Ludington City Council Special Meeting, June 11, 2014: Revenue, Revenue Revenue

[XLFD]

Perhaps it was the timing set at an inconvenient-to-many time of 5:00 PM, or because of the restricted material that the city council was set to look at.  Which ever was the case, the meeting was much less attended than the special advisory committee meeting held just a little over a week prior to discuss the proposed rental inspection ordinance, I have deemed PRIORITY.

Whereas one hundred was a conservative estimate of the prior meeting's attendance this one was closer to one dozen.  But this one had some notable people speak against what appeared to be the most controversial of the three topics to be discussed, the new sidewalk ordinance.  The other two topics were to create a fee schedule for organizations that use city resources to put on the myriad of city events, and the approval of an application to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) for façade grants for two properties.  Here is the agenda and packet for the meeting.

Notably, County Commissioners Chuck Lange and Bill Carpenter spoke out contrary to the PRIORITY in the prior meeting, and notably, two former city councilors spoke out against the proposed sidewalk ordinance at this meeting.  Here Wally Taranko (Second Ward) and Fred Hackert (First Ward), both of whom don't have sidewalks on their property discussed their own potential difficulties and the proposals shortcomings.  One wonders if they had had sidewalks already installed, whether they would have commented on behalf of their fellow citizens with the same problems.

They echoed a homeowner of a corner property lot just off Bryant Road that led off the discussion, who lamented that his parcel would take over $10,000 to do using the proposed fee structure.  He then noted the uselessness of the sidewalk once constructed because of the lack of other sidewalks in the area and the topography.  Most all who spoke on the topic echoed this realization, and pointed out the fatal flaw of the proposition.  Finite sidewalk money is going to be put in sidewalks to nowhere.

One commenter spoke about the pricing schedule and whether it could be waived for certain non-profit activities.  This would actually be the topic which the council would be talking about in greatest detail, with a noticeable split in ideas-- and a noticeable mutability of ideas.

Only one person spoke up about more than one topic, which was me.  Every one of the three topics involved getting more money for the city than it currently gets.  The event fees are obviously made for this purpose, the other two are more subtle.  The façade grants come with money to the city for program administration that equals a quarter of the grant total. 

A new Ludington homeowner can pay over $5000 extra on his purchase of a house without a sidewalk if the policy goes through, which may wind up nixing some real estate deals, will inflate housing values in sidewalk-free areas, and revealingly, will disrupt the ability of the city to do voluntary installations and repairs at their current level, effectively making the city less walkable.   Yet this payment must be made at the point of transaction whether the city has the fiscal or ethical capacity to ever build a sidewalk at the property.   

This realization was included in my comment for the night.  It shall be noted that  I even lightly applauded the two former councilors for speaking up against an insipid policy, even if it was only because their own self-interest that prompted them.  There is no video, but here is the comment I made:

"This special meeting is looking at three things the city is considering in order to raise money for itself, whether it be collecting money for sidewalks that will likely never be built, making groups pay a lot more for what the City has offered at little cost in the past, or defrauding the state’s façade grant program.  The sidewalk ordinance is not about having sensible sidewalk policy in place, it is about the city getting a few thousand extra at the point of sale of a property without a sidewalk. 

This money, according to this council’s own statements, will not be added on to whatever money it sets aside for sidewalks, so the money goes not to a sidewalk fund, but to the general fund.  The incentive for the city to spend money on sidewalks therefore gets less, and the new sidewalks they do build are intermittent and likely serve no purpose.  There are hundreds of properties in Ludington that should have had sidewalks put in when they were developed, but they never were, even though it’s in our city code. 

This is a problem of enforcement by our code enforcers, who are now harder pressed to find tall grass and junk on people’s lawns, because of the council’s recent changes to those ordinances which makes it easier for them to accrue revenue for the city that way. 

Since we are not going to be putting more money into sidewalks, the best policy would be to prioritize where these sidewalks must go—which the old ordinance recommends, but which doesn’t appear to be followed.  We literally have miles of sidewalks within school zones that are not paved, and are farther from being paved if the city’s proposed sidewalk initiative takes hold.

There are four things that need to be mentioned about the façade application, which appears to remain unchanged in this meeting’s packet [see p. 25, 26], after its fraudulent nature was pointed out at the last meeting.

