February saw the topic of leasing the fleet of 41 (numbers 40 and 43 have also been used) vehicles used by the City of Ludington (COL) come to the Ludington City Council for the first time. This ambitious scheme was proposed as a means for the COL to replace its practice of buying their vehicles with the practice of leasing, and we were told the fantastic story that this would be saving us tons of money ($500,000) by the end of ten years and allow all city employees and officials to drive cars and trucks that are usually no more than three years old.
Without much discussion other than rosy (and false) depictions of how this would be a win-win for all, the city council unanimously would accept this drastic change on Feb 23, 2026 as their first action of the evening, despite acall from the peopleto research this more than just looking at Enterprise's marketing ploys. This came after a meeting earlier that monthon the 9ththat offered an unconvincing sales pitch from the company via Zoom and a call from the public for a deeper analysis of the actual costs over time. This reporter opining:
"City Hall faces years of projected deficit spending according to its last budget, and tonight we see another one of the reasons why city management is leading us down that path. Consider, we see an ordinance for first reading to contract with Enterprise Fleet Management significantly overhauling the status quo by having the city lease rather than purchase their fleet of 41 vehicles.
While this could surely be an alternative to research, do a cost-benefit analysis upon, and ask for public input, the City presents this idea cold as a February midnight without any of that effort being made. A memo from PrevariKaitlyn fails to do any kind of analysis, it looks more like she's shilling for Enterprise. In a section called financial benefits, she lists nothing other than financial benefits for Enterprise, later she addresses the "Budget Impact" by saying "see fleet analysis attached".
This is not included in any form, but a 23-page contract drawn up by Enterprise is, one that makes zero analysis of how this impacts the City's budget. Since she is keeping it to herself, I figured out the "budget impact" by looking at the 2026 Budget, which assumes that we enter into this leasing scheme. There I found that what has been stable motor pool expenditures will increase by over 22% between 2025 and 2026 and is projected to remain at that elevated state for the foreseeable future. This $300,000 extra is the budget impact, and you can bet that this is the rosiest estimate as PrevariKaitlyn is pushing so hard for leased vehicles without a cost-benefit analysis or public oversight."
Councilor Kathy Winczewski, from a place of relative ignorance (as we would find out) told the public at the meeting the council passed this scheme: "We've been talking about leasing for quite a few years, so it hasn't just been something sudden. We do have financial comparisons which the city manager has come up with... it will save us money in the long run."
This shattered our perception of reality. We had deeply reviewed this topic using thecity websiteand the COL's Documents on Demand site before this meeting and found nothing before February 2026 said about leasing and/or Enterprise Fleet Management other than anApril 15, 2025 Finance Committeemeeting where City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich (seen above among Enterprise vehicles) said she was looking into the leasing option. A February 24, 2026 Finance Committee meeting had something planned about a presentation by Enterprise, but it never happened due to Aldrich's absence.
This lack of review and public input should concern all taxpayers, because the projected savings are based solely on Enterprise's own claims and the elevation in costs are evident when you look at the 2026 Budget's numbers and compare it to the projections found in the 2024 Budget, the last budget not crafted by Aldrich, who seems to believe that the COL can afford new purchases and personnel by her own actions since ascending to her post.
To affirm my suspicions of Winczewski's and Aldrich's veracity, I asked the COL for two items in a FOIA request: 1) Minutes of any meeting of the city council or any of the standing committees before 2026 (other than the April 15, 2025 meeting of the Finance Committee where CM Aldrich would only say on the record that she's looking at that option) where the topic of leasing the City of Ludington fleet came up for discussion. 2) Financial comparisons that the city manager has come up with-- other than the two Enterprise-generated planning analysis and menu pricing charts included in the 2-9-26 LCC meeting packet on p. 17 and 18-- that show leasing will save the COL money in the long run.
