John Marquart – City Manager Evaluation

 1. Reassessment   It has been stated that the reassessment was a State of Michigan mandate. This is incorrect. – Over $200,000 spent with nothing much accomplished. The city attorney advised the council and the city manager not to open the single bid from Eagle Appraisals which is owned by Rich Brook’s wife. Then, a separate contract was entered into with Brook personally under a very rushed scenario that was totally unjustified under the circumstances. Marquart hired Brook as a part-time city employee (assessor) then contracted with him to do a complete reappraisal. Upon finding that  Brook was employing his brother-in-law, a convicted felon (David Legge) for identity theft. John Marquart stated publicly that he called Eagle Appraisal, allegedly a contractor for hiring house measuring personnel, to relieve Legge of his job. There was never a contract with Eagle Appraisal for anything.  Invoices submitted by Brook were not detailed and still approved and initialed by Marquart.  It is impossible to justify $35,000 and $40,000 for first two months, just as it is impossible to justify homes being inspected before a contract was signed between Brook and the city.  The reassessment was supposed to be completed for 2007 taxes. After spending an enormous amount, we have no idea which properties were reassessed – therefore we may have considerable future expenses.  We still have no indication when it will be completed. In 1994 and 1995, the whole City of Iron Mountain was reassessed by contract for less than $20,000. Management has stated it has been 30 years since the last reassessment – this is not true.

The reassessment was voted on a few weeks after the budget was completed.  There was no allowance for it in the city budget.  This issue created a $200,000 shortfall in our city budget, a fact our City Manager Marquart certainly was aware of, but said nothing. In several Public Council meetings, John Marquart stated that the reassessment was 80% and 90% complete.  This, and many other peculiar situations, should inspire a formal investigation by the city council as authorized by our city charter.

2. Fire Department:  Management, by using unfair labor practices, caused and lost a lawsuit that cost the city over $30,000.  Four fire fighters were fired without serious thought and consideration given to an efficient and cost effective alternate plan. This has resulted in a division between our police and fire departments, which has had national negative exposure.  Between the overtime for the police and fire departments, bonuses to police officers for fire certification, and MIOSHA fines, we have spent more for less fire protection in our city. We still do not have police officers who can enter a building to fight a fire other than the main floor of that building.  

3. MIOSHA:  Within the last year we have paid $3,000 and now $20,000 in fines.  This is a direct result of actions and omissions of the city manager. When the last set of fines were brought to attention of the council by citizens at the Oct 1 meeting, John Marquart lied and stated he had just received the citations. The city council was not informed of these violations until the citizens made them aware of them.  These citations were signed for on August 10, 2007. They were sent via registered mail to a wrong address, which was apparently provided to MIOSHA, yet they arrived within three days at city hall. A MIOSHA employee in Lansing verbally confirmed that the vacant rental address was provided by John Marquart. In a letter dated October 15^th to MIOSHA, after it was already too late to appeal the fines, John Marquart asked for more time due to the fact that the citations went to the wrong address. He was denied. The $20,000 fine was paid for in February of 2008.

Regarding the original citations, Marquart was interviewed by and wrote an article in the Daily News, stating that our fire department was, “None of their business”, in reference to the State of Michigan  MIOSHA division..  If the current situation is not successfully resolved, we could receive up to an additional $200,000 in fines. We are still in violation of State laws governing fire suppression in our city. Beyond the financial liability present, the citizens of Iron Mountain are still at risk due to the inferior fire fighting capabilities present. In addition, the city council and the city manager could be   personally liability, in the event that a citizen, fire fighter, or police officer is injured or loss of life occurs.

4. Police Officer Early Retirement: On September 18, 2007 the police department contract with the city was signed. In that contract, the early retirement of a police officer was agreed upon, which provided that this officer was allowed to retire a year and a half early. Michigan Public Act 314 requires that the city council and city pension board completes an actuarial analysis to determine the costs in changes in benefits, and specifically requires that the city council review such analysis for 7 days prior to entering into any collective bargaining agreement. The city management did not comply to this mandate, therefore, the city council was unaware that this early retirement would cost the taxpayers $87,038.00.

