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

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

11-22-2006-02

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

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

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

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

11-17-2006-02

11-17-2006-01

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

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

11-15-2006-01

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

11-11-2006-02

11-10-2006-01

11-10-2006-01

11-08-2006-03

11-08-2006-02

11-08-2006-01

11-08-2006-04

11-08-2006-03

11-08-2006-02

11-07-2006-01

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?

 The Numbers-Cruncher

11-04-2206-06

Things were heating up quite a bit on the TIFA issue in this forum before this Blomquist guy became a distraction.  I wonder if that was intentional.  Oh my God!  I just sounded paranoid, like there's a conspiracy or something.  I suppose M.B. will put me in my place for it, with his usual collection of "documented facts".

11-04-2006-05

11-04-2006-04

Whom ever is slamming me for grammar why don't you at least have the balls to post your name. Its that simple I mean how hard is it. Apparently you know you are wrong about what you say so you are too afraid to post it.

11-04-2006-03

11-04-2006-02

11-04-2006-01

Mr. Blomquist:

1. MILLAGE!  Mileage is what your car gets.

2.  ISO Rating:  it’s lower because of the work the fire department did prior to the layoffs.  It will change when Iron Mountain is re-
rated, because of the layoffs and subsequent loss of the automatic aid agreement with Kingsford. If the City is so confident that it 
doesn’t matter, then let them call the ISO and invite them back NOW. Go ahead, put the taxpayers’ money where your mouth is.  I’m calling your bluff. Prove me wrong.

3. Mr. Blomquist, you also need to be aware that spell check doesn’t catch everything. (it would have let me write, “ewe all sew knead two 
bee a where”). Slow down when you write your responses, and check for errors.  You have quite a few blumpkins in your latest post, and that could be contributing to the pounding you're taking.

4. You also need to check your facts more carefully - much of what you wrote is incorrect.  I don’t believe you are trying to mislead 
anyone, but you are clearly misinformed.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

11-03-2006-06

My God it just doesn't stop. I guess delusion is a difficult thing to break.

FACT: Three years ago when the current council was elected there was a million dollar deficit. PERIOD. NO smoke and mirrors! As of today the city has a 1.2 million dollar fund balance. GENERAL FUND BALANCE! Stop spreading your untruths and LIES! For three years in a row the city council has decreased mileage. I'm sorry if the writers don't understand how taxation works but here's a quick lesson. The city sets mileage the state under Hedley and prop A determine the percentage your taxes go up every year. Your taxes will always go up unless the city reduces mileage to overcompensate for the state increase. If the council was to do that the city would be bankrupt with no revenues in a couple years. The fact is because the city reduced mileage your taxes went up LESS than they would have if mileage was
not reduced.

FACT: The boat launch has undergone huge changes and more is on the way. The grant was applied for and received under the current council and management. Also the grant was filed and received for the Pavilion under the current council and management. The combined work of volunteers and a great number of all sorts of people have been used to upgrade the north side ball park. No one person is taking credit for it! Marquart's article was about what was happening in the city!

FACT: The city negotiated for over a year with retirees to preserve the highest possible benefit for the longest possible time. It also protected those retirees that make $1000 or less a month with NO changes! The cities only job is NOT to simply provide health benefits. Although this council takes that responsibility seriously. I wonder how loudly the writer would be screaming if that were the case. Everyone, both private and public have wrestled with increasing health care costs. The current council inherited 20 years of poorly negotiated union contracts.

FACT: The city has increased spending on streets and infrastructure drastically! The answer to the question of where the matching funds come from? The CITY! Where do you think? If the writer can't imagine how a 50/50 or 75/25 grant program works then he or she has NO understanding of municipal, state or federal grant programs.

FACT: There are NO MORE HOMES FOR SALE IN IRON MOUNTAIN THEN THERE WAS TWO THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO! All one has to do is check the records. Stop just making statements based on lame observations.

FACT: Your taxes WILL NOT GO UP BASED ON THE REASSESSMENT, unless you added to the footprint of your property and had not been paying taxes on it or you simply where "overlooked". In that case you should count yourself lucky that you aren't being back taxed for the years you ripped off the taxpayers of Iron Mountain.

FACT: ISO ratings! Check the FACTS! Look at surrounding communities. They are ALL higher. In fact, the facts about ISO ratings are some insurance carriers use them and some don't. Stop making some huge deal about NOTHING! Good lord it's sad when all SOME in the fire department have to hang their hat on is a vague meaningless number.

