Ludington City Council Meeting, May 8, 2023: Stop or Go, Fee or No

The May 8th meeting of the Ludington City Council (agenda packet here) will be remembered for the introduction of two issues that have stirred up some controversy, neither of which was resolved this evening after vigorous public comment and council consideration, but bothwill be after further study.  

Nine citizens used the first comment to discuss either of the two issues, four spoke about the potential introduction of parking fees down at the beach, four spoke about a traffic control order set to remove two pairs of stop signs in the Forest Hills area.  I had the prescience to recognize both issues were important and spoke on both topics, while introducing a couple of potentially controversial solutions to existing problems.

May 8th, 2023 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD: (20:20 in)  I want to compliment the new police chief on the proposed traffic control order that will remove two sets of stop signs in the Forest Hills neighborhood that never really had a reason for being there in the first place.  These are both T-intersections, Michigan law says that drivers using the street that ends must give the right-of-way to those on the thru street when the intersection is not otherwise regulated.  These two intersections have stop signs on all three sides.  The Manual for Uniform Traffic Controls indicates there would be no reason in either of these two cases to install traffic controls for the thru streets.  Back in 2010, me and my internet audience discussed these very intersections and came to the same conclusion the chief did.

A similar problem exists at the T-intersection of where North James ends at Court Street where 3 stop signs are up.  The stop signs on Court are unwarranted as per the manual and seem to be only there as a means to slow down traffic, but the presence of the two redundant stop signs only has the tendency to make it less safe according to the manual and relevant traffic studies.  Please consider changing this and looking at a third T-intersection in the city that has stop signs on the thru street and nothing on the street that ends.  Any idea where that is located at?

The end of Ludington Avenue goes totally against traffic warrants.  That's why you'll sometimes see drivers that are not familiar with the set up drive way too fast as they head west, which presents an extra hazard for those with limited visibility coming from the north who currently need to stop.  A stop sign needs to be placed at the end of Ludington Avenue, and the two stop signs currently on the north and south should be removed.  This is a no-brainer.  

I put up an issue-neutral poll over the weekend on my Facebook site, The Ludington Pitchfork, asking for the people's initial impression on charging people fees in order to park down at Stearns.  112 people have responded as of this afternoon and the result thus far has been that about 93% aren't in favor of the idea.  As the city council found out six years ago, parking fees at the beach is not going to be very popular among the locals and probably not among the tourists.  Education and marketing was used back then, without a lot of effect.  Do we really want our sesquicentennial year to be remembered as the year that our city council went against the wishes of the Stearns family? [END comment]

My comment was likely not well received by the four people from the Forest Hills section that did not want the signs removed, including local attorneys Tracy Thompson (who hadn't been to a meeting since 2008 when the stop signs were introduced by then-Police Chief-now-Mayor Mark Barnett) and Ryan Glanville (who went into detail of hazards that existed at the Sherman/Woodlawn intersection, echoing and expanding on Ryan White's comment that led the period off).  

Yet, Police Chief Christopher Jones had good reason to want to remove these stop signs as they are not supported by warrants and their only purpose seems to be for speed control.  That's totally evident at the Monona/Seminole intersection, and less so at the other because the approach from the south goes up a hill to the intersection.  The police chief's error in this TCO was not to have a solution to the problem pointed out by the Forest Hill residents concerned about pedestrians, speeding drivers on Sherman, and hidden driveways.

These problems require alternative signage and better pedestrian facilities, not unwarranted stop signs which exacerbate the issue because they make it harder to discern driver behavior.  Without a redundant stop sign, you expect a car to continue traveling down the road, with one, you may see them stop, roll stop, slow down, or just keep going-- especially in an area that is unlikely to have police presence, like this section.  The best solution is to use other relevant signage up the hill to point the problems out (limited visibility, pedestrian crossing, hidden driveway, whichever is most applicable.

The school has not put sidewalks in on the streets along much of the school forest even after they improved part of that forest to build the new elementary school and these could be of a lot of use on the east side of Sherman Road, but it only goes halfway to Tinkham.  The two property owners on the other side, including the business All Access Care and the property with the swimming pool owned by (wait for it) Tracy Thompson through a trust, should be putting in sidewalks on the other side, but only Thompson has. 

Chief Jones, after some discussion by councilors later who were dubious about the move, did the wise thing and decided he should conduct a traffic study of the Sherman/Woodlawn intersection over the next month or two to look at speeds and sign compliance and get back with council again.  This seemed to be okay with all involved as nobody in the second comment period complained about it.  I think the data will support the chief, but predict that it won't placate those who find safety in those signs and I hope they separate the next TCO for each intersection.  I look forward to seeing them fix the sign problem at the end of Ludington Avenue, but I'm not holding my breath.  

