I have to hand it to the Mayor and our legal council. In order to let offers be resubmitted, he decided to nullify the offers already submitted. This actually gives a distinct advantage to first offer. My suggestions on the ethical way to go through the process, were actually repeated by the Mayor at the council meeting. I know who I talked to concerning these steps…. hhhhmmmm.. makes one ponder.
Shirley, Just wondering how that gives advantage to the first offer or any others that were sent in as an unsolicited offer. As I understand it, the town put out an ad for sealed bids so the playing field is level and any unsolicited offers that were previously submitted, should now be submitted as a sealed bid along with all of the other parties that are interested in bidding on the property. This process allows no advantage to any party involved. Maybe you can clarify what you mean in your 9/14 post. Thanks
Again key words being “sealed bids”. It would seem anyone interested enough to put forth a bid would certainly seal it. Standard office procedure would mandate all bids be safely set aside. At the appointed time all bids would be opened simultaneously by Mayor and a quorum of the Council. Regardless of whether bids were sealed or not, the fiduciary duty of Town personell is to strictly guard any and all information any bids may contain. Never divulging authors or contents to anyone outside of the stringent procedure detailed above.
Am I corresponding with Shirley? Not sure who “Admin” is but I was addressing Shirley. Saying that anyone interested to put forth a bid would certainly seal it, minimizes the Sealed Bidding process. With a local government advertising land for sale and to apply with a “sealed bid” by a particular hour of a particular day has more defined guidelines to adhere to than an unsolicited proposal. An unsolicited proposal may include data that the offeror does not want disclosed to the public for any purpose except for evaluation purposes. However, if the offeror wishes to restrict the data, the title page on the offer must be marked to indicate that. However, ALL sealed bids in a sealed bids process are confidential to only the people opening the bids. I feel that nullifying the original Unsolicited Bids was a responsible decision. Does anyone else reading these posts have any thoughts? AND also just curious… who is the ADMIN on this site ? I clicked on ADMIN INFO and nothing was revealed. Thanks
Kathleen, My problem with the process, was the process itself. The council should have passed a Resolution declaring the land surplus property. After that step, it should have been advertised. Then a public hearing in which the bids were opened. None of these steps were taken. Another problem to me, was that the bids were not sealed and the first bidder was told that there was another “higher” offer. Now this should have all been confidential until it was opened and discussed at an open meeting. By nullifying all offers and being allowed to re-submit an offer, gives a distinct advantage to anyone having any information of the offers. I have a problem with the way it was handled from start to finish.
These offers were unsolicited and unsealed, one offer was presented to council at the August meeting. We did not accept that offer at the time, instead deferring it to the September meeting and to review in the meantime. Another offer was received later in the month, and I was told by the Town Clerk that they instructed her to make sure that the Mayor and Council got a copy. I was told by the Director of Montana Realtors assoc. that these offers should have been held in confidence and it was a breech of ethics for any information to be released. Again, I am not a real estate expert, but I find the whole process so far , does not pass the smell test. I have no problem with either offer, although I would like to see the Town find a way to use that property to the advantage of the Town. If we decide to sell the property, I would like an appraisal done or at least a current market assessment. There are many questions I would like to have answered. I prefer to have a responsible and open process.
Also, the advertisement of the property was not put in place until the Town Atty said it should be advertised, and two offers were already submitted.
I am sure we have not met. Are you from or living in Fromberg? It sounds as though you have experience in real estate and are knowledgeable about the sale of this property. I have to stand by my reasons for wanting an ethical process.
If the town was really interested in selling said property, then it should have been discussed with the council and a decision made as to whether to sell or not. We are supposed to be representing the Town of Fromberg and the people that voted for us. If we just let things happen without proper procedure we are doing a disservice to them.
Sorry this was added to and a somewhat disjointed reply, but my phone is pretty busy at times.
Kathleen, I am sure we have not met and you sound like you are know a great deal about real estate and the sale of this particular property. Do you live in Fromberg?
This reply has become lengthy and disjointed, but had some calls. Let me just add that , if the town was interested in selling this property, the council should have discussed long before and made a decision for or against. We as a governing body should always keep in mind that we work for the people and must always have their best interests in mind. So I stand behind my reasoning in this matter.
Shirley – I own a house in Fromberg. I do not know a lot about real estate or the selling of that property but do know a lot about the sealed bidding process for a Government entity. I was under the impression that a couple of years ago the Council Did vote to sell the property. You say you would like the town to utilize the property for the advantage of the town. What could the town afford to do with it to benefit the town? Selling it would give Fromberg a good chunk of money to use on street repair or other projects important for the town.
I still believe the sealed bidding process is a fair way to sell the property.