The response was not overwhelming. I received the February 2025 Finance Committee minutes, noted earlier, that had no discussion about the topic of leasing came up, and nothing else. Aldrich certified that nobody in the COL had ever done the financial comparisons of leasing vs. owning and only depended on a generalized presentation of saving money over time presented as fact rather than as a marketing ploy for Enterprise Fleet Management.
Here's the hard truth. This was not researched at all by city leaders, other than listening to and accepting what Enterprise told them. This was a way to get new vehicles and to continue getting new vehicles every five or so years. This was not a move to save money; if it was, we would surely see how the COL would realize the $500,000 savings in the next ten years and not the ever-growing loss that the latest budget hints at. This was a total rejection by elected city leaders to operate in the best interests of their constituents because they foolishly believed the lie that they could save tons of cash and have city employees could drive around in new vehicles in perpetuity, rather than have some vehicles over 20 years old in the fleet.
As one who own a 20-year-old vehicle myself, I can testify that I have saved "tons of money" over that period at the expense of not having the latest in automobile technology or the overrated status symbol of having a new shiny car. With thanks to Google AI for the assistance, I will lay out the case.
My basic 2006 Ford Focuscost $13,450retail twenty years ago, it would originally be bought outright. Thecost to leasethat type of car in 2006 was $273 a month. Doing the math and considering the state tax of 6%, by five years the cost of leasing would eclipse the car's original cost by over $2000. However, the leasing option for cars istypically three years, so the fourth year there would be a brand-new vehicle of the same basic type with new lease terms. Using inflation rates as the indicator, the next three-year leases starting at 2009 would have effective monthly payments of $290.68. Then one would expect those payments to grow over succeeding leases using aninflation rate calculator:
2012: $312.05 Accumulated leasing costs at end of lease: $31,526
Maintenance and repair costs have been relatively light for such an old car, perhaps because it has less than 80,000 miles on it and has regular oil changes, and it still hasat least $800in equity. Owning this vehicle over the last twenty years has saved over $60,000 over that time from getting a lease agreement over that same period. One would think that a similar case could be made for the 22-year-old city vehicle that Ms. Aldrich mentioned at a council meeting in order to tell us why this was such a great deal.
Amazingly, my own analysis of how much a leasing agreement would have cost me stands as the only cost-benefit analysis performed as regards the COL's new agreement which will comprise a large part of the COL's deficits over the next few years, the budget confirms this. The problem with leasing is that the COL will lose a lot of control over how they will be able to save money when it gets tight, this will solely be regulated by Enterprise. With ownership, purchasing vehicles on a schedule can be waived as a cost saving measure for a cash-strapped department.
The FOIA response shows that their lucrative contract with the COL was granted without any competitive bids from other agencies offering fleet rental programs-- which aren't as rare as you might think. Including Enterprise Fleet Management, there are 20 such agencies in our general vicinity as seen in the map above.
The Ludington City Charter Section 13.2 states plainly that when making purchases, the lowest competent bidder should be chosen when making purchases, which is further explained in Section 2-4 in the city code mandating that "Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders".
The record (including the absence in requested records) show that for this very costly contract, no competitive bids were ever sought. To the contrary, it appears that EFM approached the COL with a proposal that they wanted to present at the February 24, 2026 meeting of the Finance Committee without any prior desire voiced by any city elected, appointed, or administrative official. Their persistence was rewarded by a contract where the records show that no legitimate deliberation or calculation was ever made in order to get into this contract, only dubious assertions made by the EFM sales force.
Never the hint of any competitive bid seen, which would be about par for the course with a city administrator who has shown that she doesn't have the chops to handle city issues, which is why she has bought into the lease scheme without doing any research and the avoidance of asking the public for input. She accepts outright falsehoods mouthed by serial liar, Councilor Winczewski and lets them stay uncontested as it helps her own fibs. This is an administration that will advance blindly into schemes likes this and at the same time look for additional personnel as the city's financial future screams reducing personnel. Not a rosy future by any prediction.
