November 2006 Forum

IronMountainIssues.org

November 2006 Postings

11-30-2006-01

RE: 11-29-06-01's message. Here's what you do.

You know, sometimes the simplest stuff is right under your nose. You want to boot the current city government or force it to resign? Then do what's necessary. Turn to the professionals. For them, getting rid of this bunch is a piece of cake -- your elected officials and city management have already done all the work for the pros, have provided all the ammunition simply by leaving a paper trail of evidence of its lying, irresponsible spending and policy-making, lawbreaking, and incompetence. All it needs is the proper assembly and presentation. Current city officials have bet -- and continue to bet, laughing at you and mocking you -- that you're stupid and lazy and not going to do what's necessary to challenge them successfully. So far they've been correct.

So get the pros to do what you don't know how. Don't talk about it. Do it. Don't fret and whine and moan about it. Do it. No half measures. Do what's necessary. It's legal. You just have to add some steel to your spine. Some strength to your will. Tousignant himself turned to the pros when he got elected. But he did it on the cheap, hiring a loser who was just clever enough to con the citizenry of Iron Mountain. You can do a hell of a lot better than this shifty and incompetent bonehead, Marquart, with his two low-octane poli-sci degrees out of a cow college in western Illinois and a 35-year resume of being fired or asked to resign from job after job after every 2 or 3 years. Seems pretty clear in hindsight that one of the only reasons the mayor and city council hired this character was that he was the first, if not the only, to sell his principles and his soul for a salary-expense-benefit package of a hundred grand a year.

You can do better, Iron Mountain. For mayor there are surely scores of better candidates than this meanspirited and egomaniacal powerfreak with a chip on his shoulder. Believe it or not, there are actually better trained, better educated, more successfully experienced municipal managers -- working, retired, and/or available -- throughout the upper Midwest who have advanced degrees and successful internships from major conferences and the schools within them, like Harvard, Michigan, and Stanford, and who have on their resumes bodies of work that include measurable, progressive, noncontroversial accomplishment after accomplishment, benefit after benefit for cities, towns, and villages -- and haven't once been fired, rebuked, or asked to leave! Instead, you complain about the losers of your past, Iron Mountain, then you turn around to both elect and hire more losers! Then whine about it! Please!

Here's what you do -- firmly, relentlessly, ruthlessly -- if you want to recall these elected officials and fire their hired guns -- or force them to resign promptly by their own choice. You pony up. You put up or shut up. Don't be nice with these guys at City Hall -- they won't be considerate toward you. You hire the pros you need to effectively accomplish your goals.

1.) Quickly organize, pick your leadership, get behind it. You have this Issues Association. Perhaps use this as a banner behind which you pull together all of the opposition.

2.) You hire an aggressive, successful, reputable law firm that can handle, beginning to end, a legal, investigative, and public-relations package that achieves your end. If you don't know of a major firm, get a sharp independent lawyer from the area to recommend one and perhaps liaise with it for you and with you. Sounds expensive, and it will cost a few bucks, but that's nothing compared to what you and the city will lose otherwise.

3.) You have an aggressive, successful, reputable, and major private-investigation firm -- or the law firm's investigative arm or investigative partner -- exhaustively and legally gather the information, evidence, and background you need about the city-council members, the city manager, their hirees, their behavior, their activity. This includes skeletons in the closet and history they didn't disclose when running for office and applying for their jobs, since this information will unquestionably cause voters to reconsider seriously and in alarm whether or not they want these people to represent and govern them -- be assured: a large majority will not.

4.) You use an aggressive, successful, reputable, and major P.R. firm -- or the law firm's public-relations arm or public-relations partner -- to present your case very publicly, very visibly, very factually, very unemotionally, very saturatingly, and very professionally via television, radio, print, and web repeatedly to every single voter in Iron Mountain that here, clearly, is exactly who these people are, here's what these people stand for, here's who they stand for, and here's what they're doing.

To summarize: you don't know how to tackle the people in City Hall, you're not equipped to tackle them. Hire the pros, hire them right now, tell them what you want, don't get squishy, get out of their way. In other words, do what works or continue to suffer the consequences.

11-29-2006-01

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

After reading the various links and the forum on this website, you could conclude that we are in the intolerable state described above. What I do not understand is why the people of Iron Mountain are choosing to stay that way. If something is illegal, something besides complaining should be done. Press charges.

If it's not illegal, but you just want change, make it happen. If one more than half the people of Iron Mountain - who vote - felt the way that most writers here feel, they could change things by the democratic process. Yes, I am talking about a recall. Complaining will not accomplish anything. It actually minimizes the issues after awhile. People get tired of hearing the same things over and over.

If someone who knows how wants to get the ball rolling, I'm all ears. Since I feel the same as most writers here, I'm willing to help make it happen, too.

11-25-2006-01

I am posting this information with a little hesitation. The post is purely factual and has no comments with it. I felt it was important because we must be mindful of the past in order to plan for the future. I also received a second posting that I will not post because it has no factual data. It was a self opinionated note that had no incident to identify with.

City Litigation Page about a FOI lawsuit that the City was faced with. Litigation Page

Thank you, Webmaster

11-22-2006-03

This is a response to M. Blomquist post of 11-21-2006-02:

On number 7 on your list, you talk about the Bolt decision and how it is specific to a city overcharging a neighboring community. Who told you that? Whoever it was, they lied to you. As I suspected, you don't read anything for yourself; you are content to be spoofed. This link http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/1999/101299/5280.html is to the Bolt decision. There is NO mention of anything to do with a neighboring community. The case was brought by a resident. Here is a direct quote from the Facts and Proceedings of this decision:

"Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the storm water service charge was a tax subject to the limitations of the Headlee Amendment,"

This quote is the very heart of the case and the decision.

I have come to expect you to spin things, but outright lying is going too far. How can you continue to do this time after time? All you are doing is destroying your own credibility. You shoulda stayed in school.

11-22-2006-02

Response from the "Shadow Writer" (Actually, I kind of like that)

You explained nothing to my satisfaction. Your opinion has never been supported by any documentation whatsoever. (Sigh) Here we go again - a response to your hollow one:

1. Did not address the Charter requirement.

2. Did not address the Charter requirement.

3. Did not address the main point - that people voted the way they did based on documented misinformation from city officials. This was an ongoing thing. Safer? Hold that thought. I’ve heard something on that recently, but I will treat it as rumor and not repeat it until I see something solid.

4. That’s right - ignore documentation again.

5. Ignored documentation again - I was not talking about the chief, although both of his suspensions were questionable, too.

6. Misconceived? It was a written order against state law. He does not have the right to break the law to suit his concepts.

7. Hmm . . . I tried to find the link to the Bolt decision so I could read it again, but it seems to have been removed from past postings. Pity. I think you are wrong, but, I do want to read it again. In other words, I would be a fool to take your word for it.

8. Pass through? Who’s talking about a pass through in point 8? Don’t you actually read anything?

9. (Sigh) Ignores documentation again. Where is the documentation that he "inherited" mistakes?

10. As in point 3, hold that thought.

11. Really? Then, why did recent ads for "peon" positions have the 20 mile requirement listed? Double standard, plain and simple.

12. Please! For that kind of money, he had better be!

13.Again, you miss the point(s), or just want to steer everyone away from them - it has not been funded since your buddy took office, and it was not used as it was intended. Yes, they have bled that fund dry by not continuing to fund it - the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.

14. As I said, I want to see that documentation myself, and, so far, the Numbers Crunchers postings have been more thorough and believable than yours.

15. Missed the point again - no one said TIFA levies taxes. Do you have to spin everything? Other taxes have been raised to counter the serious shortfalls created by TIFA. That is not supposed to happen.

16. Exactly my point - when was it amended - you know, with the required public hearings and all? Show me documentation of the public hearings on amendments. Good luck finding that.

I am not bashing the council for the sake of bashing them. I am simply fed up with having been fed a line of bull by them on practically everything they have touched in the past two years. I was being unnecessarily cryptic when talking about things coming up in the next several months. Sorry about that. Unlike you, I am waiting for documentation. Judging by your comments on firemen, I guess they are all just a bunch of unprofessional, lying, self-interested bastards who should be shunned and spat upon, ‘eh? I must remember to bar the door if I have a fire in my house. I would hate to have them in my house if they are such pariahs, as you definitely insinuate.

The Shadow Writer (Ooooh!)

11-22-2006-01

A few ideas for Number Cruncher. It would seem to me that all the money that TIFA collects is better being spent for the LONG TERM economic development of the city. Passing back any money only puts a band aid on a very serious wound. It seems, respectfully, that the writer would prefer to use a short term solution instead of a long term one. In other words, any money that is used to expand economic development insures long term tax base that will better pay for all services in the city.

Although I have never negotiated a union contract, if we can all agree that current benefit packages are out of line with private sector benefits, the city would be giving up a valuable "negotiating" point by simply dumping some money into a failing system. Use the leverage to better negotiate contracts. It would seem like a better position than the one that's being purposed. Certainly better for the long term interests of the taxpayers of this city.

TIFA will go away in a couple years. Future councils and managers will use multiple TIFA's to finance a number of projects. Quite simply it's the best source municipalities have for achieving a number of goals.