Another note… I have found this web page blog to be a very negative sounding board against town employees and the Mayor as well as others. It’s full of spiteful remarks and innuendos. And yes, the Admin and all do have the right to free speech but such continuous negativity is like a cancer that simply feeds off itself killing everything in its path.
Negativity seeths from you. Sell the land and its gone for ever. The cancer is City Hall and it has pretty much killed this town with its disregard for the people and business. The bidding process was totally askew from the start. The current administration has broken so many laws I can’t begin to count them. You think this land sale will pay the $700,000 sewer screw up? Wonder who’s going to have pay that? You seem to be very ignorant of what is really going on. Hang around 50 or 60 years before you blow more smoke.
I do not find that this site is filled with negativity. People have a place to state their concerns. Actually people in Fromberg are pretty positive and show it everyday.
There have been several suggestions for that property and several that would cost the town very little to implement and would bring in needed revenue.
While it is true there was some interest in the town property of which you elude to, I can find nothing in the minutes that for the last several years that documents that statement.
Also, any complaints made on this site concerning the performance of the Mayor, Council or employees, are actually correct to a degree. People who have attended meetings and brought concerns to them were either glossed over or not heard. Many, many have told me that is the reason they just don’t go to the town meetings. In order to see the whole picture, you really need to hear both sides and not just one. I realize you are new to this community and we welcome everyone. But if you want to know the people here, I suggest you talk to a lot of the people here and not just a few, because it can get pretty one sided if you don’t.
To Fromberg Advocy Member:
Unfortunately there are many untruths floating around. While I see what is going on , it is difficult to stop who starts the lies and then hides behind a position and ethics. I have been called everything but a person, had complaints filed against me and others who are running for office, been blamed for the complaints filed with the Mayor and Council by townspeople and laughed at by the Mayors wife at open meetings. In her defense, she does that to everyone who does not agree with her, so I must be fair. I met a person who said that while in the town office, overheard an employee tell another person not to vote for me and to vote for my opponent.
While they are willing to sign a deposition to that fact, I am loathe to go there. I have never been one for dirty tricks and doing something to hurt someone else.
So, I will not lower myself to such actions, I will hold my head high knowing I did the decent thing and let the voters speak. I am old fashioned, I will not react with malice. I prefer to keep my dignity intact.
You are correct in that we had to negotiate another loan to the tune of $700,000 +. And you are correct in the statement that we need to start cutting the budget and put some money aside for future events, whatever they may be. I for one am a budget minded person, I prefer to save for a rainy day, and not spend it just because I have it. One councilperson said we should come up with a financial plan to show how the town would benefit by making cuts. I asked that they also come up with a financial plan on how the town would benefit by keeping the budget in place. We are not talking job performance or lack thereof, but actual benefit in dollars. We will see how that goes.
the.fromberg.advocacy.com is a privately funded advocacy group, protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. Every web page has an administrative function. As stated, this is a public forum. All who wish to comment may do so. The only rights we reserve are those regarding profanity we deem excessive and nudity. Per our contact page we can always be reached at: fr************************@***il.com
I welcome any questions from the people in this community. But some questions are asked by proxy.
Well Shirley, I appreciate your last response to my post, unlike the crude, discourteous, bad manners of the Fromberg Advocacy member who posted before you.
Thank You. I am trying very hard to stay positive. I was raised in this valley and love Fromberg. I really want the best for our town. There are a lot of people in town who have been ignored with their concerns and blamed for things that they had no control over, so I can understand the frustration. But for the most part the community is very outgoing and welcoming.
Our Home Page states:
“Strenghening our Community! Through Open Forum Discussion. Join Us!”
Our About page states:
“Our goal is to provide easily accessible, irrefutable factual documentation and an open forum for discussion.
Our hope is to spark honest, heartfelt discussions about the Town of Fromberg’s true current situation.
It is our fervent belief, that with facts in hand, open and honest discussion, a willingness to listen and sincere desire to return Fromberg to her former “Glory Days”, that we, as a community, will take proactive steps to accomplish our goals for a revilatized Fromberg. Will you join us?”
After attending a meeting with RCD recently, the comments over the impeding and continuing erosion of land is an overwhelming concern.
According to an engineer who met with us today, to look at the damage, the problems are looming. Right now the river, because of changing its
course, has taken 40 to perhaps over a hundred feet of property from residents along the river. The State does not claim ownership, therefore cannot be responsible for damage now or in the future. My concern is what is going to happen when the towns infrastructure is at risk?? (Well house, discharge station and lagoons). One more reason to start now putting monies aside for future events. It may be 10 years or more, who knows? If we
have continuous seasons of an accumulation of snow and rain, it could be earlier than that. Plus the many, many improvements needed to keep the existing infrastructure in good and working condition. (water lines, sewer lines, roads, etc). Now RCD representative is going to look at some POSSIBLE
funding, but it may take some time, with not only the Federal Government cutting agencies, but the State of Montana is also having funding shortages.
