|
IronMountainIssues.org |
||||
|
||||
|
June 2007 Postings 6-30-2007-01 All I have to say is that dispite the negative and aweful things that have been said about Ken Tousignant, this man went out of his way and to help my niece a few weeks ago. You see thanks to the wonderful slum lords in Iron Mountain, my niece was put in an aweful situation by her landlord. To her discovery and by the suggestion of Mr. Tousignant, he advised her personnaly of her rights as a tenant and lead her in the right direction to protect her rights. Needless to say, this slum lord had fines to pay and much to fix. It is sad that all of you landlords out there who think that keeping your rentals in such bad conditions, I would really like to see you live in one of them. So Mr. Tousignant, I would just like to say thank you so much for the assistance that you provided to my niece and her two children. And if I was there, I would take you up on the job offer!! 6-29-2007-01
I would like to know if there is a difference
between political spin and lying. I always thought spin was a
version of the truth that was favorable to your side of an issue.
When I look at all of the documentation on this website about many different
issues, I am seeing cases where what is happening is not a slanted
version of the truth; it is outright lying. A good example is the
explanation of the Bolt decision. Another example is when we were told the
reassessment was being done in-house. Then the explanations about David
Legge. I'm still not sure about the sewage dumping incident, but I think we
were lied to about that one, too. Much earlier about fire protection. On
and on and on.
So, back to my original question. Is
there a difference between political spin and lying? Spin is
something we'll never get rid of in politics, but lying is going too far.
That is a violation of the public trust every time it happens, in my
opinion.
6-28-2007-03 Freedom of Information Act request dated June 7th, 2007. This is a comparison on what was said and what is true. If you get a chance read both pages. 6-28-2007-02
Marquart, Tousignant and the rest of the City Council for the past three
years have bragged up the huge tax reduction they have passed. Lets see now.
That was one tenth of a mill for three years or three tenths of a mill
total. If the average assessment for a home is say fifty-thousand dollars,
this is a savings of $5.00 per year for a three year total of $15.00. But
look at the average tax bill where the city council added an administration
fee of 1%. This increased the average tax bill by $22.00 per year or $66.00
over the past three years. Kind of erases the huge tax break that we all
got. Compare your summer tax bill from 2003, which was prior to the current
city council, and compare it to the one you just received and see for
yourself the huge tax break that you have received.
Now they want to add a 5% fee to our cable bills. Many people have both
cable TV and internet and are paying about $95.00 per month (or more) for
this service. Add $4.75 per month or $57.00 per year and this more than
wipes out the tax reduction and in itself becomes a tax on cable TV.
Three years ago, this council increased the average water bill by $ 30.00
per month or an extra $ 360.00 per year. Another form of a tax increase, by
not going to the voters for approval of the water bonds. Total for three
years is $1,080.00.
If you look closer at your water bills, there was a very quiet increase in
the GA or garbage fee, $1.05 per month or $12.60 per year. Total for three
years is
$37.80.
The sewer rates were increased on January 1, 2006 and again recently. If
anyone can figure out this increase, please post it for the average Joe. I
am sure this has added another 5 or 6 dollars a month to the water bills or
$60 to $72 per year.
And how about the other hidden fees. Most of our neighboring communities do
not charge for a Zoning Permit and if they do, it is a very minimal charge.
Check out our City. For example $50.00 for a fence permit, and they have
just increased all fees effective July 1, 2007.
Check out all of the fees that have been added by Marquart, Tousignant and
their comrades,
http://www.cityofironmountain.com/index.asp?NID=206 and ask yourself how much of a tax savings did you actually receive. 6-27-2007-01 I would like to thank the writer of
6-26-2007-05. 6-26-2007-05
To post 6-25-07-02: Nobody said the city
did anything illegal in advertising the special meeting
one month before it was scheduled. They
were following the law. Nobody said it wasn't in the council minutes.
The point is the legal requirements are a
bit goofy. How many people would cut out an ad in the paper for a
meeting a month from now and mark it on their calendar. How many people
would remember it, if it was even mentioned in the paper after the
regular council meeting in which scheduled.
My point is that the one person who caught
it and posted it on this website caught the interest of the twenty five
or more people who showed up. I certainly don't recall seeing the
original advertisement. Without that post, I think the attendance would
have been between zero and two.
I am not here to malign the city council.
All I'm saying is that this website keeps me informed on city affairs
that I would not be aware of without it. If some posts thought it was
sneaky, I disagree. The overriding fact is that this website is
performing a service that would not otherwise be available to the
general public.
6-26-2007-04
I went the city council meeting Monday
night. Doug Rigoni was trying to postpone the replacement of a
sewer lift station on West B street. It's in that small brick
building around the 1000 block of West B.
Three retired city employees, John
Ellis, retired head of the Water Dept, and Bill Calcari and Dave
Farraugh, retired DPW foremen each got up and spoke on the issue.
They each have more knowledge of the city infrastructure by a
country mile than any of the city council, Marquart or current DPW
director Becotte. By time they got done, even Rigoni changed his
mind and the council voted to replace the obsolete one.
It goes to show you. There are many
competent retired city employees in the community who know more
about the city than most of us realize, and far, far more than the
current administration and council will ever know. Nobody ever asks
them questions. It costs money when you don't ask questions and go
off half cocked.
Instead of using the knowledge these
people have at no cost, this city council , manager and mayor are
trying to figure out ways to screw them out of contacted benefits.
They have had the chance
to create a win-win situation and have turned it into a lose-lose
proposition. Incompetence at the
top is costing us more and more each year as we get less and less.
It will only gets worse as
long as this bunch is running the show.
They simply don't care about you.
6-26-2007-03
The city council, at its special meeting
Monday, June 25, had to amend its previous year budget by $400,000.
Yep, they overestimated income and underestimated expenses by that much.
That's what happens when you have a city
manager with over 25 years in various city manager positions (7 of them
in that span, and fired from the last 2 of 3) who still can't project
either income or expenses accurately.
How the hell do you put nothing in
the budget for reassessing in a budget that was approved in late May of
2006 and on June 8, before the fiscal year ends, put out an add for
reassessing. That was $200,000 or so of the deficit.
He also put in around $100,000 that he
presumed was going to be collected from landlords. A mere pittance of
this amount came in. They were already in court, but Marquart figured
on a slam duck victory, which he will never get.
For all this, he gets a 9% pay
raise. Any competent council would fire him with cause, but then again,
we don't have a competent council.
6-26-2007-02 The song and dance goes on by John
Marquart. Three times he was asked by a council member how much this new loan
would add to the users fee, and three times he failed to give a definitive
answer. 6-26-2007-01 Wonder of wonders. For the first time in anyone's memory, the issue of excessive users fees was expressed by an actual living, breathing council member. They are feeling the heat of taxpayers revolt. With elections coming up, they are getting edgy. They did not discuss the possibility of cutting any of them, so it's ---- Too little, too late. 6-25-2007-03 Wonder of wonders. For the first time in anyone's memory, the issue of excessive users fees was expressed by an actual living, breathing council member. They are feeling the heat of taxpayers revolt. With elections coming up, they are getting edgy. They did not discuss the possibility of cutting any of them, so it's ---- Too little, too late. 6-25-2007-02
Notice of PUBLIC MEETING published in the PAPER,
in the minutes of the council meeting, BUT another slick move would have
gone unnoticed????
