Shockey Support Slips in Arnold

Arnold police chief Robert Shockey has succeeded once again in extracting money from Arnold taxpayers. First he got the city to make purchases from his businesses, then he got the city to pay his son-in-law a salary during his police training. Finally, he filed a totally bogus lawsuit against the city and two council members. Well, that lawsuit has been settled (barely), so Shockey will receive a cool $70,000.

I say that the suit was bogus because age discrimination was one of the claims, even though there was not even a suggestion that that is what anyone cared about. The reason Shockey put that in the suit is that he needed to be part of a protected class, and since he’s a white guy, that was the only one available to him.

I say that the case was barely settled because the council vote to approve it was 5-3. The roll call vote on February 11 was as follows:

• Jason Fulbright – yes
• Brian McArthur – yes
• Nancy Crisler – yes
• Gary Plunk – yes
• David Owens – yes
• Phil Amato – no
• Paul Freese – no
• Butch Cooley – no

Not only did three people vote no, but some frank comments were made about Shockey by council members to the Leader. Freese said:

…he knew what he was getting into. Personally, I felt he didn’t deserve the money. I didn’t feel it was justified.

Cooley said he thinks it’s time for the chief to retire. While these councilmen also said complementary things about the chief, it is clear that he is now in a rather weak position.

Mayor Ron Counts said the period with all the lawsuits “was a dark time for the city.” But it was a bright time for him, because the lawsuit was filed against his two opponents in the mayoral election, and it came just in time for the campaign.

Another settlement the city handed out during this time (without a lawsuit even being filed) was to rec department head Susie Boone. She only got $55,000, but she also got an agreement that it would take a supermajority of the council to fire her. Shockey got no such clause.

Candidate Cop Connections

Incidentally, two candidates for Arnold city council in the April 5 election are married to Arnold policemen. The candidates are Jennifer Beutenmiller in Ward 1 and Mary Ruiz in Ward 3. Ruiz also just retired as an Arnold police dispatcher. I’m not sure it would be a good idea to elect them to the council. They will probably not be able to vote on anything police related, given the conflict of interest. That removes them from considering a number of issues that could come before the council. The next council may have to decide whether to replace the weakened police chief, and these two candidates would not get to participate in the decision or help choose his replacement.

Despite the fact that they won’t be able to vote on police matters, both were endorsed by the Arnold Police Officers Association. Beutenmiller was endorsed by Jeff Roorda, who was once fired as an Arnold cop and now makes his living defending bad officers.

Pevely Settlement Raises Questions

Pevely mayor Stephanie Haas filed a lawsuit against the city, shortly after being elected, over her firing as city clerk in late 2014. Well, that lawsuit has been settled for $80,000 $85,000, which is a pretty good sum for this type of suit. The Arnold lawsuits of the past few years have generally settled in the $50,000 range, and a recent suit in Byrnes Mill went for only $35,000. Of course, in cases like this, when the plaintiff is buddies with the board/council, it is easier to get a good settlement. In another example, Arnold police chief Bob Shockey just got $70,000 from Arnold over a bogus lawsuit.

But there is something fishy going on in the Pevely case. It may just be the latest in a long series of ignorance-based Sunshine Law violations, but I’m not sure. I asked the city what the roll call vote was when the board of aldermen approved this settlement, assuming that there is no way this suit can be settled without board approval. I mean, who else has the power to act on behalf of the city? Not the mayor, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Plus, part of the settlement was that the board has to pass a motion requiring city officials to take Missouri Municipal League training. How could that be forced onto the board without its agreement?

But the city tells me there was no vote! Actually, all the city would say to me was “we have no record of a vote.” This leads me to believe that they think the board vote falls under the confidentiality agreement of the settlement, and that they can’t share it (which would be a complete violation of the Sunshine Law apparent to any layperson). They would neither confirm nor deny to me that a vote took place. But city administrator Dickie Brown did say to me, when I protested, “come back with a court order” as if there was something to uncover.

I sent a Sunshine complaint to the state attorney general, and apparently Pevely told them that there was no vote. And as it is not the job of the Sunshine people to make sure Pevely settles lawsuits in a lawful manner, there was not much they could do for me.

