Ludington City Council Meeting 2-9-2015: Six Years of Progress

[XLFD]

On reviewing the agenda of this meeting, I estimated it would take a little over an hour to cover the topics, about twice the length of a typical meeting.  The council typically hears department annual reports through the first three months of the year, and it was time for the community development director's and the fire department's reports, which would conservatively take about twenty minutes  to cover (actual time about 23 minutes). 

The ultimate decider of how long this meeting would last hinged on how many people showed up to comment on the main topic of the night, a new revision of the City's sidewalk policy.  Other than myself, only one person spoke on the topic.  She wasn't in favor of it, I was in favor of it with reservations, and the council and mayor who spoke out at the end seemed mostly supportive of it.

Illegitimate Fourth Ward Councilor Michael Krauch was its only detractor commenting that the wording should have been used to make the buyer, not the seller or buyer, responsible for the cost of sidewalk installation at the point of sale.  His point is made extra relevant when you note that if he ever did sell his house on the corner of Madison and Melendy (as seen below) he might have to pay for installing sidewalks on both streets at the time of transaction, and that he is the only councilor who has to worry about that annoying fact.

Connie Vlahos, long term resident of 502 N Ferry Street, spoke out against the ordinance amendments as if they would apply to everyone and brought up some good points.  Like the council, I think she was misinformed about 'outside influences' bringing up the change.  One could say our master plan architects at LIAA would find such aids to the city's walkability as a positive change towards a more resilient Ludington, but I think the seed was already planted for such a change independent of that. 

Note the comments by Councilor Winczewski in her own sidewalk program anecdote, along with Mayor Cox's defense of taking a stand on sidewalks.  Even if I had disagreed with him, I think it may have been his best mayoral moment so far in terms of an impassioned connection to an issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if the new members helped push the issue to this. 

Vlahos worried about the extra expenses many homeowners would have who have trees planted in he right of way area, irrigation lines in that area, and other things that would take time, effort and money to circumvent.  The assessing photo from 1999 below shows some of the problems she mentions.

Although I can commiserate with her assertions and empathize with how this might affect the sales of properties, it's just common sense that anything you put out in the public right of way isn't safe from the public someday claiming it for pedestrian use.  I hope she was able to empathize that since her property is only 200 feet from Oriole Field and 400 ft. from Lakeview Elementary and is in ground zero for Gus Macker parking and travelling, that a sidewalk would be greatly appreciated there by the rest of society rather than trees and sprinklers forcing kids to walk in the street. 

Before the initial reading of the sidewalk ordinance came up, however, a sequence of seven communications involving city events came up including, Ludrock, the Lake Jump, the Freedom Festival, the Walk for Life, the Relay for Life, Suds on the Shore and a host of other included under Downtown Ludington Board sponsored events (such as FNL, Octoberfest, etc.), and they were all summarily approved by the board with minimal discussion with Captain Harrie about police resources and the conflict of having Ludrock and the Relay on the same weekend.

After a drawn out talk over a fairly uneventful year for the fire department, the talk came as to whether to add Blue Heron Drive to the local street system.  If you are unaware of Blue Heron Drive, it's a service street (the yellow street below) to the Washington Woods development, right across the street to the west from Northside Market in a little promontory of Ludington city property north of Bryant Road.  If that development ever gets completed, Blue Heron will become a loop. 

If you pay attention to Ludington politics, the residents of Washington Woods were instrumental in getting a four-way stop at the Bryant-Washington intersection, many personally petitioning the council for that cure to their ills.  As we've discussed here, the best way to cure the problem according to accepted traffic warrants and common sense would have been to sign only Washington Street. 

Now they want to get their service road on the Ludington Street system while not putting sidewalks on either side of it (except for one area so far), or on Washington or Bryant connections to their property lot.  These guys can whine about changing the stop sign situation for the worst for their kids' safety but force those same kids to walk on Washington Street because they're too cheap (or the city's too lax on enforcement) to put in a mandated sidewalk. 