Maybe you could give them your phone numbers so they can call you!!! 6-25-2007-01 The City 2007-2008 budget has been posted. Budget 6-24-2007-02 My thanks to whoever noticed and
published the Notice of Public Hearing. I knew nothing about it, either. Good
work. Without this website, another slick move would have gone practically
unnoticed. 6-24-2007-01
Here we go again. Quietly and
secretly the weasel, his chief honcho, and the stoioges are out to
pick our pockets without our consent.
This $1,580,000 they want
to borrow is the same as issuing a bond, exactly the same. If you have
any interest in not getting your pockets picked once again,
go to the meeting or shut up about these people.
It doesn't do any good to bitch about them
with your neighbor, or in the bars, coffee shops and gas stations. You
have to speak up at the meetings. Let's see how many of you really care
in advance, instead of bitching after the fact.
REMEMBER: The Public Hearing
is Monday, June 25, at 6:00 PM. Be there.
Unless you don't mind paying off another bond for the next 30 years.
6-23-2007-03
I got a call Saturday afternoon from a
friend telling me about a special meeting Monday night at City Hall
where they are planning to borrow around $1.5 million on the QT. I never
saw the ad, so I called him back and he faxed it to me.
Sure enough, there it was. From way back on
May 29th he tells me. He didn't know if there was another one or not,
but I think we should all go there and see what the hell this is all
about.
You already know who is going to pay
for this. Probably through a doubling or tripling of the sewage fees.
This is the same thing they did with the
water bond, but nobody complained so now you have enormous water bills.
The same will happen again if we let them sneak it through. A million
and a half isn't chicken feed. That's on top of the $4.8 million water
bond we're stuck with.
6-23-2007-02
Thanks for the heads-up on the Council
special meeting this Monday at 6:00 PM. You can be sure I'll be there
and notify as many people as I can about it. The money-grubbers are
meeting the letter of the law with one or two notices, and shellacking
us for another $1,500,000.
I may not even be against this project, but
they sure as hell haven't discussed it that I know of.
If it's so urgent, you'd think it would have
appeared in one of Marquart's self-praise articles.
6-23-2007-01
I was glancing through some old Daily
News before discarding them and found a
NOTICE OF
URGENT
URGENT URGENT URGENT
I was glancing over some old issues of
the Daily News before discarding them. I saw a
NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARING in
the May 29 edition posted by the City of Iron
Mountain. That is almost a month ago.
This PUBLIC HEARING is
scheduled for Monday, June 25 at 6:00 PM.
That's this Monday. I haven't seen a word about it on
this site.
They want to borrow another $
1,580,000. Notice that the meeting is at 6:00 PM, not the usual
6:30 PM. Notice, also, that is not on the night of a regularly
scheduled meeting. ROUND UP EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND GO TO THIS
MEETING. You will pay through the nose if you don't.
Here is the notice in its entirety.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Iron Mountain will hold a public hearing on
the proposed SRF Sewer Improvements Project for the purpose pf receiving
comments from interested persons. The hearing will be held at 6:00 PM
on June 25th at the Iron Mountain City Hall, 501 S.Stephenson
Avenue, Iron Mountain, MI 49801.
The purpose of the proposed project is to complete needed
upgrades to the City's sanitary sewer collection system. Proposed
project construction will involve the replacement of a sewer pump
station, telemetry and backup power improvements at all pump stations,
and the replacement of deteriorated sanitary sewer lines. The cost of
the proposed project is estimated at $1,580,000 and will be funded with
a low interest loan through the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality's State Revolving Loan Fund.
Copies of the plan detailing the proposed project are
available for inspection at the Iron Mountain City Hall. Written
comments received before the hearing record on June 25th, 2007 will
receive responses in the final project plan. Written comments should be
sent to the Iron Mountain City Hall at the address above shown.
John Marquart, City Manager
City of Iron Mountain
That's it. I don't know if this notice
appeared more than once or not, but it is mighty suspicious
that they are holding it on an off Monday, there has been no
comment about it in The Daily News, and I'm sure the public generally is
unaware of it. Trying to slip another fast one past us, hoping we don't
notice. Seems to me that if it is so crucial, and expensive, it
should have been discussed in open session by the City Council and also
go on the ballot for a vote of the people.
BE AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 6:00
pm MONDAY NIGHT. IF YOU DON'T, THEY WILL SOCK YOU WITH ANOTHER
$1,580,000 OF DEBT. IT WILL DO NO GOOD TO COMPLAIN LATER. YOU HAVE
BEEN NOTIFIED.
6-22-2007-02
I heard the TIFA Board is asking for a lot
more documentation regarding the proposed new (and totally
unneeded and ugly) pavillion smack in the middle of the city
hall parking lot. That's good.
The last vestige of any backbone of city
boards is the TIFA board. I hope this keeps up. I am more than a bit
leery after the city council summarily dumped a good man, Mark Angeli,
instead of re-appointing him, in an effort to stack the board.
The last thing Marquart and Tousignant need
is ANY watchdogs on these boards. I think the TIFA board still has some
good questioning members, so there may be some hope yet.
6-22-2007-01
Now our arrogant weasel of a mayor is
stooping to have coffee with us at downtown events.
The rest of the time, including city council
meetings, he snubs us.
Am I being too cynical to suggest
this has something to do with upcoming elections?
6-21-2007-06 I would hope that after the new campus opens that the tuition rate would become equal. Otherwise its time to start a process and get them to comply. 6-21-2007-05
My issue is not specific to the City of Iron Mountain, but rather to the
whole county. I am still extremely irritated that my tax dollars are paying
for Delta County to have a branch of their college here in Dickinson County.
Other than saving a few miles travel to Escanaba, how is it a benefit to us?
We still have to pay out-of-county tuition rates.
Delta County residents pay approximately $77. per contact hour, while
Dickinson County residents pay about $115. per contact hour. Someone please
tell me how this is fair when we are paying for Bay to have a campus here?
Was it so hard for people to understand that this was NEVER going to be OUR
college? This is not our community college. It is simply a branch of Delta
county’s college that our tax dollars are paying for. We still pay
non-resident tuition. The only difference between what was here before and
what we’ll have now is that instead of Bay College paying rent for the rooms
they used, our tax dollars are paying for a new building.
Still, Iron Mountain council members and Mr. Marquart promote this new
college building like it’s our own community college that is going to bring
some economic boon to our area. Instead, it’s just more money out of our
pockets and into Delta county.