FACT: Where are the laws being broken by city officials? If that's true let's prosecute! I assume the answer there will be some vast conspiracy to keep it all hushed up. THIS IS IRON MOUNTAIN! Not Chicago! Grow Up! Keep in mind that our elected council makes $550.00 per YEAR! What possible reason would they have to hang on to such LARGE sums of money by breaking the law!
Exotic travel to Lansing and Ishpeming? To believe such a thing is simply put: Crazy.

It's time the people that add to this website fess up. What are your real motives? Who is the mysterious web master that runs this site? By the way the idea that you might be fired! By whom? If that's the case you have one helluva law suit by whoever has violated your right to free speech. And also, the fact that I am a friend of the Mayors has NOTHING to do with the fact that I have my own opinions based on knowledge of issues and a wide variety of people I know and respect. "Long Winded Guy" again, you said nothing but personally attacked me. Give me your plan! The council has a plan, whether you agree or disagree, they PUBLICLY talk about it. I want to hear yours. Simply bitching and name calling is useless. Specifically tell me what you would do! Amazing how you try to "shut me up" by suggesting
I just give up and that I'm "out of my League". Isn't that what you accuse the council of doing? Hypocrites.  Print your names like I do. I have nothing to hide. I wonder why you do. It amazes me that all some can do is accuse me of being young and under someone's spell. Let me see, Marquart has the council under his magical spell, the mayor has me under his. Wow what
are these magical people doing in Iron Mountain? They should be ruling the world. Crazy.

On another note I am also not out of your league in fact you may be out of mine.

Marcus Blomquist

11-03-2006-05

Hey how about the weather.  Pretty cold lately.

11-03-2006-04

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS - ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION ???

Some people have been wondering why an outfit called Gilbert & Associates has been getting paid over $10,000 a month for the last
couple of months.  I found a Gilbert & Associates located in Gladstone. (Same place the City Assessor is from).

This outfit is listed as having two employees, perhaps including Tom Gilbert, the owner.  There is no mention that they do assessing, certainly not on a large scale, such as a city like Iron Mountain. It seems to be a small real estate operation.


Who hired this outfit in connection with the Iron Mountain appraisal?  Why this 2 person outfit?  Did our assessor cut a deal with them?  If
so, where is the agreement?  Seems like an outrageous sum for a small two person real estate operation.  Check the link below for info.

http://www.manta.com/comsite5/bin/pddnb_company.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=3550&id=htnlwx

11-03-2006-03

Go to a Council meeting and find out what's going on, Mr. Blomquist writes. 
Ever since this reign of terror took office, there is nothing to do but listen.  You can get speak during the Public Comment period, but no-one on the council or the City Manager is allowed to answer, except the Mayor who tells you no-one will answer.   For many, many years, right up until the current council and the little dictator took over, there had always been dialogue between the council and interested citizens.

The mayor, at the start of the meeting would state some like - Is there anyone who wished to address the Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Citizens would then speak on anything they wanted.  Often a dialogue developed.

Then as the meeting proceeded, ANY subject that WAS on the agenda could be addressed by interested citizens while it was being discussed.  Any council member was allowed to speak, as well as the mayor and City Manager. Citizens who spoke up usually had a specific interest on a particular issue that was on the agenda, and almost always knew a lot about the subject. They could add  their knowledge and often offered points the council hadn't considered.

That was citizen democracy in action.  It worked.  Now the Mayor has set up rules which prohibit this kind of exchange of ideas.  That's because he doesn't want dialogue. He wants to ram through the agenda as quickly as possible and hope no-one protests too loudly. He is finding out everyone does not stand idly by - they find other ways to get back at him and the council.

A personality with a dictatorial bent is not about to change.  He will connive, lie, speak around the issue, and use every parliamentary trick
available.  Apparently, he has managed to fool you, Mr. Blomquist, because you seem to be in a praise mode.  Almost sounds like the mayor wrote your script.   By the way, how many city council meetings have you attended?

About as many as the mayor in the years before he was elected.  Zero, maybe?

11-03-2006-02

A writer on this site says, " If you want facts or have comments go to council meetings its just that simple." Followed by, "I know that I don't have to go to council meetings to understand there is no 
special interests, no deception, no corruption and whatever else you people can come up with."

Check again, Writer.  You're sure you're not an idiot?