Also Number Cruncher, there's only one person in this city that understands TIFA finances as well as you do. I wish you would simply sign your name. I think you bring up a lot of good points. Also disclose the relationship you have with this website. You announced the formation of it at a council meeting. I'm not sure why you need to remain anonymous. It seems disingenuous at best.

Marcus Blomquist aka the cool cowboy

11-21-2006-02

Much of what the Writer in the Shadows, or Shadow Writer asks, I have already explained so I won't be windy here.

1. There's a full posting on this issue I would ask people to refer to that. Simply put: The City Assessor is contracted to asses all the property in the city of Iron Mountain. He could in no way do the job on his own. The city is allowed to hire people part time to take on assist with that work, all the while I might add saving the taxpayers money.

2. See above

3. We are safer today than we were before the layoffs. Layoffs are unfortunate but the department was over staffed and cost the city millions in current and long term expense. The solution ultimately is regionalization in a variety of services including Public Safety. The voters have spoken loud and clear on this issue and the city has taken the lead through its CRE or Centers for Regional Excellence Grant.

4. Gag orders, what?

5. The Fire Chief was suspended for a variety of reasons as I understand it including showing up at the manager's house and threatening him, I don't know what world you live in but those of us that live in the REAL non fireman world would be FIRED for that!

6. The reason for direct deposit was to save the city money. If it was misconceived it certainly wasn't followed up on. I guess management's crime here was the pursuit of efficiency and cost savings.

7. Bolt decision was specifically decided based on a municipality overcharging a neighboring community. It has NOTHING to do with
municipalities bonding for improvements and adjusting rates to pay for the debt. Another example of the writer simply twisting the facts to make his point: he hates the City.

8. The TIFA pass through would have most likely not been allowed. But regardless I believe the money is better used for economic development. For jobs creation like the Systems Project.

9. The Assessor inherited a bad deal. Just take a look at the "mistakes "done in the past. He's done a great job with the department bringing into the 21 century. Also the State Tax Commission has recently approved the underpaid personal property tax not paid to the city.

10. I've already talked about the ISO. It doesn't mater and in fact if it goes up it may go to a 5 below many if not all surrounding communities. Many insurance companies don't even use an ISO rating. It's a ploy that's been used by the fire department for years to justify the Millions spent. Check previous postings.

11. The charter is in violation of state law. The residency requirement in the charter is null and void, superseded by state law. It's meaningless. Not unlike the recent charter amendment.

12. Just silly, Rich Brook is a very hard working professional. Period

13.NO FUNDS WERE STAVED OFF OR DRAINED. Check the recent audit report. It's all very clear. The health care fund was used to PAY FOR RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS! No one could have anticipated the increases when it was set up.
One of the arguments made at the time and I suspect this writer agrees is that we should spend money only on employees. I disagree as I have in previous posts. Check for more details.

14. The number Cruncher is wrong. Simply check the latest audit it shows a 1.2 million dollar fund balance up 150,000 over last year. Fund balances are healthy all have grown except local streets because the city used it to do local streets.

15.No extra taxes are levied by TIFA. Money is only collected in the TIFA district. Check previous posts.

16. TIFA plans can be amended as long as it fits with the original spirit and is approved.

And then the serious things you have mysteriously tucked away. How silly. Also you claim that I'm not me. Whatever gets you through the night? The point is simple, the writer has an axe to grind and will find issues with everything the city does. He's probably a current or ex fireman, obvious by his language. Everything is a conspiracy with him, it's incredibly ill. I recommend a quick tonic of Thorazine and maybe a Lithium chaser. The world might seem a little bit less hostile after a week long nap.

I believe this site would be a real service to the community of it was used to talk about ideas. Not simply bashing the council. It may seem like a radical idea to the contributors of this site...but I think it's a good idea. If laws are being broken prosecute, if not then it's disagreements with policy. That's fine, but come up with an idea. I have! And I sign my name. I suspect that this posting will cause the two or three regulars here to pick it apart and make fun of spelling erors. IDEAS PEOPLE. Don't let the people who write to this site intimidate you. Everyone's IDEAS are valuable. I've had to put up with every sort of attack here but I believe that ideas are
more powerful than conspiracy theories and name calling. As always I sign my name and invite everyone to do the same.

Also the misspelling of error was intentional for comedy sake.

Darth Marcus Blomquist

11-21-2006-01

Iron Mountain Dilemmas - By the Numbers-Cruncher

I have thought long and hard about the best way to analyze and discuss the issues that confront the City of Iron Mountain. My three earlier posts generated considerable dialogue. My hope that rational rather emotional discussion would follow was only partially achieved. I have, in fact, been part of the problem by alternately taking jabs at and complimenting Marcus "The Kid" Blomquist. He returned the favor by referring to me as the masked accountant avenger, whatever that means. Fair enough. Now, let's move the dialogue forward from this point on at a higher level.

I continue to believe Marcus is serving a very useful purpose. He is expending time and effort on issues that involve all of us. I don't think he is trying to dominate this site. I don't see how he can when anyone can post on it. As noted by recent postings, there are people who will respond and correct his missteps very quickly. I am amazed that this site has had 76,000 hits in three months, all by word of mouth.

Today I want to discuss the city General Fund budget, TIFA and the interaction of the two. Let's start with TIFA. TIFA captures money from, and impacts, three primary sources and a fourth source, that for discussion purposes I will lump together. The three primary sources are the City of Iron Mountain, Dickinson County and the State of Michigan. The lumped fourth sources include the Intermediate School District, Breitung Township School District bonds, Technical Education, Special Education, County Library and Senior Citizens voted millage.

My sources of information are wide and varied, including current and former Council members, TIFA board members, the County Equalization Department, FOIA'd information, etc. I have not disclosed to any of them that I am posting my findings anonymously as the Numbers-Cruncher. It would serve no purpose.

I have found there is a widespread misconception among many of them that TIFA is getting a "three-for-one bang for the buck." They think if TIFA somehow shut down, two-thirds of the money TIFA would otherwise spend would somehow disappear. Let me try to explain the facts of the matter, which the City's Chief Financial Officer can verify.

The State of Michigan is paying all of the principal and interest on TIFA bonds, right to the penny. No more, no less. This has been legislatively mandated so that TIFAs would have no impact on the operating budget of School Districts. As far as School Districts are concerned, on an operating basis, TIFA doesn't exist. TIFA, in May of this year, made the final payment on one of its two outstanding bonds. The State contribution also dropped proportionately. As far as TIFA is concerned, Uncle Michigan makes all of its principal and interest bond payments. The State will pay around $3,700,000 over the remaining years of TIFA.

TIFA's remaining capture is on the three remaining sources: City of Iron Mountain, Dickinson County and the catch-all source. By far, and this bears repeating, by far the biggest impact is on the City of Iron Mountain budget itself as a percentage of total budget. The other taxing units (except for the Breitung Township School District) assess their taxes countywide, so the TIFA effect as a percentage of their total budgets is proportionately much smaller.

TIFA spending is restricted to the TIFA district and by the TIFA plan. TIFA cannot buy DPW equipment, police vehicles, fire trucks, or contribute to deficiencies in the health care plans or pension plans.

In the meantime, the city is spiraling down into a financial black hole very rapidly. The retiree health fund reserve balance had been built up for a very specific purpose: to pay for any increases of retired employees health care costs over 5%. It has been systematically raided for health payments of all employees, current and retired. It had $1,300,000 a few years ago. Now it has been wiped out. You can postpone some problems and play accounting games for a while, but you cannot postpone them until the expiration of TIFA. The "elephant in the room" as Marcus stated are the health and pension issues. I agree they need to be addressed, renegotiated, etc. But they are there, and will cost large sums regardless of negotiations. Now that the retirees health fund has been demolished, the impact on the city budget in the coming years will be tremendous. There are no other substantial funds to raid. The General Fund balance is the only one left. It has just over $1,000,000, but that, too, was accomplished by the financial sleight-of-hand of underfunding other city budgets as the City Chief Financial Officer has pointed out.

Back to the so-called "three-for-one bang for the buck" thesis. There is no such thing. If TIFA passed through every dollar it has or will have available through June 30, 2011, approximately 65% of it would flow directly to the City of Iron Mountain's General Fund. Right now, TIFA could pass through, roughly speaking, up to $1,200,000 a year.

About $780,000 a year would flow to the City of Iron Mountain and $420,000 to the other entities. It's more like a 35% bang for the buck, not 300%.

What is the intrinsic value of having flexibility? Would you buy a car that you could only drive between here and Chicago versus an identical, but more expensive one you could drive anywhere? I think you would.

I am not necessarily suggesting TIFA pass through every dollar. It is obvious, however, that if current council members or any future members (or the City Manager) believe they can forestall any pass throughs until the expiration of TIFA, they are living in a financial fantasy world. Reality is upon them now, even if it hasn't sunk in yet. I am suggesting a serious dialogue between the City Council and TIFA Board is in order. The sooner, the better.

Previous council members and administrative officials understood, as one posting pointed out, that the day of pass throughs would have to come. All of them are now gone from city service, but their analysis was right on the money.

