Ludington City Council Meeting, July 10, 2023: Lawbreakers, Thieves and Accomplices

[XLFD]

This is the first recap of a Ludington City Council meeting since May, as the Ludington Torch attended Scottville meetings held concurrently during June while the council decided not to charge beach parking fees.  The July 10, 2023 agenda packet shows 13 items that the council needed to act upon, which is above average, but many were related:  six ordinances were setting and levying a higher tax rate, three were approving event requests, and four were approving purchases or contracts.

It was disheartening that the public hearing on the tax hikes, where nearly $300,000 worth of new taxes were imposed on city taxpayers, had only one member of the public speak in opposition to the City's greed, but on the flipside, it was heartening to hear vigorous public comment from a variety of sources speaking out against excesses, omissions and other nefarious practices of the city government.  

One wouldn't expect that after the first speakers.  Mike Shaw of the county planning commission and formerly of the city's charter revision commission-- which was indefinitely adjourned pending results on the city's appeal to my successful legal action voiding the results of the May 2022 election, which approved such commission.  Expected him to be there to rebut any claim made in support of the court's original decision, but he was there to offer cost-saving alternatives and Love Out Loud.  Karalee Bradshaw followed with a plea for COVE to receive ARPA funds left over from the COVID era, where the City has roughly $120,000 more to designate.  Though she took the full time, she failed to make the case for how COVE had suffered in that era, focusing instead on how they were needed by the community and deserved the giveaway of taxpayer money to them.  

Then things got interesting.  Rick Knuth started things by telling of a scheme whereby the City is trying to pass the costs of a collapsed sewer lateral underneath busy Ludington Avenue to the houses served by that conduit.  One of his neighbors echoed Knuth's concern and put a price tag of around $15,000 each to correct the problem.  Knuth observed that he has heard of no other municipality that wants to put such responsibility for the city's part of the water or sewer system on the homeowners serviced by them.  Knuth has vowed to fight this, and we look forward to seeing the results, as at first glance, it looks like the City is trying to duck responsibility and save $50,000 or more.  

Significantly, this topic was not addressed at all by the council or staff this night which generally means that they know they are in the wrong or at least in a position not supported by law.  Expect this to come before council again.  I went next and expressed my displeasure on how city leaders are okay with creating liabilities and buckling to the lawless mob from Forest Hills:

July 10th, 2023 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  (12:20 in) "I went to a recent public safety committee meeting where I learned that traffic engineering, traffic science, traffic safety, and traffic law are meaningless in Ludington, because regional democracy dictates the placement of traffic control devices.  Chief Jones conducted a traffic study on two sets of all-way stop intersections in our Forest Hills district, he revealed the results at the meeting, it's included in the council packet tonight, and it wasn't a big surprise: neither intersection had near enough traffic volume or other warrants to justify an all-way stop.  

This was self-evident before the study, which is why Chief Jones in an April memo detailed all the reasons why four stop signs were superfluous and a danger in themselves due to their non-compliance with the manual for uniform traffic control devices.  He noted the signs were obsolete and should be removed then.

But then prominent folks from Forest Hills came to a meeting, and later a special meeting on the topic, and expressed a common opinion that the stop signs needed to stay.  For some reason, they thought these needless government regulations in the form of red octagons promoted their safety, rather than the reality that it actually made their neighborhood less safe and non-compliant with state law.

For sections 608 through 610 of the Michigan motor vehicle code are quite clear in the state's objective to promote traffic safety, with 610 saying in relevant part:  "Local authorities shall place and maintain the traffic control devices upon streets under their jurisdiction to regulate traffic. All traffic control devices shall conform to the Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices."

"ALL traffic control devices SHALL conform to the Michigan manual on uniform traffic control devices."  The traffic study has been done, its results are indisputable, as are your duties as councilors under state law.  Remove these unwarranted signs or find yourself boldly violating a statute.  And this time it isn't section 19 of the Home Rule City Act. [END Lawbreakers comment]

The finale referenced the duty the council had to fix costs and compensation rates for revising the city charter, where they failed and led to our court battles.  In similar manner, with the City knowingly violating the mandates of the MI MUTCD by having redundant signs placed on the two intersections, it puts us all in additional liability should any accident happen at those intersections and any injured vehicle driver is aware that the signs are non-compliant.  Maybe this is why some of the lawyers in that neighborhood want to keep them-- for future business.