The reason I am interested in the roll call vote is that there is a chance it came out 4-2, given the way votes often go in Pevely. Keep in mind that this settlement took place 6 weeks or so after Dave Bewig was impeached. Had he still been on the board, the settlement vote could have come out 3-3, which would have meant no settlement. Was the impeachment a necessary move to allow the sweet settlement to take place? I don’t allege that that is why it took place, only that the timing is very fishy, and Pevely is not giving us answers.

Unfortunately, it seems that it might take a lawyer to get to the bottom of this, and I have no money for that. Someday I need to start a foundation that will help citizens sue their municipal governments when they are not following the law, which happens quite often, due to the proliferation of clueless or corrupt officials and third-rate city attorneys.

Of course, if anyone wants to send me some inside information on this, I welcome it at jcpenknife@yahoo.com. Anonymity is guaranteed.

Arnold Flood Response Questioned

I am a bit late to the game on this, but I want to get this out and onto the record. It involves the incorporation of lots of information from many sources.

The city of Arnold received some criticism for its response to the Meramec River flooding in late December. One major complaint was that Arnold shut the power off to homes that were not affected by flood water. This rendered these homeowners unable to operate their sump pumps, and when their sewers backed up, they could not get the water out. This led to the ruining of basements that the homeowners say could have been prevented. This issue was covered in the January 14 Leader, which gave testimony from several Arnold residents.

The city’s response was that Ameren recommended turning the power off and that this is a regular practice, though affected Arnold residents say it had not happened there before. But even if cutting the power is a good idea, was it done to too many homes?

Let’s look at some numbers. First,according to the Leader article linked above, power was shut off to 530 homes in Arnold on late December 29, two days ahead of the river crest. According to Ameren, they shut off power to about “1,600 customers in flood-prone areas ahead of the rising floodwaters” – that’s for the whole region. It seems a bit odd to me that almost 1/3 of all disconnected homes were in Arnold, given what happened in other cities west of Arnold along the river, like Fenton and Valley Park.

Second, look at the numbers for flood-affected homes in Arnold. On December 30, the city said it thought “at least 150 homes would be affected.” The Red Cross tallied nine homes destroyed and 146 with major damage in Arnold. The city reported that 332 homes were affected, but that includes those that had just a small amount of water in any part of the structure. So there were definitely hundreds of homes not affected by the flood in any significant way that had their power shut off.

Who decided which homes to cut off? In the Leader, Arnold merely said the decision was made after consulting with Ameren and Rock Fire. In a terse response, Ameren told me that “emergency responders requested temporary service disconnections for Ameren Missouri business and residential customers in flood-prone areas.” This sounds like Arnold picked the areas to shut off, and it would make sense that Ameren would defer to the city in this situation.

Why did Arnold shut off power to so many homes? Was it because they overestimated the flood extent? Arnold police chief Robert Shockey said December 30 that “the Meramec River will crest at 49 feet between 1-5 p.m. Thursday (the 31st).” However, the NOAA River Forecast Center projected a crest of 47.2 feet, which was the actual crest. Here’s what Fox CFO and Arnold city council candidate John Brazeal posted to Facebook on January 15:

There is a credibility disaster in progress at Arnold city hall. Here is a recent example.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, the Meramec River crested at 47.26 feet. The Meramec River was already in a minor flood stage when prolonged rainfall occurred between Saturday, December 26 and Monday, December 28. This major rain event had been predicted a few days earlier.

The National Weather Service collects data and issues official predictions regarding the weather and river levels. Not once did this organization predict a crest greater than 47.3 feet for the Meramec River. Despite this fact, Mayor Counts administration claimed on Wednesday, December 30 they were notified the river would crest at 49 feet. This wild claim was not supported by official sources.

And also this:

Now in the January 14, 2016 Leader Newspaper article, city representatives attempt to downplay the misinformation about the river crest and claim they only had two days of notice.