11-03-2006-01

11-02-2006-02

I don't understand how you assume this website is informative. It is basically all just opinions and people whining about things they shouldn't be. I think people need to get the facts straight. All you have to do is go to a council meeting. Do you honestly think the people on this website know exactly what they are talking about? The whole thing is ridiculous. I mean think about it what is this website really accomplishing? The only thing I can see it doing is allowing people to ramble there stupid little half ass comments on a website. People really need to just grow up I mean seriously.  If you want facts or have comments go to council meetings its just that simple. Also I know the city doesn't have so called special interests of any sort. They are not benefiting from this. I mean honestly there are no more
houses up for sale then normal. I am not an idiot and I know that I don't have to go to council meetings to understand there is no special interests, no deception, no corruption and whatever else you people can come up with.  There is also no gay hidden agenda with cool cities and where did people pull up that gay percent number there is not 800 to 1,200 gay out men in Iron Mountain. Basically the city is not hiding anything from anyone its all there. And to the long winded writer you cannot get fired for stating an opinion that's not how this country works. Also I am independent expansive and an all around good guy I am just apparently not an idiot

Marcus Blomquist

11-02-2006-01

11-01-2006-07

11-01-2006-06

11-01-2006-05

SUBJECT:  Response to Marcus Blomquist

My apologies, Mr. Blomquist.  I know you!  Or who you are.  I'm heartbroken.  I never would've expected such attitudes and displays from you, despite who you hang with -- you struck me as a larger, more independent, and more expansive young man.  I apologize because I clearly did not communicate effectively -- I thought I was being positive by addressing these issues rather than spinning formulaic and worn-out textbook programs out of Poli Sci 101.  And I was under the impression that progressive was an adjective associated with progress, not merely ephemera, hoopla, whimsy, and change for change's sake.  Also, I wasn't aware that issues of right and wrong, morality and ethics, belief and conviction, with far-reaching real-life consequences were subject to the trendiness and fashion of being tired.  Unenlightened, I believed -- and still believe, alas, despite your kind and earnest efforts to instruct and correct me -- that such issues held some worth and absolute value among all human beings.  That the tiredness was characteristic not of the issue but of the people who no longer wanted to acknowledge and measure up to that value.

You certainly make a good point about previous administrations, but as long as we're dealing with tired material, let me leave you with an old cliche: Two wrongs don't make a right.  How's that for tired?  How's that for true?  As a simpleton, let me spell that out, just to make sure I'm expressing it the way I want: I'd rather see an administration in office that solves the previous administrations' problems instead of flamboyantly exploiting and compounding them.  Yeah.  I think that's how I want to say it.

I'd love to follow your example and sign my name, but I've been warned that I'll be fired if I'm discovered to be doing this type of thing, even if a valid excuse for that dismissal has to be manufactured.  I know.  Doesn't that sound deliciously evil, adolescent, and prime-time-TV?  I'm not supposed to fight City Hall.  And I'm not even an employee of the city!  Talk about special interests, huh?  Therefore, to protect my livelihood, spouse, and children -- unprincipled mercenary that I am -- I remain,

The Long Winded Writer

11-01-2006-04

I just read the latest opposing viewpoints on this site, and I would like to commend both sides of the “Is the city management doing a 
good job” issue for caring one way or the other.  The worst problem we have in this city is apathy - those who don’t care enough to even 
think about what’s happening, and to voice their opinion.

My opinion is that growth and economic development are not bad things, but I do believe that essential services have to come first.

The problem I have with the current city management is not their stated goals of growth and economic development.  The problem I have 
is that they can’t do the job without lying, deception, lawbreaking, and alienation of the surrounding communities.  The people of Iron 
Mountain deserve management that can create growth opportunities WITHOUT slashing essential services, and WITHOUT breaking any laws, and WITHOUT lying.  It can be done.  A balanced budget, with the best of service provided to the community, AND economic development programs CAN BE ACHIEVED - apparently, just not by those in charge now.  It is not inconceivable that a different manager, and council, could get the job done.