6-21-2007-04 I am glad the lot across from the Library is getting paved, what I don't understand is why aren't they doing that lot first? We have many events coming up this summer and fall that would benefit greatly from that lot FINALLY being fixed. The lot is in horrible condition and needs to be redone. I just wish it took priority over the lot behind city hall which is not nearly as bad. 6-21-2007-03 I give the Green Bay City Council a
lot of credit. They passed an ordinance this week where any business that hires
illegal immigrants "THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN SOCIETY IS WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO NOTHING!" 6-21-2007-02 Our city officials might not think Memorial Day events are special enough to drag themselves to, but you can rest assured knowing you can now have "coffee with the mayor" at the farmer's market. That's more important because it's a pet project, you see. 6-21-2007-01 I heard through the grapevine that a city retiree recently won a lawsuit against the city regarding his retirement healthcare benefits. Does anyone out there have some information they could share about that? 6-20-2007-04
Instead of
redoing a parking lot that DOES NOT need to be revamped, why not redo some
city streets that are in DEPLORABLE condition. Why didn't Ms. Caudell excuse
herself from voting on an issue that would benefit her?
6-20-2007-03
I understand the city council tried to lie their
way out of the Memorial Day "no-show incident" on Monday Night's council
meeting.
Several people voiced opposition to Mayor
Tousignant or Manager Marquart for not representing the city on such a
special day and Tchokreff stated that Steve Hudson dropped the ball and
forgot to send an invitation to them to attend.
Steve is too good of a person in this community to be blamed
for city officials negligence!
Fact is: A letter was sent to the
Mayor's office and Tousignant and Marquart did know about the
celebration. Even council member Tchokreff's mother was sent a letter
because she has been involved with past celebrations. (He is the one who
blamed Mr Hudson for dropping the ball and Marquart still sat silent after
he made this comment, knowing full well that this did not happen! (Shame on
you Mr Marquart !!!!!)
Another example of lies and cover-ups for a
Mayor, Manager and council that screwed up.
Tousignant and Marquart, why not just say "I
apologize on behalf of the city because we messed up" and let it go at that.
At least it would show a hint of honesty on your part. Instead, the council
again tries to cover up their negligence and lie about what really happen.
Is it a small issue? ----------- It would have
been if another cover-up had not taken place with the city council. Now it's
just another example of constant deceit!
Citizen's ------ Vote these people out at
election time and lets get rid of Tousignant and Marquart before our city is
totally destroyed. (Our credibility already
is!)
6-20-2007-02
I think not re-appointing Mark Angeli to the
TIFA Board is another example of this city council wanting to plant
people in there who will do their bidding on every occasion.
Mark Angeli was a good and
conscientious board member. There was
absolutely no reason not to re-appoint him. I have attended a good
number of TIFA meetings. Mark always was polite and asked
straightforward and sensible questions.
Personally, I have no problem with either
John Pryor or David Brule, Jr., the new appointees as people. I am just
afraid they are part of the "in" group that will do
whatever Marquart and the city council want.
You wonder why people are not
anxious to get on city boards when, despite doing a very good job, are
bounced for purely narrow political reasons.
That's what happened to Mark Angeli, a decent and
honorable man.
It is just another indication of the character of
the people we have sitting on the city council.
Self-serving and narrow-minded with a "to hell with the people"
attitude.
Iron Mountain deserves better.
6-20-2007-01 I am not at all surprised at the
performance of Councilman Burke. When he was campaigning door-to-door, he
told people to vote against the charter amendment, because the unions are the
problem with this 6-19-2007-02
Let's not lose sight about this
Bolt decision. This is a biggie. It
can reduce our horrible water bills dramatically. Add up your
water bills for the past year. Compare those fees with the amount you
pay in total property taxes.
You will find that your water bills are a good percentage
of the combined payments.
It is even
worse for moderate and low income taxpayers who live in moderately price
housing.
In some cases, their water bills are
higher than their property taxes.
The elitist bunch sitting on the city
council have never thought of it this way. Neither did the chief
money-grubbier, the city manager.
Even if they did, they
wouldn't give a damn.
They
know they are in violation of Bolt by now.
Doesn't knowing about an illegal act, which they are definitely involved
in, and not doing anything about constitute being an accessory to a
crime?
Comes very
close in my book.
6-19-2007-01
I've heard
about the Indian Casino proposal, too. There is definitely something
going on. The attorney for the Indians was a former local attorney.
The new owners of Pine Mountain are allegedly involved as well.
6-17-2007-02 I have been checking other cities
about the 5% T.V. fee and Iron Mountain is charging 5% Kingsford is going to 2%,
Norway no charge and Iron River no charge, Iron Mountain City Councel is just a
bunch of money hungry people that keep raising fees to pay for pet projects and
now I here they are replaceing Ted Corumbus with Dave Brule and John Pryor, I
hope that these guys are not yes men to John Marquarts stupid projects ie;
downtown parking lot pavilion, terrace the northside of the pit and sidewalks to
NO WARE. Oh the agenda for Mondays meeting it says 3rd opption fot the parking
lot behind city hall, I don't think that we ever seen number 1 or 2 option. The northwoods garden club has done a very good job this year on all the flowers they planted they should be recognized for all their hard work, Thank You Ladies. 6-17-2007-01
How about an Indian Gambling Casino
in Iron Mountain? Yes, it has been and is being discussed
behind the scenes.
It's planned location is near the Pine
Mountain Lodge area, probably in the Iron Mountain city limits, but if
not, through a 435 annexation to the city. That is the real underlying
reason for extending the Bellagame (Lehman Rd) from North Milwaukee
Avenue through the industrial park to Stephenson Avenue (US-2).
Extensive water and sewer line
infrastructure improvements are part and parcel of this proposal.
Is that why the city has built up a huge
(and illegal) water improvement fund? Is that why we are getting socked
with another Sewage Improvement Fund increase, also illegal?
Is that why the Bacco bunch
is trying to assemble land on the north side so the the road
extension would go right through it, complete with water and sewer
lines. Rigoni is certainly privy to this information,
even if you weren't until this post.
Connect the dots.
Remember where you heard it first.
It wasn't in the newspaper or TV or the local radio outlets. It was on
good ol'
www.ironmountainissues.org.
6-16-2007-01
I have read
the Bolt v City of Lansing decision, word by word, all 15 pages of it.
It was very
eye-opening. The City of Iron Mountain is precisely in the position
Lansing found itself. The City of Iron Mountain has levied user fees
that the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled is not permitted. It will
have to revoked by the city council. Further, earlier past levies will
also have to remitted to the water and sewer users in some form,
probably by a drastic reduction of the existing fees first, and then, as
a previous poster stated, a disgorgement of money already collected.
6-15-2007-02
I have mixed feelings about the post regarding
Mr. Burke’s civil service test score. I am glad the writer acknowledged it
was a low blow. I think it was a low blow, but I think it was well-deserved,
given his personal attack on Mr. Corombos. It brings to mind the old saying
that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I had high hopes that Mr. Burke would be a
breath of fresh air on the council. I pictured him as a champion of the
common man, the less fortunate, and the down-trodden because of his
background. Instead, he has morphed into a social climber, currying favor
with the "elite", forgetting where he came from. I am very disappointed to
have seen this happen.