When it came time for the report on this topic, the chief noted the study's results, the popular sentiment, and that he wasn't recommending taking down the stop signs since they are apparently working.  The council took no vote, effectively having this issue decided in the Public Safety Committee, where that group voted to retain the stop signs.  City staff will tell you that these standing committees are not public bodies under the Open Meetings Act, but they continue to make binding decisions at these meetings that should be made by the full council by law.

Tom Sanders completed the initial public comment by giving city officials a simple request:  stop building things.  He proceeded to show pictures of Waterfront Park sites that had subtle but costly transformations, and segued towards the high cost of maintenance when you keep building things.

Very good advice, and part of the Strongtowns dicta that our city manager once touted and lived by.  The first order of business was a "Truth in Taxation" hearing, a token gesture offered to the people of a local taxing authority to object about getting your taxes raised beyond what the Headlee Amendment allows.  The next items of business would be to raise the rates above the Headlee limit and collect nearly $260,000 more from the property taxpayers of Ludington that they would be entitled to without the hearing.  I explain some of the basics, when I was the only one that came to complain about the tax hike.

XLFD:  (22:00 in)  "I posed this poll question on my Facebook website called the Ludington Pitchfork on Friday: 

"State law prohibits revenue from a city's property taxes, excluding new construction, to increase by more than the rate of inflation. Fixed tax rates will reduce to assure that. In Ludington, the city council on Monday July 10th will hold a hearing to avoid coming rate rollbacks, ensuring they get nearly $260,000 more in taxes from property owners in Ludington they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to. Should your councilor vote to raise the taxes of you and your fellow taxpayers?"

It may come as no big surprise that a $260,000 tax hike is even less popular than Stearns beach parking fees, with 94% [34 of 36] of the respondents saying their elected representative at the city should not vote to increase their tax burden.  

The Headlee Amendment was enacted to keep local governments from expanding their tax revenues by more than inflation without either new development or a vote of the residents to allow for greater growth in tax bases and revenues.  Where is all of that money coming into city coffers from recent new developments like the bowling alley block, Lofts on Rowe, and the up and coming 106 Laura Street?  It's not, but our city leaders expect us taxpayers to foot our share of the costs of our growing infrastructure needs plus theirs for the future. 

Because you're so deeply involved in a growth Ponzi Scheme, you fail to live within your means and ignore the reality that your addiction must be funded regularly by extracting more of the lifeblood of your tax base and invest it in speculative development projects where you can tout your glory while exploiting your constituents.  Your City's income goes up by a lot more than the inflation rate, while the people you supposedly represent lose ground because you believe that hiking their taxes is the best way to help them even when 94% tell you otherwise.

When 94% of your constituents tell you that they are against this tax hike, you may want to heed them.  I know that if my ward councilor votes to affirm these unpopular tax hikes, I will assuredly take out a recall petition on him and I will easily get signatures based strictly on this vote taken firmly against his constituent's interests and wishes.  I encourage others to do the same with their ward councilor should they get greedy with your money."  [END Thieves comment]

 Councilor Les Johnson giving a kooky Civics lesson, City Manager Mitch Foster looks on wondering how one could be so out of it

My sole resistance turned out to be futile, the council passed without issue all six ordinances and raised taxes by nearly $300,000 altogether (the police pension rate would increase around $31,000 even if the votes went against it).  Councilor Les Johnson (my ward councilor) felt a need to justify his votes in raising your taxes significantly over the inflation rate and putting an extra $74 on the average taxpayer's bill, and defend against his future recall by telling one of the biggest whoppers ever.

Councilor Johnson:  (32:15):  "Mitch, please help me out here if I'm way off base.  But, if we did not approve these ordinances, we would not have garbage pickup, we would not have a lot of other services that we have.  The police department, I don't know of any of you would like to live here without the police department that we have, so I guess I just want to make that clear that if these did not pass, we wouldn't have a lot of these services." 

One would think Les would know better having been on the city council for 13 years and chairing the Finance Committee for many years that not passing these ordinances used to raise tax rates would not cause the calamitous effects he uttered in one of the most stupid and untrue things I've ever heard in my twelve years of going to council meetings. 

