Indecent Assessments of Ludington City Hall

[XLFD]

The year 2026 is not only the 250th anniversary of the founding of our great country, primarily over disputes regarding taxation, but a year that may see the taxation of property owners in Ludington rise as a percentage in the double digits over the amount expected by inflation, an increase of about a million dollars above the amount with that expected rate of inflation over the last year. 

This would not be due to any decision made by the taxpayers; they will have no direct say in these increases affecting their tax bill.  Instead, it appears to be driven by city administrators and endorsed by a crew of lame duck councilors forming a coalition with Councilor John Terzano to create a greedy tendril set on picking your pocket further to fund a city government not facing any true emergency, real or pending, or adding any new or improved public services, seeming more intent on growing itself and its power by adding positions and pensions, attacking those that stand in their way.

We have seen the council already vote to add a property tax administration fee (PTAF) in the spring of 2026, adding a flat 1% to everyone's tax bill in a measure to recoup some of the money they use to fund their tax collections.  For over 150 years of Ludington's existence as a city, their city council has never deemed to do this, including the 40+ years after the state passed legislation allowing them to explicitly do so.  The council at the time of that statute chose not to do so only after some debate, the same thing happened during the COVID period, with them choosing not to do so then.

But then we changed city managers after Mitch Foster resigned and the new manager decided to seek out a consultant to look for new ways to improve the city's revenues.  This contract with the consultant never came before the city council or the public but cost us over $30,000 and counting (there are more payments made to Plante-Moran to be approved later today at the council meeting).  If we had real councilors, this city manager's head would be on the chopping block for violating this basic rule of the city entering into contracts explained explicitly in the city charter, which is that the contracting power is fully vested in the council.  

Recommendations from the consultant, however, are being seriously considered by the council who had their authority taken away by City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich and used by a quorum of them to justify their passing of the PTAF and their traditional midsummer passing of a Headlee override-- both of which will contribute to over $300,000 of a new tax burden spread to Ludington property owners.  Over $300,000 beyond the normal rate of inflation.

Plante Moran's suggestions did not stop there; they offered new revenue sources the city could take advantage of to supplement its lust to expand: special assessments.  The council took these to heart and told the city manager to do more research at their meeting three weeks ago on two of them.  The September 14, 2026 council packet shows what that led to, and what she recommended.  The results showed that she is looking to raise almost $145,000 from a street lighting assessment (p. 41), and over $489,000 from a public safety special assessment (p. 70). 

These special assessments would be made on all properties within the city and are not offset by any kind of tax relief.  The added tax burden is not being coordinated with the offering of any new service or improvement of service, just as a new way to free up over $600,000 in the general fund to use for other purposes, as yet undisclosed.  Such special assessments can be imposed on city property owners without coming to a vote by the citizens of the city.  

Such assessments have been available to the city for decades.  Street lighting SAs have been available since 1987, Public Safety SAs were originally allowable since 1951.  In those decades, city managers and city councilors have deemed that placing such special assessments on the good people of Ludington was either not needed and/or not politically prudent.  In normal situations, it would be political suicide for a city councilor to impose nearly a million dollars of new property tax burdens on their constituents in order to effectively show that the council could not live within its means without doing so.  

Enter this year's perfect political storm, where the three councilor seats coming open are currently being occupied by Jack Bulger, Cheri Stibitz, and Kathy Winczewski-- three council lame ducks who have never met a tax rate increase they wouldn't vote for and will likely keep that legacy intact since they do not have to worry about re-election to council.  Add onto that the aforementioned Terzano who has bought into the fanatical idea that everything possible (except spending cuts) must be considered to meet a projected future deficit for the city and you have a quorum. After all, he has as authority an illegally hired consultant that tells him without proof that spending discipline is not the city's problem, getting more revenue is.

Even with Councilor Mike Shaw being a reliable vote against council excess, and Councilors John Kreinbrink and Tim Large being potentially against such measures, these assessments will certainly be passed if the already overburdened taxpayers remain silent.  It likely will be a 6-1 vote, since Large and Kreinbrink may thin this issue will be dead by 2028, when their terms are over.

This is where you must play a part if you want to let your neighbors be able to afford their next tax bill and not have their house foreclosed on.  Even if a quorum of the council seems untouchable by reason or by threat of losing votes at the next election, you can add your voice at the meetings, such as tonight's, and pressure them into considering the rejection of these "tax hikes".  

Even protection rackets do not increase the amount of money they extort from their 'clients' since they want to keep a protected business profitable enough to pay indefinitely, not lose out on that source by making them go out of business or move away.  Ludington City Hall's racket is quickly approaching a time where their 'clients' reach that breaking point.

The problem is that almost all city taxpayers do not share their own perspective to the council at their meetings, including one held later today at 6 PM at city hall.  Councilors like Terzano and Winczewski look at what's happening and declare that the city needs an extra million dollars without saying anything that merits that raise in revenue.  They do not see that the 7000+ citizens who will be collectively $1 million poorer due to their councilors' choices will suffer and have to make their own difficult choices in order to stay in town and otherwise survive.  

Those of us who haven't bought into the myths created by a contractor, hired surreptitiously by the city manager in order to find ways to squeeze more lifeblood from Ludington citizens, need to illustrate what happens in reality when their local government engages in irresponsible spending and repeatedly comes to us taxpayers looking for more money. 

But never for our consent for being robbed.