I was watching the river levels in case flood protection was needed at any Fox C-6 facilities. My notes indicate that on Sunday, December 27, predictions were the Meramec would crest above 45 feet; and on Tuesday, December 29, predictions were the Meramec would crest above 46 feet. Clearly, there were more than two days of advance notice of a major flood event. Seems the city is trying to hide why they were slow to provide sand and sandbags to residents in flood prone neighborhoods.

When decisions are based upon misinformation, bad decisions are made, such as electricity being shut off to homes that were not at risk of flooding. Consequently, residents were prevented from powering sump pumps, food in refrigerators and freezers was ruined, and people needing electric for medical devices had to be relocated unnecessarily. City officials need to provide answers for the misinformation and the slow flood response.

Was this 49 foot number, which came from who knows where, used to determine which houses had their power cut off? All homes that had their power turned off had to be inspected before power could be restored and residents could return to their homes.

Brazeal mentions another complaint – the city was slow to provide sand and sandbags. It was Shockey who claimed in the Leader that the city only had two days to prepare for the floods, though it is clear that there was more time available.

This was called the worst flood in the city’s history. The response was not up to par. One might say that it is best to be safe and shut off power to more than enough homes, but that created more bad outcomes than otherwise would have occurred, due to unaddressable sewage backups. And by getting sand delivered sooner, perhaps more homes would have been declared safe on December 29, when the power was cut off, and power could have been cut off to fewer homes.

Brazeal Airs Arnold Grievances

John Brazeal, CFO of the Fox C-6 school district, is running for city council in Arnold ward 2. He has taken to Facebook several times since declaring to air his grievances against Arnold government in true Festivus fashion. This harkens back to his first broadside against the city, when he ripped the can plant deal with Anheuser-Busch. I thought I would go ahead and reprint his latest statement here:

Anyone else annoyed by these unholy deals orchestrated by Mayor Counts’ administration in Arnold, Missouri?

On the November 3, 2015 ballot, the City of Arnold sought voter approval for a new half-cent sales tax in Arnold. That measure failed.

By the way, my opponent in the April 2016 city council race (incumbent Brian McArthur) voted in favor of seeking voter approval for increasing sales tax rates on Arnold residents. But I digress.

Leading up to the election, a slick advertising campaign supporting the city’s sales tax proposal was organized by the Mayor and members of his administrative team. That campaign, financed through a political action committee known as Building a Better Arnold, spent nearly $40,000 attempting to sway public opinion in favor of higher sales taxes. Who contributed to the $40,000 attempt to sway voters, and why?

Anheuser-Busch contributed $15,000 just a few days after the Arnold City Council wiped out approximately $20M of future property taxes due over the next 20 years for the $150M Metal Container can plant expansion owned by Anheuser-Busch. Arnold forgives $20,000,000 of taxes due from Anheuser-Busch, and then Anheuser-Busch reciprocates by contributing $15,000 per the request of Mayor Counts to the campaign to increase city sales taxes.

It is patently offensive that Anheuser-Busch seeks to escape property taxes for itself, but funds an advertising campaign attempting to convince Arnold voters to impose higher sales taxes upon themselves. All orchestrated by the Mayor with the cooperation of the City Council.

Missouri American Water contributed $10,000 to the sales tax campaign. Earlier in the year, the City sold its profitable sewer system to Missouri American Water. Since that sale, the cost of sewer service in Arnold has been on the rise. First a utility tax was added to sewer bills, thereby increasing our cost of sewer services. This increase to the cost of living in Arnold was not disclosed to voters before the Mayor and City Council sought voter approval to sell the sewer system. Now, Missouri American Water has filed a request with the Missouri Public Service Commission to increase sewer rates about 20% higher than current rates.

It is patently offensive that Missouri American Water, after purchasing the profitable cash machine of a sewer system from the City, and knowing they would be seeking to raise sewer rates with no objections coming from the Mayor and City Council, would also fund ballot initiatives seeking to increase sales tax rates upon Arnold residents. This too orchestrated by the Mayor with the cooperation of the City Council.

By the way, Missouri American Water purchases sewer pipes and related appurtenances and equipment needed for the sewer system from vendors outside the City of Arnold, thereby avoiding payment of Arnold sales taxes on its purchases.

