Official Guide to the November 25 Meetings of Ludington/Scottville Public Bodies

[XLFD]

The public policy of the Ludington Torch is to serve as the guiding light for public officials scrambling around in the darkness, whether that darkness has been imposed by their prior or forthcoming actions/policy.  Sometimes we serve as messengers, sometimes we serve as parliamentarians, but almost always we serve as a cattle prod for those officials who stray from the herd of their constituents or their constitutions.  

On Monday, November 25, 2024, we had the opportunity to serve as an "official guide" for three different public bodies.  Elected officials usually ignore warnings that they are doing something inefficiently, unethical, or even illegal when they are given the benefits of our guiding light and its ability to lead them back to reason.   Often, it's a matter of pride or peer pressure (from their fellow officials, not their electors) that keeps them taking the dark path often chosen by administrative bureaucrats who often have zero duty to the people.  

So when we addressed the meetings of the Scottville City Commission (SCC), the Mason County Central (MCC) School Board, and the Ludington City Council (LCC, in absentia), we were not surprised that our well-meant guidance was mostly ignored-- with one exception that may surprise many of you.  That afternoon, I printed a comment for each of the Scottville meetings and sent an email to the seven members of the LCC, who met at the same time as the SCC.

Scottville City Commission

The commission was down two members to begin with, and so they barely had a quorum when the new mayor, Dixie Spore, was an excused no-show.  Mayor pro tem Randy Wyman led his first meeting, and after the preliminaries heard one person (me) make a quick comment at the start of this meeting:

XLFD:  "I would like to humbly suggest that the commission consider moving their meeting nights to what has traditionally been their regular meeting nights for many decades, the first and third Monday of the month, rather than the second and fourth Mondays, which they switched to in 2021 without explanation, and ever since has been moving their starting time to coincide with the Ludington City Council's starting time. 

This scheduling conflict not only directly hampers Mason County's two cities from working in cooperation with each other on a variety of topics but also prevents both cities from getting input from county or the other-city officials, from getting adequate coverage by personnel-strapped local media, and from getting the best shot at attracting entrepreneurs to our county.   I cannot think of any benefit derived from having the two most important municipal meetings in the county meet at the same time each month, maybe this commission could suggest such a benefit in their discussions? [END comment]

MCC has finished near the top of the state in forensic debates over the last decade, but when the topic of meeting times came up as new business, nobody on the SCC could supply any reason for keeping the meetings at the same time as Ludington's council meetings each month.  Regardless, the motion was made for the meetings to effectively match the LCC's 2025 schedule and only Commissioner Eric Thue would see how irresponsible that was and vote against it.  

Reports saw an introduction of Dale Goodrich as the Mason County Rural Fire Authority representative and an update on CHILL grants by County Commissioner Steve Hull, along with the potential of an additional possibility of a $200,000 grant to do something with the historic and long-abandoned old schoolhouse on North Main.

Two ordinances introduced in October were passed by the commission in unanimity.  One eased zoning to allow for self-storage facilities in the highway commercial zone (paving the way for one such business on the city's west side on US 10.  One was made to help preserve the Riverside Park by making it unlawful to launch/land watercraft on riverbanks (except at boat launches).  Other than that, they set the meeting dates for the city's other boards and committees, these dates and more can be seen in the packet.  

Four would speak out during the second comment period.  Police Chief Katrina Skinner would thank the community for helping out with seasonal events.  Donald Pasco would formally submit his application for one of the open commission spots.  Sonia Ratliff would advocate for the SPD proposing a potential directed millage to support it.  Kei Steffes would wonder about why the city would spend so much on a water (rate) study when and why wasn't anything being done with former City Manager Jimmy Newkirk's misappropriation of city funds that led the taxpayers to front a $50,000 grant (never granted) to the Stallion Mill, among other things that led the city to nearly a half million deficit. 

The two dozen in attendance heard nothing from the commission other than presiding officer Wyman telling them that they appreciated the comments.  Official guides appear to be mostly unsuccessful here.

Mason County Central School Board

The two newly elected board members attended the meeting, but in a non-official capacity as the meeting came to order with the old guard fully in force.  The agenda was light on actions, so this permitted me to once again remind of the board of their responsibilities and to guide them back to the right path in the first comment period:

XLFD:  "Included in your meeting packet, courtesy of the Thrun Law Firm, they note:

"School districts must competitively bid the following if the cost will exceed the new bid threshold of $30,512:  1) Labor and materials for construction projects, and 2) the purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment.  School officials must not disaggregate a project (which includes additions, repairs or renovations) or the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment into discrete components to circumvent competitive bidding requirements.  Instead, school officials must calculate each procurement transaction as a whole."  