1) The city manager prepared an application for façade grants.  This application was for two companies wanting façade grants, one of which is co-ran by the treasurer of the DDA (and President of the Ludington/Scottville Chamber of Commerce Kathy Maclean).

2)  In the application, two questions pertain to disclosing any sort of ties the grantees may have with the local unit of government set to administer the grant.  The application fails to do this by saying no city official or any of their family members are involved. 

3)  The application further says there is a $1000 contribution from the DDA to the treasurer of the DDA, a contribution which she would have to explicitly approve by vote, unless she abstained.  There is no indication in the budget or the DDA minutes of the last two years that this contribution has been approved by the DDA, with her abstention and notification to the DDA that she will benefit greatly from the grant.

4)  KDMAC's own pre-application and application, likely signed by her husband and not yet available, also failed to note these facts of association, for then the grant application would have noted that admission.  Their application also officially claims they are not meeting their obligations for their $100,000+ rental rehab grants they received throughout 2010 and 2011.  Both Shay and Maclean state they have no renters in their four upstairs apartments, nor are they advertising them anywhere, especially at the state site.  They must do this to be compliant with state rules.

Allowing the application included in the council’s packet would not only be complicity in a fraud, but a violation of several state laws on contracts of public officials.  The MEDC is on shaky enough ground with funding such corporate welfare boondoggles with a state legislator looking to save money, so they won’t want the extra drama of a scandal in a small town.  Thank you."

The Meeting Gets Down to Business:  Event Fees

The business portion of the meeting began with an hour long debate over the city charging fees for special events.  The DPW, courtesy of Julie Ledger, and the LPD, courtesy of Chief Mark Barnett, made comments as to what the costs to their department were.  Each of the councilors present (Councilor Tykoski was absent) had their own vision, which seemed to be fluid for some, particularly by the council-appointed Fourth Ward representative, Mike Krauch. 

Two conflicting ideas were working against a consensus.  Some councilors were hoping to get extra money for providing some services usually provided by the LPD and DPW to defray the costs they incurred.  Others were fearful that some backlash may occur that would see the loss of some cherished events.  Another factor working into the talk was that the Gus Macker Basketball Tournament already gifts much more than what the proposal would suggest for them, and so they could wind up losing money from that source. 

City Manager John Shay and Attorney Wilson actually tried to play as neutral parties for whatever the council wanted among the suggested plans.  The oft-banal talk between the councilors trying to reach a consensus seemed due largely to the fact that the two appointees never gave their recommendation either way.  Without clear direction they were forced to think for themselves, and the result was mostly comical.  In the end, a resolution to adopt the included fee structure was voted on, with a 3-3 roll call vote the result.  Without missing a beat, Mayor Cox voted for the proposal. 

Typically, I am against most of the city's creative ways of raising cash, but in my opinion, this fee is justifiable and in the long run, good for the community.  If a service is provided free of charge, for example, setting up a dozen picnic tables by the DPW, the hidden charge is put directly to the taxpayers, not the user of the service who would get it free if they do not pay city taxes otherwise. 

When the city then puts a user fee for this service based on their costs to provide it, other private-based service/ rental agencies then have some incentive to provide that service/rental for even cheaper prices and/or more conveniently.  A potential boon for private business, an unintended consequence of this new policy which is actually good for the community.

Sidewalk Policy

At the start of this discussion, John Shay made an atypical admission for him.  He stated that his position on changing the ordinance has changed since it was originally introduced.  Mayor Cox added that the public's concerns and the sidewalks-to-nowhere inevitability made sense, and he was interested in the council looking into alternative ways to address the sidewalk concerns about improving Ludington walkability in a more priority based system. 

The council voted to not vote on the issue until they could work something better out.  A win for everyone for now.

Façade Grants

The officials, and most of the public were wanting to go home after the nearly two hour of meeting.  City Manager John Shay, who couldn't suppress a loud snicker just after I said the word "fraudulent" as if that was funny and inapplicable to the form he filled out and which hadn't been amended in the provided councilor packet for this meeting, began the discussion.  He stated that the application had indeed been changed in question four and five to reflect the fact that Kathy Maclean was a beneficiary of the grant and that she was an official serving the city in the capacity of treasurer of the DDA. 

