all letters to St. Nick so he may write back, and to be wary of holiday depression in yourself and others.  

Annette Quillan would be the only other person speaking in public comment this evening, leading off the first with a notice that the council should be concerned about raising water and sewer bills too much for citizens already struggling with high utility prices elsewhere, leading off with a concern about the possibility that cocktails may be served at beach concessions after being discussed by vendors at committee meetings.  I finished off the last public comment with another assessment of the deer cull:

XLFD:  "I've been reading about deer wintering complexes, otherwise known as deer yards.  To survive in Michigan winters, deer must reside in a habitat that offers the shelter of coniferous trees and enough deciduous shrubs and trees to feed off of.  Deer in groups and individually typically avoid wintering in forested areas less than 80 acres, since their survivability lessens considerably, so they will migrate to larger forests.  Cartier Park is only 68 acres, and much of that is campgrounds.  There is no area in the Fourth Ward that has more than 20 acres of forest.  Ergo, there is no place for a deer yard in Ludington, so those who stay in town for the winter will likely need to move on or die.  

I mention this because this council voted for a deer cull to remove deer from the City with USDA deer hunters contracted at $20,000 to come here in February and shoot deer most of which will have moved out to a deer yard outside the city limits.   There is no practical spot to cull in the city, that's a fact, so you have authorized the USDA to effectively perform a cull in other jurisdictions who have decided not to do a deer cull, perhaps because they are aware that over 4100 deer have already been confirmed as harvested in the county and maybe a dozen more would have no real effect.  

I'm still waiting for some confirmation from the city manager that the claims he made regarding this deer cull, the contractor, and all subcontractors were true or just false bluster.  The contract you agreed to so readily, spending $60,000 from our coffers, deserved some deeper deliberation than what you gave to it.  This isn't some silly gun buyback program that will have negligible costs in doing nothing and just go away, this silly program comes at a substantial yearly cost and won't go away until this council wises up." (END comment]

I will be most assuredly filing an injunction with the school to stop the deer cull taking place in the school forest if they don't rescind their approval at their board meeting on the 12th.  As has been noted, it is unlawful under state law and several of their own school policies.  Frankly, the deer cull as proposed would kill less deer that will turn up in Ludington next year than a cull that would take place in heavily forested regions of PM and Hamlin Townships, but they would have never passed a more sensible version since they were only interested in the optics.