The fire protection in Iron Mountain is not what it was.  Iron Mountain will not be able to retain its Class 4 ISO rating, because 
Mr. Marquart can’t keep the ISO from coming back forever, and when they do, the truth will be revealed.  Iron Mountain residents used to 
get 4 men on a truck when they had a fire - enough to start whatever operations were required IMMEDIATELY, without delay.  That is not 
possible under the new public safety arrangement.  (For those of you who are “tired” of hearing this - tough.)  Every service the fire 
department provided to the citizens has been drastically reduced, at a time when it could have been expanded to include medical first 
response and full rescue and extrication.  The people of Iron Mountain were told that such services would not suffer. (Remember?)  
In the meantime, how are we able to pay for all of those new administrative positions, if the Fire Department had to be slashed to 
save money?

11-01-2006-03

$200,000.00
Amount the city government promised that Iron Mountain taxpayers would save annually when the city government fired four firefighters.

$0.00
Amount that Iron Mountain taxpayers saved annually from the four firings at the fire department.

$400,542.00
Some of the additional amount, beyond that $200,000.00, that Iron Mountain taxpayers will pay for new city employees hired since the firing of the four firefighters.  These costs include:
        * Three part-time dispatchers at the police department: $24,000 annually.
        * Director of Public Works: $48,000 salary, $1,800 travel allowance, $15,000 health & other benefits; annually.
        * Director of Planning & Development: $37,500 salary, $1,800 travel allowance, $15,000 health & other benefits; annually.
        * City Assessor: $26,392 (part-time) salary, $15,000 health & other benefits; annually.  $216,050 = $50.00 per parcel x 4,321 parcels, contract             (unbidded) to reassess the city within one year.
        * This figure of over $400,000.00 does not include the salaries and benefits of other new city positions and employees such as the new City Code           Enforcement Officer and the the new police officer (hired despite a promise by the city government that no new firefighters and police officers         would be hired after the four firefighters were fired.)

Does this arithmetic versus the city government's matter-of-fact public relations baloney strike anyone else as, at best, contradictory?  Special note to the officials at City Hall:  Community Theatre is active again.  You people should get involved with them.  They're always looking for amateur actors living and working in the area.  I stress working in the area because some of you full-time chief bureaucrats still are not residents of our the area, but commute from the Escanaba and Marquette areas -- apparently against state law and city ordinance, if those things still have any legitimacy.  And, traditionally,  Community Theatre deals in fiction too, another commonality, although their shows have historically been much better than yours.  And cheaper.

All of this information is a matter of public record.  Feel free to acquire the documentation, records, minutes, and other paperwork from the appropriate authorities.  It's your right even if your local authorities don't want you to know that.  And be assured that there are at least a couple of officials downtown who will stand in your way with dead eyes and creully straight faces and try to prevent you from getting it with technicalities, red tape, and equivocation.  ( Learn more here about gathering public information.)  Despite the fact that you may pay 1.9% fewer taxes next year as city officials claim and as they define taxes, you're not paying 1.9% less money into the city coffers.  Announcing gaily that the sun is blue doesn't make it less yellow.  The city government gets its money from you in other ways, in fees and TIFA etc.  And when reassessment is completed, watch for your taxes to rise.  As all but the most naive and apathetic know, that's the reason the reassessment is being done.  Also watch your property insurance premiums for increases as local safety ratings tumble and insurance companies learn of the new ratings.  Beware too of fines that the city may suffer due to un-allowed changes in such areas of safety as those at the fire department.  You'll have to absorb those costs.  And you'll also have to absorb the legal expenses that the city accumulates as it fights lawsuits, such as the $70,000-$80,000 it cost to fight the losing battle against its own firefighters.  Some of these things have started to occur.  Others you can look forward to.

We've been duped, Iron Mountain.  And we're being pillaged and looted.  Although I'm not sure we give a damn.  At least not enough to get off our rear ends and shake our apathy, complacency, and laziness.  God forbid it might take an effort on our part to stand up to this nonsense and do something in our own interest.  You might want to at least consider it though before it's too late.  A few residents and businesses are -- one piece of evidence is the increasing number of For Sale signs all over town.  If the rest of us, those staying behind, don't stand up and do something, at least protest insistently, we're gonna get what we deserve, plain and simple.

11-01-2006-02

In response to the long winded writer,

Point by point.

How is encouraging economics development and the addition of hundreds of jobs a "special interest" issue? My god how ridiculous. It's frankly sad.  The cities investment in Systems and Champion and TIFA investment in infrastructure only makes all of our lives better with the addition of more employment opportunities. I would invite the writer to give us his plan for the city. What would he do differently? He's LONG on bitching and short on solutions. Also the TIFA capture doesn't increase your taxes ONE BIT!
Whether TIFA exists or not, doesn't mean anything for your taxes. All it does is insure that the money will be used to create jobs rather than go down the rat hole of health care costs and union pension plans.