One last question. What is the current thinking of the City Council and the City Manager on how to pay for the MANDATORY health and pension costs over the next five years short of passing through some or most of the TIFA captures? Answer that question.

Let's have some good, sensible dialogue and postings.

Sincerely,

The Numbers-Cruncher

11-19-2006-01

Mr. Blomquist, would you please address the following items. These are all items you have commented on before, but dropped after being shown the documentation. All of the documentation I refer to has appeared on this website.

1. The requirement that tax money paid to vendors must go through a bidding process and awarded to the highest bidder. Most notably, the four entities that have received thousands of tax dollars for reassessment who are NOT "in-house" in any way, shape, or form.

2. The City Charter requirements on hiring that were not followed when several people were hired in more than one city department. Code enforcement, police dispatchers, etc. The Charter is quite specific on this. There is no stretch of the imagination that can be used to say the dispatchers are "part-time seasonal" employees, which is the ONLY exemption in the Charter.

3. The letter John Marquart put in the Daily News just before the 2005 election. There was documented proof available to him at that time that shows he did not tell the truth about the level of fire protection their plan has left us with.

4. A gag order to the firemen. Other than shutting them up while he was spouting his misleading statements, what was that for? Was that legal?

5. The next step in gagging someone - he actually suspended someone for having the nerve to exercise their freedom of speech rights. Was that legal? No, according to our own civil service commission.

6. The direct deposit requirement he tried to impose on employees, against state law. Direct Deposit Memo

7. The Bolt Decision, and how it applies to our water rates. You really should read that. Eventually, someone is going to call him on that one.

8. More on water - While I'm not a fan of TIFA, it could have been utilized to lessen the burden on taxpayers. It would have been a very good cause, and could have been added to the approved projects list by going through the proper channels.

8. The portion of the Cool Cities program that we were never told about.

9. The extraordinary number of serious mistakes(?) made by the assessor. Extraordinary because of the short length of time they all occurred in, the level of them, and the implications of what they did to sabotage the bidding process.

10. The ISO rating, and the change it has already suffered, and the potential for even more regression. The July, 2006 letter from the ISO did not leave much wiggle room. Why has that NEVER been made public knowledge, except on this website? I would consider that very newsworthy. Could end up being an extra cost for all property owners.

11. Residency requirements? By the way, calling something "tired" when you cannot defend it does not make the facts go away. Ditto for "get a life." That's just plain juvenile.

12. Rich Brook's "contract". How can ANYONE defend the statement that assessing property in the city was not seen as a duty of the City Assessor, or that he should be getting exorbitant amounts of extra money to do his job. Are we supposed to believe that his original salary was set with the understanding that he didn't have to do ANYTHING?

13. This council bled off and then starved (sabotaged) certain funds to make them look bad. Most notably the health insurance cost-increase fund. Documentation has not shown up on this site yet, but I have seen it myself. They did the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do with an unfunded liability under the GASB you are spouting about, and I believe it was a deliberate, considered act.

14. Marquart's recent statement in the newspaper - repeated by you - that there is now a general fund balance, when before there was a deficit. A bald-faced lie if the Numbers Cruncher is correct. He needs to post the documentation on that.

15. The extra taxes we pay because of TIFA. One down with the charter amendment, several more to go. Read the TIFA Act. I have. That is absolutely NOT supposed to happen. It is available at www.michigan.gov.

16. As long as you are reading the TIFA Act, read what it says about doing projects that were not in the original plan.

17. There are a few more serious items that you know nothing about. They will be coming out in the next several months.

I suggest that the people who run this site should go back and look at the postings with documentation links. Those links should also be put in the applicable links at the top of the home page so they are not lost in the forum. Examples would be putting the vendor reports under the city budget link, and the Bolt decision link on the water page.

It's understandable that Mr. Blomquist would want to put up a smoke screen on all of this stuff, considering who he hangs around with. It's not going to go away by doing that. By certain words and phrases used in his later, more literate posts, I'd venture to say he does indeed sign his name to them, but he is not writing them.

11-18-2006-02

I have noted in Marcus "The Kid" Blomquist's post yesterday that he says the pension plans are not 6 million in debt but more like 3.5 million. Then he mentions that Gabriel Roeder actuarians gave this figure to the city.

For his information, Gabriel Roeder only does the Police and Fire Pension plan. So. if they gave that figure, it only applies to that plan.

The second plan, which covers every city employee who is not a policeman or fireman is the MERS Plan (Michigan Employees Retirement System). It is probably around $2.5 million underfunded, thus the $6 million total figure.

Besides, that $6 million figure was presented to the City Council by the City Manager himself in his March 27, 2006 letter. Why don't you ask him where he got it. I'd bet he will give you the same explanation shown above.

As usual, the kid never quite gets it right. The numbers cruncher nailed him on the General Fund deficit issue, an earlier post today got him on the unfunded liabilities versus debt issue, and now this one.

He will eventually learn that all the wisdom in the universe is not between his ears. Eventually, he may get the message that there are enough knowledgeable viewers on this website to catch him every time. Frankly, I don't think he does it intentionally. He is simply not thorough enough. As the saying goes "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

11-18-2006-01

I've been observing this site for a while. I have to comment. Does "the kid" read his posts before he clicks the send button? See his post #11-17-2006-04

In his first paragraph, he says" Debt is defined as money borrowed for future repayment is simply fundamentally different than outstanding liabilities. Oh, it's different because he says it's different?

But wait - In the next paragraph he says "The difference between pre and post 2008 is that GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board) will require the city to include long term (unfunded) liability such as health care costs in their accounting system as long term debt"

So first he tells us it is fundamentally different then tells us it is going to be accounted for exactly the same as long term debt.

He must be getting double-talk lessons from Marquart who, as an earlier post pointed out, can go from "staggering liability to virtually debt" free in a couple of paragraphs.

The kid should stop in at hospital and get a shot for "foot in mouth" disease.

11-17-2006-06

As a quick response to the piece posted about me "controlling" this space with my emails: The Mayor controls me, the manager controls the Mayor, The manager controls the city council and I control the site. Dude get a life.

Marcus Blomquist aka The man of fact

11-17-2006-05

I see M. Blomquist has adopted "the kid" as his new sobriquet. He just doesn’t get it. He has also adopted the same employee-hating attitude as his mentor. Some people don’t seem to understand that the city - any city - is a service-based organization. That is its main function. You can’t have services without employees. You can’t get excellent service from excellent employees if you constantly crap on them. If the employees are getting in the way of what this council wants to do with our tax money, then, we need new council members. The city is not meant to be a source for council members to pillage, loot, and distribute favors to their friends and special interests that have nothing to do with services. I’m still amazed at the number of people who fell for the city’s disgraceful spin on calling our municipal fire department a special interest, or the retirees who earned what they received.

Perhaps "Dr. Evil" would be an appropriate new sobriquet for the mentor, along with "Number Two" as a more appropriate one for "the kid".

We need good jobs to keep people here. A face lift for the downtown is not going to do that. What a waste of time and money, while potential good job sources were being totally ignored and our services have been decimated.

11-17-2006-04

In Response to the masked accountant avenger "Number Cruncher": Debt as defined as money borrowed for future repayment is simply fundamentally different than an unfunded long term liability. Keep in mind that the 13.3 million in health care liability will go up and down based on a number of factors, health care costs and benefits paid being two of them, or the number of possible "solutions" I've listed in my previous posting being others.

The difference between pre and post 2008 is that GASB will require the city to include long term liability such as health care costs in there accounting as long term debt. FASB is the private sector equivalent. One of the major reasons why this is important, besides the obvious of coming up with the money, is the impact it will have on future bonding and borrowing by the city. Any bank or bonding agency will have to take a look at those numbers when deciding to bond or lend money to us.

The manager's statement is correct. The city is relatively debt free for purposes of debt service. The water bond is paid wholly by fees paid by citizens and ultimately is not part of any unfunded debt. It is in fact FUNDED debt. The same is true for TIFA via the tax capture. By the way, the 6 million dollar number for the police fire pension fund is wrong. The latest report presented to the police and fire pension as of 6/ 30 /05 showed a 3.5 million unfunded liability. The firm used for the actuarial report is Gabriel Roeder. The City doesn't know yet what that will be this June, it's seems as if the fund has been performing well. It's readily available at city hall. I asked Carol Bartimiolli and she was more than happy to tell me over the phone. Last time I checked Ms. Bartimiolli is not part of the supposed "Vortex of Evil" at city hall. Seemed like just a normal woman doing a good job.

What's left is the elephant in the room. My previous point was that the city has already begun trying to fix the problem. Fundamentally when you look at the 13.3 million unfunded liabilities for health care it is COMPLETELY caused by benefits given to retirees and employees. AGAIN that DOES NOT mean it is the fault of retirees and current employees. It's simply a statement of fact.

One of the supposed solutions is to pass back or dissolve TIFA. This simply isn't a solution. Keep in mind that TIFA captures about $700,000 from the city on an annual basis. TIFA sunsets in 2011. That means the city would "collect" 3,500,000 over the remaining 5years. The city would also loose the approx. 1,000,000 annually or 5,000,000 over 5 years it collects from the state to make up for the school capture. Quick explanation, the state reimburses the school district for any money captured by TIFA for school funding, about 1,000,000 a year. So we would "gain 700,000 a year and loose 1,000,000 and only impact the health care liability by 3,500,000. A bad idea by any investor's standards.

