The Trail to the Truth about the 2012 West End Projects

[XLFD]

After being in mothballs since 2007, the City of Ludington tried to get grants for a plan to spruce up the west end of Ludington Avenue last year.  This plan was generally poorly received back then in a meeting held in the City Hall basement, so there wasn't a whole lot of public opinion sought five years later.  Nor was there any great specificity offered.  The first news report published in the Ludington Daily News on Valentine's Day, where they offered little in details (seen here) and only a picture of what was already there and a notice of a public hearing two weeks hence. 

 

At that public meeting, two people other than City Manager Shay spoke of the project.  Susan Cloutier Myers, a representative of Muskegon's Disability Connections appreciated the improved access, and PM Township's Deb Wright (mislabeled as living in the City of Ludington) talking about the seasonal walkway to the north that was donated to the City last year around Memorial Day.  Some financial numbers were actually mentioned for the first time in the 2-27-2012 Council Meeting minutes.  Next day's LDNews even had more numbers, but no view of what it would be like.

 

The mayor said there would be more discussion at the next meeting, a notice was posted on page 6 of the March 5 LDNews, and they had no one appear to talk good or bad about the projects, and two resolutions passed:  One for the trail phase application where the City put up $61,805 of a $247,220 project , and one for the promenade phase application where the City put up $176,808 of a $476,808 project.  The next day, the local newspaper finally let the people of Ludington see a little of what this project was about.  Up until then, there was only a small gathering back in 2007 who saw the conceptual drawings.  There was absolutely no input sought from the public between those times (a FOIA request has shown this to be the case). 

 

For some reason, perhaps after addressing the DNR folks and deciding that their promenade grant was likely to get a failing grade, they decided to drop that grant (application 12-026) and amend the other, as this 7-31-2012 E-mail from Heather Venzke to the DNR stated.  This was accompanied by an amended trail phase application submitted by City Manager John Shay, certified that same day. 

 

In this submission, he amended the totals of the 'trail phase' application, 12-025, to show the City would put up $179,800 of a $479,800 project.  That increased the match of the City in the 'trail phase' by $117,995 and the DNRTF's amount up by nearly that same amount.  Shay explained the expenses here, note that $50,000 to Consumer's Energy was declared ineligible by the DNR.  Interestingly, in the 2013 application, Consumer's Energy Foundation grants $25,000 to this project as part of the local match, and the lighting conduit cost goes from $7900 to $59,800.  You will note the other expenses went up at a rate more than inflation. 

 

The narrative explains that the proposed pathway will connect to the Waterfront Walkway Loop and a dedicated bicycle path (the shoulder of M-116) that takes you all the way out to the state park.  Problem is the walkway does neither.  The loop never goes farther north than Loomis Street, a block separates it from the walkway.  The 132' walkway only connects the breakwall to the end of Ludington Avenue.  Even so, contrary to assertion, most of the Ludington shoulders on the route out to the park are not 4' or wider; once you get out of the city, yes.  But not in town and rain gutters cover half of the shoulder 12 times between the narrowed shoulders inside the city limits.

 

 

Later on in the narrative Shay writes that natural areas will not be altered, while the project effectively levels and modifies a natural dune affords no special status to him.  He also plans on providing updates to the public through multimedia as this progresses, but has not bothered to do so before it has been forced on the locals.  The Ludington City Charter mandates that any diversion of use of a park needs to get approval by vote of the people. 

 

After receiving their final grade from the DNRTF staff, Shay put forth a supplementary application (SA) to argue for points that were denied in the grading of the application.  This is a standard practice when the applicant feels they deserved more points than was allotted.  Here was the cover page for that SA. 

 

Let's remind ourselves this was the application 12-025 that the City Council voted to support by matching $61,000 for a $244,000 project, that jumped to $479,000 ($429,000) with a $179,000 match.  As such, it required a new resolution by the governing body (the Ludington City Council).  Did they approve it at an open meeting?  A check of their minutes in 2012 says no.  Did they approve it outside an open meeting as they have before?  Probably not, as there is nothing as such delivered to the DNRTF. 

 

So John Shay violated this rule on the application, perhaps the DNRTF gave him a pass since the City Council had resolved to spend more on both applied for projects.  He surely couldn't miss this rule repeated shortly thereafter in this SA.  Notice in the margin the DNR corrects his math with his amended application, knocking his 100% down to the proper 37%. 

 

Shay reiterates the connectivity of paths created by this simple 132 ft. sidewalk, yet does not show connectivity, probably because there is none.  The loop and the not-so dedicated shoulder on M-116 through the City are not linked to this walkway, despite his claiming for the third time that they are:  here and here.  The DNR folks saw that.