The gay thing is tired! Get a life. The cool cities application that the city submitted says NOTHING about gays. I've Read it. Have you? The single statement in the "cool cites" site is a statement of fact, supported by the likes of Richard Florida in his book "The Rise of the Creative Class." It doesn't suggest that this or any city should have a program of Gay recruitment. The point is weird. Should the Manager and city council point out what? It's strange how the writer keeps saying there's nothing wrong with being gay but points out nothing else but that issue. What about the number of other reasons why cities are successful. He fails to mention that. Does he believe the council should have stated the hundreds of reasons why cities might be "cool", all of which are mentioned on the website also! Sir you are a weird homophobe. Sad.

The water system was it desperate need of upgrading after years of neglect. The current city council acted where past councils sat and deliberated for years. Again leadership. The delivery systems are in fact in need of repair and upgrading. The reasons the rates went up so drastically was that they hadn't been raised in YEARS! In fact they were often lowered. That is incredibly irresponsible. Do I like paying higher water rates? No. But thank god the current council did what needed to be done.

AGAIN, the city CANNOT make money on the rental ordinance or blight ordinance. It is against state law! It cannot be a way to raise money. GET OVER IT!

The fire issue. My god talk about tired. The people voted overwhelmingly to support the current council and the approach they are taking. Read last nights paper. Iron Mountain LOWERED taxes again. For the third year in a row.

My Point, Taxes are lowered, a fund balance, more streets and sidewalks being done, more jobs and businesses and investment, vastly increased state and federal grant money to the city, parks and recreation areas being improved and added, standards being set that will help to revitalize neighborhoods from Vision 2020 to the rental ordinance and the international property code, just a small handful of creative and progressive things happening in this city.

I don't know why you claim I'm a family member of a council member. I also don't know what people you call friends, but I can tell you that I hear everywhere nothing but incredible positive things about our city and the direction it's going in. When I hear people disagree they do so with a positive solution for change, not silly ramblings from a guy with a very "special" interest like you.

Amazing how ONE person writes something positive and you just can't stand it can you?

Marcus Blomquist

11-01-2006-01

Mr. Marquart's latest spiel (or conversation as he called it) in the newspaper was quite a 'crock'!  He certainly likes to "toot his own horn" about all of the grants the city has obtained.  Of course the majority of these grants have always been out there; but most are matching grants.  I, as others have stated, am curious where the matching funds are coming from.

The Champion-Gunlach project sounds to me like 'putting the cart before the horse'. The city has extended water and sewer lines to this project and made other improvements BEFORE this proposed annexation has been approved.  We, the tax-payer are paying for improvements to aid a business that may remain partially outside of our city limits.
How is it that the investment in the property at System Control is going to create additional tax base? Isn't that elaborate parking lot city property? No tax revenue there! And didn't System Control get a 25 year property tax exemption in this deal? And how does the city manager and council take credit for new businesses? Are they building the new hotel, McDonalds, strip mall, or relocating the Simone agency.  Instead of making it look like they've accomplished something, they should be thanking their lucky stars that these businesses even want to be in Iron Mountain.  How does Marquart get off talking like he is somehow responsible for these projects.  Talk I've heard says he more often makes it difficult for new businesses and construction by tying things up with non-responses or disputing even the most basic signage.
He also makes some basic maintenance projects seem like some sort of great gifts that he and the council have provided for the citizens. I'm tired of seeing Mr. Marquart patting himself on the back for doing the things that a city government is supposed to do.  Oh hurray, Mr. Marquart is fixing the water problems and finally beginning to repair some roads.  Well, I say, "It's about time!"  And, of course you notice which parking lot he lists as slated for repair.. The city hall/ Moose Jackson parking lot.

