Ludington City Council Meeting August 13, 2018: Neal Before Me

The August 13, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting had a light agenda considering the council hadn't met for 3 weeks.  Nevertheless, it was attended by the cream of Ludington's plutocrats including John Wilson and Bob Neal, who seem to indicate that the 'bowling alley block development' (BABD) is about to begin.  Both would speak when their piece after  the time where the council would pass a couple of amendments to the deal and three agreements between the developer's LLC concerning parking, leasing and licensing agreements without much discussion other than the parking issue.  

These two would make comments that should have made the council and manager rethink their philosophy on our overbearing city government, but such revelations only amused them.  Let's review the meeting (here is the agenda for reference).  

After an uneventful start, the public comment began with Scott Sitler (2:40 in) talking about the parking issue at the BABD, where the sixty units have been allotted only 30 parking spaces, and if these units each had two vehicles as many households do , there would be a problem fitting them in nearby.  I then followed him with concerns about an old and new issue:

August 13th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  (3:30 in):  "At the last meeting, the matter of changing the sidewalk policy was effectively passed without addressing how it will improve the city's oft-stated goal of walkability, nor did it come with a realization that if the sidewalk exemption is approved for the Mutton property off of South Lakeshore, then the precedent will exempt almost any property in the future and lead to the city's sidewalk budget being used almost exclusively for maintenance of our existing, inadequate sidewalk network.

We might as well reform the city's sidewalk policy so that the City develops a sensible sidewalk plan based on priorities of where sidewalks are needed rather than due to the arbitrary nature of sales or new construction. Our school zones are loaded with properties without adjacent sidewalks, forcing kids to walk on the street to get to and from school. Is this acceptable when we are currently forcing some homeowners to put in sidewalks that have no real purpose since adjoining properties have none? I would like to see the city council take a leadership role in establishing priorities so as to efficiently reach their goal of increased walkability.

At tonight's meeting you will make a determination that will go the opposite direction for another issue regarding right-of-ways. You will vote to determine whether the city council will abandon their power to determine specifics of special events signs in the right of way and give that power to the city manager away from the purview of the council and citizens. This action would not only be bad for transparency, but also for accountability-- since the public will not generally know what details are in any given application until they get a good idea when their front yard has a sign in it for an event they may be totally against.

Since these signs will be on somebody's property, it seems rational that they would have some say as to whether it be placed there. This is done for almost every other sign, like all those election signs we'll see this year. The city council has in the past preempted this property right by saying they have the authority to put event signs on this strip without the owner's permission, now they want to further remove this property right by giving that power to the city manager. If that happens, an aggrieved citizen cannot look to their councilor for help in directing what the manager decides, nor do they have any leverage with the manager, whose employer is the council, not the people.

So if you are a fervent teetotaler and you have a large sign in your front lawn advertising Suds on the Shore, you have zero recourse other than talking to a city manager who will tell you he has already approved it months ago outside of the public eye and he has the power to make sure it stays there on your front lawn. Thank you." [End]

I have been harping on sensibly prioritizing sidewalk policy since 2009 without clear results, even though it's currently in the ordinances that "the city council shall establish a list of priorities for addressing sidewalks from time to time" (Sec. 46-71(b)).  No official touched on the topic, though later I would get a surprise ally in this fight.  

As for the event sign policy, the council without sensible discussion yet, did a first reading of the ordinance that would cede their power to the city manager, so the issue that generally evokes the most spirited discussion among the council has been taken off their hands.  They didn't even bother telling the public their usual myth that they own the right-of-way, since that legend is about as comical as the homeowner owning and being responsible for the City's water supply lines that run from the City's water main to the City's shut-off valve. 

If this passes at the next meeting, I encourage all homeowners to remove any offensive signs that crop up on their property, say you removed it while you were lawnmowing the "city's property" and something must have happened to it.  If they don't buy your explanation, accidentally run over it with your lawnmower the next time.  They will either get the hint, or at worse, revoke your privilege of mowing 'their' property that belongs to you.  

Tom Tyron went next and showed a fairly common confusion about what all those moving parts involved in the BABD and new fire station bargaining were.  The new city manager deigned to answer the question by effectively saying "it's complicated."  This has been, is, and will be the explanation for this development, which relies on a lot of government incentives being approved by these guys and the state.  

The committee reports had a new mutual aid agreement being approved, with the County's Emergency Management Coordinator Liz Reimink answering question.  They segued to a first reading of rezoning a 4 acre plot off Madison and Dowland in order to make a residential development there, at 18:00 one of the developers gave some background and why they thought it was a perfect area for development.  They plan on having a mixture of apartments available, with varying rent 'workforce housing'.  One bedroom units could be in the low $300s. 

They then read the event sign ordinance, and Councilor Winczewski gave some surprising results of a survey that wasn't included in the council packet.  No other discussion was made regarding the proposed change.  

