Feces in the Basement, Scat in the Attic: A City's Flawed Defense of Fee Hikes

[XLFD]

At the December 8, 2025 Ludington City Council meeting (agenda packet here), several brave citizens confronted the public body during the first public comment regarding incredible fee/tax hikes found in a proposed resolution establishing new rates in the rental inspection program.  The Ludington Torch-- rather than the City of Ludington itself, with all of its mechanisms to convey such information to the public left unused-- heralded the covert and obscene money grab to the people and were pleased that several folks came in, then thoughtfully and respectfully stated their concerns.

This public outcry led to the tabling/suspension of consideration of the resolution, yet it appears that city leaders had an inclination that they would need to somehow defend their intention to raise rental inspection registration fees by 840%.  They chose their best used car salesman to defend their actions, Heather Tykoski, who heads up the Planning/Zoning Department.  Before they considered the proposed resolution, the city manager invited Tykoski to the kiosk to explain some of the history and some of the rationale for the dramatic increase. 

               Heather Tykoski spinning a yarn-- and a web-- while meeting attendees listen intently to her words

The Ludington Torch listened to her presentation and was not impressed due to the incredible amounts of inaccuracies that can be so easily refuted by looking at the actual history and the actual numbers that are available for public consumption.  Tykoski has a long history of misrepresenting facts and using her public position for her own personal profit, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to our regular readers.

As always, we allow our readers to review what she actually said on the meeting's video, additionally we have also provided a transcript of what she said, followed by an analysis showing that her history and her economics are like some of the things allegedly found in the basement of some slumlord's houses.

Tykoski:  (59:15 in):  "Back in 2016 when I believe the rental program started, I was not in charge of that program at that time.  When that program started, the council told the staff that the program had to be set up to pay for itself.  The general fund was not going to be used to supplement that program.  That program was set up because, as someone mentioned earlier, for lack of a better term, we were dealing with slum lords.  I went into a few homes with the building inspector at the time, where there were feces in the basement, because rental inspectors were not taking care of properties.  

We had some very brave tenants come to meetings at that time and discuss why they didn't have heat in the middle of winter.  How some were using their stoves to stay warm, these were real problems that needed to be addressed.  And so at that time the council decided to go into the rental inspection, registration business.  

So as we were looking at budgets this year, and we knew our overall general fund is not in the best place and we need to consider everything that we do.  So our department was asked to look into this and we look at the three-year projection.  When we laid out that three-year projection based on the fess that are being charged currently, we were going to be, at the end of that cycle in 2028, $137, 425 in the red.  That meant that you are supplementing that program, which was not supposed to happen.

So as we kept going and looking at fees and where staff was spending their time-- it's a very unique situation with the short term rentals because there's a stick approach to that.  If you do not complete your short term rental things on time, you lose your license.  There is no such situation, one does not exist, in the long term rentals.  So there is a constant back and forth with staff, with properties, not all properties, but properties about getting things done.  We have some that haven't registered for two years.  And we keep going back and forth with them, because there is no way to get that through-- and we all know that we are having issues with getting things through the court system still, to this day. 

So looking at where staff was spending their time, looking at the amount of money-- just to tell you, in 2016, I'm going to give you a little scenario, just on costs, the increase of costs, not just staff costs but costs in general.  Everything goes up every year; we haven't raised this fee since 2016, in the next month, that's going to be ten years.  Ten years-- we haven't looked at increasing fees."

She continues on talking about inflation of mailing rates during the period of 2016 and 2025, which has been a substantial 66% in the first-class mail rate, but suggests that sending out one piece of certified mail costs more than the current yearly registration costs.  There is no need to use certified mail in the rental inspection process, according to the city code.

ANALYSIS:  

History:  While she is correct in stating that the program was indeed set up to pay for itself, her anecdote about going onto a rental property (inferring it was before the Rental Inspection Program (RIP) was in effect) with the building inspector is not credible.  At that time the BI was a contractor and needed consent or legal reasons to go into a private rental property's basement.  One doubts any slumlord would consent to have building inspectors, let alone non-essential city officers onto their property, and one doubts that any legal warrant to enter would not add her name to it.  Thus, she was either trespassing then or lying now.  When one looks at all of the meeting agendas of the time and use the codewords of 'feces', 'turds', 'basement', 'slum' and slumlord', nothing near this anecdote is found, nor do I remember this ever coming up when she had her many opportunities then to market the RIP.