Yes, I’m annoyed by these city hall deals pinned on Arnold residents. Better decisions could have been made. Which is why I am running for a seat on the city council.

I would like to add that an employee of the law firm of Arnold city attorney Bob Sweeney serves as deputy treasurer of Building a Better Arnold. As I posted yesterday, another city council candidate, Vern Sullivan, serves as treasurer.

Finally, it is worth remembering that American Water poured $244,000 into the campaign to persuade voters to approve the sewer sale.

What You Need to Know About Arnold Council Candidate Vern Sullivan

Vernon Sullivan is running for Arnold city council in ward 3. He is currently on the Fox C-6 school board.

Sullivan serves as treasurer for Building a Better Arnold. This is a political action committee that led the failed charge to raise the sales tax in Arnold in November 2015. This was the city’s attempt to blackmail city residents suffering from recurring stormwater problems into supporting the tax before they could get some long-awaited help from the city, despite the fact that the city just earned $9 million by selling the sewer system to American Water.

The campaign to pass this tax was funded by several groups. One was Anheuser-Busch, who gave $15,000 after getting a $20 million tax abatement from the city. The Missouri American Water Employees PAC gave $10,000, after the aforementioned sewer sale, the campaign for which was boosted by the city council’s pre-election threat to jack up sewer rates by 75%. Arnold construction company Kozeny-Wagner gave $5,000, likely with an eye on future construction contracts funded by the tax hike.

If he was such a big backer of this tax hike, how will he vote on future tax hikes if elected? His selection for this treasurer job also suggests a certain coziness with the current regime, which is not what we need.

Fox Issues

Sullivan was head of the Fox C-6 Scholarship Golf Tourney from 1999 until it was discontinued in 2014. Money from this tournament was used by disgraced former Fox superintendent Dianne Critchlow as part of her scholarship slush fund, through which she funneled scholarships to the children of her cronies (and to her own kids). If Sullivan didn’t know that Critchlow’s kids were receiving golf scholarships, he probably should have.

Sullivan was elected to the Fox board in 2014, about two months before the (first) Critchlow scandal broke. Here are some decisions he has contributed to since then:

• Allowing Critchlow to retire without being fired
• In the wake of the scandal, he voted to appoint Tim Crutchley, whose hands are of questionable cleanliness in all this, as interim superintendent.
• He voted to hire the daughter of board member Cheryl Hermann.
• Awarding fired nutrition director Kelly Nash, a nepotism hire, a $20,000 settlement after likely failing to get her required certification.

All told, Sullivan seems like an establishment, status quo candidate when that’s precisely what Arnold does not need.

Historic Preservation, the Water Tower, and Big Arnold Government

The city of Arnold now has a historic preservation commission, spearheaded by councilman Jason Fulbright and passed at the October 1 city council meeting. Here’s how it works, from the October 22 Leader:

Fulbright said once the commission members are appointed, they will work to identify buildings or areas that need preservation and, after notifying the owners and holding public hearings, the City Council would decide whether to place them on the city’s register of significant buildings, landmarks or areas.

Once a building, landmark or area is on the Arnold register, the owner would have to get the city’s permission to change it, Fulbright said.

Setting aside the question of whether there is anything historic in Arnold, you’d better hope that the city doesn’t cast its eyes on your somewhat old building, or you could lose your rights. See this from the city’s new ordinance, which passed unanimously:

I see nothing there requiring any consultation or coordination with the owner of the property. A public hearing would be held, but a property owner would apparently have to show up and beg not to be listed, if he/she wanted no part of this. There’s also this:

As I read this, once your structure hits 75 years of age, the city automatically claims power to restrict your property rights.

Keep it Green

The first target of the commission is the Arnold water tower, which is undergoing a controversial color change. As reported by the Post-Dispatch, the city wants to explore putting the tower on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

But it turns out that there are several hurdles:

• A site must be more than 50 years old to be nominated to the NRHP (unless it is extra special). The tower was built in 1977, making it only 38 years old.
• Listing a site on the NRHP requires the consent of the owner (unlike the city’s historic listing process). Would Arnold Public Water District #1, which owns the tower and chose to paint it blue, consent to this?
• A site must have some sort of historical significance. I see no such significance in this water tower.
• The tower’s new paint job will be completed within a few weeks (blue paint is already being applied), long before the NRHP process gets going.
• YOU CAN STILL PAINT A SITE THAT’S LISTED ON THE NRHP. This is from a Texas Q&A, but it is still relevant here:

Q: If my home is listed in the National Register, can I still paint it the color I want, remodel, or make an addition?

