Correspondence on Ludington’s Special Assessments

LUDINGTON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS • PUBLIC RECORD

The Story Changed.
So the Record Changes.

A documentary review of the October special-meeting packet, the proposed withdrawal of Ludington’s Street Lighting and Public Safety special assessments, and the budget questions that remain.

UPDATE — OCTOBER 5, 2026

This video was published before the City announced that the special City Council meeting had been rescheduled. The meeting is now scheduled for Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

The Council packet and proposed resolutions discussed in the video remain the subject of the rescheduled meeting.

Recorded from the public record available at the time of publication. Subsequent developments are preserved as updates rather than altering the original chronology.

The assessment question may end.
The budget question does not.

FOLLOW THE RECORD.

If the video does not play in your browser, open the video directly.

Ludington Special Assessments • Correspondence Record

Questions Asked.
Answers Received.

Correspondence concerning Ludington’s proposed street-lighting and public-safety special assessments, published so the questions and the City’s responses can be read in their full context.

Compiled and reviewed by Jefferson Henry • September 2026

As Ludington considers two proposed special assessments, questions have arisen concerning the City’s financial projections, the legal authority governing the public-safety proposal, and the procedures being followed.

Rather than characterize those questions—or the City’s answers—through excerpts alone, this page publishes the substantive correspondence in context and provides links to the original redacted documents.

When information supplied by the City changes or clarifies our understanding, that clarification becomes part of the record.

September 24, 2026 • Financial Record

What is the current 2027 General Fund picture?

Daniel W. Jensen followed up on a question he raised during September 14 public comment: how do the City’s July deficit projection, subsequent expenditure reductions, new revenues and proposed special assessments fit together without counting anything twice?

Request for Financial Reconciliation

Daniel W. Jensen → City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich

Sent September 24, 2026 at 8:18 a.m.

Dear City Manager Aldrich,

I am following up on the financial reconciliation question I raised during public comment at the September 14, 2026 City Council meeting concerning the City’s projected 2027 General Fund operating deficit and the proposed street-lighting and public-safety special assessments.

At that meeting, I asked whether the City could provide one reconciliation using a single version of the 2027 General Fund budget, beginning with the reported $523,800 projected operating deficit, and showing which expenditure reductions, new revenue sources, restored expenditures, cost-allocation changes, and proposed special assessments are included or excluded.

I want to reiterate that I am not asserting that the proposed assessment amounts represent excess revenue or an overcharge. I am trying to understand how the various figures presented publicly since July fit together and what the City’s current projected 2027 General Fund position actually is.

The City’s July 13 presentation identified projected 2027 General Fund revenue of approximately $8.339 million, expenditures of approximately $8.863 million, and an operating deficit of $523,800. That presentation then identified approximately $394,497 in recommended expenditure reductions and calculated a remaining structural gap of $129,303.

Subsequent materials have identified additional measures, including an approximately $160,000 property-tax administration fee, changes to rental-inspection fees, possible revisions to interfund cost allocations, a proposed $144,450 street-lighting special assessment, and a proposed $489,075 public-safety special assessment.

The September public-safety materials also identify expenditures that have changed since the earlier projection, including restoration of $10,000 for a Hurst extraction tool/Jaws of Life and an approximately $4,000 increase in Fire Department radio costs.

Because the September special-assessment reports continue to reference the original $523,800 projected deficit, I would appreciate clarification of how all of these items are treated in the City’s current 2027 projection.

Specifically, could the City please provide a reconciliation identifying the treatment and General Fund effect of the following:

The original $523,800 projected 2027 General Fund operating deficit.
Each of the approximately $394,497 in expenditure reductions recommended in July, identifying which have been incorporated into the current proposed 2027 budget, which have not, and the current estimated savings for each.
The approximately $160,000 property-tax administration fee, including whether that revenue was already included in the $8.339 million July 13 revenue projection or was additional to that projection.
Any changes in projected revenue associated with the rental-inspection program.
Any changes in General Fund revenue or expenditures resulting from revised interfund overhead/cost allocations.
The proposed $144,450 Street Lighting Special Assessment, and whether that amount is included in the City’s current 2027 General Fund projection.
The proposed $489,075 Public Safety Special Assessment, and whether that amount is included in the City’s current 2027 General Fund projection.
The $10,000 Hurst/Jaws of Life expenditure that the Public Safety report states had previously been removed from the 2027 projection and has now been restored.
The approximately $4,000 increase in Fire Department radio costs identified in the September Public Safety report.
Any other material revenue or expenditure changes made to the 2027 General Fund projection since the July presentation, including any revisions to anticipated employee health-insurance savings following the City’s receipt of the updated insurance rates discussed at the September 14 meeting.