Ludington Fleet's Path of Leased Resistance
by XLFD
Mar 3
February saw the topic of leasing the fleet of 41 (numbers 40 and 43 have also been used) vehicles used by the City of Ludington (COL) come to the Ludington City Council for the first time. This ambitious scheme was proposed as a means for the COL to replace its practice of buying their vehicles with the practice of leasing, and we were told the fantastic story that this would be saving us tons of money ($500,000) by the end of ten years and allow all city employees and officials to drive cars and trucks that are usually no more than three years old.
Without much discussion other than rosy (and false) depictions of how this would be a win-win for all, the city council unanimously would accept this drastic change on Feb 23, 2026 as their first action of the evening, despite a call from the people to research this more than just looking at Enterprise's marketing ploys. This came after a meeting earlier that month on the 9th that offered an unconvincing sales pitch from the company via Zoom and a call from the public for a deeper analysis of the actual costs over time. This reporter opining:
"City Hall faces years of projected deficit spending according to its last budget, and tonight we see another one of the reasons why city management is leading us down that path. Consider, we see an ordinance for first reading to contract with Enterprise Fleet Management significantly overhauling the status quo by having the city lease rather than purchase their fleet of 41 vehicles.
While this could surely be an alternative to research, do a cost-benefit analysis upon, and ask for public input, the City presents this idea cold as a February midnight without any of that effort being made. A memo from PrevariKaitlyn fails to do any kind of analysis, it looks more like she's shilling for Enterprise. In a section called financial benefits, she lists nothing other than financial benefits for Enterprise, later she addresses the "Budget Impact" by saying "see fleet analysis attached".
This is not included in any form, but a 23-page contract drawn up by Enterprise is, one that makes zero analysis of how this impacts the City's budget. Since she is keeping it to herself, I figured out the "budget impact" by looking at the 2026 Budget, which assumes that we enter into this leasing scheme. There I found that what has been stable motor pool expenditures will increase by over 22% between 2025 and 2026 and is projected to remain at that elevated state for the foreseeable future. This $300,000 extra is the budget impact, and you can bet that this is the rosiest estimate as PrevariKaitlyn is pushing so hard for leased vehicles without a cost-benefit analysis or public oversight."
Councilor Kathy Winczewski, from a place of relative ignorance (as we would find out) told the public at the meeting the council passed this scheme: "We've been talking about leasing for quite a few years, so it hasn't just been something sudden. We do have financial comparisons which the city manager has come up with... it will save us money in the long run."
This shattered our perception of reality. We had deeply reviewed this topic using the city website and the COL's Documents on Demand site before this meeting and found nothing before February 2026 said about leasing and/or Enterprise Fleet Management other than an April 15, 2025 Finance Committee meeting where City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich (seen above among Enterprise vehicles) said she was looking into the leasing option. A February 24, 2026 Finance Committee meeting had something planned about a presentation by Enterprise, but it never happened due to Aldrich's absence.
This lack of review and public input should concern all taxpayers, because the projected savings are based solely on Enterprise's own claims and the elevation in costs are evident when you look at the 2026 Budget's numbers and compare it to the projections found in the 2024 Budget, the last budget not crafted by Aldrich, who seems to believe that the COL can afford new purchases and personnel by her own actions since ascending to her post.
To affirm my suspicions of Winczewski's and Aldrich's veracity, I asked the COL for two items in a FOIA request: 1) Minutes of any meeting of the city council or any of the standing committees before 2026 (other than the April 15, 2025 meeting of the Finance Committee where CM Aldrich would only say on the record that she's looking at that option) where the topic of leasing the City of Ludington fleet came up for discussion. 2) Financial comparisons that the city manager has come up with-- other than the two Enterprise-generated planning analysis and menu pricing charts included in the 2-9-26 LCC meeting packet on p. 17 and 18-- that show leasing will save the COL money in the long run.
The response was not overwhelming. I received the February 2025 Finance Committee minutes, noted earlier, that had no discussion about the topic of leasing came up, and nothing else. Aldrich certified that nobody in the COL had ever done the financial comparisons of leasing vs. owning and only depended on a generalized presentation of saving money over time presented as fact rather than as a marketing ploy for Enterprise Fleet Management.