I have been told over and over at budget meetings, that the town has been in good stead for the last twelve years, but has it?? We spend almost as much as we take in and if we had been using the tax paid dollars and local revenue wisely, we might have had at least a good portion of the money
saved for the lagoon project and possibly wouldn’t have had to take as large a loan as we did, and now continue to add to that loan.
So, yes, I am very concerned for the future of Fromberg and escalating costs, but my colleges, at this point do not seem to agree.
Now that I know who you are it is obvious that you and yours have a very self serving agenda. I was not crude or discourteous. Just telling the truth. I suppose being from Connecticut you can’t grasp that. Saw a very interesting post on face book! Lots of grandiose plans for the barley field. Why don’t they fix up the eye sore on the highway where the car lives on the pole with some more smoke about how great the things we are going to do. You need to go back where ever you came from as, you are not wanted or needed here! You wanted to know what was wrong with the bid process, I know what the bids were so it isn’t rocket science to bid a little higher is it. Get real. So much for SEALED bids. This will be in court before it’s all said and done, just to see how legal any of this was. And how is it that the general public knows what these bids were? Someone has broken more laws. What a surprise. The town attorney has cut and run the head cheese mayor is cutting and running. What does that tell you? The people here are not negative, they are tired of being lied to and walked on. WE don’t want a rerun of the past.
Addressed to Scott Advocate- You really ought to sign in under your own name. You have an idiolect, or linguistic fingerprint which identifies you, with no doubt.. Since that’s the case,and having never met you, you have no idea what good I might contribute to this community. Unfortunately, your reputation precedes you so I guess one can expect nothing less in your behavior. Have you always been so hateful and mean spirited towards people or is it something fairly new? It’s quite pitiful.
While I feel that the town could put some interest and infrastructure into that property and generate some much needed revenue, two council members do not feel that way. They are demanding more ideas and financial plans, but refuse to come up with a rational and collective idea on their own. This council needs to come together for the good of the town and not because they have listened to political double talk. There has been talk of propane tanks and other stuff being buried on that land. If that is so, the DEQ will soon step in and investigate, and that will put us in a whole world of hurt. Just as with the lagoons. This all happened because the liner was damaged by a city employee and it started to leech, and eventually complaints were made to DEQ. It was witnessed by someone who lived on that land at the time. It was stated at a council meeting that the Mayor had been working on it for fourteen years. Really???? Strange that DEQ did not get involved until Ed Warner was Mayor, then and only then was it mandated that the town get something done or pay heavy fines. Go look at the records, or call DEQ, they will answer all your questions concerning this matter. There have been meetings about other problems and the council was not apprised of any meetings or advised to attend. Isn’t that part of the Mayors job??
I would advise anyone who is interested, to go to city hall and read the minutes for the fourteen years or more. Recently, very recently, I was told that I was very negative and trying to throw the Mayor and Council to the wolves. If they are going that direction, it is their own fault.
We learned this evening in the council meeting, that there are definitely tanks and other items buried on the barley field. we were informed that with disclosure, that should not be a liability problem for the town. But I still have reservations. Some years ago I sat on a jury in District Court . It was all connected with land bought from a municipality. Although their was disclosure, the buyer went to court a year and half later and sued the town. The jury found for the buyer, and the town ended up paying him almost twice the price he bought the land for , plus court costs, attorney fees and fines.
And he was still a full owner of the property.
Now, that land was sold to the town many years ago. It had been surveyed previously, before the town purchased it, as lots with the intentions of building low-income housing. It did not happen. A lot of interesting facts coming out.
I had looked at several properties in the area, before I purchased the home I live in, and one of the properties I looked at was the Mayors current home.
When I looked at it, it had signs all over it saying it had been condemned. Now, I probably could have purchased that property for about a third of what I paid for my home, at the time. But, at my age , what would I do with 12-14 acres? Plus the costs involved in inspections, bringing up to code and attorneys fees to get the condemnation taken care of. I have been told that the Mayor was on the council when the city condemned that property.
True?? I don’t know.
So, once again, with the bids being opened tonight, I at a quandary. Are we going to get bit later on? (I am going back to the jury trial) or will we be ok?
The town is already at risk liability-wise. I was told that by a State Official. Once again, I am looking at increased costs now and later on down the road.
Do we expect the citizens of the Fromberg to pay for those increases, or do we do something now working toward the future costs to the town.
I am truly concerned, and not trying to be negative about these things, but real probabilities are there. We can’t afford to wait until we are above our hip boots in mud and then scramble to figure it all out. That has an all too familiar ring to it.