Also TIFA doesn't capture and squirrel money away or spend it out of the area. It is all "earmarked" for economic development within the TIFA district WITHIN the city limits of Iron Mountain as opposed to being sucked up by increased health care costs. The north side sidewalks the US 2 project and The Systems Project are a few examples.

My position is simple, we do have a problem when we look at the current 13.3 million unfunded health care liability. It needs to be solved but that solution should not be that NO economic development happens or that the resources of the city only be used to pay benefits. If we are going to be a successful city we have to look at long and short term investment in the city. Current health care benefits have to be brought into line with 2006 expectations while lessening the impact on the most vulnerable, current retirees making less than $1000 a month. By my estimation, that has been and continues to be the plan the city council has.

Another response referred to a Health Care Fund that was used by the city to "cover" increased costs. The original intent was for it to only cover increases over 5%. In other words if health care costs went up by 12% the fund would pick up 7% of that cost. It was a good rainy day option when it was first put in place. The reality was that no one anticipated the rate of increase as part of overall cost to the cities general fund. Keep in mind that Prop A and Headley keeps tax increases to 5% or the rate of inflation annually which ever is lower. When a huge chuck of your budget, health care costs, are raising by 8%, 10% or 12% a year and your income is only gong up
by 2% or 3% it's easy to see why MOST cities are in the same financial boat. Add to that decreases in statutory state revenue sharing and the ability for employees to retiree at 50 and 25 years of service and you end up with what Iron Mountain has now.

I suspect that the few regular writers that contribute to this site have sat on the other side of the negotiating table across form the city for union contract discussions. No one could argue that the taxpayers of the city have not been extremely generous when it comes to health care benefits for employees. I would invite someone to FOIA the documentation that shows exactly what those benefits are. Ultimately I'm not sure what that would do but demonize our hard working professional staff and employees but I didn't start this dialogue, I'm just participating. In the interest of fairness, ALL information should be printed on this site.

Also please keep in mind that my numbers are current approximations. They are no way intended to be exact numbers. The TIFA capture, as an example, will grow as more investment happens within the TIFA district.

Marcus Blomquist aka The Kid aka The only one who posts his name

11-17-2006-03

Some comments here are accompanied by documentation. Those are the ones that carry the most weight. Lately, there have been a few comments with a lot of financial figures in them, but no link to documentation supporting the figures. I refer mostly to the numbers cruncher. I'm not saying I don't believe him or her, just that it would carry more weight with documentation. Anyone can throw figures out there with no name signed.

A good start would be actuarial reports of the pension systems that are supposed to be under funded by six million dollars. After that, we can look at how "real" the numbers were that were provided to financial consultants to perform the actuarial reports. I personally don't believe the pension systems are in that bad of shape. I think it's another case of playing with numbers to get the results they want in the areas they want. I want to see the documented numbers.

11-17-2006-02

First of all, Mr. Blomquist, the main point of the “shop locally” post was that these 3 employees are not local shoppers. The city council and Mr. Marquart want to put everything into downtown; yet members of the administration are not local shoppers, even though our taxes pay their wages. That, to me, makes them hypocrites. How can they promote a downtown (and expect us to shop there) when the city is staffed by out-of-towners. After all, you wouldn’t want Michigan State employees to live in another state or federal employees to live in another country, would you? How can they have our best interest in the fore when they live elsewhere?

Aside from that: You say we should hire according to qualifications. I agree. But I’ve yet to see anything to back up that these 3 out-of-towners are qualified at all. It seems pretty obvious that Mr. Brook is not doing to well… with all of the inaccuracies etc. that have been brought out. Mr. Becotte was hired supposedly because he’s an engineer. I haven’t seen him prove his qualifications there either. What has he brought to the DPW that wasn’t there before he was hired? As for Mr. Woolard, I’m not even sure what he was needed for. We never needed a Planning & Community Development person before. Past City managers and the assessors handled those duties.

And, once the most qualified are hired, they need to be required to live within the residency limit set in city guidelines (until a vote of the people changes that requirement).

And, using your reasoning, should we also be able to elect anyone to sit on the council, no matter where they live. Of course not! Why? Because there are RULES governing where they must live (just as there are existing rules about residency for employees.) Is the administration following the rules that exist?

As to your reference to the firemen and DPW workers: I’d say there’s also a pretty good chance that workers living in nearby Wisconsin (Aurora or Spread Eagle perhaps) and nearby cities like Kingsford, Quinnesec, Norway, etc. (besides being within 20 miles) are likely spending the majority of their wages locally. Again, I doubt that’s the case with the 3 that live in Marquette and Delta counties. Do you think they hang around Iron Mountain or bring their families here to do their shopping. Not likely! That was my point. Why push for downtown and wanting US to shop locally when members of our city administration, paid with our tax dollars, don’t.

Lastly, I just have to chuckle at you, Mr. Blomquist. There is post after post, with documentation to support the facts of the misdeeds etc. occurring in the city; yet you go to the perpetrators to get your supposed facts to support them. That’s like trusting a burglar to tell you exactly what he stole and trusting him to be completely honest.

Oh, and stop harping about the anonymity. Those posters who are willing to point out what the City is doing need to be able to do so without fear that they will suffers repercussions. If you think that doesn’t happen in America, look back through the postings for the proof… or ask around. People have had the Code enforcement officer coincidently show up at their homes and find violations within days of that person speaking out at a council meeting.

I have owned (and lived in) several homes in Iron Mountain. You can be certain that my next home will not be within the city limits as long as Mr. Marquart remains the city manager. I’ve seen many administrative changes and decades of city councils; seen many changes (some I liked, some I wasn’t so favorable to); but I have never wanted to relocate….. UNTIL NOW!

11-17-2006-01

People. Your attention please. Don't you see what M. Blomquist is doing? While a bit naive on some things, like expecting us to believe the opposite of documented facts, he is succeeding in his real goal.

That goal is to control the content and direction of this forum. Everyone is responding to him rather than talking about what their own real concerns are. You don't have to defend yourselves against him. The facts speak for themselves. Stop giving him pseudo-relevance by responding to his spin. Frankly, I'm insulted that he thinks me stupid enough to believe anything he says.

Soapboxes are only fun when you have an audience. You are feeding his ego and advancing his goals, that's all.

11-16-2006-01

This is the Numbers-Cruncher again with my third consecutive weekend posting. First of all, I want to congratulate Marcus Blomquist, a/k/a "The Kid", on his post # 11-14-2006-02. In my first post #11-05-2006-01, I admonished him on his inaccurate description of the General Fund Balance issue and told him to "Get back to your homework" and "Maybe some day you'll get the hang of it". He is going up the learning curve quite quickly. His post was not entirely accurate, as some have pointed out, but he is basically on track on the big picture.

Blaming past city councils serves no real purpose. This city council seems to use this tactic repeatedly. I don't think any city council intentionally makes bad decisions. With the benefit of 50-50 hindsight, it turns out some decisions were indeed poorly thought out and had to be revisited. The present council is no exception. The Blight Ordinance, the Rental Ordinance (now in its third revision), the way the fire department issue was handled (which triggered a lawsuit the city lost and cost it perhaps $50,000 or more in legal fees) and many more I could list are examples of their fallibility. They have a tendency to run before they can walk and then they stumble. Quick action is not always the best course. Decisiveness, absent careful forethought, is not a desirable character trait. I think this is the City Manager's greatest weakness. He has some others, too, but let's move on.

Back to the $25,000,000 debt issue I referred to in my post #11-13-2006-02. In his letter to the city council dated March 27, 2006 along with the proposed budget the City Manager wrote (on page 6) the following paragraph:

"Finally, it is important to note that the City is virtually debt free. (Remember those words, virtually debt free). Long-term debt is the $4.8 million in limited general obligation bonds sold for improvements to the water system. Other debt is short term (10 years or less) and is primarily for equipment purchases in the police and public works department. (He omitted the fire truck, which is the largest component, inadvertently or by design). The fact that debt payments take up such a small percentage of the budget allows the City to allocate funds for projects. While some debt is good, the City of Iron Mountain functions on a pay-as-you go-basis, a good philosophy in this age of economic uncertainty."

Let's analyze that paragraph. First, the $4.8 million water bond is not a general fund budget item. It is a separate cost, paid entirely by water users. Three paragraphs earlier he was explaining the "staggering $13 million" in unfunded health cost liabilities and the "unfunded liabilities for the pension plans (police-fire and general employees) is $6.0 million."

The total: $19 million. And he says the city is virtually debt-free? An unfunded liability is a debt. It has to be paid off somehow. By what kind of fuzzy logic can he go from "staggering liabilities" to "virtually debt-free" in three paragraphs? Try going to the bank for a loan and tell them you have $19 million in unfunded liabilities, but you're virtually debt free. You think they'll show you the door?

I will do two posts this weekend. The second one will consider various possible long-term solutions to our dilemma. As you have already surmised, there are no short-term solutions.

