Arnold Short Nearly $1 Million for CVS Development
City council members recently learned that the $2.9 million estimated budget for the road project they had approved in October 2011 had escalated to nearly $3.9 million.
Photos
Surprise, shock and anger. Those are just some of the words that describe the reactions of Arnold City Council members when they learned the city was short nearly $1 million for a road development project adjacent to the CVS planned near Highway 141 and Jeffco Boulevard.
In October 2011, the council approved an estimated budget for the project of $2.9 million, City Attorney Bob Sweeney said. At the last council meeting, David Glarner, the project's developer, informed the council that Matt Unrein, former city administrator, had approved a revised budget of nearly $3.9 million in August 2012.
However, city council members and finance officials say they were never notified of the new budget. Some council members blamed Glarner for not letting the council know about the difference. But Glarner said he was instructed to work only with the city administrator.
"It's not his (Glarner's) fault," Ward 2 Councilwoman Michelle Hohmeier said. "The person he was communicating with wasn't communicating with us."
Stay up-to-date on business news by liking Arnold Patch on Facebook.
Other council members wanted to bring in Unrein and question him about the issue.
"Bringing in Mr. Unrein and raking him over the coals isn't going to change the fact that we still owe $1 million," Ward 3 Councilman Phil Amato said.
Police Chief Robert Shockey, who also is working as acting city administrator, told council members he had some ideas on how to find the money needed for the project, and that he would share the ideas in closed session.
Patch was unable to reach Shockey by phone or email.
Background on the Project
The project is the first leg of a larger plan to create a road that runs from Michigan Avenue to Highway 141, Finance Director Debbie Lewis explained in an interview with Patch. The road, which would alleviate traffic congestion on Jeffco Boulevard, has been in the city's comprehensive plan for many years.
Part of the project will be funded by tax revenue from the city's existing Transportation Development District (TDD), which includes the Arnold Commons, Arnold Crossroads and Watertower Place shopping districts, Lewis said. The rest of the project will be funded by the city.
A TDD is a retail development area in which patrons pay an extra sales tax, which goes to the district or local city for the development and maintence of roads within the district. The tax can range from 1/8 of a cent up to 1 cent. The tax rate in the current Arnold retail corridor is 1 percent.
The city is trying to form a new TDD for CVS and Applebee's, Lewis added. That would also help pay for the first part of the road.
Lewis said the project is by far the most expensive piece of the long-term road plan because of the solid rock wall that was on Jeffco Boulevard between QuikTrip and Applebee's. Additionally, she said the project includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in acquisitions from neighboring businesses.
See other business stories on Arnold Patch:
Doris Borgelt
1:08 am on Friday, November 30, 2012
First of all, the former city administrator left the City of Arnold back in June, with a $70,000 parting gift. The tax rate in the Arnold Retail Corridor is 9.35% which includes the 1% that goes to the ARC TDD.
Sheri Gassaway
9:11 am on Friday, November 30, 2012
Thank you for pointing that out Doris. I checked and Matt resigned on June 28. I wonder why no one brought that up at the council meeting.
Doris Borgelt
10:08 am on Friday, November 30, 2012
Some were too busy blaming the developer to rationally assess the situation. The developer stated he presented the revised budget back in May. It was not apparent
to the new city administrator and the finance director until August when some expenditures were presented. They, in turn, did not present it to the council until November. No heads up for us!
If you watch the tape, Mrs. Lewis states the council gave away their authority to oversee the budgeting of the project to the city administrator. That was not clearly explained at the time, which seems to be an ongoing problem. The council is presented things in a manner that doesn't quite portray the whole picture, like film trailers, all the juicy parts are put before us to make it enticing, then we purchase the ticket and are many times disappointed with the movie! It seems the bad reviews are only presented when a project is being discouraged. I believe this whole thing was not a mistake, just a manipulation.
Matt Hay
1:59 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
A question I have is how can the Council delegate a Statutory power to the City Administrator, even if they wanted or intended to? Because of Dillion's Rule, a municipality cannot be more power than the State. If Statute says that the City Administrator may only approve expenditures and change orders up to $5k, that is it. The Council cannot abdicate their responsibility for approvals by contract or otherwise. That would be a bit like if they just let the Police Department write their own Ordinances when Statute specifically requires that the Council do so.
That said, it seems all of this is a red herring, and Unrein is being used as the scapegoat. He resigned with his $70k papers and a Non-Disclosure Agreement which I am sure City Attorney Sweeney added and predicated his payment on, so that Unrein could be the "fall guy" for the "mistake". Hmmm, perhaps some blame lay on the person that authored such an agreement? I assume that was Bob Sweeney, and perhaps some blame lay on every single City Employee who said nothing about the overage. This is not a 5% deviation, this is over a 25% deviation. Every individual who knew about this for longer than 24 hours and did not say anything should be fired immediately, and issue a written apology to the residents of Arnold. What other City in the state can claim a $1.5 million error followed by a $1 million dollar error in 5 years time? You would think someone would grow concerned at some point that perhaps something else was afoot.
Matt Hay
5:09 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Actually, I guess the $5k limit that was always discussed is actually a City imposed restriction, which appears to conflict with:
77.105. The budget or any authorization to expend funds shall be approved
by an ordinance, motion, or resolution that is approved by a majority of
all the members elected to the governing body.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0770000105.HTM
emphasis on "any authorization to expend funds shall be approved by an ordinance, motion, or resolution".....unilateral discretionary authority granted to the City Administrator is not any of those I do not believe, but an sure there is some "Sweeney Logic" to somehow argue that the statute says something other than what it says when read in plain language. (ie. :"Shall" no longer means must despite what Black's says, and can be read as "may" on any day ending in "Y" in months so long as the month ends in R". While that is a bit exaggerated, sadly, it makes more sense than some of the non-sensical reasoning he engaged in while I was on the Council.