He even gave me a copy of his two amendments after the meeting "to save me the FOIA request" using his terminology.  The council passed the resolution without any comments on anybody's improprieties in the matter.  Heaven forbid that they offend Kathy Maclean any more so that she doesn't give them that big check from the Ludington/Scottville Chamber of Commerce (that she's president of) after next weekend's Gus Macker Tournament. 

To these officials, the problem is solved, but left unanswered and untreated is the fraud that was intended and part of the applications in the public domain, that the city hasn't produced yet.  Why did David Maclean not include his wife's affiliation in the pre-application and application he filled out?  Why did Heather Tykoski and John Shay allow that into the official application for grants, potentially putting the City of Ludington up for fraud charges to the MEDC and state and for the associated financial penalties we would receive? 

Why is the rental rehabilitation fraud issue being addressed?  Why were the Macleans eligible for rental rehab grants when even Ludington's own guidelines said they could not be?  Why are they now, four years later, allowing those rental units to sit untenanted, against mandates?  Why are they not marketing those vacant units as low-income rentals at the state site and in local venues like they are mandated to do for five years after receiving the grants?  Why doesn't this infuriate anybody at city hall?

Corruption has spread like cancer throughout our community when such questions are not even attempted to be answered by our representatives and by our lapdog media.

[Willy]

What I don't understand is why Ludington's officials won't publicly address the issues you have brought to light. A reasonable person would consider what you have presented and would ask questions about these situations and would then respond as to how valid the claims are. The Council, Mayor, Shay and City Attorney act like they have no need to speak out and let the citizens know what is going on. All these accusations and questions need to be answered. I think all of the silence stems back to the City Attorney's advice. I'm sure he's recommending that keeping their mouths shut  is the best course of action. What they don't understand is that regardless of what they are being questioned about it is their responsibility and duty  to answer any and all concerns addressed to them. The first thing I would do if I had my druthers, besides giving Shay his walking papers, would be to hire a new City Attorney. I think his advice is what's keeping the truth from being revealed and combining that with Shay's control over the Council, who do not seem to understand their roles as the public's representatives, only makes Ludington's politics a murky setting for breeding a potentially corrupt form of Government.

[XLFD]

There is less need for our officials to provide such answers at meetings such as these because they are not broadcast nor is the local media present.  Kevin Braciszewski of the COLDNews prepared a fairly concise report of the meeting, but he must have had the place bugged, because I didn't see him. 

The City leadership will have plenty of more times to address the issue, one has to believe they are following the advice of their lawyer and remaining silent until a feasible storyline can be created or the issue is supplanted by the next scandal they get caught doing.  

[AQUAMAN]

"For breeding a potentially corrupt form of Government"? Methinks it's gone way past that now Willy, as evidenced by over 5 years of uncover work and investigations, here at The Torch! The main duties of both the City Mgr. and Attrny. are well known now, and it's not to do a good job for the citizens of Ludington. As much as it's to cover and hide any and all monetary and ethical discrepancies from the public, and to keep the egos of the council and Mayor as inflated and overblown as humanly possible. They just never must be wrong, ever, for any legal or moral reasons. This City Mgr. and Attorney are so caught up in lies these days, it's hard to tell what they will give as excuses anymore for their actions, or that of any of their cohorts. 

[shinblind]

You didn't happen to see a drone during the meeting did you X?

Good to know ace reporter Kevin Braciszewski no longer has to attend City Council meetings but can instead cover the event from a remote location.

Maybe multiple talented John Shay is writing propaganda  er press releases for Kevin "Bagdad" Braciszewski . I would not put a little moonlighting beyond Shay. What's the old saying? " Drag a $10 bill through a council meeting  and John Shay will follow you anywhere."

Either that or maybe Bagdad Braciszewski should think about sharing his byline with Miss Cleo.

[XLFD]

I like your appellation of our favorite embedded city hall reporter; Kabul Kevin just doesn't cut it. 

You may remember that the council got some grief from the rental inspection committee meeting for not having microphones installed so that the 100+ in attendance sometimes had a hard time hearing the procession, they had a microphone and some electronic equipment to at least amplify, and maybe audio-record the event. 

The amount of detail in Baghdad Braz's article has me believe he likely received what the city wanted him to print-- likely not much different than what he would do himself or be allowed to print by the COLDNews editors.