As noted the City then passed two amended agreements and three new agreement approvals dealing with the bowling alley block.  Interim CM Steve Brock gave a video presentation of the development, none of which were included in the packet, and the city attorney continued (32:00 in)by explaining the convoluted agreements and amendments as if everyone wasn't confused already.  When those were all passed without significant discussion by the council, some of the players got up to congratulate themselves and the officials.

               The BABD, looking north, parking spaces in pink, buildings in the NE and SE corner, unlike the original plan  

In the process there was a couple of surprises, the first when John Wilson, who represents multiple agencies involved in the complex project (Mason County Foundation, Pennies from Heaven, West Shore Bank, and himself).  He made the first admission: 

John Wilson (49:00 in) "As we worked through the project it became very apparent that construction costs and city tax rates were not going to make a development possible down there."

This elicited no response from the council, but he was effectively saying that the City's onerous taxation dampens their ability to foster development in the city.  This wasn't an anomaly, because just after he sat down, Bob Neal got up and told a 'funny' story:  

Bob Neal (53:00 in):  "the first month after I bought the Bonser business from Jack, not the business but the [downtown] real estate, the City sent me a letter saying I couldn't warehouse in it, it was not zoned correctly. The next month I got my first tax bill-- the next month I tore it down." (laughter by a few officials). 

The second dig at the City's development-killing taxation policies came with an added grievance about the City's denial of his desire for adding warehouse space.  He continued later in the same vein, and railed against taxes without offending the taxers:

Neal:  "I own the four highest tax properties in the city of Ludington, because I am the only person who builds anything new in the city of Ludington in a long time."  

I don't know about the veracity of this statement, but it wasn't challenged.  For those who think Ludington has been well-served by the various local economic development agencies and officials in the area, they may wish to consider that when these major scions of industry and development infer otherwise.

After this the second public comment, Chuck Sobanski said at 57:00:

"I agree with Tom, our city sidewalk ordinance stinks, and I'm going to be very factual, we have a resident south of us and they have to have their sidewalk replaced before they can sell the house. We got sidewalks in the Fourth Ward that are dirt, stumps, we're not doing nothing about it. Why is it fair for the person selling a house to do it, and a person who owns a house doesn't have to do it. I don't get the ordinance, I've read what the ordinance says."  He then wondered why all the questions regarding the BABD weren't long ago decided in the Planning Commission.

Mayor Holman said it went through planning and zoning.  The record says that Chuck is right, this has only come before the LPC one time as a site plan review in Nov. 2017.  There has never been a transparent review as to any of the many facets of this development that should be warranted for this property for the community's sake.  

Following her husband's earlier concerns, Barb Sitler (59:00 in) was nervous but sincerely concerned about parking for new buildings being insufficient, followed by another gentleman with parking traffic concerns in the area.  As for me, I closed the public comment period by being excited, and being brief.

XLFD:  (1:02:00 in)  "I am excited about the potential development in the Fourth Ward on Madison and Dowland Streets going in. Instead of the government devising schemes of tax increment financing, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, tax credits and tax abatements to bring in development, this development at this stage looks to create living spaces the old fashioned way, where the best thing the government can do is to get out of the way and let the free market do its job. [End]"

We should all appreciate developments that do not rely on government handouts, nor ones that need to be so complicated that our city leaders have to approve five agreements with the developers two and a half years after the original council approval.  

Views: 910

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't know how you do it X. You take a mangled City Council meeting that has the consistency of  a bowl of spaghetti and unravel it in order to make sense of what took place. My turban is off to you, sir.

You better leave your turban on while in my presence, Willy, you know how I like to unravel things.  Shinblind had a fine analysis of the parking situation (along with the Sitlers and Sobanski, it's an 'S' thing) and I would further note that the current parking in that block allows for 57 off-road spaces in the parking lot as premium downtown parking spaces (including about ten restricted fire station parking spaces).  The Planning Commission is used for so many silly and sundry things, but it couldn't even analyze this parking conundrum, the switcheroo of the buildings, or a host of other underlying issues, at least in the open forum it offers.

 

So Bookmark Bob will lose spots for his building?  Or are those included?  (For Bob's building that houses the Yarn Shop and others, on same block as Morris St)

So now the buildings are relocated on the bowling alley block from facing Ludington Avenue to facing Rath Street  and rotated so instead of facing north and south they will face east and west and no approval is necessary by any "planning commission" ? WTF?

And parking for these apartments will be located a block away behind Wesco?

And there will be less available parking for the commercial operations that are planned for the ground level of these apartments?

And the employees and owners of these ground level businesses will park where?

 "As we worked through the project it became very apparent that construction costs and city tax rates were not going to make a development possible down there." John Wilson.