I disagree with Mr. Corombos on one thing. I
think Mr. Burke could have easily assumed the role of watchdog. He was the
natural choice for that role, and he would have had tons of help and
encouragement if he chose that route, not to mention the gratitude and
respect of very many citizens. It’s too bad he chose to go the other way.
Mr. Bill Calcari was the defiant watchdog right
to the bitter end, never losing touch with his values, and I have nothing
but respect for him for that. He can take that with him wherever he goes and
he can hold his head high. That means something to me.
A Lifelong Resident
6-15-2007-01 A Community Garden, where? We don’t have room for tennis courts or soccer fields where are they gonna find a spot for the garden? Oh wait good idea lets tear up the parking lot between city hall and Moose Jacksons and have a nice garden there. That parking doesn’t even look like a real parking lot the way the lines look it must have mange. Vote in November. 6-14-2007-06
This is a link to a news story on Frog Country
today, June 14.
After reading the wording of the recall petition
carefully, I think it's a damn shame that Marquart is not an elected
official, because those words have him pegged, and would be perfect for a
recall on him.
6-14-2007-05
Comment #9-26-2006-01, yes, last
September, had a link to a city civil service test score sheet that had
Councilman Burke listed as a test-taker. There was a small wave of
disapproval voiced over having that city document on this website,
justifiably due to any embarrassment it might cause to innocent bystanders
whose names also appeared on that score sheet. The webmaster removed that
link from the website. However, in the few days that test sheet was on the
air, I remember that the score for Mr. Burke was extremely low, less than
50%, in fact. I believe the public has a right and an interest to know that
fact. I mention it only because of his very public personal attacks and
feeble attempts to discredit Mr. Corombos. Many people are watching you now,
Mr. Burke. Your conduct has been lackluster, at best, and it’s simply
outrageous that you would use your elected position to attack other people.
P.S.
Maybe you should think about dishing out any
more low blows in the future when they can so easily come back at you. And,
you are fair game because of your office; it comes with the
territory.
6-14-2007-04
A Community Garden? All I want to know is
how much the proposed deer fence around the damned thing will cost, will
it be gated, locked or not, how many people will need keys to get in
there, if there is no lock what's going to stop kids from getting in
there and stealing whatever they want, how many people have signed up so
far, why do they want volunteers for it if everyone is going to have
their own patch, how many council members have volunteered, how far will
the hose be from the nearest water, and where can I lay a bet the whole
thing will never get off the ground?
I think we have get a Dumbest Idea contest
going to compliment the Dumbest Comments contest. No shortage with
this bunch.
6-14-2007-03 I couldn't help but notice the Community Garden Poll on the cities web site. It shows exactly how this city manager and current city council think. You either like the idea some, a lot, or think it is great. What happen to I don't find it practical with my tax money. Another avenue for people to be seen, not heard. I bet "in the final analysis" the poll will NOT show anyone against the garden, just those in favor! I'll bet city manager John Marquart and his sidekick the Mayor Ken "Team" Tousignant are fighting over who will be the clown in this years fourth of July parade! 6-14-2007-02 Hopefully Mr. Burke has learned his lesson. Never start a battle of wits when unarmed. 6-14-2007-01
WOW The more I check around on this Bolt
decision, the worse it looks for the City Manager and the City Council.
It doesn't stop there.
This HUNGRY MONEY-GRUBBING city manager and
council are interested in taking every penny they can squeeze out of
us. Now they hit us with a new TV cable fee and a new sewer fee and a
while back they hit us with an administration fee for the privilege of
paying our taxes. They can't get enough of our money.
The jerk we have sitting there as a mayor
and his partners in scheming, primarily Rigoni and Marquart are cooking
up scheme after scheme in favor of a select few.
Who in their right mind thinks the Champion,
Inc. building is worth $360,000. It would not bring a fraction of that
amount if put on the market. Yet, these sleaze balls are finagling
under something called a Signature program to get a state grant to pay
off an already very wealthy owner far more than it's worth.
Rigoni, on behalf of Bacco, is
scheming to get water and sewer lines installed along the Hydraulic
Falls road that would be a benefit only
to a tract of land Bacco owns.
Bacco is scheming to assemble land on the
north side of town (in the area around Mountain Motors area) and get a
free road from the Bellagamba (Lehman Road) through it to Stephenson
Avenue, paid by taxpayer money, of course, along with free water and
sewer lines.
Do the owners of this land understand this
scheme and the huge profit Bacco stands get, not only from very likely
getting the bid on building the road and installing water and sewer
lines, but on the sky-rocketing increase in the value of the land.
Rigoni is on the inside, with information
known to very few. You don't think he's on the city council for the
$500 a year the job pays, I hope.
It goes on and on. This website is the only
place where this kind of information can get out to the
public. Thank God there are a few people willing to take them on.
I sure hope the new candidates are
getting up to speed. If they are, they
will have far more than enough ammunition to kick the worthless
incumbents out of office. We may get our city back yet. Let's hope so.
6-13-2007-01
It's become very obvious to all who are
paying attention that that the administration of the City of Iron
Mountain is heading straight into a legal and economic nightmare of
epic proportions.
The water and sewer user fees enacted,
levied and collected in the past three and a half years by the city
council in collaboration with, or on the advice of, the city
manager, will have to be disgorged. A reading of the transcript of
the Michigan Supreme Court decision in Bolt v City of Lansing can
lead to no other conclusion.
If the purported tape recording quoting
the remarks of the City Manager is accurate, he cannot claim he was
unaware that the Bolt decision did not exist, notwithstanding his
inaccurate portrayal of it. His failure to do rudimentary due
diligence in researching that decision places him a very precarious
personal legal position, including the possibility that the city
would not be required to defend him.
With hundreds, if not thousands, of
viewers on this website now aware of the situation, it is only a
matter of time before the print media, i.e., The Daily News, picks
up on it. If they don't do it on their own, which they should do,
it is certain to appear in the Speak Up column or as a Letter to the
Editor in due time. It will all be very interesting.
Go to Google, type in Bolt vs
City of Lansing You will find tons of information.
6-12-2007-03
I was delighted to read the letter to the editor in last night's
Daily News by Ted Corombos replying to an earlier by Dan Burke. 6-12-2007-02
Congratulations to Ted Corombos for his letter
in the Daily News.
Dan Burke is just like the rest of the council
-- a puppet who doesn't know how to think for himself. I do not even believe
he wrote the letter himself and that it was just another of Marquart's ploys
to say what he doesn't have enough fortitude to say himself.
Hopefully, people who log on to this site will
come to realize what they are faced with during the up-coming election and
will vote to take back out city government.
I have great hope for the future of Iron
Mountain, after the new candidates are elected.