Once again I have been attacked with untruths and implications so far fetched, that I am at a loss to understand why and where these insane statements come from. If anyone reading my post (recently posted) on Fromberg Happenings does not imply in any way that I have called any person unethical and underhanded. Although, I did repeat a question that was asked by a citizen about this being a “backdoor deal”. For that person it was a legitimate question as they have lived here for over 40 years and has always questioned the actions of the presiding Mayor and Council.
It was implied that my comments were slanderous and my actions as a Councilmember and candidate for Mayor have been purposely and intentionally done to fabricate the facts. That facts are all there on tape and on video, if anyone is really interested in the truth!!
Yes, the Vargas’ did have an interest in the barley field and submitted an offer in June of 2015. That offer was not accepted. I asked questions about the sale of the land, that were asked of me and I posted those questions on this page. This land has been advertised.. years ago. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that the process this time was not done properly.
Now, what I said was, after the recent offers, is that the Council should have met and discussed whether the town really wanted to sell the land and if we did, then we should have (ethically) passed a Resolution declaring the land surplus property, then advertising, accept sealed bids and then have a public hearing to accept bids or not. Now Ms. Vargas should know that because I believe she was at that meeting. If you really want the truth , view the video of that meeting and then re-read the actual post.
I am not the person dividing this community. I have never called Ms. Vargas a liar, attacked her profession, her person or her intent.
When the water rights fiasco was posted by her, on Facebook , a public venue, she herself invited comments and questions, by just that simple action. I stated that the people involved, did have permission from the town and that was verified at the Council meeting the following month. (watch the video) I also stated that Ms. Vargas used that information to post on a public venue, and that it caused some problems in the sale of their home. Which it did!!!! I asked several questions, to which I did not get answers from her or a response, other than personal attacks. And yet, the attacks on my character continue.
Is the office of Mayor so important to her that she continues on this tirade? Or , is the current Mayor’s agenda and paranoia (always blames someone else) continuing to run the show???
I would like to see our city government be completely open and above board, which has not been the case in many of the responses to the public.
Yes, I did suggest some budget cuts. These cuts would not affect town services as implied, but they may cause more effective and efficient work ethics.
I will continue to ask questions and I will continue to work hard to make this community the best I can. I am not a polished politician, who uses words to further an agenda, I don’t use my “Thesaurus ” to come up with phrases intended to belittle or insult.
An additional thought:
It was stated on the Fromberg Happenings page , the council was informed of an offer by the Vargas’. NO, we were not!!! That information was not known by the council until we opened our packets. I can’t say with accuracy that none of the members were notified ahead of time, but I can state with accuracy , that two weren’t.
Of course we all knew that the Vargas’ had an interest in the property, …. but two years ago, nothing since then would lead us to believe that they were still interested until very recently. They actually should have come to a meeting well before hand to voice that interest and let the council do its job as it should have been done. That did not happen. We are not mind readers, therefore this information along with going through the proper process, could just as easily moved forward without all the assumptions and misinformation stated by Ms. Vargas.
Facts are facts…. thankfully, it is all on video now and non-edited tape. I sincerely encourage everyone to come to council meetings. Actually be there, hear and see what and how the business of the town is conducted. You will hear and know the truth.
A statement made by the Mayor at Mondays meeting, had to do with the City Judge. He said he had looked up the law and the Judges term was four years. That is true, we all know that, but nowhere is it mandated that the City Judge is their office four days a month. Those conditions are set by the council and Mayor. The same applies to all employees. The survey that was sent out, was NOT sent out by the Fromberg Improvement Committee, as the Mayor was quick to lay blame to. He blames the committee, because a couple of members in that committee have brought up concerns and demanded answers. Members that have lived in this community 35 years and longer, and it not just those that have questioned and actually yelled at the Mayor to get answers from him.
two years ago at budget workshops, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Flint (councilpersons) agreed that we needed to cut hours and expenses. But when those comments about cuts were relayed to employees, it was all put on me, which the employees did not take well. I went and talked to Mike and Nate and asked to tell me word for word what they were told. I offered to confront the Mayor at the next council meeting. That is a fact and if Mike is truthful about it he will tell you that.
The people of Fromberg hold the Mayor and Council to a higher standard and rightfully so. We are representing this community. We don’t come by answers to concerns willy-nilly, we try very diligently to find answers and solutions.
I know there will be questions about the vote on the budget. Let me tell you, the cards were dealt and the deck was stacked. The vote on the final budget would have been tied and the Mayor would break the tie….again!! You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Again…Please take the time once a month to attended the town council meetings. It is important to the elected representatives and very important to you, the citizens.