On December 19, 2007, three days prior to actual retirement of the police officer, the Police and Fire Pension Board convened to discuss and move on this issue. It was moved by Burke supported by Gering to allow the early retirement contingent upon a legal opinion stating that the retirement window was a one time opportunity. To date this legal opinion has not been rendered. Considering the motion that carried was not adhered to, the early retirement could be considered illegal. This will cost the P&F pension fund, and our taxpayers  $87,038.00 which can be disputed by any employee affected by this adverse action. Once again, this places our city in financial harm’s way, and places legal compliance in question.

5. ISO Issue: (Insurance Service Organization) This situation has been going on for years now. The ISO has sent numerous letters in an attempt to rate our city.  Many, if not all, of these letters were ignored by the city manager. We have recently received notice that our rating will go from 4 to 6, a 50% increase in our rating. This could result in large insurance increases to the entire community.  The unresponsiveness of the city manager shows very poor management practices and may end up costing us all who own property in Iron Mountain. Most citizens do not understand that there is a lag time between our adjusted ISO rating and increased insurance rates. This can be a year or more – however we will end up paying much more for our business and home insurance policies.

6. Rental Ordinance: Marquart is personally liable for causing the lawsuit with the Landlords Association by taking negotiations out of the hands of the Planning Board.  If Marquart would have just taken a leadership role and sat down with the landlords, a quick solution would have been possible. This is now happening, but only after a two year court battle and $15,000 in defending the proposed ordinance. The community was split apart when it was never necessary. The fees that were proposed exceed the Bolt vs. City of Lansing guidelines.  The lawsuit has been a needless cost to taxpayers when with simple communication, a solution was at hand.

 7. Police Certification:  Without council approval, City Manager Marquart sent Adam Ray to NMU for police certification.  This was at a cost $9,172. Normal hiring practices in the last twenty years have been to hire already certified police officers who have completed and paid for their own training at no cost to the city. The spending limit of $3,500.00 dollars, which is stipulated by our city policies, have once again been violated by our city manager.

8. Sewer back-up   Ron Giguerre experienced a sewage backup in his home. When he informed city management, he was promised that he would be taken care of. After six months and attending a number of council meetings, this was finally addressed and settled for $20,000 only after Mr. Giguerre engaged an attorney. City management stated that the city did not have liability based upon the rules within the State of Michigan regarding sewage backups. The city applied high pressure to the lines resulting in the backup, therefore Mr. Giguerre would have been on solid legal footing. Supporting not fighting our citizens, when it is the right thing to do, is a critical responsibility of our city management.

 9. Water Main break:  John Marquart would not allow city crews to complete the cleanup of Mrs. Occhiettti’s basement.  Public outcry, volunteer cleanup efforts, and broad news coverage resulted in a settlement of $15,000.

10. Khoury Property:  $875,000 was spent to purchase the Khoury property FOR the Mariucci group with little or no notice. Why did the city have to buy property for a private enterprise? John Marquart assured the TIFA Board that the city would receive the full purchase price by December 31, 2007 if negotiations were not completed with the Mariucci group by this date.  This was not completed and the property is still owned and paid for by our city. The purchase of this property was not in the TIFA plan. If the Mariucci Group proceeds with this development, they will pay the city $300,000 less than TIFA paid for this property.   

The city has stated it plans to pay for the development the infrastructure to support the Mariucci group project. This infrastructure includes water lines, sewage lines, storm drains, and streets. Yet with regard to the Millie Hill Subdivision development, the developer is paying for same infrastructure requirements. Why are we not treating all development projects in Iron Mountain equally.