A: Yes. As long as there’s no federal money or permit involved, the National Register program does not place any restrictions on how homeowners treat their properties.

I don’t even think that inclusion on the more-restrictive Arnold historic property list can prevent a a new paint job. It only regulates alteration, demolition, and removal, and alteration seems to refer to actual structural modifications. So I really don’t know what the city hopes to accomplish with the water tower.

Origins

How about this paragraph:

Real estate index of St. Louis County? Was this whole ordinance lifted from St. Louis County ordinances, and someone (perhaps a certain city attorney) neglected to fix this particular paragraph?

Vote No on Arnold Prop C

While Arnold residents are focused on Cardinal baseball or potentially the 2016 race for president, city officials have their eyes on the November 3, 2015 election. On that date, voters in the city will be asked to approve a half-cent sales tax increase which will fund stormwater and infrastructure improvements. I recommend that voters show up and say no to this tax hike.

Since nothing else will be on the ballot, Arnold will probably have to spend $30,000 or more to hold the election, instead of just waiting until the council election in April. But the city probably figures it can get a better (read:lower) turnout in November. In Arnold’s ideal world, there will be 30 voters in November, and they will all vote yes while you pesky opponents will stay home.

As Mayor Ron Counts admitted in the August 27 Leader, “The biggest problem in the city, the thing people come up to the mic about (at Arnold City Council meetings) is stormwater problems.” But despite that, what has the city done for these residents? Precious little. Meanwhile, the council has passed pet program after pet program: subdivision beautification, streetlight subsidies, a co-working facility, and a farmers market. Yes, these projects are relatively inexpensive, but they show us what council priorities are. The council has also engaged in major giveaways to developers and big business, most recently with the Arnold can plant. And don’t forget the hemorrhaging rec center and golf course.

I feel like the stormwater-afflicted homeowners of Arnold are being held hostage. If council members want to do something, they take from city revenues. But if these homeowners want relief? Sorry, you’re gonna need a tax increase before we can help you.

Recall that the city just sold its sewer system to American Water, which netted the city $9 million. What about this money? Yes, the city is about ready to proceed with stormwater projects on Melody Lane and Farmcrest Drive, but what about the rest of the money? We know from the 2016 budget that $108,500 of the money is to be transferred to the rec center and $14,000 will go to the golf course. Another $170,000 goes to the stormwater fund. Here’s what Counts said about the money in May:

However, Counts said, much of the $9.2 million will be left after these project are complete.

We need to be very careful in spending this money,” he said. “This is a one-time thing. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.”

“As conservative as I am, I will really be recommending that we invest the money that is left over. This is something we can use for the future.”

Is it conservative to put that money away and then raise taxes? I don’t think so. Do we trust this council to not come up with new pet projects for the money? I don’t.

Campaign Underway

Just like American Water heavily funded the campaign, in the face of little opposition, to pass the vote on the sewer sale, a group has been formed to promote this sales tax. It is called Building a Better Arnold. The campaign committee treasurer is Fox School Board member Vern Sullivan (practicing for a future Fox tax hike, perhaps?), and the deputy treasurer is some Hillsboroan named Lisa French who is or was a legal assistant at the law firm of Arnold city attorney Bob Sweeney, according to the BBB website. Her phone number is also the listed number for the committee. I’m sure her work for the committee is entirely voluntary, done on her own time, and in no way constitutes an in-kind donation from Sweeney’s law firm to the campaign. Why wouldn’t a Hillsboro resident have a strong interest in Arnold tax rates?

Sweeney has donated $100 to the committee, but given the massive income he earns from Arnold (over $150,000 last year), they should expect him to pony up more than that.

