Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fishermans Landing Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates last‑minute advisory ballot question on Mart Dock and Fisherman's Landing redevelopment
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to place an advisory question on the November ballot about a proposed Mart Dock/Fisherman's Landing redevelopment that would convert waterfront, close a campground and expand public access; staff urged caution about short notice and potential negotiation impacts and no vote was taken.
Muskegon City commissioners on Monday considered whether to add an advisory question to the November ballot asking residents whether they approve the city pursuing a specific redevelopment plan for Mart Dock and Fisherman's Landing.
Mayor [name not specified] said staff drafted advisory language but the clerk informed the commission that the deadline for submitting approved ballot language is the following day. The mayor read the current draft aloud: "Do you approve or disapprove of the city of Muskegon proposal, subject to commission approval, to acquire and convert no less than 900 feet of the Mart Dock into publicly accessible waterfront, permanently close the Fisherman's Landing gated campground; if grants obtained relocate Mart Dock port functions to Fisherman's Landing and acquire/develop property to the north of Fisherman's Landing into a 25‑acre waterfront public park and to acquire/integrate 32 acres with Fisherman's Landing port function?" The draft also states public access to Muskegon Lake would increase from 2,380 feet to 4,900 feet.
City Manager Jonathan raised three reservations about putting the advisory question on the ballot now: the proposal is complex and difficult to communicate in brief ballot language; an advisory vote could box city negotiators into positions during ongoing talks; and using advisory ballots could set an undesirable precedent for handling difficult local decisions. "I have three major reservations," he said, including concern that a vote "could box city staff in a little bit on the negotiations."
Commissioners were split. Vice Mayor Sinclair and Commissioner Cotin (spelling as in transcript) said they saw value in asking residents for an advisory opinion after many years of discussion and said the community’s views would be useful to elected officials. Several other commissioners, including Commissioner Kilgore and Commissioner Kilgill, said the notice was too short and that they preferred to see a complete negotiated agreement presented to the commission and public before asking voters.
Several commissioners noted a practical risk raised at the meeting: if the advisory question were approved and the developer later substantially changed terms before an agreement was finalized, the ballot result could reflect a different deal than the one eventually negotiated. Commissioner Kochan asked whether a question could remain on the ballot if the developer had not completed a final plan; staff confirmed that the advisory question would remain on the ballot even if a final agreement were not yet in hand.
No motion or vote occurred. The mayor and several commissioners urged civility and respectful public engagement as the city moves forward. City staff said they would continue working with the developer (referred to in discussion as Mart Dock/Martdoc) on agreement details and encouraged further public review if the commission directs placement of an advisory question at a later date.