The Numbers-Cruncher

11-15-2006-06

A Couple quick corrections,

1. No place in my letter does it blame Mr. Urbany for anything. In fact it says the exact opposite. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Urbany. "What we have to get away from is the blame game. Current management and council as well as past ones are and have done what they believed was and is best for the taxpayers." And "Now I am not suggesting, like some on this site do for
this council, that those previous councils or Mr. Urbany did anything wrong. They did what they believed was in the best interest of the city." was exactly what I said.

2. Also the "I won't shop locally" guy specifically says, "I'm tired of paying taxes to pay wages for people who don't even live in this county, and certainly are not fellow tax payers."

Simple point you made it I didn't. There are people employed by the city that don't live or pay taxes in Iron Mountain or Dickinson County and your taxes pay for them! I could care less! I don't think it matters one bit. You do!

3. Also the comments aren't a "blue print" for anything. It's simply a list of possible solutions and as I said it's by no way a complete list. I'm sure there are other possible solutions. Your fear mongering is silly.

Since I am literally the only voice on this site that is willing to print my name and have an opposing view point to every other writer is not a license to attack me. I am simple expressing my opinion like so many others have. The difference? I am not starting from the premise that everything the council does is evil or illegal and I am brave enough to print my name. I also have no outside agenda. I suspect that if the few writer that contribute to this site would print their names you would find landlords, firemen and disgruntled retirees.

I will get an explanation of GASB and print it. I do appreciate the request.

Marcus Blomquist AKA The Kid

11-15-2006-05

I must comment on Marcus Blomquist latest posting. He says costs were incurred by multiple previous councils and one manager, Mr. Urbany.

Correction, Mr. Blomquist. When Mr. Urbany retired in late 2000, there was a fund of $1,300,000 established for the express purpose of paying for retiree medical costs in EXCESS of a 5% annual increase. In other words, if the increase for the year was 4%, this fund would not be tapped. If the increase in medical costs was 10%, this fund would pay the amount in excess of 5%. That was it, period.

After Mr. Urbany retired, the subsequent City Manager and councils began "tapping" this fund for regular payments, not just for raises beyond 5%. This a practice that was CONTINUED by the current city council until they tapped it out completely this year and were still short.

Somehow, the councils before 2001 were funding the retiree medical costs out of the General Budget. It was after Urbany left that the problems escalated. Whether costs skyrocketed in 2002,2003,2004,2005 and 2006 and subsequent councils were forced into the action they took, I don't know. But in any sense trying to put the blame on Mr. Urbany is wrong.

Further, Mr. Urbany and Mr. Brinker, the Chief Financial Officer, had been warning city councils that the day was fast approaching when the impact of TIFA on the General Budget would become overwhelming.

They had envisioned the absolute necessity for TIFA to pass through some or all of its capital in excess of interest and principal payments on its bonds well before the expiration of TIFA in 2011. TIFA's impact on the city budget is huge.

This city council, unlike any previous councils, has the habit of blaming everybody in the past for their problems. They have simply compounded the problem and pretend they're doing a credible job. They understand the financial woes of the city, but have their head in the sand. As the Numbers Cruncher pointed out, we're $25,000,00 in debt. And we're worrying about Bandshells?

11-15-2006-04

Would Mr. Blomquist bring us up to date on GASB. I believe it has something to do with establishing municipal accounting practices that more closely resemble priavate businesses. That would include such things as depreciation and amortization, even though a municipality isn't a tax-paying entity, and doesn't need to do it to save on taxes, but rather to get a true financial picture. Sure would appreciate the info.

11-15-2006-03

In the kids response to the shop locally post it appears that he is not so much wrong again as he, like the council he so loves, has not told us the entire truth. Yes some of the city employees do live outside of the city limits and thus do not pay taxes to the city. However, what he does not tell us is that they are doing this in full compliance with the city ordinance or charter amendment that is mirrored after state law. Currently, all employees must live within a 20 mile straight line or as the crow flies distance of the city limits. The issue that the earlier person has is that some of the new upper management of the city are not even in compliance with this by living in other counties. So please, if you insist on educating us lay people on the inner workings of the city, its council, and what is supposedly the correct way to run a city, then make sure you include all of the facts and not just the ones that advance or defend your interests.

11-15-2006-02

M. Blomquist on healthcare:

So, John Marquart will discuss future labor contract negotiations with anyone who picks up the phone and calls him. He is planning to drastically cut employee health care? Sounds like he's looking at it as a done deal, just like he did with the screwing of the fire department last year. I seem to remember he lost that one in court - it's on this website under city litigation. Keep asking him questions like that, Marcus. I'm sure the unions would like to know more of this stuff ahead of time so they can properly defend themselves without being blind-sided again - police included.

All you city union employees out there. Make a copy of Blomquist's last post on healthcare. You might be able to use it in court next year. The term you are looking at is "fait accompli".

11-15-2006-01

A quick response to 11-14-2006-01 - M. Blomquist - You say hire the most qualified for the job. I'm glad YOU said that, so maybe you can explain why and how the city hired dispatchers (and others) without going through the civil service process. Civil Service testing is designed to get the most qualified person for the job, yet, they hired someone who failed a test! Others did not even take a test. Talking out of both sides of the mouth again.

Still waiting for you to respond to documents that prove you wrong. GOD!! Not even an acknowledgement from you!! On your health care plan, again, please let the grown-ups take care of it.

11-14-2006-2006-02

In response to "Number Cruncher". Thank God someone other than the council is addressing the issue of the GASB unfunded liability for health care cost and pension liability. The city was one the first in the state to get the GASB number and has been talking about it both publicly and privately for 3 years.

I would remind the readership that this council neither created nor added to this problem. In fact the opposite is true. For the first time in years this council sat down with current retirees and renegotiated health care benefits and reduced, through labor contracts, the health care cost for current employees.

This doesn't mean that the problem isn't still out there, it's only been slightly effected by the actions of current management and council. Also keep in mind that these costs were accrued over the years by multiple councils and one manager, Mr. Urbany. Now I am not suggesting, like some on this site do for this council, that those previous councils or Mr. Urbany did anything wrong. They did what they believed was in the best interest of the city. Also this is a problem faced by ALL cities across the country; it is not specific to Iron Mountain. Actually in years past it was cheaper to give better benefits than increase wages. Most current employees and
retirees can attest to this fact. They did the responsible thing under the circumstances that were available for them at the time. This council is doing the same thing on behalf of the people they represent. Once again I picked up the phone and asked Mr. Marquart for information about what the city is considering to address this problem. What follows is a quick review. I might also add that "Number Cruncher" is correct in his assessment of the severity of the problem. What follows is also drastic. Put yourself in managements or the current council's shoes and tell me what you would do.

Drastically cut current employee and retiree health care costs. Keep in mind that this would be an extreme burden on everyone but especially on retirees that make very little monthly from their pension. A number of current retirees make less than $1000 a month. The mayor and council affirmed after the last realignment of retiree health care costs that the most venerable, those making $1000 or less a month, should not be impacted. I believe this was the right thing to do. Also the only way to reduce current employee costs is through union negotiations. This requires an effort on the part of the unions to understand that the manner, in which the city has provided
benefits in the past, can not continue. Continue to pay annually. This would do nothing to correct the problem and
in fact would only drain dwindling resources while decreasing the services available. In other words, less police fire and DPW workers, less road repair and economic development money. Fewer potholes filled and repaired. Keep in mind that one of the ways the city deceased costs along this line is the cross training of cops and reduction of employees at the fire department. The day to day cost does not include the long term costs of health care and pension liability. Right or wrong our current employees enjoy "cradle to grave" health care supplied by the taxpayers of this city. The real costs start looking very scary when you consider a retiree at 50
that lives to 80. In that case the city is paying for costs to a retiree LONGER than the retiree was gainfully employed. I might also add that TIFA is the one resource where money is "diverted" from GASB liability and specifically used for economic development. One of the reasons why I'm a firm supporter of our TIFA. Bond the cost. "Number Cruncher" refers to this. Mr. Marquart states that the cost will be born by the taxpayer. He's right in all cases except the first option and even then the cost will be paid for by the taxpayer as are
ALL city expenses. The hope would be that the interest returns more than is paid out on the debt. The problem with this option is how do you convince people that they should pay higher taxes for benefits that they can't afford for themselves? Politically I would think this option would be very damaging.

Reduce costs by requiring that all health care plans be run through BCBS MI or UP Blue. In other words current employees and retirees would only be able to access health care in Michigan. Obviously many people go to Green Bay, Marshfield, Mayo. You get the picture. Also savings will be realized, but this can't be the only solution. Continue to work with state and federal officials to support legislation
that would allow municipalities, townships and counties to "pool" resources and reduce costs. Probably one of the less painful measures, but without seeing numbers it's impossible to see what real impact this would have on costs.

There is no doubt that health care and pension costs are a HUGE issue in this city and across the country. I wonder if the "webmaster" of this site has FOIA information on what it costs the city on an annual basis or what percentage of the cities budget is used to pay health care costs? He's quick to put up management costs. If not what's being missed is a REAL issue that faces everyone in the city.