If possible, the clearest response would be a simple bridge such as:

July 13 projected deficit
+/- expenditure changes
+/- revenue changes
+/- restored or newly identified expenditures
+ proposed assessment revenues/General Fund relief
= current projected 2027 General Fund surplus/(deficit)

Alternatively, if the City has a current working or proposed 2027 General Fund budget that already contains this information, providing that document together with an indication of which of the above items are incorporated would answer the request.

My purpose is simply to make sure the different figures presented since July are being compared on the same basis and counted only once.

Because the first public hearings on the proposed special-assessment districts are scheduled for September 28, I would appreciate the information before the hearing if reasonably possible. Having the current reconciliation available would help property owners and Council evaluate the proposals using the City’s current financial assumptions rather than attempting to combine figures from different stages of the budget process.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Daniel W. Jensen

City Response

City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich → Daniel W. Jensen

Received September 24, 2026 at 12:29 p.m.

Good afternoon, Mr. Jensen,

Thank you for your detailed follow-up. I understand the reconciliation you are requesting and agree that it is important to distinguish between the July financial projection, subsequent budget discussions, and items that

have actually been implemented.

The City does not yet have a working 2027 budget incorporating all of these items. The $523,800 projected General Fund operating deficit presented in July was a planning projection based on the assumptions available at that time. It was intended to identify the magnitude of the structural issue facing the General Fund and begin the budget discussion with City Council; it was not a completed 2027 budget.

Since July, some of the options discussed have been implemented, some remain under consideration, some are the subject of studies that are not yet complete, and other projected costs have changed as new information has become available.

With that distinction in mind, I can provide the following clarification based on what we know today.

July Expenditure Reductions

The July presentation identified approximately $394,497 in potential expenditure reductions for 2027.

Approximately $156,497 of those reductions have been implemented by the City to date, including the healthcare changes discussed with Council and elimination of a DPW position through attrition.

An additional $138,000 was associated with election equipment anticipated for 2027. That expenditure has since been removed entirely from the State of Michigan’s 2027 budget. Therefore, the City is no longer anticipating that expenditure in 2027, although that change resulted from the State’s budget rather than a City budget action.

Council has not yet made a decision regarding the Sidewalk 50/50 Program or beach patrol. Those potential reductions should not be treated as implemented savings at this time.

Property-Tax Administration Fee

The approximately $160,000 property-tax administration fee has been approved. This revenue was not included in the $8.339 million revenue projection presented in July and therefore was not reflected in the original $523,800 projected deficit.

When incorporated into the 2027 budget, this will represent additional General Fund revenue compared with the July projection.

Rental Inspection Program

No additional rental-inspection revenue has been incorporated into the City’s 2027 projection.

Flywheel is currently studying the City’s long-term rental inspection program, including its fee structure. We anticipate that work will be completed and presented to City Council in November. The study is expected to include recommendations regarding adjustments to long-term rental rates; however, Council has previously expressed hesitation about increasing those rates. Until the study is completed and Council considers its recommendations, we cannot reasonably assume additional revenue for 2027.

The rental rehabilitation program is separate from the General Fund and is not part of the General Fund operating projection.

Enterprise Cost Allocations

No revised enterprise allocation figure is currently available. Plante Moran is just beginning its study of the City’s allocation of costs among funds, and we do not anticipate having those results until near the end of the year.

Accordingly, no General Fund savings or additional revenue associated with revised allocations has been assumed at this time.

Proposed Special Assessments

Neither the proposed $144,450 Street Lighting Special Assessment nor the proposed $489,075 Public Safety Special Assessment is included in any current City financial projection.

Both remain proposals under consideration by City Council. Neither should be treated as existing General Fund revenue or as an approved reduction of the projected deficit at this time.

The September 28 hearings are the first public hearings in that process. Establishing a district does not confirm an assessment roll or establish a final property-specific assessment.

Updated and Additional Expenditures

The $10,000 Hurst extrication equipment expenditure and approximately $4,000 increase in Fire Department radio costs identified in the Public Safety Special Assessment report reflect updated departmental needs that have emerged during the ongoing budget-development process. These costs are included in both special assessments and are not separate line items. You will see the $14,000 increase when a draft of the 2027 budget is prepared.