Other donors are Warren Sign Company and Kozeny-Wagner, both of Arnold, who have both given $5,000. Kozeny-Wagner undoubtedly stands to win some of the contracts for construction projects that will take place if the tax hike passes.

High Taxes Already

As I noted here, Arnold’s current sales tax rates (page 8) range from a base of 8.35% to 9.35% at Arnold Commons to 10.35% in the Ridgecrest TDD. Add 0.5% to these numbers if this tax is approved. This is in addition to the sneaky 5% tax on sewer bills that the council passed in May.

Wipke Comments on Can Plant Deal

In my previous post on the city of Arnold’s deal with Anheuser-Busch on the expansion of the Arnold can plant, I mentioned Fox C-6 superintendent Jim Wipke’s reserved stance on the issue at the October 1 city council meeting. In the current issue of the Leader, Wipke made more specific remarks, so I thought I would highlight them here. This is what he said:

All I can do is look at the impact of going with a 100 percent abatement on a $150 million project. If you didn’t go with that, you may or may not have gotten the expansion, but I can tell you from a superintendent’s perspective that it would have been really, really nice for our students and taxpayers if we could have come to an agreement that wouldn’t have been a 100 percent tax abatement. I’m a superintendent with 11,500 kids to take care of, and I would have liked to have at least gotten some additional revenue out of it. A $150 million project doesn’t fall out of the sky every day, and I sure wish something better could have been done.

Once again, Wipke was very diplomatic in his statement. The fact is, “something…could have been done.” Arnold residents could have elected better leaders who would not have given away the farm. Here’s what Arnold city administrator Bryan Richison said about the negotiations:

But, Richison said, when a city negotiates a deal, like the one Arnold made with A-B InBev, it is competing with other cities and has to make the best deal it can to ensure it gets the project.

In this case, Arnold city officials felt they needed to offer a 100 percent abatement to ensure the expansion in Arnold, he said.

“The hard thing about these negotiations is there’s a lot of key information we don’t have. When they’re sitting down with us and saying, ‘Make us your best offer,’ if we say, ‘We’re only going to give you 50 percent,” we don’t know if that’s good enough.”

It’s always nice when you can make deals with other people’s money. Not just taxpayer dollars, in this case, but taxpayer dollars that belong to other governmental entities.

Who was Arnold competing with here? Only the other cities that have A-B can plants, no doubt. This was an expansion project, not new plant construction. There are can plants in Jacksonville, FL, Mira Loma, CA, Newburgh, NY and Windsor, CO. We know that Jacksonville is already undergoing expansion (with no tax abatement for schools), so that leaves three other competitors. California and New York are not known as friendly business environments. City councilmen at the October 1 meeting mentioned that there is a Florida law that limits the amount of tax abatement that can be handed out. Do CA, NY, or CO have similar laws? Was any analysis done of Arnold’s competitors, or did Arnold just jump straight to an offer of 100% abatement? Remember that Rock Fire attorney Frank Vatterott said it was “highly unusual” to have a deal with no pilot payments (“payments in lieu of taxes”) for fire districts. It is hard to believe that Arnold really had to push in all its chips in order to get this plant expansion.

What is also amazing is that the school district, fire district, and other were not notified of this deal until late September, nine months after the deal was struck and only days before it was ratified by the council. Here’s what Richison said about that:

Richison said he was surprised that officials with other taxing entities didn’t know about the deal before then because last December the city announced plans to sell the industrial revenue bonds, which included the tax abatement, when a groundbreaking was held to mark the start of construction on the can plant expansion.

Dozens of people attended that event, and news stories were published about the expansion and the financing and tax abatements.

So in effect, he’s saying “we thought you guys would see it in the paper!” What a total lack of respect and consideration.

Blue Water Tower Has Some Residents Seeing Red

The Arnold Public Water Supply District #1 board has made the decision to paint its water tower, which is a landmark to area residents and serves as the backdrop for many a politician photo. But the board’s decision to paint the green tower blue has raised objections. Here’s a recent photo of the tower, which has been green since it was built in 1977, complete with rigging which will hold a curtain during sandblasting and painting.