As for beach parking fees, I honestly reported my poll results, reproduced below:

The locked poll votes are available by paying extra, but the first 40 gives a fair indication that the fees are not popular, so I will not spend poll fees to figure out that a vast majority is against the parking fees even when told that it will recoup maintenance funds, at least among my Ludington Pitchfork readers, who cover a wide spectrum of voices if you've seen the replies I get.  

I have nothing to gain or lose personally if beach parking fees are enacted.  I visit the beach dozens of times each summer, but it's exclusively by foot or by pedal, so our city officials think I should clearly be for these because it may offset some of the maintenance costs of the beach covered exclusively by taxes right now.  Sorry, if these fees brought in say $100,000 each year without our taxes going down the same amount, it's not doing anything for me or you other than growing our local government.  

Annette Quillan had a fair idea in saying that local hotel businesses should maybe add a surcharge onto their room costs in lieu of these fees, kind of like a room tax that the CVB charges, but this would inevitably put a burden on just some of the businesses that benefit from having a free beach.  One other resident claimed the fees would have a bad effect on the area's poor and wondered whether the casual users of the park who would just go there for lunch breaks, sunsets, or drive throughs without leaving their car would need to pay.  One other noted that the Stearns family, some that he knew even, would not be in favor of the move and worried about the safety of having a lot more people cross M-116.  

Not surprisingly, two covert public officials weighed in and were favorable towards looking into it.  Jeff Beilfuss is on the Ludington Planning Commission and he made the observation: 

(25:40 in): "There won't be one tourist that's going to cancel their trip from Chicago because it's a $10 parking fee somewhere."

Maybe they won't cancel their trip because Stearns Beach has a $10 parking fee, but I guarantee many will not come here and spend their hard-earned money when Buttersville, Ludington State Park, and other beaches to the north and south of us offer free parking.  Think about it, Jeff, if a person is staying at Cartier Park Campgrounds, just to the north of your house on Lakeshore Drive, are they more likely to go to the free First Curve beach or the costly one to the south where they have to deal with parking fees and beach patrol meter maids?

Michael Shaw, who was elected to the City Charter Revision Committee which is currently in limbo due to a judge declaring there was material error in the election process establishing that body, seemed favorable to the plan and thought there should be a survey performed and a committee made to look into the options.  Shaw is also on the county's Planning Commission, it seems that public officials have an automatic fondness for growing the coffers and power of their agencies by putting additional fees on people.  

Meanwhile, during the council's talk on this topic in order to establish a committee of the whole meeting solely on this topic, they could not settle on a time (still haven't) and gave little indication of their thoughts on the topic.  Councilor Winczewski appeared to be the driving force when this came up six years ago but was never up for a vote, she seems eager to get this in before her last term is up. 

It will be interesting seeing how they market this revenue generator this time around as they were tripped up by Councilor Brandy (Henderson) Miller last time around, who apparently saw the move as a threat to the success of her other gigs in the chamber of commerce and the convention and visitor's bureau-- and it would likely have a negative effect on Ludington tourism overall, despite Mr. Beilfuss' anecdotes to the contrary.  

The 2022 audit presentation was given for the umpteenth time by Ken Berthiaume, who told the council, among other things that charges for services were up $400K and marina revenues were up $200K; however, the net position of the City had a deficit of $3.2 million due to pension liabilities that worsened due to a downturn in the stock market.  Otherwise, he approved highly of the City's controls and the assistance of Clerk Deb Luskin and it was approved by council.

In other business, the council:

#- Adopted TCO #194A which made a two hour time limit for parking on west side of the 100 block of South Rath.  Urged by two businesses opening up in the bowling alley block development's first floor, Councilor John Terzano objected to the characterization of the people living in the subsidized housing project as 'those people' by his fellow councilor(s).  

@- Approved a 2024 agreement with Consumer's Energy and a contract amendment  costing $10,000 with CCRA Professional LLC to send out 100 surveys to residents regarding cross connections and formulating a proposal of policy with that information.

%- Adopted a proclamation in support of the 2023 lemonade stands against childhood cancer campaign

&- Had a first reading of Ordinance 510-23, which will establish water and sewer rates over the next three years, with water slated to rise over 7% and sewer scheduled to rise nearly 5%.  

Additionally during the last comment session, citizen Tom Sanders urged the chief to conduct traffic studies before school is let out for summer and pointed out the problems with the three way stop at James and Dowland.  While (former) Charter Revision Committee member Lyla McClellan asked for an update on the charter revision appeal that the City has opted to do after losing to the Ludington Torch at the trial court. 

Answering after the period was over, City Attorney Ross Hammersley indicated the status of that procedure, with a little help from me.  He has filed his brief and I have until July 5th to file a response brief as the appellee.  The City then has the option of filing a reply brief shortly thereafter and thus it is likely that the court will hear oral arguments sometime this fall.

Views: 217

Reply to This

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service