As for brave tenants coming to meetings to talk of having to use their stove for heat because of a furnace failure (note, heating units go bad all of the time, that's why there's a lot of local businesses dealing with heaters; if you as a homeowner haven't had one malfunction in the winter, count your blessings), I could find zero mentions in the meeting minutes of such an account, what I found were tenant testimonials like the one above.  

Not surprisingly, those who came to the multiple meetings in 2015 to complain about tenant living conditions were not tenants.  The most strident of these types of appeals, made by Joe Moloney, Ray Madsen, Heather, and Michael Krauch all had one thing in common: they were all city officials at the time, shilling for the corporation.  Using search words ''stove', 'oven', 'heater', 'furnace', 'heat' for the minutes during that period of time has nothing come up-- and Clerk Luskin was very meticulous in her minutes.  Contrary to her claims, nobody came to meetings back in 2015 or 2016 talking about using their kitchen stove for heat.

Lastly, don't believe the biggest rental inspection historical lie that the program was started to help tenants oppressed under slumlords.  Countless tenants lost their homes immediately after this was enacted and affordable rental units went the same migratory route as the passenger pigeon.  No, this program was started to fulfill Government Heather Tykoski's wet dream of having the city be able to qualify for even more grants and state/federal funding for housing projects.  That too is part of the record, from October 2015:

Rental Inspection Funding:

We are told by Heather that we will see a projected deficit of over $137,000 by 2028 in the RIP, and that inflationary forces over the last ten years have put us in this dire strait where we have to supplement the RIP with the general fund.  If that is the projection, then the city manager and Heather, prevaricators both, have failed to rein in the costs of a program that has managed to hold its own and then some before this. 

One can do their own research by looking at yearly city budgets and looking at the revenues coming in for the RIP each year and the compare it with the expenses.  For example, the 2019 Budget created in the last quarter of 2018 will have actual numbers for these for the years 2016 and 2017.  In using the 2019, 2021, 2023, and 2025 Budgets, we get the following table for the years 2016 to 2023 for rental inspections:

Year         Total Revenues      Total Expenses            

2016:            43,714                   25,041

2017:            25,707                   28,582

2018:            17,380                   22,740

2019:            45,183                   25,497

2020:            27,093                   34,047     

2021:            84,562                   51,423 

2022:            103,054                 52,544

2023:            145,580                 73,762

Totals:          492,273               313,633

If we are to believe these numbers, RIP revenues have historically outpaced expenses by nearly 58%, as reported by the city, and the general fund benefitted by getting $180,000 extra over the 2016-23 period.  If the new projections say that the program will lose $137K in 2028, then this illustrates why the new city manager is not being fiscally responsible.  This has historically been a cash cow for the city, and the projected deficit in 2028 is more than the total expenses of the program for the recent years 2022 and 2023.  This is not only fuzzy math without any sort of rationalization, but also Inconceivable.

Illegal new fees:  

In my prior article, we noted that raising registration fees from $25 to $35 for every three years would more than cover the inflation difference between 2016 and now, but we also noted that making hotels, motels and Bed & Breakfasts (HMB&B) subject to registering for and having rental inspections was illegal.  This was ignored on its face when I called it unlawful during my first comment at the meeting, with the inference that the Ludington Uniform Development Ordinance (LUDO) made such inspections lawful; this was proffered by the city manager. 

Let's get this straight, the LUDO does not allow for HMB&B to register for or have rental inspections until and unless the RIP ordinance is amended to define that HMB&B are rental dwellings.  Here's what is said in the LUDO under licensing status:

  

The language is similar, the relevant lingo saying that they shall comply with all applicable city codes and secure all applicable local permits.  As noted here, HMB&B are specifically excluded from the RIP.  While lodging permits and lodging licenses are mentioned in the LUDO, they are not defined, nor are they defined, nor any process defined in the city code in that vein.  This is what happens when you copy and paste a Frankenstein UDO (FUDO?!) from other cities, you get a dead end along with villagers eventually uprising with torches and pitchforks to kill the monster.  

Conclusion:

If Heather Tykoski wants to talk about the crippling effects of inflation since 2016, we would really like to point out that the overall inflation rate since that time has been almost 35%.  The growth of the city's revenues over that time has risen nearly 46%.  As the RIP started in 2016, there has been no new city service offered during that time, so they should be able to easily live within their means.  The public hasn't been so lucky:

Despite the people losing the race against inflation over this period, the city has beat it soundly.  The extra $300,000 the city council, your elected representatives, took in property tax hikes they voted for illegally during the middle of summer, in each of 2023 and 2024, and the additional $200,000 they voted to illegally grab this summer in property taxes allow them to earn gold and for you to contend with feces in your cold basement around your broken furnace. 