I have to hand it to the Mayor and our legal council. In order to let offers be resubmitted, he decided to nullify the offers already submitted. This actually gives a distinct advantage to first offer. My suggestions on the ethical way to go through the process, were actually repeated by the Mayor at the council meeting. I know who I talked to concerning these steps…. hhhhmmmm.. makes one ponder.
Shirley, Just wondering how that gives advantage to the first offer or any others that were sent in as an unsolicited offer. As I understand it, the town put out an ad for sealed bids so the playing field is level and any unsolicited offers that were previously submitted, should now be submitted as a sealed bid along with all of the other parties that are interested in bidding on the property. This process allows no advantage to any party involved. Maybe you can clarify what you mean in your 9/14 post. Thanks
Again key words being “sealed bids”. It would seem anyone interested enough to put forth a bid would certainly seal it. Standard office procedure would mandate all bids be safely set aside. At the appointed time all bids would be opened simultaneously by Mayor and a quorum of the Council. Regardless of whether bids were sealed or not, the fiduciary duty of Town personell is to strictly guard any and all information any bids may contain. Never divulging authors or contents to anyone outside of the stringent procedure detailed above.
Am I corresponding with Shirley? Not sure who “Admin” is but I was addressing Shirley. Saying that anyone interested to put forth a bid would certainly seal it, minimizes the Sealed Bidding process. With a local government advertising land for sale and to apply with a “sealed bid” by a particular hour of a particular day has more defined guidelines to adhere to than an unsolicited proposal. An unsolicited proposal may include data that the offeror does not want disclosed to the public for any purpose except for evaluation purposes. However, if the offeror wishes to restrict the data, the title page on the offer must be marked to indicate that. However, ALL sealed bids in a sealed bids process are confidential to only the people opening the bids. I feel that nullifying the original Unsolicited Bids was a responsible decision. Does anyone else reading these posts have any thoughts? AND also just curious… who is the ADMIN on this site ? I clicked on ADMIN INFO and nothing was revealed. Thanks
Kathleen, My problem with the process, was the process itself. The council should have passed a Resolution declaring the land surplus property. After that step, it should have been advertised. Then a public hearing in which the bids were opened. None of these steps were taken. Another problem to me, was that the bids were not sealed and the first bidder was told that there was another “higher” offer. Now this should have all been confidential until it was opened and discussed at an open meeting. By nullifying all offers and being allowed to re-submit an offer, gives a distinct advantage to anyone having any information of the offers. I have a problem with the way it was handled from start to finish.
These offers were unsolicited and unsealed, one offer was presented to council at the August meeting. We did not accept that offer at the time, instead deferring it to the September meeting and to review in the meantime. Another offer was received later in the month, and I was told by the Town Clerk that they instructed her to make sure that the Mayor and Council got a copy. I was told by the Director of Montana Realtors assoc. that these offers should have been held in confidence and it was a breech of ethics for any information to be released. Again, I am not a real estate expert, but I find the whole process so far , does not pass the smell test. I have no problem with either offer, although I would like to see the Town find a way to use that property to the advantage of the Town. If we decide to sell the property, I would like an appraisal done or at least a current market assessment. There are many questions I would like to have answered. I prefer to have a responsible and open process.
Also, the advertisement of the property was not put in place until the Town Atty said it should be advertised, and two offers were already submitted.
I am sure we have not met. Are you from or living in Fromberg? It sounds as though you have experience in real estate and are knowledgeable about the sale of this property. I have to stand by my reasons for wanting an ethical process.
If the town was really interested in selling said property, then it should have been discussed with the council and a decision made as to whether to sell or not. We are supposed to be representing the Town of Fromberg and the people that voted for us. If we just let things happen without proper procedure we are doing a disservice to them.
Sorry this was added to and a somewhat disjointed reply, but my phone is pretty busy at times.
Kathleen, I am sure we have not met and you sound like you are know a great deal about real estate and the sale of this particular property. Do you live in Fromberg?
This reply has become lengthy and disjointed, but had some calls. Let me just add that , if the town was interested in selling this property, the council should have discussed long before and made a decision for or against. We as a governing body should always keep in mind that we work for the people and must always have their best interests in mind. So I stand behind my reasoning in this matter.
Shirley – I own a house in Fromberg. I do not know a lot about real estate or the selling of that property but do know a lot about the sealed bidding process for a Government entity. I was under the impression that a couple of years ago the Council Did vote to sell the property. You say you would like the town to utilize the property for the advantage of the town. What could the town afford to do with it to benefit the town? Selling it would give Fromberg a good chunk of money to use on street repair or other projects important for the town.
I still believe the sealed bidding process is a fair way to sell the property.