Without passing these ordinances, the council will have the same income they had the past year, plus additional money equal to the rather high inflation rate, plus tax revenue from any new constructions in the City (provided the City hasn't wrote off those taxes as an incentive) which is a significant increase in revenue.  To throw dirt in your faces they take even more and Councilor Johnson tells you this tax hike is needed to keep trash removal and police services going.  It's not, it's going to be used to fuel private development like the City has gotten in the habit of doing.  Enjoy your coming recall, sir, you obviously are a good reason why the City think its finances are in trouble.

The Park Committee would introduce and have the council unanimously approve three events:  Sound & Power on July 12,2023, Ragnar Relay on Sept. 22-23, and a skate competition at the plaza for August 13th. 

Additionally, the council would approve a contract for a new on-line reservation system for Cartier Park and the purchase of a device for measuring traffic volume and speeds so that the next time they conduct a meaningless traffic study they don't have to borrow from others.  

They would pass an ordinance for a multiyear contract with Gustafson HDD, LLC for replacement of lead service water lines between the water main and residences and they approved Meijer water main easements for the upcoming Hobby Lobby store in PM Twp.  All of these actions were uncontroversial and uncontested.  

An interesting diatribe by Councilor John Terzano concerning a letter sent to him and other councilors by citizen Scott Foster happened at the 55:15 mark of the video.  Foster wrote a poignant letter on June 26th, assuring potential recalls of councilors himself, in regard to the proposed beach parking issue that he was strongly against, like 90+% of the rest of us do.  The problem was that he is a LASD Board member and used his official school board email, additionally putting his rank in the Muskegon Police Department.  Foster would follow-up with a letter from his private email stating he made a mistake in sending his original missive due to technology failing him but doing so unconvincingly. 

Tom Sanders led off the second comment period having closed the original touching upon a variety of topics regarding garbage pickup efficiency, sewer main replacements, OPRA hearings, and beach warning systems in under two minutes worthy of a listen at 1:21:00 in.  Daniel Jensen gave a very abstract overview of the meeting and some cryptic messages.  

My message was less cryptic and dealt with the Ludington Fire Department's hiring procedures since Chief Jerry Funk retired and Chief John Henderson took over.  You may recall career criminal turned fire-dowser, Austin Billings, but I introduced the latest hiring debacle and the City's lack of transparency regarding hiring and termination of these latest social experiments:

XLFD:  (1:26:15) "A little over a year ago, I learned that a guy named Austin Billings was hired to be on the Ludington Fire Department.  I didn't know him, but I had read many pages of court records where he either pled guilty or was convicted of numerous felony criminal offenses in our local courts involving drugs, violence, and larceny.  

I brought this to the council's attention last year, told them how many Michigan fire departments would not entertain hiring a person with 1/10th of the criminal record that Billings possessed, and found that you were all OK with hiring this man, some of you even defended the city's hiring of him to be in what many consider to be the most trusted profession.  This February, Billings resigned without stating any reason in his letter.  Looking at his posts in social media, he was obviously quite proud of being on the fire department when he was on it, I doubt he resigned without some inducement, however, his personnel file I FOIAed from the City was clean.

I learned recently that the City hired another firefighter in 2021 who had a history of multiple drug offenses named Ray Ortiz.  The LFD discovered these as results of a background check, apparently they no longer have applications that ask the prospective firefighter to admit to crimes in their past, and apparently the LFD no longer keeps a record in their personnel files that indicates why they let one go, as there is nothing about his termination or resignation in his file.  Do we really want people with drug abuse histories manning fire apparatus worth a million dollars in the first place?

Since public money was used for their training, their equipment, and their part-paid salary, can someone from the City transparently let us know why these dangerous experiments failed so abruptly, rather than hide your mistakes? "  [END Accomplices comment]

Ray Ortiz (above, shoeless, consulting with deputies after a recent incident) may be retired as a firefighter at Ludington but he's still involved with fires.  About three weeks ago, he reportedly drove recklessly down a country road and swiped a truck going the opposite way containing a father and his two sons, knocking the tire off the truck and starting it on fire.

I found out about this the day after the meeting from one of my valuable sources, making my statement about having this guy driving million-dollar ladder trucks especially relevant.  The City and the fire chief doesn't want to divulge why these dangerous experiments are failing, what they need to do is to make their hiring policies more exclusive than it is currently, as I have noted many times before.  One felony is a dealbreaker for most every fire department, multiple felonies and drug crimes should be a hard "no" from the LFD (and LPD for that matter).  

[Willy]

Thanks for the article X. Very interesting.