The first presentation of the sidewalk ordinance amendment then went open for discussion.  I've noticed a fairly easy way to predict whether someone is for or against this ordinance.  If they own a home and do not already have an installed sidewalk they are very likely to be against it.  Otherwise, they are likely to be for the measure.  This rang true for the councilors, the speakers from the public, and everyone else I talked with. 

After hearing the councilors discuss this issue, and checking some figures, I changed my mind about supporting it.  Mayor Cox may have good rhetoric, but his words are not backed up with action.  I will describe why in another article, but mark my words:  the proposed changes are only to increase the city's revenues, not improve the sidewalk system.

Another long drawn out presentation by the community development director followed, where we learn more about those Ludington calendars we received in the mail and about all the money she cajoled from the state into our downtown for renovating store fronts and putting apartments in over businesses.  It's too bad we have somewhere lost the idea that all the public money put on these non-public tasks takes so much away from the very public challenge that faces the area and that City Manager Shay talks about later (at about 1:15:00 into the video, right after he discusses the work on 'Ludington Boulevard' ) in a little more detail than usual, but while still withholding many of the facts. 

One would think that the city management team would be more interested in addressing the fact that the City of Ludington Wastewater Treatment Plant has not had a discharge permit since 2011, due to abnormally high levels of ammonia and other toxins and the fact that they are discharging in a lagoon, would have them direct more of their resources towards addressing the challenges there.  Instead of asking the MI DNR for any help on that, however, they ask for help from them on the West End of Ludington Avenue Projects and waste time designing calendars and new downtown events. 

They finished off the regular business by setting a special council meeting for February 25, 2015 to discuss special event fees (more revenue generation?) and then agreed to grant my FOIA appeal for the very first time, unanimously, no less.  Their stated reason was because it had been part of a court record that had not been sealed.  Which leads me to believe that the LPD may still balk at other requests for policies of their department.  It's nice to win for once, but it would be nicer to win on more of the merits and have a councilor actually weigh in on why they hold their ideas about the FOIA more.  It seems every time they talk about it in general, they call it a nuisance and those who make FOIA requests even bigger nuisances.

My public comment weighs in just after Connie's comment at 5:15 in, and general discussion of the sidewalk ordinance by councilors start at 44:00 in.  Please comment if you would on your own perspective of the issue in the comment section here.   To read about the changes it starts on p. 65 here. 

 

February 9, 2015, Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"After reviewing the council's agenda for tonight, it made me wax nostalgic for the year 2009.  In the year 2009, I made my first FOIA request to the City which dealt with what I thought was a major problem being unaddressed, the sidewalks, or the lack thereof.  As you may know, the current Ludington sidewalk policy already mandates that sidewalks are to be constructed within a year of when a new principal structure is built on a city lot.  

My first request back then was to inspect the building permit database records that I presumed the city to have, or at least a summary of the building permits that the building inspector used to issue to this council each year about this time.  I was going to use the information on my fledgling website, The Ludington Torch, to show that the City of Ludington was failing to enforce the ordinance.

At that time, I was given a response by John Shay that asked me to pay nearly $1000 for this inspection of records with no explanation at all given as to what the cost was for.   I later learned that the money was primarily for 40 hours of the Building Inspector's time, since three years of the building permit summaries had been lost, and he figured I had forty hours of looking at records aided by him.  I couldn't get any of the information without spending about $800, so I gave up on it, eventually finding that data through assessing records available on-line.

In 2009,  I  pointed out the reality that many of the new buildings that have went up since the 1980s lacked the required sidewalks installed.  A short list of notable properties that went up without installing sidewalks include:  The Ludington Pediatrics building, the Duna USA building, the Rite-Aid building, the UPS Building, Washington Woods, Western Land Services Buildings, Safe Harbor Credit Union, Councilor Holman's Sherman Oaks Apts., and the City of Ludington DPW building. 

What was it that hindered these businesses and apartment buildings from putting in sidewalks when there was a local law that said they must absolutely do so?  What prevented them from making pedestrian facilities was that the city didn't enforce the law, even though through most of that time they had a full time building inspector and assessor. 