Another note… I have found this web page blog to be a very negative sounding board against town employees and the Mayor as well as others. It’s full of spiteful remarks and innuendos. And yes, the Admin and all do have the right to free speech but such continuous negativity is like a cancer that simply feeds off itself killing everything in its path.
Negativity seeths from you. Sell the land and its gone for ever. The cancer is City Hall and it has pretty much killed this town with its disregard for the people and business. The bidding process was totally askew from the start. The current administration has broken so many laws I can’t begin to count them. You think this land sale will pay the $700,000 sewer screw up? Wonder who’s going to have pay that? You seem to be very ignorant of what is really going on. Hang around 50 or 60 years before you blow more smoke.
I do not find that this site is filled with negativity. People have a place to state their concerns. Actually people in Fromberg are pretty positive and show it everyday.
There have been several suggestions for that property and several that would cost the town very little to implement and would bring in needed revenue.
While it is true there was some interest in the town property of which you elude to, I can find nothing in the minutes that for the last several years that documents that statement.
Also, any complaints made on this site concerning the performance of the Mayor, Council or employees, are actually correct to a degree. People who have attended meetings and brought concerns to them were either glossed over or not heard. Many, many have told me that is the reason they just don’t go to the town meetings. In order to see the whole picture, you really need to hear both sides and not just one. I realize you are new to this community and we welcome everyone. But if you want to know the people here, I suggest you talk to a lot of the people here and not just a few, because it can get pretty one sided if you don’t.
To Fromberg Advocy Member:
Unfortunately there are many untruths floating around. While I see what is going on , it is difficult to stop who starts the lies and then hides behind a position and ethics. I have been called everything but a person, had complaints filed against me and others who are running for office, been blamed for the complaints filed with the Mayor and Council by townspeople and laughed at by the Mayors wife at open meetings. In her defense, she does that to everyone who does not agree with her, so I must be fair. I met a person who said that while in the town office, overheard an employee tell another person not to vote for me and to vote for my opponent.
While they are willing to sign a deposition to that fact, I am loathe to go there. I have never been one for dirty tricks and doing something to hurt someone else.
So, I will not lower myself to such actions, I will hold my head high knowing I did the decent thing and let the voters speak. I am old fashioned, I will not react with malice. I prefer to keep my dignity intact.
You are correct in that we had to negotiate another loan to the tune of $700,000 +. And you are correct in the statement that we need to start cutting the budget and put some money aside for future events, whatever they may be. I for one am a budget minded person, I prefer to save for a rainy day, and not spend it just because I have it. One councilperson said we should come up with a financial plan to show how the town would benefit by making cuts. I asked that they also come up with a financial plan on how the town would benefit by keeping the budget in place. We are not talking job performance or lack thereof, but actual benefit in dollars. We will see how that goes.
the.fromberg.advocacy.com is a privately funded advocacy group, protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution. Every web page has an administrative function. As stated, this is a public forum. All who wish to comment may do so. The only rights we reserve are those regarding profanity we deem excessive and nudity. Per our contact page we can always be reached at: fr************************@***il.com
I welcome any questions from the people in this community. But some questions are asked by proxy.
Well Shirley, I appreciate your last response to my post, unlike the crude, discourteous, bad manners of the Fromberg Advocacy member who posted before you.
Thank You. I am trying very hard to stay positive. I was raised in this valley and love Fromberg. I really want the best for our town. There are a lot of people in town who have been ignored with their concerns and blamed for things that they had no control over, so I can understand the frustration. But for the most part the community is very outgoing and welcoming.
Our Home Page states:
“Strenghening our Community! Through Open Forum Discussion. Join Us!”
Our About page states:
“Our goal is to provide easily accessible, irrefutable factual documentation and an open forum for discussion.
Our hope is to spark honest, heartfelt discussions about the Town of Fromberg’s true current situation.
It is our fervent belief, that with facts in hand, open and honest discussion, a willingness to listen and sincere desire to return Fromberg to her former “Glory Days”, that we, as a community, will take proactive steps to accomplish our goals for a revilatized Fromberg. Will you join us?”
After attending a meeting with RCD recently, the comments over the impeding and continuing erosion of land is an overwhelming concern.
According to an engineer who met with us today, to look at the damage, the problems are looming. Right now the river, because of changing its
course, has taken 40 to perhaps over a hundred feet of property from residents along the river. The State does not claim ownership, therefore cannot be responsible for damage now or in the future. My concern is what is going to happen when the towns infrastructure is at risk?? (Well house, discharge station and lagoons). One more reason to start now putting monies aside for future events. It may be 10 years or more, who knows? If we
have continuous seasons of an accumulation of snow and rain, it could be earlier than that. Plus the many, many improvements needed to keep the existing infrastructure in good and working condition. (water lines, sewer lines, roads, etc). Now RCD representative is going to look at some POSSIBLE
funding, but it may take some time, with not only the Federal Government cutting agencies, but the State of Montana is also having funding shortages.
