Ludington City Council Meeting, April 27, 2026: Unexpected Agreements

[XLFD]

There was a mildly surreal feel as the 100-minute meeting of the Ludington City Council on April 27th (agenda packet here) progressed and city officials showed themselves to be in an unexpectedly agreeable mood with citizens.  The surreal part is that they wouldn't come close to admitting it.

The tail end of the meeting illustrates this with a couple of related topics, where Councilor Kathy Winczewski gave a demonstration about the rarity of fresh water on the earth to finish things off, concluding by saying that we need to do whatever is possible to preserve our local fresh water supply as found in Lake Michigan and other local waterways.  

Not long before that, the council conferred with Tree Advisory Board Chairman Joe Moloney to consider approval and placement of "Eat Safe Fish" signs.  Moloney contacted state officials because he was hearing that many people were unclear as to whether it was safe to eat the fish taken out of Ludington waters.  The result was that the state offered the city the ability to employ as many signs as needed that look like the one below:

Moloney took umbrage with some councilors downplaying whether these signs would be useful, but they likely wouldn't be useful because it would take some effort to get to the relevant information concerning our main fishing hole in Ludington, displayed here as seen in their guide:

Naturally, the council passed putting the signs up around the four fish cleaning sites it has control over without noting the fact that the PM Lake/River combo in Mason and Lake Counties are the only waterways in our 14-county area that have "Do not eat" warnings in this guide (other than larger lake trout out of Torch Lake).  A more useful sign would be directly conveying the above information to those four areas on the Pere Marquette Lake watershed.

Those last four words explain why Winczewski's water torture demonstration and Moloney's baloney signs were surreal.  Representatives from the PM Lake Watershed Council have been present at city council meetings over the last two years directly explaining how the watershed has been compromised by corporations and city and state negligence over the last century, bringing awareness to city officials whose only response before this has been silence.  The city's 'solution' appears to be to continue the whitewash of city/corporation complicity into keeping the PM Lake a toxic waterway while offering signs and scientific demonstrations which signify they are definitely aware of the problem and choose to apply makeup rather than apply cleanup.

Jeff Henry of that aforementioned watershed council would introduce a breakthrough at the state level, with State Representative Joe Fox and the State Legislative Bureau vindicating his research's validity, indicating that the state's Waterways Commission has been operating unlawfully for decades, which has led to millions and millions of dollars being taken away from meaningful PM Lake pollution mitigation efforts put instead into the operation and maintenance of publicly-subsidized marinas on those tainted waters.  

This reporter kept out of those muddy waters for now but dipped my oars into a couple of other topics on the agenda that were equally corrupted.  An ordinance coming up for passage for what would be the first reading and a quasi-judicial proceeding would be held that would keep the judges in ignorance about what it was ruling over.  Here's what was said:

XLFD:  (13:20 in)  "Section 7.2 of the city charter says that "No ordinance of a non-emergency nature shall be enacted at the meeting at which it is first introduced."  A bicycle coaster toy ordinance introduced at the last meeting has come back with several amendments-- for example, it adds a new subsection giving authority to the police chief to issue traffic control orders prohibiting riding bicycles at various public facilities.  Even if we note that the Uniform Traffic Code adopted by reference by this council twenty three years ago specifically states that only the city council can authorize permanent traffic control orders, this alteration creates a new, unique ordinance that cannot be passed on first reading tonight, please note you have another meeting in one week where you can do this legit.

My FOIA appeal tonight is basically made on behalf of this council, who have seen their administrative team coopt more and more of the council's powers unlawfully.  It's indisputable that the police chief destroyed public records requested through a FOIA request showing impropriety by his officer and that attorneys and administrators, right here, misled you into approving a fee scheme to charge for records that no longer existed.  I paid the ransom, and waited one week, two weeks, and was finally told they didn't exist.  They were aware they did a bad thing, the attorneys drew up a settlement agreement, offering me $500 if I agreed not to litigate against the illegal action.  

Surely, I would have accepted this offer had they simply admitted they had broken FOIA law and admitted the officer involved had let a drunk driver off after causing an accident with significant property damage, but their proposed contract with me would not allow for those admissions-- and more importantly, this contract had not been reviewed and approved by the council as required by charter.  They ran around this council to do an unlawful cover-up, only contacting the council after I had been offered the contract. 

I hoped to see how and why they circumvented this body by a second FOIA request looking for emails between administrators, and was swamped with a dozen redacted emails, two of which have subsequently been supplied to me after the appeal.  One was from the city manager to two attorneys, but the content was totally directed to the police thief who was copied the email.  This shows that city administrators were trying to hide public records by hiding behind the cloak of AC privilege.  I requested in my appeal that the council would be able to review unedited versions of the records covered-up, but the attorney's opinion found in the packets make it clear that you will not be given that accommodation and will have to make another decision without access to the facts.  [END comment]

While my arguments were legally sound on both topics on the agenda, my second comment was scripted to look at the city's consequences for not adhering to my legal advice over the course of the meeting.  Yet, this particular council decided to do something which they have rarely done before, they followed my sage advice on both issues.  

They did not pass the tweaked ordinance; instead after plenty of discussion they amended the ordinance, changed by alterations made by Councilor Jack Bulger, and considered this a first reading to be considered at the May 4th meeting.  The ordinance has little effect on existing rules, the Waterfront Park exclusion of bicycles that became a main topic of discussion, is already in effect according to signage there.  Sharon Edgar, a member of the task force that reviewed alternative transportation in Ludington, was the best source of wisdom in the debate, acknowledging in both comment periods that any rules crafted should be made with the realization that such modes are needed by many in the area to get from their homes to their jobs.