None of these possible solutions are perfect. In fact it would seem to me that a combination of the above and other ideas will have to be used to help solve the problem. What we have to get away from is the blame game. Current management and council as well as past ones are and have done what they believed was and is best for the taxpayers. Current employees and retirees are NOT to blame for this problem. It will take, in my estimation, a combined effort by current employees, retirees, council and management, with
all parties having to "give" to solve this problem. People who contribute to this site should be asking these questions at council and working with them to come up with solutions. The current council has already started the process. Remember two years ago? There was nothing but newspaper articles about this very issue. It was WILDLY reported and the council was attacked relentlessly for trying to come up with solutions, most heatedly by the fire department. I also believe that any solution is going to be very difficult at best and bone cutting at worst.

If "Number Cruncher" is going to blame this council and management for this problem, he has a long up hill battle in front of him. My hope is that he will come to understand that we are all in this together.

Marcus Blomquist AKA the kid

11-14-2006-01

A quick response to the "Hire Locally" guy who suggests that all employees, management employees I suspect is who he is referring to, should be residents of the communities they live in. Does he also mean the DPW workers that live out of the state? There is at least one that I can think of off the top of my head. How about the members of the fire department that don't live in Iron Mountain? Will that affect where he shops? Is the "Mystery Writer" also calling for those workers to be replaced? If someone lives in Wisconsin they pay NO taxes in MI. The hidden web master that administers this site lists only management staff as taxpayers or not, why not list ALL city employees? Amazing how the writer calls the "city" hypocrites!

19th century hiring practices for a 21st century world. We should be hiring people based on qualifications not where they live. Because we live in a small community where properly educated and experienced people sometimes simply aren't here, the city and private business often has to look outside of our area for talent. That doesn't mean that local people don't have an opportunity to apply, of course they do, and the city doesn't have a policy to ONLY hire outside the area. In fact I'm sure they would rather hire people with in the city. Why not as long as they're the best candidate? The policy is and should be to hire the MOST qualified person. Period. The old
attitude, protectionist at best, is part of the reason why Iron Mountain has been so held back over the years.

Let's get over the "only hire locally" junk and move on to qualifications and the best people for the job. Makes more sense to me.

Marcus Blomquist AKA The Kid

11-13-2006-03

www.imfd.org has a nice tribute to former Chief Alphonse Fuse, who served 41 years in the Iron Mountain Fire Department 1938 - 1979.

11-13-2006-02

Is the City of Iron Mountain effectively broke? How do unfunded liabilities of close to $ 20,000,000 sound? Or $ 25,000,000 in total liabilities.

This is The Numbers-Cruncher returning. My work schedule allows only weekend postings. My last post # was 11-05-2006-1. In that posting, I concentrated on correcting the General Fund Balance mistakes posted by Marcus Blomquist. He has not responded because I pointed out where I got the information. It was in the 75 page proposed budget packet that the City Manager John Marquart submitted to the City Council along with his 12 page cover letter dated March 27, 2006. His cover letter is very well written, I might add.

Now, on to the scary attention-grabbing headline. I will quote directly from Marquart's letter to the Council:

"The City is faced with long term costs that are very evident as you analyze the budget. Those costs are for health care, for both current and retired employees and pensions. With the FY 06-07 budget, the health care fund reduced to zero. With the FY 07-08 budget, health care costs escalate. We need to undertake efforts to reduce those costs. As you are fully aware, GASB 43/45 impacts the City from a financial reporting perspective beginning in FY 2008-2009. We have received an actuarial evaluation of Other Post Employment Benefits, primarily health care, and the unfunded liability is a staggering $ 13.3 million. To pay the amortized debt on this amount represents an annual contribution of over $900,000 which does not take into account current costs. How health care is provided must be addressed.

Pensions are another long-term cost. The unfunded liability for these plans (police-fire and general employees) is $6.0 million. These costs are only going to escalate … Ultimately, this is a cost to be born by the citizens."

There you have it, Iron Mountain taxpayers, directly quoted by the City Manager. $ 19,300,000 in unfunded liabilities stares us in the face. When you throw in the $4,800,000 water bond and $ 500,000 or more in bank lending for equipment purchases, we're on the hook for $25,000,000 altogether. This is, indeed, a staggering amount of money for a city the size of Iron Mountain.

Suddenly, the General Fund Balance of just over $1,000,000 looks pitifully unimpressive, and certainly nothing to brag about in isolation of the total picture.

I hope to make some contacts between now and my next post next weekend. I want to kick around some ideas I have and get input. I hope it proves fruitful. If so, I hope to be able to make some suggestions regarding the approaching tsunami. This is a very serious problem that most residents and taxpayers have only the vaguest idea, if any at all. You don't see much mention of it is the periodic articles the City Manager writes in The Daily News.

Correcting this problem will not be easy. It will affect not only the pocketbooks of taxpayers, but the value of their properties, as well.

I suggest the webmaster post this in the Public Forum, of course, but also permanently in the City Budget link for future reference.

Sincerely,

The Numbers-Cruncher

11-13-2006-01

This is a response to the comment from the guy who asked Mr. Brook about the legality of everything that has happened with his employment by the city and windfall reassessment.

Maybe we would all be happier if we all did the same thing. For every documented fact that looks like it might be wrong, unethical, or illegal, we should just ask the council or city manager about it, and accept their explanations on how everything they do is just fine. We would then have nothing to complain about. We elected them do look out for our best interests, and, if they say that's what they are doing, okay.

A lot of tax money could have been saved if the Federal government had done the same thing with the Enron executives.

11-11-2006-02

At an October meeting of the City Council Dr. Fillepa complained about the storm catch basins not being cleaned by the Sewer Vac the city uses to clean out sewer lines. She was concerned about Crystal Lake, where she lives. The E-coli count, she said, has risen.

The DPW employees told DPWvDirector Bob Becotte back around April (over eight months ago) that the Sewer-Vac needed repairs, and the estimate was around $12,000. He told Marquart, who sat on it. He told the DPW " Keep running it. " It subsequently quite running altogether and the estimate for repairs jumped to $30,000.

In the meantime, sewer lines weren't being cleaned all over town. What should have been a routine maintenance problem became a much more expensive one. I don't know if it's been fixed yet.

This piece of equipment costs $275,000-$300,000 new. Repairs can get very costly if routine maintenance is not performed. So we hire a DPW Director at $48,000 plus benefits, a City Manager who costs us over $100,000 and they ignore a simple request to make repairs for $12,000 that jumps to $30,000 by their negligence. Did they think it would repair itself?

Just another example of building a bureaucracy of incompetents that costs us money. From my sources, I understand neither Marquart nor Becotte don't know a damn thing about equipment. And we keep paying.

Hundreds of thousand of dollars for the Downtown Clique, however. Now that's money down the sewer.

11-11-2006-01

Hi. I haven't been here in awhile. I posted the comment # 11-01-2006-07. In that comment, I said that I agreed with Mr. Blomquist about TIFA not changing the amount of property taxes I pay.

After reading more comments and documentation, I have to withdraw that statement. TIFA does cost me more in taxes. According to documentation, my taxes were raised several times to counter the shortfalls created by TIFA taking money that was earmarked for other programs. The police/fire pension millage, library, senior citizens, etc.

To all those who have provided documentation, thank you. I was not about to take your word for it without proof, and I have seen proof. If I can change my mind, maybe others can, too. The people who run this site should put a big ad in the newspaper directing people to this site. I would donate a few bucks for that.

11-10-2006-01

I’m so sick and tired of this council trying to promote downtown. What a bunch of hypocrites! Here's my response to shopping locally. I will shop locally when our city starts hiring local people to hold key positions.

Perhaps, in the meantime, I will shop in Delta and Marquette counties. If they have the best people for the jobs, maybe they also have the better shopping. I’d try Pennsylvania too; but it’s a bit too far.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you want us to care about our local area, try showing that YOU care by hiring local folks for positions within our city.

My tax dollars are being spent in neighboring counties. I’m sure Mr. Brook, Mr. Woolard, and Mr. Becotte are not shopping in Iron Mountain. I’m tired of paying taxes to pay wages for people who don’t even live in this county, and certainly are not fellow tax payers.

Give Iron Mountain back to its citizens and send the non-taxpayers home.

Downtown business owners, if you want us to patronize your establishments, tell the council to do the right thing! I will not eat-out nor shop within the city limits of Iron Mountain until things change. I will however patronize Kingsford, Breitung township, and other surrounding areas.

If our newest employees can travel daily to work from surrounding counties, I guess I can manage a trip per week to Escanaba or Marquette to shop.

11-10-2006-01

The quality and depth of the posts on this Public Forum keeps getting better and better. The insight and work people are putting into these postings shows there is a lot of knowledge and interest in our city government and its administration. Their efforts are sincerely appreciated. We, the viewers. are learning a great deal. Those posts that have verifiable evidence obviously carry the most weight..

I'm sure the City Council and administration never expected this level of scrutiny. As more and more keeps coming out, the pressure on them will build. Little by little, as the citizens and voters of Iron Mountain understand the small and large cover-ups that have taken place, the special interest favors granted, the schemes to spend large sums unnecessarily in the Downtown district (a huge cash drain for years now), a public rebellion is gaining momentum. And early indication is the Charter Amendment vote. .