So now that we have less personnel around is our code enforcement practices as regards mandating sidewalks going to change?  Are the people who put up new principal structures in lots who didn't ever install sidewalks as per the current law ever going to get called on it and install sidewalks?  Is our code enforcement team and sidewalk contractors going to be able to keep up with the hundreds of properties that change hands each year, and the significant number of those properties that will either need sidewalk installation or repair?

I personally believe this sidewalk policy is a great step in the right direction, but it will only be effective if city hall fairly enforces it, puts more of the budget towards it, and also takes action to correct what it has overlooked in the past.  If this can happen, it will be the best thing I've seen the city council do since that year 2009. 

Of course, if the city council takes the recommendation to grant the FOIA appeal as the FOIA Coordinator recommends, it will be the best thing I've personally seen this council do since 2009 as of today, and a first for this council with my administrative FOIA appeals, and long overdue.  Thank you."

[Willy]

I have to give the City a hand for requiring the missing sidewalks to be installed. I am curious though as to why the sudden change of heart.

[XLFD]

Greed, and to a lesser extent, more power.  The evidence is overwhelmingly showing that.

[stump]

There's a thing called a law suit. If the city makes one property owner follow the city's ordinance and does not apply it to others with the same conditions somebody's going to pay. This would be the city's insurance provider.

[stump]

After reading the city's sidewalk ordinance I think it still needs a little work. They still are not going to compel the property owners to install sidewalks where there isn't any until the property is sold . Hell , that could be never. If you look at the sale of properties in Ludington each year , you would wonder how those realtors can even feed themselves. The other thing on the wording: sidewalk must be inspected and or replaced prior to sale. So, you decide to sell your house, city say's you need to replace your sidewalk because it has cracks. House doesn't sell, your out a couple thousand bucks. One more reason to get the hell out of town.

[XLFD]

Very tortured wording can, of course lead to varied interpretations.  Will the City consider any transfer of property as a sale, even lateral transfers where no money is exchanged like in gifts, inheritances, or property title switches due to divorces?  It looks that way if you read closer, and this happens fairly often over time:

If you note in the wording, stump, the buyer can pay the costs upfront to the City in lieu of putting a sidewalk in, in case the sidewalk cannot be repaired prior to sale.  This would, of course, happen in almost all sales because the City's sidewalk replacement list is long, and someone wanting to install a sidewalk would have to wait a while unless they wanted to pay the full price themselves, and avoid the City program.  The City appears to be under obligation to use that money just for the repair or installment of a sidewalk, but if the lot is subsequently transferred before that sidewalk is installed or repaired, the City could require a new payment

[Willy]

I wonder how involved the Councilors are with drafting and wording ordinances. It seems that many of Ludington's laws are not clearly worded as X points out. The fact that sidewalks can no longer be "repaired" and must be "replaced" is, in my opinion, not in the best interest of property owners. For instance if sidewalks are uneven they will be required to be replaced instead of re leveled which is not nearly as expensive to do. 46-71 [c].

DDA properties may be exempt from contributing to the replacement of their sidewalks. Unfair to other property owners? 46-71 [3]

Several of the notification requirements are inadequate when fines and fees may be assessed if non compliance is the final condition of the property. The City is not required to notify the property owner but can either post a notice on the property or notify a person at the property who may or may  not be the owner and who may or may not have contact with the owner but with a rental agency. 46-74

The 30 day timeline to replace or install a sidewalk is completely unrealistic and reflects the ignorance of those that drafted the ordinance and approved it. There are many factors that make this a difficult part of the ordinance to comply with. The weather, obtaining contractor bids, busy contractors, obtaining financing for the work and any number of reasons that the 30 day requirement is unreasonable.

46-82 [b] could be a deal breaker for property sales. If the sidewalk cannot be observed for an inspection  because of "snow, ice, ect." the owner will be assessed for the complete sidewalk replacement. Until the sidewalk is replaced the assessment will remain. How many real estate sales will be held up or canceled waiting for this to be remedied.

The fact that contractors must be City approved opens the door for cronyism and corruption. Any licensed contractor should be allowed to do work under this ordinance.