First thing on the agenda is to get rid of the
mayor Tousignant during the election process and then to fire Marquart.
I heard he just bought a home on the northside.
Go candidates for a better city government
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6-12-2007-01
I agree with all recent posts re: BOLT
vs City of Lansing. Iron Mountain is
clearly and blatantly in violation.
Marquart, in fact, admitted it where he is
quoted as saying "this is the only way we can get money into
this (Sewer Capital Improvement) fund. It may
be the only way he can get it in, but its illegal. Do we have to define
the word illegal for you, John-boy, or can you handle that all by
yourself?
Assuming your definition of illegal is more
accurate than your explanation of the Bolt decision, what are you going
to do about the recent increase of the sewer fees and all those you
slipped in earlier in your tax-a-holic administration?
I know you think all of us are country
bumpkins, but we know dollars in our wallets is preferable to dollars in
your corrupt coffers.
To the tune of The Eyes of Texas are Upon
You, start singing - "The eyes of I M are upon me, all the live
long day" You could form a duo with hizzoner and be a smash
hit singing it at your favorite Lounge over on East Ludington Street.
I'm looking for a tune where I can work in
the words class-action, attorney-general and
hit the road, Jack, just for you.
6-11-2007-03 The best suggestion I can think of
for those who don't want their name printed in The Daily News in a Letter to the
Editor piece would be to send a letter directly to the editor, Blaine Hyska, for
insertion in the "Speak Up" column. 6-11-2007-02
The only way interpret the BOLT
DECISION is that Marquart and his seven stooges are in much
deeper doo-doo than just the more recent sewer charge increase.
This isn't the first time they've played
this game. They have done the same thing with the water rates. The
jacked up the rates astronomically not just to pay off the bond, but
to build up a huge Capital Improvement fund. They have something
like $1,800,000 in there.
Look at it this way. Use either
water sewers lines as an example. The city does three things with
them. It (1) MAINTAINS them, it (2) BUILDS new ones, or it (3)
REPLACES old ones when they are so far gone that continued
maintenance is impractical.
BUILDING new ones and REPLACING
old ones comes under the category of Capital Improvements.
The money for Capital Improvements can
come from only one of two sources, (1) the
General Fund, (that is, from property taxes we pay every
year) or (2) a Bond
Issue.
There is a wrinkle in the law on bond
issues, however. The city council can vote to issue a bond, and if
no one gets out a petition, gets enough signatures, and turns it in
within 45 days, to force a vote, the bond issue goes forward.
This is exactly what happened with the huge water bond we
have outwtanding. Nobody petitioned for a vote. In other
words, once a city council declares its intent to issue a bond,
it requires positive action by the citizens to force it on the
ballot. The city council could unilaterally put it on the ballot,
but since they've already voted for it, they have no incentive to do
so.
The scheme of relying on user
fees for Capital Improvements instead of
General Fund revenues or a bond issue is EXACTLY
the issue that Bolt vs. City of Lansing addressed.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled
that such a practice is not permitted.
As a result, a class-action suit against
the City of Iron Mountain is essentially guaranteed to be
successful, and will most likely take place. It would address not
only the most recent increase, which won't take place until July 1,
but all past increases in both water and sewage fees that were ear
marked for capital improvements.
City Manager John Marquart,
in his taped public statement, not only didn't know what the Bolt
decision was all about, but far worse, from
his own personal liability standpoint, gave the unequival
impression that he did.
It will be very interesting to watch him
try to squirm his way out of that one on the witness stand against
competent cross-examination, something he has never faced from his
seven stooges. His stooges had to vote in the latest increase in
this year's budget and some previous increases as well.
Will they continue to believe he was
worth a 9% pay increase, is infallible, trustworthy and "doing a
great job?" Or will the rats abandon a rapidly sinking ship? Time
will tell.
6-11-2007-01 6-9-2007-03 6-10-2007-01 Answer for posts 6-8-2007-02, 6-6-2007-03 and others: On the same tape that Marquart completely screwed up his Bolt decision explanation, he got into the sewer fund issue. He said, “What we have looked at, though, on the sewer side of things, an investment was made because of the increase approved by the Iron Mountain-Kingsford Joint Sewer Authority to raise the treatment rates and then we added 25 cents to it (that’s 25 cents per 1000 cubic feet of water used) because our Sanitary Sewer fund is deficient and this is the only way we get money into that fund to undertake care of the necessary capital improvements to address our sewer situation is through that fee. The increase to the average residential user, we bill bi-monthly, is not quite $9.00 over a two month period of time,” he concluded. That sewage user fee, including previous ones, is where I also believe the city is in violation of the Bolt amendment. What if they raised it 50 cents or 75 cents or $1.00 per 1000 cubic feet of water used? Does the City Council have the absolute right to raise any amount they choose as long as they segregate it in the Sanitary Sewer Improvement Fund? I don’t think so!! This user fee, in reality, is a tax masquerading as a user fee. A tax increase must be voted on by the people. This user fee appears be in clear violation of the Bolt decision. The slippery city manager and city council reduced the millage by 1/10 of one mill ($20,000 in lost revenue) and bragged about it. In the meantime, they hit the average residential user with around $50 a year in increased sewer fees. There are around 3,000 residential users in Iron Mountain. Simple arithmetic says they gave a $20,000 reduction in property taxes (a lot less actually to the residential home owners because the 1/10 of a mill includes commercial property, not just residences) then turned around and charged an extra $150,000 to residents alone in sewage fees. This epitomizes the expression “hidden taxes.” How many residents realize what happened, or the magnitude of it? You can bet your life you won’t hear City Manager Marquart mentioning this caper in his self-praise articles in The Daily News. This is a regressive tax. It hurts lower income residents the hardest. They have to pay the $50 average regardless of their limited income. Let’s say the lower income families live in a home with a true value of $50,000, which is probably high. Let’s say the assessed value is $25,000, also high. Do you know how much a 1/10 of a mill reduction of their city property tax amounts to? One mill would be $25; one-tenth of a mill is $2.50. That’s right, they save a whopping $2.50 a year. This City Council gives them $2.50, then hits them for $50.00. For $50.00 you can almost get a tank of gas. For $2.50, you are a dollar short for a gallon. Poster 6-8-2007-03 also threatened a class-action suit if the city doesn’t rescind. Count me in, friend. I’ll be glad to help with legal costs, and I can get many others to help. I know you’d get your money back eventually, but why should you have to kick in all the up-front money yourself. I don’t want to hit the taxpayers with legal fees the city would incur and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs costs either, but the residential taxpayers alone would be shelling out $150,000 under this users fee, and this slam-dunk lawsuit sure is hell isn’t going to cost them anywhere near that much. I agree with you that that even this slimy city council should be given the chance to rescind it. Most, probably all, of them didn’t have any idea it was illegal. I’m suggesting maybe a month at most. I’m getting mighty impatient with these S.O.B’s and itching to go after them full barrel. 6-9-2007-04
Post 6-9-2007-02 is the latest post to talk
about the bolt decision and John Marquart’s comments on it at a council
meeting. When you said, "Marquart is incapable of saying "I don’t know"
to any question.", I thought you were being extremely generous to him.