Arnold water tower, October 2015

Here’s a photo from today with the curtain, via Facebook:

Arnold water tower with curtain, October 2015

Not only will the tower be repainted by the end of November, but the top of the tower will read differently. Here’s a mockup:

Conceptual drawing of Arnold water tower after painting.

Water district manager Mike Siedler says in the Leader that cities just don’t do green water towers anymore. They do blue because it is supposed to blend in with the sky. Here’s what water district board member Bill James said on Facebook:

They don’t paint water towers green anymore, they look like a tree that that’s been cut back. We wanted a more pleasing color for eyes that blends in with the sky,that looks cool and clean. Back in the 70s that was the color, look around you don’t see green water towers anymore.

A lot of people are not buying this. A change.org petition was started a day ago, and it already has over 700 signatures as I write this. You can see the petition here. This is what it says:

The Arnold water tower has stood for years as a symbol of the hardworking, close knit community of individuals that make up Arnold, Missouri. The notion that this icon would forever be altered is a tragedy. Our tower stands tall, proud and green. It is a Snapchat filter. It is a Wikipedia image. It is a beacon of comfort for every home-bound college student, for every person driving home after a long day’s work. Painting the Arnold water tower blue is like painting the Arch purple. Unnecessary and emotionally distressing.  #KEEPITGREEN

That #keepitgreen hashtag is active on Twitter:

Would the US of A change the color of the White House??? #keepitgreen #arnoldwatertower

— Taylor Freiner (@TaylorFreiner) October 5, 2015

The Leader did not mention the change in the text of the tower, but I think this is perhaps more egregious than the color change. Who cares that the water district owns the tower? Given its status as a local landmark, it should stay inclusive of the whole community and simply say “Arnold.”

The members of the water district board, along with Bill James, are Phil Hogan, Ralph Sippel, Kurt Rose, and Mary Kennedy. The contact information for Siedler, the district executive director, is (636) 296-0659 and msiedler@pwsd1jeffco.org.

Brazeal Rips Arnold on A-B Can Plant Deal

On Thursday night, the Arnold city council approved a Chapter 100 bond issue to finance the expansion of the Metal Container Corporation (MCC) plant, which makes cans and aluminum bottles for Anheuser-Busch and others. The incentives include a 20-year tax abatement. This means that MCC, an A-B subsidiary, won’t have to pay any property or personal property taxes on the new buildings and equipment that come with the project. But this doesn’t only affect the city of Arnold. In fact, it has little effect on the city ($55,000 per year, states councilman Brian McArthur). However, the abatement covers every taxing entity that the site is a part of, including JeffCo entites like the Health Department (which is considering seeking a tax hike) as well as the state of Missouri. This is because the site will become city property for 20 years, making it exempt from taxation.

These other entities include the Fox C-6 School District and the Rock Fire District, which rely heavily on property taxes, unlike the city of Arnold, which will see revenue gains from this project. Fox stands to lose out on over $12 million over the life of the project, and Rock Fire will lose over $2 million. Here is the full list of impacted entities (from page 28 here):

Impact of Metal Container Corp 2015 project tax abatement.

Note the empty third column. “Pilot” stands for Payments in Lieu of Taxes. In exchange for the abatement, a recipient of corporate welfare can agree to pay some of the money it would have otherwise owed. But MCC does not have to make pilot payments based of the value of improvements in this agreement (it does have to make the tax payments on the (minimal) land value, based on the current value of the empty land). Rock Fire attorney Frank Vatterott said at the meeting that it is “highly unusual” for there to be no pilot payments for fire districts in an incentive package like this. Rock Fire chief Bill Mayer said protecting the project will require new equipment and training for his firemen, and that the district’s taxpayers, many who live outside of Arnold, will have to foot the bill while MCC pays nothing.

Here is what Fox chief financial officer (CFO) John Brazeal had to say about this in a comment on the Post-Dispatch article:

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” (Thomas Sowell)

Compare the Arnold, MO deal to the Jacksonville, FL deal, both projects currently in progress.

Arnold: $150M project ($20M building + $130M equipment) with a 100% tax abatement of $19.96M over a 20-year term, including $12.72M of school taxes. This on the heels of Arnold’s 2012 project of $88M having a 100% tax abatement of $14.53M over a 20-year term, including $9.59M of school taxes.