And all they can do is march a snarky bleach-blond many-times-corrupted official who goes up to tell landlords that they can afford her proposed 840% TAX hike just by raising their tenant's rent another $6 per month.  That, plus the lies we already documented here, should shock landlords, tenants, and all others who seek truth, transparency, and justice from their local officials.

[RK Hubbard]

Warrantless searches of rental property for the purpose of "inspection" have recently been held to be unconstitutional under Pennsylvania state law. Probable cause must be shown and a warrant issued by a judge for entry into private property, including rental property. The court pointed out that a rental dwelling is just as much a personal home as an owned dwelling and deserves the same protection under law. The Institute for Justice has brought similar lawsuits in other states. Someone should investigate what the Michigan constitution says about this issue and contact the IJ. Perhaps there is legal way to stop the inspections altogether. The mere threat of an expensive lawsuit may be enough to get the city to back off. 

[XLFD]

Thanks for noticing that earlier this last week, the highest court in PA ruled against warrantless rental inspections as a matter of their state constitution effectively giving them more 4th Amendment protections than the US Constitution.

When one looks at Article 1 section 11 of the MI Constitution, one sees the possibility that rental inspections in MI could be found to be state unconstitutional:  " (the) houses... of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place... shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

I hope someone in Michigan who has standing looks at what happened this last week in Pennsylvania, finds a great lawyer, and pursues this goal of getting government officials out of our homes.

[stump]

That will be interesting to find the rental inspection program was illegal all along. If so a lawsuit should be filed against the city to refund all inspection fees , and penalties plus interest to all landlords.

[RK Hubbard]

Ya gotta do more than hope that someone else decides to act. Is anyone here a renter? You are getting rolled. Stop it. When the inspector shows up, lock the door. Deny entry. Ask them to show you a warrant. Make them call the cops. Make them break in. Get arrested. Resist physically. Sue them. Call the Institute for Justice. Start a GoFundMe. Get on public media. FOIA the body cam footage. "Hope" never won a lawsuit or changed an unconstitutional policy. 

[Freedom Seeker]

For every citizen who has been wronged by the COL or CDD or LPD, for every taxpayer whose dream have been dashed by oppressive government, for those who have learned that Ludington is a city council and staff that acts above the citizen, in secret-meetings make decisions that should be open to the public, for those who maybe had hoped Ludington could be a peaceful place to retire with affordable cost of living then find their water rates triple and taxes double in a few years, I can only pray that God find them relief and reward them double if they can afford to get out of town.

And my prayer for those civil servants who are living off the taxpayer but ruining their lives, God will require you accountable.

[XLFD]

It's a shocking development in Ludington government that they seem more eager than ever to work against the constituents just to gain more power, wealth, and control for themselves, and you don't see any elected official bucking that trend; it's a spiritual vacuum, that sees them look the other way.  

How can it be seen as anything other than evil for a city government to actively work against affordable housing by hiking unnecessary rental inspection registration rates by 800% when no extra expenses come in, close down a business that spent millions to open up in Ludington then try to extort them, break contracts to take away family graves and spend many thousands on defending the iniquity, ignore PM Lake poisoning that makes fish taken from there inedible, and at least a half dozen more unethical acts just over the last year alone.  Never any regrets.

[Freedom Seeker]

Sadly seemingly true, X. "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bearet]h rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2

[dowland]

Dang X ,your memory is unbelievable! especial Heather T, wet dream. That was kept hid.  They just don't get it,  keep taxing the little people and driven them out. The big corp company's all get state funding. ( our taxes) to fund for rent. so a lot of the big  places like Glenview and the 1 we paid for on lud ave  by Andy's pays the renters rent by more then half or more subsidized by the working folks..  They don't need inspection every year. That's just a shake down by the city. Thank you X for looking out.  

[XLFD]

Ten years later those memories are still fresh because of what we've seen since with the developments of Lofts on Rowe, 106 Laura, and the bowling alley block along with the non-developments at the Madison Street Depot, Foster School.  Unscrupulous developers are abusing government programs meant to combat unaffordable housing in order to subsidize their developments. 

Any sensible businessperson, as all of our local landlords back in 2015 and now are, recognize that the efforts are inefficient, unsustainable, and ripe for fraud.  Lofts on Rowe, touted often by our city and county leaders as being a victory for having affordable housing in the area before it opened for business, have 400 sq ft. 1 bedroom apartment for $1150/mo., no utilities included.  Take home pay for someone making $15 an hour is under $2000, how is that affordable?