He has had more than enough opportunity to research the Bolt decision. There
has been a link to the Bolt decision on this website since last November,
and Marquart is known to visit this website almost obsessively. I’m
sure he read this explanation of the Bolt decision from Marcus Blomquist,
way back in post #11-21-2006-02:
"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."
Then, post #11-22-2006-03 tells Blomquist
he is wrong and provides a link to the Bolt decision. Turns out that
Bolt has EVERYTHING to do with municipalities bonding for improvements and
adjusting rates to pay the debt. I don’t trust Marquart enough to
assume he was just winging an answer and didn’t know what he was talking
about. I think he has deliberately lied in the past, and is doing it again.
Read his words. He was stating what he said with authority.
I hate to throw something negative out there
without something positive to go along with it, because Dan Burke
won't listen if you only have something negative to say - he said so at the
last council meeting, but I think we have a city manager who
lies through his teeth to further his agenda, and I for one think that is
unacceptable, outrageous, and has to end, with or without new council
members in November. This man needs to be stopped now.
6-9-2007-03
I wish somebody, willing to share their name
with the Daily News, would get some of these important issues from these
posts printed in the paper. There are many people who still cannot (or do
not) access this site.
These are too important to keep from the general
public; and the Daily News has proven that they aren’t about to investigate
and print the TRUTH in these matters. They print what Marquart and the Mayor
feed them as though it were gospel.
6-9-2007-02 I finally got hold of the tape where City Manager Marquart is telling the city council his version of the Bolt decision and proves once and for all that he had no idea what he was talking about. It was in answer to a question Council Member Rigoni asked about a question Dale Alessandrini had asked earlier during the public comment period about the water fund and use of the capital in that fund. Rigoni mentioned the word Bolt in passing. Marquart says, “That was a court decision, the City Attorney may want to explain in further. It was a court decision, I believe a Supreme Court decision, that speaks directly to a community downstate that had the opportunity to charge water to either a development or to some homes outside the community and the community more than doubled the water rates because the receivers were outside the community, and the Bolt, Bolt would have been the plaintiff in the case, and the court ruled you really can’t accelerate the rates --- our rates are well within those rates …” BOLT, as previous posts and links on this website show, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with water rates. Marquart is incapable of saying “I don’t know” to any question. The seven council members almost surely believed him. The City Attorney did not intervene and correct him. Most likely he assumed Marquart had looked into it. There is no reason for the City Attorney to have studied the Bolt decision ahead of time, so he was in no position to comment. See posts 6-5-2007-05 and 6-4-2007-05 for a comprehensive review of Bolt vs. City of Lansing. It was a sewage overflow issue and the illegal users tax Lansing levied to pay for correcting it. Keep believing him, city council. Keep worshipping at the infallible Altar of Marquart. By now, you may be the only seven people left in Iron Mountain who believe everything he says. 6-9-2007-01 Regarding the state and city money for the Hydraulic Falls Road project from Highway U.S. 2 to the city limits: the issue isn't the property and provision of utilities along this stretch. The issue is the contracting job itself. Does anyone believe for a
moment that Bacco won't be the contractor, that Mr. Marquart hasn't sought the
state grant for precisely that contract, and that the city council hasn't as
good as appropriated the matching amount for their colleague Councilman Rigoni
of Bacco? Only the fear of how this will appear and the possible political
consequences will stop that contract from going to Bacco at this point, and,
having witnessed the hubris, condescension, and arrogance of this city
government in the past, it will probably go to Bacco despite appearances and
possible repercussions. And in exchange for the
collaboration and votes of Tousignant, Caudell, and the others, how and with
what will he return the favor to them? Now that's an effective power
clique. Some dandy good-ol'-boy politics. 6-8-2007-03
I am not too surprised after reading about John
Marquart’s explanation of the Bolt decision. He has a history of making
things up and distorting the truth to serve his purposes. An early example
of that is his claim that "There are more public safety personnel in the
area on a per capita basis than Manhattan, N.Y.", found on the City Fire
tab on this website.
Just like the Bolt decision explanation, he was
quickly and decisively corrected on that one, too. He went on to make
many false claims on that issue, also corrected on this website. I was
reminded of this due to post #6-6-2007-05, which looks like it’s from one of
the laid off firemen. If so, I for one am deeply sorry that I did not
believe you, sir. I hope you realize that at that time we did not expect
that our city officials would actually deceive us on your issue or any other
issue, for that matter.
6-8-2007-02
Can the city raise money like they did for
the Sewer Improvement fund by adding a user fee to our water bill of
.$25 per 1000 cubic feet of water?
According to the Bolt Decision, the answer
is a very loud NO. It should have been placed before
the voters as a proposed TAX levy. If it passes, fine.
It is imposed as a TAX, legally agreed to by the
voters.
It's no different than when townships vote a
half a mill or whatever for ambulance services, or a one mill levy for a
few years for road improvements, etc. The voters decide if they want to
impose the cost on themselves, not the governing unit.
In the case of the City of Iron Mountain,
they drop millage by 1/10 of a mill, which they had every right
not to reduce, pretend they cut something to get a headline,
then turn around and levy $.25 per 1000 cubic feet of water users fee
for Sewer Improvements.
If they needed the money, why didn't they
keep the millage where it was and levy a lower fee for Sewer
Improvements. Because they play games, that's why.
No matter what they had put on as a users
fee it would also been in violation of Bolt, whether they knew it or
not, but the point here is they are deceivers. And, in this case they
stepped outside the law as well. Not that it should surprise anyone.
I'm was leaning toward the idea of
subtracting this fee from my water bill. I would hope they impose a
penalty on the unpaid amount, or better yet, shut off my water, so I
could sue them.
On second thought, I think I'll give them a
chance to rescind it. If they don't, I'll file a class action suit. I
know I'll win and the court will reimburse me for my costs, which it
will force the city to pay me (out of taxpayers money, of course). I
don't want taxpayers incurring such a cost.
If the City Attorney is one top of
this, he will recommend the city to rescind this illegal user fee.
Many people in the administration read the
posts on this website, not to mention the high public viewership.
The word is out.
Another story that broke first on this website.
There will be more
Get on the phone, Marquart, and call your
City Attorney. So far, the damage is minimal because the fee has not
yet been imposed. It starts with the new budget. Don't say you don't
read this website. You have said you do to too many people. Not that
you appreciate every comment, but you do read these posts.
Better to eat a little crow now rather than
a lot of crow later.
6-8-2007-01
My question to City Manager John Marquart
and his seven lemmings is not what have you done for us lately, but
what have you done for us period.