I have been told over and over at budget meetings, that the town has been in good stead for the last twelve years, but has it?? We spend almost as much as we take in and if we had been using the tax paid dollars and local revenue wisely, we might have had at least a good portion of the money
saved for the lagoon project and possibly wouldn’t have had to take as large a loan as we did, and now continue to add to that loan.
So, yes, I am very concerned for the future of Fromberg and escalating costs, but my colleges, at this point do not seem to agree.
Now that I know who you are it is obvious that you and yours have a very self serving agenda. I was not crude or discourteous. Just telling the truth. I suppose being from Connecticut you can’t grasp that. Saw a very interesting post on face book! Lots of grandiose plans for the barley field. Why don’t they fix up the eye sore on the highway where the car lives on the pole with some more smoke about how great the things we are going to do. You need to go back where ever you came from as, you are not wanted or needed here! You wanted to know what was wrong with the bid process, I know what the bids were so it isn’t rocket science to bid a little higher is it. Get real. So much for SEALED bids. This will be in court before it’s all said and done, just to see how legal any of this was. And how is it that the general public knows what these bids were? Someone has broken more laws. What a surprise. The town attorney has cut and run the head cheese mayor is cutting and running. What does that tell you? The people here are not negative, they are tired of being lied to and walked on. WE don’t want a rerun of the past.
Addressed to Scott Advocate- You really ought to sign in under your own name. You have an idiolect, or linguistic fingerprint which identifies you, with no doubt.. Since that’s the case,and having never met you, you have no idea what good I might contribute to this community. Unfortunately, your reputation precedes you so I guess one can expect nothing less in your behavior. Have you always been so hateful and mean spirited towards people or is it something fairly new? It’s quite pitiful.
While I feel that the town could put some interest and infrastructure into that property and generate some much needed revenue, two council members do not feel that way. They are demanding more ideas and financial plans, but refuse to come up with a rational and collective idea on their own. This council needs to come together for the good of the town and not because they have listened to political double talk. There has been talk of propane tanks and other stuff being buried on that land. If that is so, the DEQ will soon step in and investigate, and that will put us in a whole world of hurt. Just as with the lagoons. This all happened because the liner was damaged by a city employee and it started to leech, and eventually complaints were made to DEQ. It was witnessed by someone who lived on that land at the time. It was stated at a council meeting that the Mayor had been working on it for fourteen years. Really???? Strange that DEQ did not get involved until Ed Warner was Mayor, then and only then was it mandated that the town get something done or pay heavy fines. Go look at the records, or call DEQ, they will answer all your questions concerning this matter. There have been meetings about other problems and the council was not apprised of any meetings or advised to attend. Isn’t that part of the Mayors job??
I would advise anyone who is interested, to go to city hall and read the minutes for the fourteen years or more. Recently, very recently, I was told that I was very negative and trying to throw the Mayor and Council to the wolves. If they are going that direction, it is their own fault.
We learned this evening in the council meeting, that there are definitely tanks and other items buried on the barley field. we were informed that with disclosure, that should not be a liability problem for the town. But I still have reservations. Some years ago I sat on a jury in District Court . It was all connected with land bought from a municipality. Although their was disclosure, the buyer went to court a year and half later and sued the town. The jury found for the buyer, and the town ended up paying him almost twice the price he bought the land for , plus court costs, attorney fees and fines.
And he was still a full owner of the property.
Now, that land was sold to the town many years ago. It had been surveyed previously, before the town purchased it, as lots with the intentions of building low-income housing. It did not happen. A lot of interesting facts coming out.
I had looked at several properties in the area, before I purchased the home I live in, and one of the properties I looked at was the Mayors current home.
When I looked at it, it had signs all over it saying it had been condemned. Now, I probably could have purchased that property for about a third of what I paid for my home, at the time. But, at my age , what would I do with 12-14 acres? Plus the costs involved in inspections, bringing up to code and attorneys fees to get the condemnation taken care of. I have been told that the Mayor was on the council when the city condemned that property.
True?? I don’t know.
So, once again, with the bids being opened tonight, I at a quandary. Are we going to get bit later on? (I am going back to the jury trial) or will we be ok?
The town is already at risk liability-wise. I was told that by a State Official. Once again, I am looking at increased costs now and later on down the road.
Do we expect the citizens of the Fromberg to pay for those increases, or do we do something now working toward the future costs to the town.
I am truly concerned, and not trying to be negative about these things, but real probabilities are there. We can’t afford to wait until we are above our hip boots in mud and then scramble to figure it all out. That has an all too familiar ring to it.