Here's the hard truth. This was not researched at all by city leaders, other than listening to and accepting what Enterprise told them. This was a way to get new vehicles and to continue getting new vehicles every five or so years. This was not a move to save money; if it was, we would surely see how the COL would realize the $500,000 savings in the next ten years and not the ever-growing loss that the latest budget hints at. This was a total rejection by elected city leaders to operate in the best interests of their constituents because they foolishly believed the lie that they could save tons of cash and have city employees could drive around in new vehicles in perpetuity, rather than have some vehicles over 20 years old in the fleet.
As one who own a 20-year-old vehicle myself, I can testify that I have saved "tons of money" over that period at the expense of not having the latest in automobile technology or the overrated status symbol of having a new shiny car. With thanks to Google AI for the assistance, I will lay out the case.
My basic 2006 Ford Focus cost $13,450 retail twenty years ago, it would originally be bought outright. The cost to lease that type of car in 2006 was $273 a month. Doing the math and considering the state tax of 6%, by five years the cost of leasing would eclipse the car's original cost by over $2000. However, the leasing option for cars is typically three years, so the fourth year there would be a brand-new vehicle of the same basic type with new lease terms. Using inflation rates as the indicator, the next three-year leases starting at 2009 would have effective monthly payments of $290.68. Then one would expect those payments to grow over succeeding leases using an inflation rate calculator:
2012: $312.05 Accumulated leasing costs at end of lease: $31,526
2015: $321.74 $43,109
2018: $341.23 $55,393
2021: $360.11 $68,367
2024: $424.59 Accumulated leasing cost thru Feb, 2026 $79,407
Maintenance and repair costs have been relatively light for such an old car, perhaps because it has less than 80,000 miles on it and has regular oil changes, and it still has at least $800 in equity. Owning this vehicle over the last twenty years has saved over $60,000 over that time from getting a lease agreement over that same period. One would think that a similar case could be made for the 22-year-old city vehicle that Ms. Aldrich mentioned at a council meeting in order to tell us why this was such a great deal.
Amazingly, my own analysis of how much a leasing agreement would have cost me stands as the only cost-benefit analysis performed as regards the COL's new agreement which will comprise a large part of the COL's deficits over the next few years, the budget confirms this. The problem with leasing is that the COL will lose a lot of control over how they will be able to save money when it gets tight, this will solely be regulated by Enterprise. With ownership, purchasing vehicles on a schedule can be waived as a cost saving measure for a cash-strapped department.
The FOIA response shows that their lucrative contract with the COL was granted without any competitive bids from other agencies offering fleet rental programs-- which aren't as rare as you might think. Including Enterprise Fleet Management, there are 20 such agencies in our general vicinity as seen in the map above.
The Ludington City Charter Section 13.2 states plainly that when making purchases, the lowest competent bidder should be chosen when making purchases, which is further explained in Section 2-4 in the city code mandating that "Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders".
The record (including the absence in requested records) show that for this very costly contract, no competitive bids were ever sought. To the contrary, it appears that EFM approached the COL with a proposal that they wanted to present at the February 24, 2026 meeting of the Finance Committee without any prior desire voiced by any city elected, appointed, or administrative official. Their persistence was rewarded by a contract where the records show that no legitimate deliberation or calculation was ever made in order to get into this contract, only dubious assertions made by the EFM sales force.
Never the hint of any competitive bid seen, which would be about par for the course with a city administrator who has shown that she doesn't have the chops to handle city issues, which is why she has bought into the lease scheme without doing any research and the avoidance of asking the public for input. She accepts outright falsehoods mouthed by serial liar, Councilor Winczewski and lets them stay uncontested as it helps her own fibs. This is an administration that will advance blindly into schemes likes this and at the same time look for additional personnel as the city's financial future screams reducing personnel. Not a rosy future by any prediction.