The labor negotiations coming up will be a sight to behold. The administration has left itself extremely vulnerable because of previous miscalculations. The financial situation of the city, despite puffery and a public relations spin machine working overtime, is heading for calamity. Year by year, it will get worse, then explode.

Of course, John Marquart knows all this. Just prior to the apocalypse, if he hasn't been fired first, he will simply polish up his resume and skip town. We will be left holding the proverbial bag.

Those of you with knowledge of city affairs, keep posting. You are performing a very valuable public service. Democracy will win out in Iron Mountain. The light of truth is shining brighter and brighter.

11-08-2006-03

I have never heard of such mismanagement and unaccountability of Tax dollars at any level of Government such as I have seen with the reassessment of Iron Mountain. First of all, the Assessor, according to the City Charter, shall possess all the power vested in and shall be charged with the duties imposed upon assessing officers by law. If we look at Section 211.10 of the General Property Tax Act of Michigan, it states that an assessment of all property in the state liable to taxation shall be made annually. So it would seem to me the Assessor’s job is to make annual assessments or appraisals of property.

So let me see if I understand the current situation. The City is paying the assessor, Rich Brook, about $26,500 per year to do his job, which includes an annual assessment of all property. In the employment contract it states that he will perform his duties as spelled out in the City Charter. The City then gives Mr. Brook a second contract on top of his employment contract to reassess all properties in the City at the rate of $50.00 per assessment, which amounts to about $250,000.00 per year as the contract states that the work is to be completed by June 30, 2007. Can someone tell me what is the difference between doing the assessor‘s job which includes an annual assessment of all property and an additional contract to reassess all properties in the City? Someone needs to contact other cities across the UP, or even downstate, to see if this is being done anywhere else, and at what cost.

Anyway, at the current rate, Mr. Brook is likely the highest paid municipal official in the state of Michigan having earned more in some months, than most public officials earn in a year. He has to be right up there in pay, possibly even with the Governor. Then I read a posting that broke down the amount of time he spent for each appraisal. Makes me wonder if there is any accountability for his work or does he just turn in any amount on a piece of paper and collect his pay each month. Has anyone on the council asked for verification of the actual work being performed for this exorbitant amount of money he‘s earning? Do they know if he’s actually doing any field-work and not simply altering existing records?

According to Mr. Blomquist’s info from Mr. Brook [11-06-2006-01], “The city published a Request for Bids to completely reassess the City of Iron Mountain, in addition to requesting a bid from specific out of the area companies that do reappraisals within the State of Michigan.”

First, I’d like to know WHERE the City published their Request for Bids and did they make the specifications of the job available? Also, Mr. Brook “requesting a bid from specific out of area companies that do reappraisals within Michigan” means that he chose who to contact. That DOES NOT come under the heading of “putting it out on bids”. How easy would it be for anyone wanting a specific job to contact other companies, providing whatever information we choose, maybe knowing ahead of time that these companies were otherwise engaged, or for other reasons would decline. That’s possibly one of the biggest CON jobs from this assessor yet.

In a recent post it was asked if Gilbert & Associates were qualified to assess property in Michigan. They appear to be real estate appraisers, which is not the same as certified assessors, qualified to do appraising for property taxes. If Mr. Brook hired them, it makes me wonder even what Mr. Brooks past experience has been in municipal assessing. Again City Council, ask some questions; or are you afraid of the answers.

11-08-2006-02

First of all, what an overwhelming victory on the charter amendment! A four to one margin on something that wasn't even necessary should tell this council how much they are trusted. I don't include the two newer council members in that statement. They have not been around long enough to generate the level of mistrust I feel toward the other five. Hopefully, the new members will sit up and take note.

Next, a question on comment 11-04-2006-05 - the one that provides an ISO document dated July of this year. According to that document, Iron Mountain has moved to either a possible class 5 or a definite class 10 ISO rating, depending on a time-sensitive written response from Mr. Marquart. Does anyone have a copy of that written response? He has been known to delay and stall whenever he possibly can. Another question, this one to the City Council - Why did I have to find out about my property insurance rating change on a non-city website, and four months after the fact?

Was Marquart ever going to tell anyone? Maybe not, and we would have found out months from now on our property insurance bills. Then, someone would complain here, and someone else would write in and say that's a "tired" issue because it's so old, and that we should get over it.

11-08-2006-01

Speaking of facts, I have in my possession the 2006 apportionment report for Dickinson County. This is the document that shows what taxes are collected by every taxing authority in Dickinson County. It is interesting to note that the Iron Mountain TIFA district collects a total of $1,943,967.26 for 2006. This is quite a substantial sum of money given the fact that we, the taxpayers, never directly voted for this. This district was created by the Iron Mountain City Council in 1985. This district stretches the entire length of US-2 and Carpenter Ave. within the City limits of Iron Mountain.

Fact: TIFA doesn’t levy any taxes, but what they do is steal tax dollars from everybody else. Whenever there is an increase in taxes or assessments within the Iron Mountain TIFA district, or when any new buildings have been constructed since 1985, these taxes do not go to the schools or county or even the city, but they are paid into the TIFA fund.

The TIFA board, with the approval of the City Council, can then spend these stolen tax dollars on projects within the district. In the beginning, from 1985 up to this current council, TIFA followed the plan that was approved in 1985. There is a list of specific projects which TIFA could accomplish under this plan. Get a copy of the TIFA plan and see for yourself what projects TIFA actually has approval, in its own plan, to do. According to State law, if it is NOT in the plan then a public hearing MUST be held to amend the plan.

This current council has deviated from the plan, (another violation of law) by building a private parking lot (Systems Control). And, has anyone looked into the purchase of the elaborate computer system for City Hall in the range of $200,000 (as it was not bid out either). One has to wonder what other projects and expenditures have been slipped through so quietly. Get a copy of the TIFA plan and see for yourself what projects TIFA can do, if it is not in the plan then a public hearing must be held to amend the plan.

If we look at the tax dollars that are taken for TIFA, we will see that TIFA robs the City of $908,657.81. Creative accounting would show that the city is short a million dollars in its general fund because it goes to TIFA. Perhaps this is where the supposed million dollar deficit that Mr. Marquart talked about came from.

Reading further in the report, it is interesting that TIFA swipes $316,029.01 in tax dollars from Dickinson County. In recent years, the county health department and the senior citizens programs were under-funded; so we, the lowly taxpayers, had to vote and cough up extra tax dollars to keep these programs running. The extra tax voted in for the Health Department, county wide, amounts to $166.877.96. If TIFA did not exist, I believe that the Health Department and the Senior Citizens programs could operate under the amount that TIFA currently takes from the County, without us having had to vote in extra taxes.

Lets look one step further: After we, the taxpayers, voted in extra taxes to support the Health Department and the Senior Citizen Programs… GUESS WHAT! Does it surprise you that TIFA takes $10,327.24 from the Health Department and $20,654.48 from the Senior Citizen programs. We actually voted in a tax increase for the City of Iron Mountain without knowing it. Another of our extra voted taxes is the County Library where TIFA takes $46,472.58. Now, we have the Bay College Tax which has yet to be decided whether or not TIFA will capture a portion of this money.

These are facts, taken directly from City and County records, and I wonder if Mr. Blomquist or even the Iron Mountain City Council are aware of them.

As for the proposed rebuild of the parking lot behind city hall. It doesn‘t take a genius to see that the only business that this will benefit is owned by a council member.

11-08-2006-04

The post this morning - 11-07-2006-01 asked very clear follow-up questions on the Assessor issue. I am looking forward to the answers.

Why are all these people- such as Gilbert & Associates, Brian Allen and others reaping many thousands of dollars a month. Are these people in-house, since we're presumably doing the reassessment, in-house? Where in-house are they?

Gilbert & Associates appears to be a two person real estate outfit in Gladstone, with no indication they are capable large scale assessing. Nobody seem to know who this Brian Allen is.

Now we hear the assessment won't be completed by next tax season, but, in fact will take two years. The one and old mini-advertisement in The Daily News said it must be completed by the coming tax year. Does Brook get a waiver of this provision? Lots and lots of question on this assessment issue. Sooner or later someone will trigger a lawsuit over all this.

Does anyone on the city council EVER ask questions. Ask questions, Council Members.

11-08-2006-03

Hurrahs are in order for the Iron Mountain Taxpayer committee for their work in preparing, circulating and getting the Charter Amendment on the ballot and eliminating an unfair tax on all of us. Also, high praise to TIFA for taking action to eliminate it as soon as they found out it existed . Thumbs down on the City Council for holding it up for months.

The smashing victory is effectively a no-confidence vote in the current City Council. Oh, well, next November isn't all that far away.

11-08-2006-02

The Charter Amendment proposal wasn't exactly a cliff-hanger. Almost four-to-one in favor 2004-562 more or less. This margin, in spite of the fact the Tax Committee article in the Nov 6 Daily News stated it wasn't even necessary anymore because of an agreement between the City Council and TIFA. This leads one to conclude that the public doesn't exactly trust this City Council.

I'm not exactly holding my breath until the city sues itself, as the Mayor implied would be necessary if it passed.