I am just one of over 8,000 people living in
Iron Miountain. I am a resident, a taxpayer, a law abiding citizen with
a spouse. Both of us go to work every day. We have a family. We
budget carefully for the education of our children, our retirement, home
improvements, car payments, utilities, food, gas and an occasional
vacation. We live moderately well. We pay all of our taxes to the
Fedral and State government, the school system, and to the City of Iron
Mountain. We are, more or less, typical.
The street in front of my house is in
terrible shape. It has not been paved in years. The alley behind my
house is even worse, but then, so is every alley in the city. My water
bills have skyrocketed since you people took over. My sewer charges and
garbage charges keep going up.
Where is your area of interest?
Pavillions, bandstands, downtown parking lots.
You lay miles of concrete sidewalks hardly anybody
will walked on and neglect miles streets
that have high traffic counts.
You set up committee after committee for
commercial interests. Yes, you have set up a Neighborhood Partnership.
I understand it is in disarray.
You get a few grants, but so does every city
in the state. You try to make it sound like Iron Mountain is the only
city that receives grants and spend a good deal of time patting
yourselves on the back for doing what evey city does.
The residential taxpayers are
mere pawns to you. Look how long it took
Mrs. Occhietti and Mr. Giguere to get paid, and then only because the
public joined their cause. You should have swooped in there with all
your resources immediately and done everything necessary within
hours and stayed there until it was done. If you had to
contract with businesses that specialize in this kind of work, you
should have done so.
You don't order DPW personnel out of Mrs.
Occhietti's basement after they pump the water out when there is still
8" of mud there, as City Manager JOHN MARQUART did.
You don't make promises take of everything
to Mr. Giguere like Mayor KEN TOUSIGNANT did
and then do absolutely nothing until the
poor guy has to go out and get a lawyer.
The priorities of this administration are
totally skewed to the few. the wealthy, and the well-connected.
I will NOT vote for a single
one of the incumbents. I am one of the
pawns, but I am one of many pawns. There are more of us than the
well-connected.
Any city council that gives a 9% pay raise
to John Marquart, an ego-maniac control freak who surrounds himself with
yes-men, is exhibiting pea-sized brain power. None of them have shown
me any reason why they deserve anything but to be thrown out.
A Voting Pawn
6-6-2007-05 So........ looking back........was it a good financial move to fire the four full time firefighters???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Is the city better off now???????????????????????????????????????????????????? The people wanted it and they got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6-6-2007-04 No sooner do we get a long list of
downtown studies on this site going back 20-30 years than another one is
announced in last night's Daily News. 6-6-2007-03
After reading comments and documentation on what
the Bolt decision is all about, I am thinking that this council and manager
may have raised taxes more than any council in history, while
at the same time bragging that they have lowered taxes for three years in a
row.
The post that had the three links on the Bolt
decision said Marquart gave a misleading explanation of the case at the last
council meeting. After asking around, it sounds like there were not very
many citizens at the meeting to hear that and comment on it. Is there some
way to get Marquart's actual comments in writing and posted here? Even
better would be if someone taped the meeting.
6-6-2007-02
The linked article on post 6-5-2007-05 on
the Bolt decisiion is very enlightening. It coincided
with a recording I just heard in which John Marquart
was trying to explain the Bolt Decision in answer to a question posed at
a council meeting by Dale Alessandrini.
Marquart obviously had NO
IDEA what the Bolt decision was all about. As
usual, that didn't stop him from winging an answer - a totally wrong
answer. He said it had to do with a "downstate
decision in which a community tried to charge another community double
the water rates it was charging its own customers."
Bolt had absolutely nothing to
do with such an issue. Alexander Bolt
sued the City of Lansing because they had levied an illegal user fee.
It had to do with combined storm and sanitary sewage overflowing into
the Grand River and Red Cedar River during downpours. It was nicknamed
the "rain tax". The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a vote of the
people was necessary in the form of a bond referendum before such a tax
could be levied. The court made a clear distinction in the difference
between a voted tax and a
users fee.
A city cannot write an ordinance and assign
any fees and fines it chooses without segregating those funds
specifically for that purpose. An example would be the rental ordinance
that has been contested recently. The ordinance was challenged on a
number of grounds, including constitutional considerations. I am not a
landlord.
Any fees or fines such an ordinance
generates would have to be segregated specifically to enforce the
ordinance - AND NOTHING MORE - under the Bolt vs City of Lansing
decision.
Based on the projected fees, including
registration fees, inspector fees, violation fees, etc. the ordinance
would generate, it would generate far more
income than could reasonably be assigned to code enforcement.
Marquart and the City Council clearly
planned to pour over these excess funds to other uses.
The fact of the matter is that the Landlords
Association did not even sue on these grounds. However, even if they
lose some points in the final decision, the Bolt decision kicks in
regarding how much the city can charge landlords. So the carefully
crafted third or fourth version of the rental ordinance could not pour
out any money for other uses.
The most casual observer of this issue knew
that it was a money grabbing users fee scam. Sorry Marquart and City
Council, Alexander Bolt cut you off at the knees.
As I indicated earlier, I am not a
landlord. I am an Iron Mountain taxpayer. I have every intention of
reviewing every single user fee that exists in the
records of their City of Iron Mountain to determine if they pass legal
muster under Bolt. I am sure I will find some that will not.
To City Attorney Jerry Pirkola.
It is your fiduciary duty to do this job, not mine. If you fail, I will
launch as many class action lawsuits as necessary. I will win every one I trigger
because I will be on the right side of the law before I start one. As a
class-action, the court will re-imburse me and the city will have not
only your legal bills to pay for, but mine as well. Start doing
your job as City Attorney. You are
also sitting there to protect my and every other taxpayers rights.
You are not there just to defend every far
fetched money raising scheme John Marquart and his seven lemmings dream
up.
6-6-2007-01
If John Marquart is an example
of someone who has been awarded an "ICMA Credentialized Manager"
designation, all it means to me is that such a designation
means nothing and guarantees nothing.
If qualities such as integrity,
honesty, and a sense of honor are missing, all the designations in the
world are meaningless.
6-5-2007-09
ref: 06-05-2007-6
The manholes and catch basins are up to grade,
why aren't the water valves?
6-5-2007-08 I found it very interesting that the
city received a MISHDA grant for the Champion building. I wonder what restaurant
is going in it? 6-5-2007-07
For the purpose of clarity and accuracy, it
appears that the list cited refers to managers who have been awarded the
title of "ICMA Credentialed Manager" and, therefore, does
not represent total ICMA membership in Michigan or any other state.
6-5-2007-06
posting 6-3-2007-2
It was not the water department it is the paving
contractors job to bring the valves, manholes and catch basins to grade for
paving.
6-5-2007-05
Post # 6-4-2007-06 had three links related to
the BOLT decision, but I couldn't link to the third one..
I finally found it on www.fee.org
website. I think you'll be able to click the link below and read it.
The article discusses the Bolt
decision in clear and precise language. Everyone should read it.
This is an example of what one
determined man, Alexander Bolt, can accomplish.