 As for this "Cool Cities" designation, Mr. Marquart tries to make it sound like our council really accomplished an amazing feat (at the tax-payers expense).  He brags that there are only 13 "Cool Cities Main Street" designations in the state.  That's true enough, so far; but there are also other "Cool Cities" designations. In fact, according to one of the 'michigan.gov' websites from March of this year, there are already "79 Cool Cities Neighborhood Award Designations" and growing. And I can assure you that the cities and towns I've looked into did not send an all-expenses-paid delegation to Lansing to get there designation.  Many were obtained through phone calls, emails, and faxes.
Here's the application process I found for 2005 applicants:
APPLICATION PROCESS The Notice of Intent (NOI) and application will be available online (www.coolcities.com) by February 18, 2005. The NOI must be submitted online no later than March 11, 2005. We will review the NOI's for eligibility and threshold criteria, on or before March 18, 2005. If your NOI meets the eligibility and threshold criteria you will receive an email notice inviting a full application with instructions including website address where you can download the application. A phone number will be provided if you want to request a hardcopy. Full applications must be submitted no later than April 29, 2005. Representatives from the Cool Cities Coordinating team will visit a sample of the applicant neighborhoods in May. The 2005 Cool Cities Grants & Planning program designated neighborhoods will be
announced in late June 2005.

SUBJECT:  Response to 10-31-2006-01

A lot of new things going on in the city doesn't mean that they're good things.  Activity doesn't equal substance and benefit.  Activity often serves as a distraction.  It provides flashy, unsubstantive, nonessential issues with which politicians and bureaucrats can decorate themselves and behind which they can hide.
Like you, I also give the city manager, mayor, and city council credit for having balls -- the balls to slap their agenda on the city and risk getting everything they want without getting caught and being held accountable, at the expense of the city, and with little or no resistance from it.
You can badmouth past city fathers with some validity -- they've all had their share of successes and failures -- but I have difficulty finding one substantive item that has originated with the current city government, has been executed, is bearing fruit, and confidently assures us by way of its intrinsic value that it will benefit the entire city, not only a few, into the future.
I don't know what your standards are, but by my standards I cannot agree with you that the town is changing for the better.  I judge by the standard of living and the quality of life for the entire population of Iron Mountain.  If the standard of living rises and the quality of life improves, then I believe things are better.  But I do not believe that the city is better off today than it was two and three years ago.  Instead, I've seen the standard of living and the quality of life deteriorate for Iron Mountain as a whole, while the cost of living here rises over the same period.  How many people in Iron Mountain believe that they're better off today, if fact, than they were two or three years ago, no matter what the mayor, city manager, and city council tell them?
Yes, I'm sorry, I hate to be contrary, but I can look around Iron Mountain and honestly say that our current leadership is doing a bad job.
When my water doesn't taste like chlorine, it tastes like sulphur.  It's borderline dangerous all the time, and I receive notices to this effect every year.  Its delivery system is failing or on the verge of it.  Yet despite the deterioration and the bacterial threats of the water and its delivery system, I'm paying at least three times more for it.  Such a deal.

Through this crazy TIFA nonsense, the city government is taking more money out of my pocket for nonessential items at the expense of other municipal jurisdictions and services that also serve me.
Some of these outsiders the council has brought in like Marquart and his hirees like Woolard, while acting very self-important and officious, are among the most unprofessional bunch of amateurs you've ever seen, the way they'll confront you -- or ignore you! -- about something without a shred of evidence or without doing a bit of homework.  They're really quite silly and unpleasant, with attitudes that even strike many as bullying and abusive.  But that's when they're not appearing smarmy, shifty, or falsely charming.  On a personal level, it wouldn't hurt to have city officials with slightly affable personalities and enough intelligence not come across as transparent, incompetent, and meaner than a junkyard dog.  They are, after all, our civil servants, not our bosses.
It does not strike me as a good thing that I, and others I've compared notes with, can email, phone, mail, fax, or drop in at city hall multiple times about an issue, and months later still not have received a response.  It also bothers me that mail I've sent to my councilperson or the entire council never reaches them.

The city government assures me that they are firing four firemen to save me $200,000 in taxes, and that my property insurance rates will not rise due to less safety and greater fire risk.  But there has been no decline in city property taxes over the promised time.  In fact, mine have risen -- and I have additional fees to boot!  Furthermore, the current city government creates and hires employees for several new administrative positions at a cost of additional hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond the unrealized $200,000 we were supposed to save.  Moreover, the city's safety rating went down and appears ready to plunge further.  And although the city's insurance rates have not yet risen, mine and other residents' have.  Get ready, Iron Mountain.  If you're not among those who suffered these same indignities already, you're about to.