We have also now received the City’s updated health insurance rates. The 2027 budget projection assumed approximately a 9% increase in health insurance costs. The actual increase is 13.9%. Therefore, although employee healthcare cost-sharing changes have been implemented, the underlying cost of providing that insurance is also higher than originally projected.

There are several other significant 2027 expenditures that either remain unknown or were not included in the July projection.

The projection does not include the financial impact of the FOPLC collective bargaining agreement or the results of negotiations with SEIU. The current SEIU agreement expires at the end of 2026, and those negotiations have not yet occurred. Until those labor costs are known, we cannot accurately project the City’s total 2027 personnel expenditures.

The 2027 operating projection also does not include the City’s 2027 General Fund Capital Improvement Program projects. Those capital needs must be considered separately as the 2027 budget is developed.

Other unknowns include the cost of a new assessor and training associated with the transition to a new City Clerk. Additionally, if the City is unable to hire a Finance Director, outside CPA services will likely represent a significant expense. Governmental accounting is specialized, and the City’s financial operations include significant bonds, OPRAs, IFTs, and other governmental accounting requirements that must be administered and reported appropriately.

Where That Leaves the $523,800 Projection

For all of these reasons, I cannot accurately provide a complete reconciliation from the July projection to a new projected 2027 General Fund surplus or deficit today. Doing so would imply that the City has a current working 2027 budget in which all of these changes and outstanding costs have been incorporated. We do not.

What we can identify today is that:

approximately $156,497 of the July expenditure-reduction recommendations have been implemented;
the anticipated $138,000 election equipment expenditure is no longer expected in 2027 because it was removed from the State budget;
approximately $160,000 in property-tax administration fee revenue has been approved and was not included in the July projection;
Council has not acted on the Sidewalk 50/50 Program or beach patrol;
no additional rental-inspection revenue has been assumed;
no revised interfund cost allocation has been assumed;
neither proposed special assessment has been incorporated into a financial projection;
health insurance costs are increasing by 13.9% rather than the 9% assumed in July;
the financial effects of collective bargaining are not fully incorporated;
the 2027 General Fund CIP is not included in the $523,800 operating-deficit projection; and
several other 2027 expenditures remain unknown as the budget is developed.

There are therefore changes since July that will improve the General Fund position and others that will increase expenditures. There are also significant items for which no reliable dollar amount exists yet. Subtracting only the known favorable changes from $523,800 would produce a number, but it would not produce a complete or reliable 2027 General Fund budget projection.

That is why the September special-assessment reports continue to reference the $523,800 figure. It is the established baseline operating projection that prompted the broader financial discussion; it is not being represented as a fully updated 2027 budget.

The City’s budget process is iterative; it’s also a living document which is why budget amendments are made throughout the year. Staff will continue incorporating updated revenues, expenditures, personnel costs, collective bargaining impacts, insurance rates, capital needs, professional services, cost allocations, and Council policy decisions as the proposed 2027 budget is developed. Once that work is sufficiently complete, we will be able to provide the apples-to-apples reconciliation you are requesting.

I appreciate your effort to ensure that figures from different stages of the process are not being counted twice. I hope this provides additional clarity regarding what has and has not changed since the July presentation and, importantly, what remains unknown today.

Thank you,

Kaitlyn

VIEW ORIGINAL FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENCE (PDF)

Record Note — What This Correspondence Clarified

The following is our summary of information supplied in the exchange above. It is separate from the original correspondence.

The frequently cited $523,800 figure is the City’s July planning baseline, not a fully updated 2027 General Fund deficit.
The City does not yet have a working 2027 budget incorporating all subsequent changes and unresolved costs.
Approximately $156,497 of the July expenditure-reduction recommendations have been implemented.
The anticipated $138,000 election-equipment expenditure is no longer expected in 2027 because it was removed from the State budget.
Approximately $160,000 in property-tax administration fee revenue has been approved and was not included in the July revenue projection.
Council has not acted on the Sidewalk 50/50 Program or beach patrol reductions.
No additional rental-inspection revenue or revised interfund cost allocation has yet been incorporated.
Neither the proposed $144,450 Street Lighting Special Assessment nor the proposed $489,075 Public Safety Special Assessment has been incorporated into a current City financial projection.
Health-insurance costs are increasing by 13.9% rather than the approximately 9% assumed in July.
Collective bargaining costs, 2027 General Fund capital needs and several other expenditures remain unresolved.

