Is This The Best Iron River Has To Offer?

The following memorandum is a copy of my reply to the
letter that Iron River's city manager sent out with the
water bills received by people who have their water
shut off at the curbstop. If any reader would like a copy
of the documents mentioned in the memorandum, (with
the exception of the 1876 case) please send me email
and I'll send you a copy.

==================================
Memorandum
To:        Mr. Perry Franzoi, City Manager
(Personal Service)
From:        William J. Vajk   
Date:        9 September 2013    
Ref:        413 Plum Street “Water” bill       
CC:        Carl Lind

Thank you for your letter of August 26, 2013 addressed
to “Dear Utility Customer.” It was clearly sent to me in
error as I am not now nor have I ever been a utility
customer of the City of Iron River. In fact an admission
by the city that I am not a utility customer at that address
was faxed to the Department of Treasury by your office
on July 13, 2009.

It has come to my attention that the aforementioned letter,
copy enclosed for your convenience, was only sent to
those property owners whose water was shut off at the
curbstop. Given all the circumstances attendant to the
public discussions and the letter, it is clear that the
ordinances along with the billing and collections
practices of the city in these regards are violative of all
three prongs of the test imposed by the Bolt v. City of
Lansing (1998 and 1999) case from which I have attached
a reprint of the two pages discussing those prongs. Below,
I repeat those prongs in an abbreviated form.

1) A “fee” must serve a regulatory purpose rather than a
revenue raising purpose.

2) A “user fee” must be proportionate to the necessary
costs of the service.

3) A “user fee” must be voluntary-users must be able to
refuse or limit their use of the commodity or service.

For further guidance on these matters please see Jones v.
Detroit Water Commissioners, 1876 that said, “The
price of water is left to be fixed by the board in their
discretion, and the citizens may take it or not as the price
does or does not suit them." The Jones case implicated no
permanence to the customer’s choice. In Roman days it
was customary to disconnect the service line from the
water main for non-payment. Today that is unnecessary
because a curbstop provides any necessary disruption to
services.

To add insult to injury, it is obvious that the garbage
collection aspect of the “water bill” has nothing to do
with water service, and that the newly imposed charges
for 413 Plum Street have only a revenue raising purpose
because the city has never collected any solid waste
from the property since I have owned it. I deem it
disingenuous on part of the administration that the city
knew this fact until such time as it became inconvenient
to the current scheme to raise additional revenue by any
means including illegal measures. The newly added charge
for the collection of solid waste also violates all three of
Bolt’s prongs.

Ignoring that the City of Iron River is unable to point to
any state authorization for initiating utility billings as has
been done for 413 Plum Street ever since I have owned
that property, there are a number of other reasons that
clearly demonstrate the illegality of the ordinances and
practices of the City and Iron County relevant to such
city services as this potential customer has determined to
refuse. Please note that since all such services have been
refused while I have owned the property, no contract,
implied or otherwise (see “implied-in-fact contract”, City
of Cincinnati v. U.S., 1998) has ever existed in these
regards. “…[A]n implied-in-fact contract arises when an
express offer and acceptance are missing but the parties'
conduct indicates mutual assent.” Also see Attorney
General Opinions 5167 and 7263 that relate directly to
some of these issues.

For the reasons listed above, as well as others
unstated here, I refuse to pay the invoice submitted to
me. I and will enter a more formal response to these
latest illegal actions by the City of Iron River in terms of
additional counts to the pending lawsuits that presently
remain in work.

For your amusement, while pertinent, I have included
a copy of an email generated on 11 May 2012 by your
predecessor. In the final paragraph, Archocosky
discriminates between “0 pay” and “not paid” clearly
demonstrating that he, therefore the City of Iron River,
understood the value of zero and “shut off at the
curbstop” in the conventional sense that the city, in
its ordinances, has chosen to ignore where it comes
to municipal utilities.

This letter is provided to formalize, once again, my
position on the illegal charges imposed by the City
of Iron River and to afford the city council the
opportunity to take corrective measures prior to
lawsuit. The time available, however, is short. I
understand that their reticence to obeying established
state laws, court precedent, and constitution that are
inconvenient to city council members will doubtless
prevail until the courts insist otherwise. I dare say such
attitude is ignorant, arrogant, and obstinate to say nothing
of plain stupid. Is this really the best that Iron River has to
offer?

====================================
Bill Vajk