Despite all the highfalutin economic planning and bragging, prospective new businesses initially willing to invest a great deal of private capital in this city cannot get into or past the city manager's office, or even get a response or be researched by that office, as if this were New York, Chicago, or L.A. and he's too busy to be bothered.  Yet this city government practically throws a festival when it gets a relatively puny state grant of money that you and I have already paid as taxes and is not going to Iron Mountain for city services, but to already established profitable businesses on the north side for material infrastructure improvements or as contracts to provide those improvements.  I believe that's called corporate welfare.
The landlord ordinance, de facto, has nothing to do with inspections.  That's the con the public is supposed to swallow, that the city is concerned about the welfare of tenants.  If the city government had just cause, they could have always gotten a warrant and inspected any property and still could today.  It doesn't need this ridiculous ordinance.  The purpose of the landlord ordinance, like the blight law, is to raise money.  It is designed as a source of revenue.  That's why there's a mandatory fee slapped on every rental unit.  That's why there are fines for "blighted" properties.  Get.  Money.

The city government is reassessing the entire city.  It is not using an independent firm.  It has contracted with its own assessor for a fee of well over $200,000.  That doesn't seem at all unethical, does it?  Based on last year's trend, even before reassessment, be prepared for your assessment and property taxes to skyrocket.  (Just to pay the assessor!)  Even as the unusually high For-Sale market throughout the city drives down actual market values of property.
Why is the city daring everyone to sue it -- and everyone does!  The current members of the government don't care apparently.  After all, they can hide behind the city itself and keep going about the business of check marking other items on their agenda, ho-hum, and if they lose the case, as they did to the firemen, it's no skin off their noses or nickels out of their pockets.  Iron Mountain -- you and me -- coughs up the $75,000 for its leaders' mistake.

The city continues to grow unpleasantly noisier.  The noise ordinances are not generally enforced.  Cars and trucks scream around town without mufflers or tailpipes, with holes in their exhaust manifolds, or with macho man Hollywood mufflers loud enough to drive a deaf person crazy.  Trains horns blare through town during the night, waking and disrupting the lives of those who are expected to happily and productively get up and go off to work and school the next day.  Four-wheelers and other high-noise off-road vehicles blat and scream at all hours up and around the Lehman Street/North Milwaukee Avenue and old rail bed and industrial park area, along the tracks in town, the Park Avenue area of Millie Hill, in the cemetery, in the woods behind the cemetery and on the city streets and in the neighborhood ravines and woods east of the cemetery -- all within city limits and around residences.
The city manager, mayor, and city council are misrepresentative and unrepresentative.  For example: they misrepresented me and my city when they repeatedly flew to Lansing on our dime for over two years and convinced the Michigan's Cool Cities Initiative that Iron Mountain's population of 8,000 includes 800-1,600 (10%-20%) of self-admitted -- out-of-the-closet -- gay people.  Please.  Clearly Iron Mountain is so openly queer it's now the South Beach, Manhattan, and San Francisco of the Midwest.  And they surely misrepresented the Cool Cities Initiative when they failed to inform us that, by accepting the Cool Cities Initiative, Iron Mountain is condoning and subscribing to the belief of the Cool Cities Initiative that "gay communities are the most desirable for young families" according to them.  With no moral reflection or judgment whatsoever on the gay community, is this representative of the majority of Iron Mountain's citizens?  Is it representative of even 10% of Iron Mountain's citizens?  Is this what we believe -- that gay communities are the most desirable for young families?  It's not the homosexuality that's the issue.  It's the way that these current city hall politicians and bureaucrats operate.  How they equivocate, maneuver, and manipulate.  That's the issue.
What about all these state and city laws and documents that keep turning up -- many on this site -- laws on the books, memos, employees who are not residents but legally must be, contradictions and lies, un-itemized expenditures, $80+ single meals, $350+ single hotel rooms when cheaper adequate rooms were available -- you know, what about the clear evidence that these people don't have the city's best interests in mind or at heart, otherwise the money trail and their behavior -- not their rhetoric -- would clearly, unskeptically, irreproachably reflect it?

Because I'm working off the cuff here, I know I'm forgetting other items.  But you get the idea.  I can't for the life of me understand where you and other steadfast supporters of this city government are coming from.  Unless you're a friend, family member, or a special interest that has something to gain from the way they do business.  But, based on the sinking standard of living and the deteriorating quality of life in Iron Mountain the last few years, I couldn't disagree with you more.  I do look at the things going on in Iron Mountain -- and envision the things not going on that should be -- and I can honestly state to you that I don't believe these city officials are doing a good job governing this city.  I don't think they're doing a good job at all.