One positive note is that buyers will be allowed to assume responsibility for the sidewalk construction.

[Willy]

stump

There are 2 places in the code that requires all existing buildings and vacant lots to have sidewalks. 46-71 [b] Existing buildings and vacant lots and 46-82 [a] Inspection of sidewalk adjacent to property for sale/transfer. Both code sections require sidewalks.

[AQUAMAN]

I think the COL sets a poor example by not having good or any sidewalks on all too many of their own properties themselves. It's a solid bone of contention that anyone should have with them to begin with. That wording that either the seller or buyer is to pay for the sidewalk, is also silly. No one selling a house wants to spend more money to do it, just the opposite. The buyer should be the one responsible, so the two parties don't have a debate as to whom will pay.  In addition, it seems Mayor Cox has a poor understanding of the situation based on his conversations and observations with his students. How can an 8-12 year old kid have anything but a convoluted decision about this matter? After all, they aren't adults, and they don't pay taxes or own property. Cox should be using feedback from his constituent base, the people that elected him, not juvenile kids. This just goes to show how out of touch and immature he himself is at his job of Mayor. Btw, has he ever heard of throat spray or cough drops? Going to an important council meeting in his condition, hacking away, and making conversation with a faint baby voice, isn't very mature nor professional. I noticed Chief Barney wasn't around either, must be on a spring break to Florida? And so, Capt. Harry Carry can't do a prayer in the chief's place?  And the problems that have and continue to fester over at the DPW water treatment plant are again put off, and the problems with waste get worse. Councilor Castonia noted he has known and been a member of that committee for 9 years since being elected, and sees it continuing for another 20 years or more. What does that say about both him, his duty to the COL? And the council, for not procuring solutions years ago already for all this stinky dirty sewage mess, one that should be a priority project. Yet, we continue to see the council concentrating it's time on other silly ordinances, and tourist projects, instead of their sworn duty to keep Ludington's infrastructure vital and in great condition. Even Shyster Shay III admitted they aren't going to fix any 100 year old pipes under Lud. Ave. unless and until MDOT digs up the asphalt for them. Does that again say anything to the taxpayers about the negligence of this administration and leaders for badly needed infrastructure maintenance? And don't bring up finances again ever, or I'll directly go back to a Trial Balance of Millions of Dollars sitting there for exactly that purpose. These people are sickening, their priorities are all mixed up and wrong, and only serve to benefit their own egos, not the taxpaying public.

[XLFD]

Aquaman, I always like your encapsulations of the meetings, you often note things I don't or point out things that I edit out so that these meeting recaps aren't so long.  As for Mayor Cox, he probably gets most of his input on how to run the city from middle school kids, because all the other folks around city hall usually tell him what's going to happen.  His agenda in running for city hall was to effectively keep the status quo, but he did say he wanted to increase transparency and make sidewalks more of a priority, so this meeting was a first indication of both.  But if he actually believes his hoarse rhetoric, he should table the proposed sidewalk ordinance and hold out for something better. 

[XLFD]

Section 46-71(b) is quite explicit:  "The owner of any existing dwellings or property upon which any building is located or any vacant lot, adjacent to a public street, shall be required to construct a sidewalk along the front lot line adjoining the street, and in the case of a corner lot along the front line and side lot line adjacent to the public streets. Because resources available to the city to provide for the public portion of the cost of such sidewalks does not allow for addressing all of the properties in the City of Ludington immediately, the city council shall establish a list of priorities for addressing sidewalks from time to time."

This section is left in the new ordinance (except replacing 'construct' by 'install').  One wonders how the city council can establish priorities when the priorities become set by property transfers and sales?  The new wording conflicts with the old and is a heck of a lot less efficient.

[stump]

So the question is, will the city be sending out notices to property owners that don't have sidewalks ? The city does this for the property owners that have sidewalks that are in need of repair or total replacement that do not have their property for sale.

[XLFD]

Stump, these same guys told us just a couple meetings ago that they felt it was better that they come to mow the tall grass on your land and charge you a couple of hundred dollars rather than to waste the time notifying you that you should cut your grass.