MCC policy 6320 requires this, additionally saying that the superintendent seek out three competitive bids for any such purchase between $15,000 and the statutory amount whenever possible, and additionally:  "Purchases in a single transaction that are in excess of the dollar amount permitted by State statute shall require competitive bids and, whenever possible, have at least three (3) such bids for substantiation of purchase and shall require approval of the Board prior to purchase." (emphasis added).

For the construction of this meeting room, the paving of the district's parking lots, and the hiring of Northern Floor Care for maintenance, among many other things that I have yet to bring up at meetings, there hasn't been any evidence that at least three competitive bids were solicited, and your approved meeting minutes show that this board has never approved these contractual purchases.  All of this should have come before the board and the public, not hidden in the superintendent's filing cabinet, if you people were actually doing your job as dictated by your own policies.  I suggest you start immediately. [END comment]

 

This was a continuation of a campaign of official guidance I've taken up at three separate MCC Board meetings, where the trustees did nothing to acknowledge their dereliction of duties to the people of the district.  They did not disappoint those who back such corruption once again, and so they will allow the public to remain ignorant on their purchases and contracts that by law should be discussed and voted on at these school board meetings, just as they are at other school districts in Michigan. 

When the board desires not to abide by the law, you can bet they do not want you to know where your tax money is actually going, and as noted in the three specific instances, in the comment, competitive bidding and purchasing policies have been ignored by the superintendent and permitted by the board in order to give substantial amounts of money to friends and other crony businesses; it's highly likely that some kickbacks are part of these back room deals.  Without acknowledging this as wrong and not fixing the issue for future contracting, this district will not see another bond issue pass in that same future.   

After getting a clean audit report (remotely given) on school finances from their auditing firm, the board took three actions after receiving reports from their principals.  They appointed Becky Alway as a third-grade teacher (and me without our "Mason County Press" sign), approved NEOLA policy updates (the Title IX change to allow maladjusted boys in girl sports is effectively dead after the results of the November election), and a resolution to join in as one plaintiff on Insulin litigation was passed (because... free money eventually). 

The 'official guide' of following their own succinct purchasing and contracting policy would not be adopted, however.  Surprisingly, at the only meeting I wasn't able to attend, this wasn't the case.

Ludington City Council

The LCC would take almost three hours to finish their meeting, and it could have been a lot more time had I not mentioned the problem I saw in their agenda packet over the weekend before the meeting.  I addressed this to the council and the city counsel, Ross "Sewage" Hammersley, in an email that afternoon titled "Recently revised Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) must have a first presentation":  

"The first reading of the controversial draft version of the UDO was performed at the October 28, 2024 meeting. Following an additional study session of the council on November 12, 2024, McKenna made some revisions of this draft policy, as seen in their memo to the council dated the next day (and in your packets on p. 178-180) revising the draft in the fields of neighborhood density and special land use criteria.

Our city charter, with the statutory authority of the Home Rule City Act, says explicitly in section 7.2 that: "No ordinance of a non-emergency nature shall be enacted at the meeting at which it is first introduced.". Should the council pass the UDO with any of those revisions tonight, they would be in violation of the city charter; the only UDO they could legitimately pass tonight is the one introduced on October 28th. If the council wants to approve a UDO that has been amended or modified from its original October 28th version, the council should conduct a first reading of that amended ordinance tonight and consider it at a future meeting. Please act accordingly."

And as noted in the meeting minutes, the first vote made by the council was to amend the agenda to show that they would not consider and vote on the UDO, but rather have it introduced newly amended as a first presentation, likely to be considered at the December 9th meeting.  Finally, a public body who took the 'official guide' seriously while that guide was over eight miles away. 

The officials were also prepared to address the issue where Police Chief/Thief Chris Jones lied to the public when he said that the general fund would not be used to pay any new K9 unit expenses, and they were showing up even before the K9 unit was ready for duty.  The expenses were put on the city's credit card, not the police thief's or anybody else's.  We were told explicitly by the brazen thief and liar that "We are not expecting the funds for this unit to come from the city’s general fund."  City leaders put it on their credit card and defrauded the citizens who foolishly believed in that covenant.

In a related topic, we see the transfer of funds once again from the city's general fund to one of their failing enterprise funds at Cartier Park.  They tried to obscure the subsidization process originally by using the sale of the utility building near the Thompson Marina for $121K to go towards the bathhouse improvements at Cartier.  The sale has not been finalized, and so they will send money from the general fund over to cover the $121K, and then put any money from the sale to go back to the general fund, as it originally would have gone anyway.  Once again, the general fund is used to pay for a fund that should be independent of the city and self-sustainable.  That's not how those funds should be used.