This summary is provided for navigation and context. Readers should consult the complete correspondence above and the linked original PDF for the City’s full explanation.

September 24, 2026 • Legal Record

Which law governs the Public Safety Special Assessment?

Earlier City materials described the public-safety option through Public Act 33 of 1951. Public Safety Special Assessment District Resolution No. 2, presented September 14, instead cited the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code. The following request asked City Attorney Timothy Figura to identify the governing authority and procedure before the September 28 hearing.

Request for Legal Clarification

Jefferson Henry → City Attorney Timothy Figura

Sent September 24, 2026 at 8:11 a.m.

Dear City Attorney Figueroa,

I am writing to request clarification regarding the legal authority and procedure governing the proposed City of Ludington Public Safety Special Assessment District currently scheduled for public hearing on September 28, 2026.

I have reviewed the materials the City has made available concerning the proposed special assessments, including the July Plante Moran presentation, the City’s August special-assessment informational materials, the August 24 City Council proceedings, the September Public Safety Special Assessment Report and proposed Resolution No. 2, and the September 14 City Council proceedings.

I am not writing to argue for or against the proposed assessment. I am trying to understand the legal framework under which the City is presently proceeding so that the public record is clear before the September 28 hearing.

Earlier materials appear to identify Public Act 33 of 1951 as the statutory mechanism contemplated for a police and fire special assessment. The City’s August informational materials also discuss PA 33 and the petition procedure associated with an assessment imposed under that Act.

However, Public Safety Special Assessment District Resolution No. 2 presented to City Council on September 14 instead states that the proposed assessment is being pursued pursuant to the Home Rule City Act, Act 279 of 1909, and Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code. The resolution applies the Chapter 42 procedure involving written objections from record owners of more than one-third of the land proposed to be assessed.

I have not located in the materials or Council discussions an explanation of the change between those two frameworks.

Would you please clarify the following:

What statutory authority presently governs the proposed Public Safety Special Assessment? Is the City proceeding pursuant to Public Act 33 of 1951, the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code, or some combination of those authorities?
If PA 33 does not govern the proposed assessment, why did the City’s earlier informational materials and the Plante Moran presentation identify PA 33 as the mechanism for a public-safety special assessment, and when was the decision made to proceed under a different authority?
Which objection or petition procedure does the City believe governs the proposed Public Safety Special Assessment? Specifically, does the City believe the PA 33 provision concerning a petition by owners of 10% of the land applies, or does the City believe Chapter 42’s procedure concerning objections by record owners of more than one-third of the land applies?
Resolution No. 2 describes recurring fire and police protection, including maintenance and operation of the police and fire departments and the purchasing and operation of police and fire equipment, as the proposed “public improvements.” If the City is proceeding under the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42 rather than PA 33, what statutory provision or other legal authority does the City rely upon for assessing these recurring citywide police and fire operating expenses as a public improvement through a citywide special assessment?
The Public Safety Special Assessment Report states that police and fire protection provide “broad community-wide benefits.” What legal standard does the City intend to use to determine the special benefit to the individual properties assessed, and how will that benefit relate to the amount assessed against each property?
Please also clarify which properties are legally exempt from the proposed Public Safety Special Assessment and the statutory basis for those exemptions, particularly in light of the different treatment of exempt property that may result depending upon the statutory authority used.

I am asking these questions now because the September 28 hearing concerns the proposed district and the necessity of the assessment. Clarifying the governing legal authority and objection procedure before that hearing would allow property owners to understand the process and their rights accurately.

If there is a written legal opinion, memorandum, resolution, statute, case authority, or other public document that addresses these questions, please feel free to identify or provide that material in lieu of preparing a lengthy response.

I would appreciate a response, if reasonably possible, before the September 28 public hearing.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

Jefferson Henry

VIEW ORIGINAL SEPTEMBER 24 REQUEST (PDF)

Status: No substantive response from the City Attorney had been received when this page was prepared. Any substantive response received will be published here in full.

September 26, 2026 • Legal Follow-Up

The September 28 packet changes the question

After the September 28 City Council agenda packet was released, proposed Public Safety Special Assessment District Resolutions Nos. 3 and 4 expressly cited 1951 PA 33 in addition to Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code. The following follow-up narrowed the remaining questions before Monday’s public hearing.