Well geez Johnny boy you mean that the engineers told you that building a five story apartment on former swamp land needed a lot of more expensive helix piers and piles to keep them up right?

And the bean counters thought this was a bad idea and you couldn't find financing?

Did the State give you a hassle about the cost of relocating the utilities on swamp land too?

The best use of this block would have been to turn this former bog land into a city park. 

Maybe a location for a splash pad and food trucks.

Try to get that past the Bob 'N Neal city council.

And Johnny would you mind clarifying that part again about the city tax rates for this project?  You would need more funding from the taxpayers to make this feasible?

This cluster fudge of a plan was hatched by the former City Manager 'short sighted Shay' and approved by the new interim City Manager Steve Brock.

Can we at least now call it the more catchy Brock's Block rather than the Bowling Alley Block.

Well said Shinblind!

Good analysis shinblind. Before any documents were signed when this project started, the parking situation should have been settled. It appears that there will be parking conflicts for this property well into the future. Who will be paying for the leasing of the private property to be used for all of the parking spaces the empty headed council forgot to include in this mess? Also, will any future development of the leased parking areas be affected by a lack of parking for those lots? This is nuts. Why is there not a committee or go to person to coordinate this project before it implodes?  I can't help but feel that the burden of added cost of this project will be put on the backs of the taxpayers. 

Anybody who has been paying attention to this project should have wondered why the plans had been remarkably changed from the original by placing the buildings on opposite corners and offering even less parking than before.  Here is the plan that was introduced on March 7, 2016 showing a totally different configuration of everything.  This is what the council approved:

Only 2 of the 7 councilors was serving at that time, but why aren't they concerned that they are being ran over by these giants of industry while subtly being insulted for their lack of sound taxation policy?  Instead they shrug off the multiple changes along with the left-handed attacks and gush over the flustercuck, all but bowing obsequiously to the gathered developers using them and enjoying their part in this mess

That video is a lesson in who has pulled the purse strings and created the congestion and lack of parking downtown, proudly after bankruptcy.  Plus notice that the taxpayer will pay for snow removal from the private property just "because it is easier to remove all the snow than just some of it".  Ha ha.  I'm sure that was a private deal.  What shocked me was that more citizens are braving speaking up about the congestion, lack of parking, and lack of transparency in our government actions and a majority of the citizens did not clap.

Another thing of interest on that video I don't completely understand, if anyone can explain is Mayor Holman trying to start some sort of pep rally about having a million dollar building?  But little response or clear explanation.  Does that mean the city hall debt is paid?  The announcement was made shortly after the reading of the bimonthly bills ... Something like $1.8 million paid out in the last two weeks?  When is the Treasurer ever going to give a report?  And if we are paying that much every two weeks, $3 to 4 million a month? Then we could have three or four new buildings a month (lol).  But it took us how many years to pay off city hall debt of one million, peanuts compared to  our $40-50 million partial infrastructure debt.  Maybe that's why even the council made little reaction or comment.  But the most animated I've seen Kaye Holman   

Freesom. I had the same thoughts about Holman's comments. Where's her enthusiasm for the safety of the children who are forced to walk in the streets to and from school because there are no sidewalks. Lack of priorities is a common thread that runs through City Hall. She is almost orgasmic about an ill timed and out of place development where it is not needed but can't open her eyes to the danger faced by kids every day they are forced to walk in the streets. The City Council is still inhabited by morons.

I'm thinking that Holman meant the accounts payable (which includes all capital improvement funds-- 'building utility infrastructure') amounted to over $1.15 million, so we should be happy our water and sewer facilities are once again going to comply with minimal standards.  But for a nearly three week period we effectively spent four months worth of our normal annual budget of $5.5 million, when they okayed the $1.87 million payment of the bills.  This period won't be an anomaly over the next couple of years.

She looks at the numbers and sees it as a good thing, most look at the numbers and consider the pain that they and other Ludington families will have in maintaining a reasonable standard of living in the future.  

Thanks X for your attempt to clarify what seems like some inside discussion between the Mayor's ears.  I don't attend like you do, but the Mayor's comment went way over my head.  Listen, starting at 9:50, just after Les Johnson gives the Finance report. It sounds like Holman says:. "I have a comment.  That's a million dollars worth of new building.  Isn't that nice?  Aren't you proud?  I love this town.  That's a million dollars that we're going to have in new building, and we've earned it. We belong to it.  We own it" with no hazy explanation.  Les Johnson then says, "We have to vote on it" and Holman says, "o that's right ...". Out of context comment.  After listening a few times it sounds like she is referring to a physical building.  And I heard sometime ago that the something would soon be paid off, making me think it is city hall.  But so unclear and the pep rally didn't get a peep of a clap and no cheerleader raised their fronds.  Maybe that's why they were celebrating with pizza dinner at the Meeting of the Whole just before.  To celebrate? 

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service