 This took very little out of a nearly three-hour affair, the time came with various discussions over the UDO, a presentation of the 2025 budget and a proposal by the Jaycees for $600,000 for improvements on the mini-golf property, and discussions of the UDO and its consequences.

Jeff Henry would address this with the city's two public marinas earlier in the meeting's public comment, noting their heavy subsidizations over the years by the DNR through its Waterways Commission.  When private campgrounds and private marinas in the Ludington area can survive even with these heavily subsidized government agencies in direct competition with them, why is the city and state still putting millions of dollars received from the general public into seeing that poorly-run public facilities prosper and let wealthy folks have additional options of where to camp out or put their yacht?  Homeless taxpayers would like to know.  

Additionally notable, Jeff White, a developer and a member of the Planning Commission, urged the council during the second comment period to send the UDO back to that agency in order to correct/clarify the issue of where exactly multi-family housing is permitted without a special land use.  As typical of the council, they did not address the well-intended comment, even from their own city official who obviously was interested in promoting single-family housing areas in Ludington. 

We must remember that UDOs are not instituted to better a community, they are made to give a local government unit a checkmark off on being a Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC) which views single-family structures in cities as a problem.  Mr. White may need some re-education on how he needs to think as a member of the Planning Commission as he is making too much common sense in his comment and not heeding the 'official guide' of RRC-thought.    

[stump]

What would the Ludington Jaycee's $600,000 request for improvements be? Didn't the mini golf location a few years ago get a complete rehab? What happens to the income generated by the players ? I would suggest a complete look into their books before a dime was given. $600,000 is just nuts.

[XLFD]

You are correct about the rehab on the course; this will be more of a rehab on the property and the Jaycees become eligible for such grant because they are effectively leasing their property from the COL.  The presentation starts at 40 minutes from the end on the video and was captured in the minutes thusly.  I haven't seen or heard anything beyond this, but the city (and Heather) is very active behind the scenes with it.

[XLFD]

I also missed a very amusing interchange when I listened to the Ludington meeting, about 13:30 into the meeting, where Fourth Ward Mayor Chuck Sobanski, talking just after Jeff Henry, gave the council an early Christmas gift, delivered to Mayor Barnett instead of being left under the podium:  deer poop found in the leaves he raked up.  Hilarious use of visual aids, even though I don't believe in his deer politics.  Hizzoner, after the meeting would equate it with the time that Mayor Holman was dared to drink the yellow water I gave her, telling her that it was from one of Ludington's lead pipe systems.  For those who don't remember that 2017 event, read this.

  

[Willy]

Thanks for that excellent post X. A true trifecta in my opinion. I am pleased to see some action on the old school building but the amount of money to bring it back would probably break Scottville's  budget. $200,000 is not a lot of money to refurbish such an old building. I to am also concerned about spending @600,000 for the mini golf. If that golf game is not self supporting then it should be scrapped. To much money being wasted. Let's call in Musk to take a good look at this odd situation.  Something fishy about this.

[XLFD]

That old school building will always hold a place in my heart, since I was in the last sixth grade class to be at the building in use, but I fear the last few decades with deteriorating roofs have opened it to being a money pit should attempts at rehab be made.  Likewise, once it is rehabbed, what would Scottville use it for?  

Back in 2016, the JCs came to the council and asked for considerably less, stressing that they had donated over $300,000 back to the community over their existence and make around $20,000 each year.  The problem I saw then was that the $60,000 plus that they wished to borrow from either state or local taxpayers could have been done by them had they used three years of their profits to do so rather than public funds. 

Now that they're asking for more to do a lot of stuff that the city seems eager to see happen, look not at the JCs but look more at the city's forces (Heather Tykoski, especially) trying to get another of the seven stages of the Stearns Beach "improvements" they once sought, and has only been manifested with the colossal failure known as the West End Slab.  Over five years old, over a million put into it by now and still less functional than one year of the parking lot that it replaced.  I hope we see more about this before the application is put in.

[woodsman]

Last time I was in that old school house gym the ceiling of gym the floor and ceiling of study hall above gym where gone and clear skies where visible from gym floor only huge steel structures where above.  The foundations of the building had so much water for so long they all where soft and needed to be replaced. The guy from down under said 7 million was a figure to get foundations repaired and building back to a usable state and that was a few years back.