Follow-Up Request for Legal Clarification

Jefferson Henry → City Attorney Timothy Figura

Sent September 26, 2026 at 10:06 a.m.

Dear City Attorney Figura,

Thank you for considering my September 24 request concerning the legal authority governing the proposed Public Safety Special Assessment.

I have now reviewed the September 28 City Council agenda packet. Proposed Public Safety Special Assessment District Resolutions Nos. 3 and 4 expressly cite 1951 PA 33 (“Act 33”), as amended, and Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code.

That appears to clarify at least part of my earlier question. The September 14 Resolution No. 2, reproduced in the September 28 packet, cited the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42 rather than PA 33.

Because the first public hearing is Monday, I would appreciate clarification of four remaining questions if reasonably possible before the hearing:

Change in authority. Why does proposed Resolution No. 3 expressly invoke PA 33 when Resolution No. 2 adopted September 14 relied upon the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42? Does the City regard this as a change in governing authority, a clarification of existing authority, or something else?
Petition/objection procedures. If the proposed assessment proceeds under PA 33 and Chapter 42, how does the City believe PA 33’s provision concerning a petition by owners of 10% of the land interacts with Chapter 42’s provision concerning written objections by owners of more than one-third of the land? Which rights and thresholds apply to the proposed Public Safety Special Assessment?
Annual versus bi-annual determination. Proposed Resolution No. 3 establishes a ten-year district and provides for redetermination of costs bi-annually on or before October 1 every other year. PA 33 provides that the amount to be assessed for police and fire protection is to be determined annually and that a hearing is to be held concerning estimated costs and distribution of the levy. Additionally, the proposed notice attached to Resolution No. 4 itself states that costs may be redetermined annually. How does the City reconcile these provisions?
Special-benefit finding. Proposed Resolution No. 3 finds that the benefits of police and fire protection will be shared in proportion to the value of taxable real and personal property and therefore proposes an ad valorem assessment based on taxable value. What factual or legal basis supports the determination that the special benefit provided to each assessed property is proportional to its taxable value?

I am not asking you to prepare an extensive legal memorandum over the weekend. A brief response identifying the City’s position and any authority upon which it relies would be helpful to understanding the proposal before Monday’s hearing.

As with my earlier correspondence, I intend to make any substantive response available in full so that the City’s legal position is represented accurately.

Thank you,

Jefferson Henry

VIEW ORIGINAL SEPTEMBER 26 FOLLOW-UP (PDF)

Status: No substantive response from the City Attorney had been received when this record was prepared. Any substantive response received will be published here in full.

The record remains open.

The September 28 packet answers part of the earlier question by expressly invoking PA 33 in the proposed Public Safety resolutions. It also creates narrower questions concerning how PA 33 and Chapter 42 are intended to operate together and how the proposed assessment methodology satisfies the legal framework the City now cites.

Document note: The correspondence above is reproduced for readability from the original sent email. The linked PDF is a redacted copy of the original correspondence. Editorial description and status notes are separately labeled and are not part of the original email.

Source Document • September 28, 2026

Ludington City Council Agenda Packet

Complete packet • 63 pages

We are making the complete September 28 Ludington City Council agenda packet available here so residents can review the source material directly before Monday’s special-assessment hearings.

Of Particular Relevance to the Special Assessments

September 14 City Council minutes, including the public comments and Council action that advanced both proposed special assessments.
Street Lighting Special Assessment Resolution No. 2.
Public Safety Special Assessment Resolution No. 2, which cites the Home Rule City Act and Chapter 42 of the Ludington City Code.
Proposed Street Lighting Resolutions Nos. 3 and 4 for consideration September 28.
Proposed Public Safety Resolutions Nos. 3 and 4 for consideration September 28.
The proposed Public Safety Resolution No. 3 now expressly cites 1951 PA 33 (“Act 33”), as amended, and Chapter 42.
Proposed directions to prepare the individual assessment rolls by October 12 and hold the next hearings on October 26, if Council proceeds.

Why we are posting the complete packet:

Questions are being raised publicly about what the earlier resolutions said and what Council is being asked to consider September 28. Rather than circulate selected screenshots or excerpts, everyone should have access to the same complete source document.

VIEW COMPLETE 63-PAGE COUNCIL PACKET (PDF)

Source: City of Ludington, September 28, 2026 City Council Agenda Packet. Posted here as a public source document for reference and review.

Questions Asked. Answers Received.