Watch him weasel out of it by not mentioning it again. It was another idle threat with nothing behind it.

11-08-2006-01

I am pleased to see more and more information on this site. The post on 11-01-2006-1 on the General Fund Balance issue is the kind of post I like to see because the writer (who called himself or herself The Numbers Cruncher) stated (1) exactly where the information came from (2) and it is variable by anyone who wants to check it out.

This is far more valuable than somebody's general opinion.

11-07-2006-01

That was a very well written posting on tax reassessment. I still have a few questions that were not answered to my satisfaction. No offense to Mr. Blomquist is intended.

1. The name of the position Mr. Brook holds with the city is the city assessor. How can it be that reassessment of city property is not a duty of the tax assessor of the city?

2. If the city is to be reappraised every five years, how can we afford to have a tax assessor making an average of well over $100,000.00 a year? We never needed that before. That’s more than the City Manager makes. In fairness to other administrative positions, will their salaries now be adjusted up to these ridiculously high rates to have parity with the assessor?

3. I honestly don’t understand how the other four entities get paid for reassessment, when it’s being done in-house.

4. Was the bid written fairly in the first place? The city received only one bid. In other words, was that bid language designed so it would exclude people in this area that are more than qualified to do the job, deliberately leaving then out of the bidding process?

5. How can $134,000.00 in reassessment fees in three months be justified? There was an earlier post that showed how little time the assessor had to reassess each parcel at that rate, and that was at the low end of the $50.00 to $90.00 range.

6. Mr. Brook is supervising in-house people? Since when were the other four entities considered in-house? That does not fall under my (or anyone I know) understanding of what in-house means.

7. Changing the subject: Why does Mr. Blomquist ignore the postings that prove him wrong, and then he just drives on to something else like it never happened? The imaginary budget deficit, for instance.

This whole thing does not make sense, and it’s not because I’m not an accountant. Something stinks about the whole dirty deal, and I believe these are the same questions people had before the lengthy explanation.

11-06-2006--2

Thank you for the post on the tax reassessment.

11-06-2006-01

The Assessor issue continues to come up. So I called Rich Brook and asked him what was going on. The people that read this site might find that a useful thing to do. He was very pleasant and answered all of my questions.
Here's a brief explanation.

The city published a Request for Bids to completely reassess the City of Iron Mountain, in addition to requesting a bid from specific out of the area companies that do reappraisals within the State of Michigan. To the knowledge of the city this had not been done since the 1970's. The State of Michigan requires that reassessments be done on a regular business, five years is the normal amount of time between a complete reappraisal or otherwise having an ongoing review of a specific portion of the city in lieu of a complete reappraisal.

The out of the area companies replied that they wished to decline to submit a proposal for the bid request. The city only received one bid which was submitted by a company in which Mr. Brook had an ownership interest. The Charter states that no employee of the city can financially benefit from work paid for under contract by the city. The council decided with legal council not to open the bid. The fact remained that the city HAD to be reassessed. Mr. Brook works under an employment contract that does not include a wholesale reassessment of the city. Therefore, the city amended his employment contract to include the reassessment with an appropriate compensation increase. Reassessments costs are determined based on the number of parcels in a community which includes commercial, industrial, and vacant land. In addition, as part of the reappraisal, the tax mapping that must be completed to inventory all lands within the city includes exempt parcels. The range of costs for a reappraisal are from $50 to $90 per parcel. (This info was obtained from other contracts for reappraisals that have taken place in the UP in recent times. The city has 5,829 parcels to
account for, some being residential, some commercial, some industrial, some State owned, some railroad owned, some county owned, some city owned. All of these parcels must be reviewed for value, legal (tax) description and then mapped to create "tax maps" which the city does not have at this time. The maps of record are only of the platted areas within the city boundaries and do not include the un-platted areas of the city, which amounts to approximately 50% to 60%. With the above information a reappraisal of the city would cost from $291,500 to $466,320 complete with outside companies. The estimated city cost is at approximately one half of that by doing the reappraisal process "in house" with Mr. Brook supervising. Because of this approach the reappraisal will take two years instead of one year to complete.

The purpose for reassessment is to properly estimate values of property for the purpose of taxation. (As required by the Constitution of the State of Michigan). If you have not added to the footprint of your property, added a garage, an additional room, deck or patio as an example, and HAD NOT BEEN PAYING TAXES ON IT, your property taxes will not go up. That DOES NOT mean next year your property taxes will not go up as a normal increase determined by the state on an annual basis. Proposal A of 1994 requires that property taxes not exceed 5% or the rate of inflation which ever is lower (3.7% for 2007). If your assessed value increases as a result of the assessment, the NEW OWNER, when or if you sell your property, will see the increase in the taxable value. I might also add that the reassessment has actually lower some peoples taxes due to a garage or structure being demolished and it not be reported.

I understand that this can be a bit confusing. In fact until I had a conversation with Mr. Brook I didn't completely understand it my self. My point is, if you would like to understand, ask. Some writers to this site
continue to simply "imply" wrong doing with vagueness that would make it seem that there is something wrong going on. I would contend that in fact there is NOTHING illegal or improper happening. The elected leaders of this city do what ever they can to make this a better place to live. That doesn't mean I or anyone will always agree, I certainly don't, but they deserve the respect of not being called criminals when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

As others have stated on this site, I am a friend of the Mayors and have been for a number of years. I can say with confidence that he is neither a dictator nor any of the things some have claimed on this site. He as well as the entire council give countless hours of their time with the belief that it is being done for the OVER ALL betterment of the city, all the while collecting the sum of $550.00 per year. Disagree, we should in a democracy, but lets at least try to be productive in our arguments. As always I am signing my name and invite everyone to do the same.

Marcus Blomquist

11-05-2006-01

GENERAL FUND BALANCE ISSUE

The kid screws up yet again. In his post, (11-03-2006-6) Marcus Blomquist states the following:

FACT: Three years ago, when the current city council was elected there was a million-dollar deficit. PERIOD. As of today, the city has a 1.2 fund balance. GENERAL FUND BALANCE.

I have in front of me a 75 page document entitled CITY OF IRON MOUNTAIN BUDGET,

F. Y. 2006-07. This is the proposed budget City Manager Marquart gave to the city council with a cover letter dated March 27, 2006. Anybody can get a copy from city hall. They may charge you 10 cents a page or so, or about $7.50, but it's well worth it. It is exhaustive and enlightening.

On page 28 is a fourteen-year history of Fund Balances. It starts in the year ending June 30,1994 and ends June 30, 2007. The last two years are projections.

Here are the fund balances, by year, each ending on June 30 of that year.

Year ending

June 30, 1994 $ 240,923

June 30, 1995 $ 161,426

June 30, 1996 $ 303,002

June 30, 1997 $ 424,999

June 30, 1998 $ 369,357

June 30, 1999 $ 391,666

June 30, 2000 $ 440,022

June 30, 2001 $ 299,715

June 30, 2002 $ 296,384

June 30, 2003 $ 288,973

June 30, 2004 $ 289,971

June 30, 2005 $ 728,609

June 30, 2006* $ 1,006,193

June 30, 2007* $ 1,130,726

* (projected)

First of all, there was NEVER a Fund Balance Deficit, much less a $1,000,000 one. The city, historically, kept General Fund Balances in the $250,000-$400,000 range. The accounting firm of Anderson, Tackman LLC has been the city-auditing firm for many years and they do a very credible job. Bob Schaut is the lead accountant (CPA) on the audit.

He recommended that a continuing General Fund Balance of around $1,000,000 or so would be more appropriate for the city based on General Revenues of over $4,500,000, or close to 25% of those revenues. There is nothing wrong with this suggestion. What it amounts to is a larger emergency fund or rainy day fund, although the lower earlier numbers never presented any real problem.

On the surface, it would appear the city administration did a great job bumping it up from $ 289,971 on June 30, 2004 to a projected $ 1,006,193 by June 30, 2006, just two years later, or over $ 700,000.

However, on page 14 of the proposed budget document is a letter from the Chief Financial Officer. Here is a very disquieting paragraph from that letter:

"While preparing the budget, I have great concerns of where the Capital Improvement, Health Insurance, Local Street and Motor Vehicle Funds are at this point in time. While the General Fund has improved its fund balance significantly over the last two years, the above funds have continued to deteriorate. The city manager is also aware of the state of these funds and the need to address the situation in the near future."

In a nutshell, the City Manger starved those other funds to build up the General Fund Balance. This is a case of continuing to drink in an effort to postpone the hangover, and at the same time bragging how he built up the General Fund Balance. The day of reckoning is fast approaching. The City Manager makes the final decision on what to propose in the budget. The Chief Financial Officer clearly was worried enough to call it to the attention of the city council . Of course, most of this probably went over their heads. In subsequent postings, I will show you the condition of the above mentioned funds. Let's just say, "It ain't pretty." Get back to your homework, kid. Some day you may get the hang of it. Maybe you should find a different mentor. The Mayor is using you as his patsy. He's not doing you any favors.

Then, again, Marquart, in his October 28 ramblings in The Daily News stated: "The city has a fund balance; previously there was a deficit." He would never lie to us, would he?