 

What they didn't catch was that Shay said that not only had the match dollars been secured by the City Council for this project, but also that the restrooms in the park were handicap accessible:

 

But those matches weren't secured for the amended or supplemental request, nor were the facilities of Stearn's Park accessible-- the City is paying around a hundred thousand dollars to do that right now as noted here: http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/70230-new-restrooms-in-store....  The application did get the points for being accessible, because of this statement:

 

This is the main point.  Ludington City Manager John Shay cavalierly lied about procuring a match for the 12-025 grant and unashamedly lied about the non-accessible restrooms the city has had, despite the handicap-accessible removable walkway donated last year abutted to it.  His rush to get those in this year, no matter what the cost is due largely to him wanting the trust fund money to divert the use of the beautiful natural southern area of Stearn's Park. 

 

In the last twenty years, Ludington has greedily applied for a wide variety of grants and has gotten an amazingly high per capita amount.  We would be at the top of the bell curve, receiving six times the amount of the median value.  Each citizen in Ludington has received $168 in grant assistance in the last twenty years, the median community has received $27.80.  

 

 

Can we not utilize our fair share of this money in doing truly useful, popularly-supported projects without having our representative of Ludington try to defraud the DNR Trust Fund to ruin one of our City's natural treasures by overdevelopment?

Here is the application paperwork, courtesy of the MDNRTF, which was provided free of charge from my FOIA Request.  City Manager John Shay wanted $63.25 to provide these same records to me in a format I did not request:  Pt. 1 of 3:  City of Ludington 2012 Unsuccessful grant application%20%28App%20%2...

 

Pt. 2 of 3:  City%20of%20Ludington%27s%202012%20%20Unsuccessful%20grant%20applic...

 

Pt. 3 of 3:  On Ludi-Leaks

[Marty Redman]

Very interesting.  What I get from this is that Shay is now lying on applications without any regards to the obvious truth.  Can you show the full details in these applications and a map of exactly what was planned?

[XLFD]

I have added the files sent to me by the MDNRTF at the bottom of the thread head for future reference.  I apologize for overlooking this disclosure earlier.  Shay did go beyond the realm of exaggeration, into an out and out lie when he certified that we had accessible bathrooms at the time of application, and that our City Council had set aside funds for the trail phase application.  I think some of this was caught also by the MDNRTF professionals.  Some of the lies continued into this year's application.

[AQUAMAN]

Once you start lieing about anything, get away with it, and also have support from fellows like the mayor and councilor at large, why stop lieing?  If it gets you reappointed into a cushy and well paying position, one with total authoritarian power, why quit lieing?

[XLFD]

This is the culture of corruption that develops over time when you have two people in the same position of authority over time.  Mayor John is in his 12th year, City Manager John is starting his 11th year in power.  Combine that with an out-of-town contracted City Attorney law firm that has no regard for the citizens of this City, and only lining their own pockets with money, and an apathetic rubber-stamping city council and you have 'corruption yogurt'.

[Willy]

By looking at the photo there seems to be no way to install a sidewalk without removing a large part of the dune because the high water mark is right at the bottom of the dune where it meets the beach. If the walk is installed somewhere between the water and the base of the dune it wouldn't be long before mother nature sweeps the walk away. The only way to install the walkway without altering the dune is to provide a retaining wall between the walkway and water to prevent the walkway from being washed away by erosion from  the waves. This project will greatly affect the looks of the existing beach, and for what? The high cost of the project and the  major altering of the beach is an irresponsible use of parkland and a waste of taxpayers money. 

[XLFD]

The City doesn't seem to want to go into the minutia of the details in the 2012 applications, but somewhere they have the full details of the AE Progressive Engineering drawings back from 6 years ago.  They do throw some in for this year, such as this one:

[XLFD]

The recent strong south (and southwest winds) here this spring, gusting over 30 mph at times has reinforced my opinion of why the west end project would be bad for Stearn's Beach.  The beach has been groomed for summer use, the wind fences (up for nearly nine months of the year) are down.  But I went to the beach today while these south-southwest winds were gusting and saw no saltation of the sand on the beach.  The dune on the south side of Stearn's Beach protected the sands further down the shore.

Consider that if the leveling of the existing dune is executed by the city for the proposed west end project, the loss of sand to the prevailing summer south-southwest winds will be more dramatic than anticipated (if they ever were anticipated).  Some people may have problems with the ascetic properties of this dune, I don't see why they would since it's the only part of the beach which doesn't have cheesy looking fences for most of the year, but it does serve a very real purpose in protecting Stearn's Park from mother nature all year.

[Willy]

Very good point X. By the way didn't I see you with your daughter at the boat launch parking lot last Thursday evening? That's a long way to walk.

[XLFD]

You probably did see us, walking down that way.  How else better to do my research than on foot going around the town I cherish (public officials of that town, notwithstanding)? 

[Custerdeb]

This has been a boondoggle since its inception, reminiscent of the electic sign out near the hospital that cost the city...$60,000?

[Jane]

Where are fat people like me going to hang out if they open this area up! Wheelchair people can get all the way to the lighthouse, fat people, we need somewhere to hide from the hotties in their bikini's!

[Willy]

That's funny Jane!