Jacksonville: $170M project ($40M building + $130M equipment) with a 75% tax abatement of city taxes totalling $12.0M over a 12-year term. All other property taxes, including 100% of school taxes) to be paid by Metal Container.

Team Jacksonville = smart. Team Arnold = @#$%!

Incredibly, Team Arnold’s starting offer was 100% abatement. This deal was announced in December 2014 following a council approval that took place somewhere other than an open meeting.

It takes no special skill and no special strategy to end up empty handed. Nothing for the emergency services. Nothing for the school students. Not even cheaper beer prices.

Here is the December announcement Brazeal speaks of. Here is the Jacksonville project he speaks of. Sure enough, the article says:

Almost all of that, up to $12 million, is in the form of relief from 75 percent of the additional property taxes that the project would generate for 12 years after completion. That only applies to city taxes. School district and other taxes would still be paid in full.

And that’s only a 12-year abatement in Jacksonville, not the 20 years Arnold handed out. It seems clear from the comments from Vatterot and Mayer at the council meeting that these districts weren’t even consulted on this. Councilman Phil Amato made a motion to table the deal for 30 days to allow these entities to weigh in, but nobody seconded his motion. Amato was the only no vote on the deal.

Art of the Bad Deal

Based on the details of this deal compared to the Jacksonville deal, as well as Brazeal’s comments, it sounds like Arnold did quite a poor job negotiating this deal. Arnold probably would have been out-negotiated by Obama’s Iran nuclear negotiating team. If Donald Trump read about this deal, he would call Arnold leaders “losers.” Former councilwoman Doris Borgelt suggested in the P-D comments that Arnold officials need to read Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.”

At the meeting, councilmen Brian McArthur and Paul Freese made comments stating that Missouri needed to change some state law in order to get the same deal as Jacksonville. Apparently Florida law prevents cities from giving away the farm in these deals. That would probably be a good plan, given the incompetents that run many Missouri municipalities. But it wouldn’t take a state law for Arnold to demand a better deal from MCC.

MCC and Anheuser-Busch appear to be playing the Stan Kroenke game here, intimating that they will leave without a sweetheart deal. But is that at all plausible? MCC just finished an expansion last year, also financed and abated by Arnold, worth $88 million or so. Is MCC really going to walk away from that? They also spent $5 million to upgrade the plant in 2010-11. And the Arnold plant is less than 20 miles from A-B’s biggest domestic brewery, just like Jacksonville hosts both a brewery and a can plant. Is the can plant really going to move further away from its biggest customer?

McArthur said:

“I’m sorry if it conflicts with the districts, but we can’t take the chance of them leaving (Arnold). It is a great business decision,” McArthur said.

Sure it is. Arnold will say, oh, well, this tax money that’s being abated wouldn’t be here at all without this project. But this project could have been done without handing the company a blank check to write their own incentives.

Wipke Holds Back

Along with Vatterott and Mayer, Fox superintendent Jim Wipke spoke at the meeting, but he did not mention the MCC project. Instead he spoke generally about wanting there to be a good relationship between the district and the city. He gave the councilmen copies of the book “Turning to One Another.” It sounded like a “get to know you” speech. But why would he give such a statement on the very night the MCC project, which would strip his district of millions of dollars, was being considered? He could have said this piece anytime in the past four months. I wonder if his statement was a nice way of saying, “hey, I know you shafted us on this deal without consulting us, but maybe in the future we can work together.” Perhaps we should take Brazeal’s harsh critique of the plan as revealing of Fox’s true feelings in the matter.

Speaking of Brazeal, his blistering statement is interesting given his close association with Arnold. He was city administrator there from 1999 to 2005 and city CFO for 18 years before that. In 2005, he became CFO of the Affton School District, where Arnold Police Chief Bob Shockey was on the board. He was hired as Fox CFO by a board that includes Arnold treasurer Dan Kroupa. He also served as a consultant on redevelopment projects for Arnold when the Arnold Commons TIF/TDD/CID incentive-palooza was being developed. So he is familiar with taxes and development.