City Attorney Tim Figuera would later tell the council that it would be a good idea for the council to consider the emails along with his defense of the exemptions made.  He would recommend that the council should extend their period for response to the May 4th meeting and give them a chance to look at the unredacted records.  This would be unanimously accepted.

My prepared comment effectively chiding the council and pointing out other indiscretions became moot with the unexpected acceptance by them of the rules I laid out for once.  To reward their observance of actual legitimacy twice, I would utter nothing during the second comment period.

This would allow the biggest controversy of the night to be what the city would do in regard to the unofficial city-owned boat trailer parking lot located just off the NE armpit of the intersection of Madison and First Streets.  The blue area in the above map shows an area historically used to park boat trailers on a first-come first-served basis for free.  In a memo from City Marina Manager Jim Christensen (p. 48 of the packet), he suggests improving the lot through fencing, levelling and paving the lot using money from the marina enterprise funds, then adding a kiosk to take payments for those using it.

The city manager would indicate that there had been many complaints from 4th Ward residents about this lot that have arisen at Public Safety Committee meetings.  While this has been discussed at the last three meetings of that committee, no public comments have been made regarding that issue, and no complaints from citizens are acknowledged then or at any meeting before this became a topic.  She also said that she has stated publicly that this would not be boat parking property in the future, but this also isn't any part of the open record.  This is why we call her Prevaricatin' Kaitlyn Aldrich; she is a compulsive liar who uses unsupported statements to establish her terrible narratives.  

They would hold a 'town hall meeting' the next day where they invited that area's residents in for commenting.  The public had their say, and the following recommendations are being made for the May 4th meeting based on what they said (which were absent any of the complaints stated by Aldrich):

As you can see, the city still wants to make some coin by charging for what has been a free service, a move which will likely lead to non-use of the facility once the fees and enforcement come into play.  The ultimate intent seems clear to this analyzer: they want to make these spots unusable for any boaters using private marinas.  Someone also needs to tell the city manager that there is no marina location at Cartier Park.  

After introducing another animal feeding ordinance which would primarily move bird feeders up to 5 ft. off the ground minimally, there was an announcement of three retirements by long term employees:  Chris Cossette, Gary Walton, and Tom Sniegowski.  The first two were in wastewater treatment, the latter in the DPW. 

The May 4th meeting looks to be interesting enough, with a closed session meeting for the councilors to look over the unredacted emails withheld from my FOIA request followed by a decision, the potential passing of two ordinances mildly tweaking alternative transportation and animal feeding, introducing another one for golf carts clarifying maximal occupancy, operation times, and violation enforcement.  Will the council be as agreeable at this meeting than they were here.

[Claire Schafer]

Hi Tom,

   I am angry about this amendment that I assume they will pass tonight.  I purchased 9 foot poles which makes bird feeding difficult but keeps the feeders the required 5 feet off the ground,  Now this new amendment says that any bird food (seed or peanut) found on the ground will be a "prima facie" evidence of intentional wildlife feeding.  Any person with a bird feeder will tell you that birds knock seed and peanuts on the ground (especially blue jays).  They will also tell you that no matter how many squirrel proof devices you purchase, squirrels will find a way onto your bird feeders and knock seed and nuts off.   The amendment makes no exception for this.  Any food (birdseed or peanuts) found  on the ground will be evidence of intentional wildlife feeding.   I am not able to go to the rescheduled meeting tonight (changed from 6 to 5pm) and didn't even know this was on the agenda until someone sent me a picture of an announcement in the Ludington News.  Although we are still allowed to feed birds and squirrels (I think) we must clean up any spilled seed or peanuts that end up on the ground.  All day, every day.  Will all residents of Ludington who have bird feeders be forced to do this?

Thank you for reading my complaint and keep on torching,

Claire Schafer

[XLFD]

Sorry for just noticing this, Claire.  If you look at the redline ordinance amendment found in the packet, you should notice that there is nothing being changed in the prior ordinance about 'feeding' actions you mentioned.  To whit, one can still use bird feeders, as long as the food is 60 inches off the ground (moved up from 48 inches), and as long as you are not intentionally placing or scattering on the ground the birdseed.  If squirrels or sloppy-eating birds scatter the food on the ground, you ought not be liable as to violation of the ordinance.  Just like before, and you have no legal obligation to pick up after squirrels or birds who may knock the food on the ground-- but you should whenever you can.  Relevant part of the ordinance:

This was passed last night, and I hope it doesn't hinder your hobby as the changes seem minimal as compared to the original.

[stump]

The boat trailer parking is indeed a eye sore for the area residence. You can tell by the why the committee talks they have no idea how much construction cost. Fencing , leveling and paving ? How many years of payback would they expect to recoup the money spent no matter what fund it comes from. I could see this to be well over a $100,000. project . The city should sell the lot/lots for development and collect the taxes on the property, that would make more sense.

[XLFD]

I agree, a new residence would be a better fit there, but I think you're wrong about the committee.  They likely have an idea of how much it would cost; the problem is that they give little consideration to the cost of it.  These guys have shown again and again that it means more to them that they can point to the improvement of a lot like this and say, "I did that", than making sure it's rational and survives a cost-benefit analysis.