11. STS: (Engineering Firm) STS Consultants have received over $700,000 of work from the city since March 2006.  Design work on City Park plans, downtown pavilion design, band shell designs and other projects were ordered without council approval.  The spending limit of $3,500.00 dollars which is stipulated by our city policy has been violated by our city manager on numerous occasions.

 12. TIFA: (Tax Increment Financing Authority)  Our city manager has made illegal requests of the TIFA board for projects, some of which are not even in the TIFA district. Marquart proposed that TIFA pay for facades on privately owned buildings, and spend $200,000 on trails outside of the TIFA District.

13. “A” Street Project:  A project that was presented to the Council by John Marquart, and stated to cost $1.2 million dollars. The Council was advised that in order to secure a $41,000 Jobs Today Grant, we should borrow about $435,000 internally. Only about $100,000 of the $1.2 million was not going to have to be financed, in order to not lose the Jobs Today Grant. The State Revolving Funds may not ever be available, according to Chip Heckathorn in Lansing. Management should not present such risky options, such as borrowing internally, which is also not allowed by our City Charter. In hindsight, our City may have gained more points and have been higher on the SRF list if the West Side lift station was listed first instead of second, due to its critical nature. The "A" Street Project was determined to be a one-block issue of sewer replacement. It was research by new council members that revealed this, and the cost is now a fraction ($36,000) of the original, projected cost. The City Manager did not research this, though that is his job. STS was paid over $36,000 for design work when nothing was approved or decided upon at the city council level. The spending limit of $3,500.00 dollars which is stipulated by our city policy has been violated once again by our city manager.

14. Center for Regional Excellence Grant:  This Grant was originally for a regional approach to public safety and then code enforcement was later added. John Marquart, without permission from the Grant officials, changed the grant to Parks and Recreation. He was chastised by Maxine Berman in Lansing, which was witnessed by a Kingsford official, and told that he could not change the Grant to what he wanted. John Marquart still proceeded to adhere to the Parks direction of the Grant. When questioned publicly at Council meetings about the Grant, John Marquart stated that we were receiving the Grant. Maxine Berman confirmed that the follow-up paperwork needed to secure the Grant had not ever been filed, we did not exist to them, and we would not be receiving the Grant. The taxpayers have paid Ann Henricksen and any other cost incurred by the CRE Grant initial award.

 Ann Henricksen received $1200 from the city for work that was never authorized by anyone.  She is the mother of a council member, Eden Caudell, who voted to approve the payment without comment.  Caudell neither abstained nor mentioned that Ann Henricksen is her mother and therefore could not approve this item on the vendors report. During the most recent council meeting Eden Caudell admitted that she introduced her mother to John Marquart for this position with the city. This is a clear violation of section 4.9 of our city charter. This section clearly prohibits any payment or employment of a council member’s relative by the city.

 The above issues are supported by documentation that each council person has received. Several council members declined to receive the documentation. This information has been jointly researched and published by the individuals listed below.

 

Council Member          Council Member      Council Member

 

Role of the City Manager:

1.   A City Manager is an employee of the City, and of the taxpayers, and is advisory to the City Council.

2.   It is not proper for a City Manager to implement expenditures without full council approval.

3.   If the Council asks for an item to be added to the agenda, it is not the City Manager’s place to deny that request.

4.   It is not proper for the City Manager to act in such a way as to incur fines due to his personal opinion of an Agency, or negligence of paperwork.

5.   It is not proper for the City Manager to act in such a way as to incur disputes that require legal costs paid by the taxpayers. His main objective should be to avoid lawsuits.

6.   It is not proper for the City Manager to be involved in the election process in any way.

7.   It is not proper for the City Manager to be impulsive with the taxpayer’s money, to enter into risky purchases or financial obligations, or to enter into purchases without legal agreements.

8.   It is not proper for the City Manager to mislead the Council with untrue information.

9.   It is not proper for the City Manager to mislead the Public with untrue information.

10. It is not proper for the City Manager to intimidate City employees.