Once again I have been attacked with untruths and implications so far fetched, that I am at a loss to understand why and where these insane statements come from. If anyone reading my post (recently posted) on Fromberg Happenings does not imply in any way that I have called any person unethical and underhanded. Although, I did repeat a question that was asked by a citizen about this being a “backdoor deal”. For that person it was a legitimate question as they have lived here for over 40 years and has always questioned the actions of the presiding Mayor and Council.
It was implied that my comments were slanderous and my actions as a Councilmember and candidate for Mayor have been purposely and intentionally done to fabricate the facts. That facts are all there on tape and on video, if anyone is really interested in the truth!!
Yes, the Vargas’ did have an interest in the barley field and submitted an offer in June of 2015. That offer was not accepted. I asked questions about the sale of the land, that were asked of me and I posted those questions on this page. This land has been advertised.. years ago. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that the process this time was not done properly.
Now, what I said was, after the recent offers, is that the Council should have met and discussed whether the town really wanted to sell the land and if we did, then we should have (ethically) passed a Resolution declaring the land surplus property, then advertising, accept sealed bids and then have a public hearing to accept bids or not. Now Ms. Vargas should know that because I believe she was at that meeting. If you really want the truth , view the video of that meeting and then re-read the actual post.
I am not the person dividing this community. I have never called Ms. Vargas a liar, attacked her profession, her person or her intent.
When the water rights fiasco was posted by her, on Facebook , a public venue, she herself invited comments and questions, by just that simple action. I stated that the people involved, did have permission from the town and that was verified at the Council meeting the following month. (watch the video) I also stated that Ms. Vargas used that information to post on a public venue, and that it caused some problems in the sale of their home. Which it did!!!! I asked several questions, to which I did not get answers from her or a response, other than personal attacks. And yet, the attacks on my character continue.
Is the office of Mayor so important to her that she continues on this tirade? Or , is the current Mayor’s agenda and paranoia (always blames someone else) continuing to run the show???
I would like to see our city government be completely open and above board, which has not been the case in many of the responses to the public.
Yes, I did suggest some budget cuts. These cuts would not affect town services as implied, but they may cause more effective and efficient work ethics.
I will continue to ask questions and I will continue to work hard to make this community the best I can. I am not a polished politician, who uses words to further an agenda, I don’t use my “Thesaurus ” to come up with phrases intended to belittle or insult.
An additional thought:
It was stated on the Fromberg Happenings page , the council was informed of an offer by the Vargas’. NO, we were not!!! That information was not known by the council until we opened our packets. I can’t say with accuracy that none of the members were notified ahead of time, but I can state with accuracy , that two weren’t.
Of course we all knew that the Vargas’ had an interest in the property, …. but two years ago, nothing since then would lead us to believe that they were still interested until very recently. They actually should have come to a meeting well before hand to voice that interest and let the council do its job as it should have been done. That did not happen. We are not mind readers, therefore this information along with going through the proper process, could just as easily moved forward without all the assumptions and misinformation stated by Ms. Vargas.
Facts are facts…. thankfully, it is all on video now and non-edited tape. I sincerely encourage everyone to come to council meetings. Actually be there, hear and see what and how the business of the town is conducted. You will hear and know the truth.
A statement made by the Mayor at Mondays meeting, had to do with the City Judge. He said he had looked up the law and the Judges term was four years. That is true, we all know that, but nowhere is it mandated that the City Judge is their office four days a month. Those conditions are set by the council and Mayor. The same applies to all employees. The survey that was sent out, was NOT sent out by the Fromberg Improvement Committee, as the Mayor was quick to lay blame to. He blames the committee, because a couple of members in that committee have brought up concerns and demanded answers. Members that have lived in this community 35 years and longer, and it not just those that have questioned and actually yelled at the Mayor to get answers from him.
two years ago at budget workshops, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Flint (councilpersons) agreed that we needed to cut hours and expenses. But when those comments about cuts were relayed to employees, it was all put on me, which the employees did not take well. I went and talked to Mike and Nate and asked to tell me word for word what they were told. I offered to confront the Mayor at the next council meeting. That is a fact and if Mike is truthful about it he will tell you that.
The people of Fromberg hold the Mayor and Council to a higher standard and rightfully so. We are representing this community. We don’t come by answers to concerns willy-nilly, we try very diligently to find answers and solutions.
I know there will be questions about the vote on the budget. Let me tell you, the cards were dealt and the deck was stacked. The vote on the final budget would have been tied and the Mayor would break the tie….again!! You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Again…Please take the time once a month to attended the town council meetings. It is important to the elected representatives and very important to you, the citizens.