That decision has rippled throughout the entire
State of Michigan with far reaching consequences. Yes, it has trickled down
to Iron Mountain, too.
The gist of the decision, as I read it, is that
if a city decides to levy a users tax, that money has to be
segregated for that purpose. It cannot find its way into the General Fund
or any other fund.
Iron Mountain does not have, to the best of my
knowledge, a segregated garbage fund. It has a garbage fee on the water
bills and an allowable levy of 1.33 mills or so that is buried in your
property tax bills. I want an accounting of all these funds.
The fees proposed in the rental ordinance would
generate far more than necessary to enforce that ordinance. Marquart
assigned the Code Enforcer under that Community Planner in a thinly-veiled
try at paying both of them under rental ordinance income. Won't fly
under Bolt.
The Water Department balance is around
$1,800,000. Why do we need such a balance after issuing a bond for
$4,800,000 in 2004. Don't even think about moving any of that balance to
the General fund and then misappropriating it. Maybe a water rate cut? Not
with this money grubbing council, but a lawsuit might force a reduction.
A city government cannot skirt the tax
limitations under Headlee by dreaming up users fees.
This is a favorite gimmick of this council, and
they are very likely in violation of Bolt. Are you looking into
this, Mr. Pirkola? You'd better get up to speed.
This is happening on your watch.
6-5-2007-04
Response to 6-5-2007-01:
It's worse than you think. It is well beyond
"annual": There are more related ICMA conferences and expenses.
It's quite interesting to check out past vendor
reports just for that purpose. But don't forget the very last page of a
vendor report....that is where the City credit card charges are listed.
Taxpayers would be more than happy to know that they pay for 2 and 3 hundred
dollar lunches for such things, along with the thousands for "Cool cities"
schmoozing.
Response to 6-4-2007-04:
I agree with everything you are saying and
commend you on your astonishing memory. Just one thing: I believe the
program with MSU students is very positive all the way
around. It is supposedly free to our residents for the planning stages (for
once we are not paying outrageous consultant fees!), gives the students the
opportunity to work with a community before graduation, and gives our
residents the rare opportunity to actually be involved
in our destiny in this town. Win-win, in my book.
6-5-2007-03 I was involved with the Donahue and
Associates study that was done way back in the 1980's. This one was pretty good
and had some of the recommendations been followed there might still be a viable
downtown. 6-5-2007-02
Does anyone believe that the
Occhietti and Giguerre settlements would have taken place without a
public outcry?
The power of the people can CRUSH
elected and appointed officials.
We want our
city back
Not a single incumbent is worthy of re-election- not a
single one
DON'T FORGET THAT IN THE AUGUST
PRIMARY AND NOVEMBER GENRAL ELECTIONS.
6-5-2007-01
Well, now, isn't Iron Mountain
lucky. We are the only
city in the UP whose City Manager belongs to the ICMA. (See post
6-4-2007-02) Norway's city manager is a candidate for membership.
I doubt the Norway city council will ever pay annual trip expenses,
though.
For this sole honor, we taxpayers have the
privilege of shelling out our hard earned money so our city-slicker
manager John Marquart can get an annual all-expense trip, including
round trip air fare, high priced hotel room charges, expensive meals
(and, I'm sure, more than a few drinks).
Name one thing we've received for our
money. The slickster scammed us once again. If he
attended any seminars, it was probably one entitled:
"How
to Nail Down a 9% pay raise from the Idiots who sit on your City
Council"
What a pathetic situation we have in Iron
Mountain city government.
6-4-2007-09
After reading the latest posts, I have a
question. #6-4-2007-08 says that they have finally settled with Mr.
Giguerre. I am so glad for him. What I want to know is, how did they do
that? Did they vote on it? If so, what did they vote on? Was there an
amount mentioned in the motion? (I'm not complaining about the poor guy
finally getting something for his trouble, I'm just saying that it was tax
money and the amount should be public) In a way, it's none of my business,
but it actually is because I'm a taxpayer, and curious, too, after all the
hoopla over it. Can you please write back and tell us how much Mr. Giguerre
was given? Thanks
6-4-2007-08
The article written on 05-24-2007 #09 was right
on the money!
It listed all of the tactics and propaganda that
Marquart and Tousignant would use to make themselves look good, now that the
election is getting closer! Sure enough, the city made a settlement with
Giguere at Mondays meeting. Marquart did as predicted ----- He claimed that
they were trying to help all along, but that it takes time to go through all
of the channels.
What a bunch of garbage! Marquart only made this
settlement because of public pressure and because of the election! Just
another move from a person who can't be trusted. (He is predictable though!)
Regardless, congratulations for Mr. Giguere,
regardless that Marquart did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
5-24-2007-09
6-4-2007-07
Response to 6-3-2007-01:
You are not long winded...you
are exact and have articulately pointed out the TRUTH.
6-4-2007-06
Notice in April's Vendor Report:
$15,000 to June Ochietti. That is all well and
good and I am glad she was compensated. But what about Mr. Giguerre?
6-4-2007-05
I am nearly speechless at
the misrepresentation of the truth uttered by John Marquart at the May 21
council meeting. He invited the city attorney to correct him if he was
wrong, and the attorney never said a word!
A little history - in public comment at
the budget hearing, Dale Alessandrini brought up the water fund and said
something about the Bolt Decision. His comment was in relation to
the new sewer fees, and the fact that the water fund has a LOT of money in
it already. The Bolt decision has been brought up in the past on this
website, in relation to the fees imposed on our water bills to pay for the
huge improvement project. Marcus Blomquist addressed it by saying it was
a lawsuit about selling water outside the city limits and charging double
rates, and that one of these outside people sued the city.
He was proven wrong with documentation.
The explanation from Marcus
Blomquist is the same explanation Marquart gave at the May 21 meeting,
after Mr. Rigoni asked him to explain the Bolt decision, and the city
attorney never corrected him, even though he was invited to do so.
It's all on tape, and many people have copies of it. My mind simply cannot
comprehend how someone who knows he is under intense scrutiny can still try
to be deceitful in public, and in public office.
You be the judge on this one.
Here are three links on the Bolt Decision. Read them, and see if you can
see any correlation to what Marquart said the case was about, or failing
that, any correlation to what he did to our water rates when they put in
that huge improvement project. Or, the new sewer fees.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4409
How can a thing be defended or fought against if
the people we are supposed to trust are not truthful about what the issue is
about in the first place? I am quite sure that Mr. Marquart visits this
website on a regular basis. He could have read up on the Bolt decision
right on this website. Failing that, he should have done some homework on
it before making comments in an open meeting that were not even close to the
truth. However, that would not have made his water project fees look very
good.
6-4-2007-04
Iron Mountain is well on its way to being
the most designed and redesigned city in America.
The latest episode involves Michigan State
University architectural students. Just before that we had Cool Cities
designers and we are part of the Main Street program, whatever that
involves.
A few year back the DDA had hired some
outfit out of Milwaukee called PDG or something like that.
|