St. Louis County Council OKs added $29.5 million in courthouse funding

We’re not sure what’s more offensive about the current St. Louis County effort to spend $130 million in taxpayer funds to build a new St. Loui… Read more

Upgrades to digital infrastructure tacks  on unanticipated costs. Total plan now exceeds cost of original proposal rejected by voters. Read more

In wondering last Sunday whether the inflated cost of a St. Louis County Courts project — from $100 million to nearly $130 million — was due to incompetence or deceptiveness, we overlooked another possibility.

Political influence.

Consider this timeline: On May 7, Alberici Construction, a bidder on the courthouse project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley. That same day the County Council chairman and vice chairman, Kathleen Kelly Burkett and Hazel Erby, signed pledges at the request of officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to be silent about the plan to spend extra public money on the project.

On May 22, Clayco Construction, which is teamed with Alberici on bidding for the project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to Mayor Francis G. Slay. That same day, Mr. Slay’s campaign turned around and made a $10,000 campaign contribution to Mr. Dooley.

The evening before, on May 21, the County Council had approved a request from officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to spend an additional $29.5 million on the project, even though voters had approved spending only $100 million on the project a year earlier.

Spokesmen for Mssrs. Dooley and Slay assured us the donations had nothing to do with the request for more money for the project. That was reassuring, because we’d hate to think that the mayor — who doesn’t come up for re-election until 2017 — had opened a money laundromat.

“Obviously not,” said Mac Scott, a spokesman for Mr. Dooley.

“Not in any way,” said Richard Callow, a campaign spokesman for Mr. Slay.
So why did Mr. Slay contribute exactly the same amount his campaign received from Clayco Construction to Mr. Dooley on the very day he got Clayco’s donation?

“The mayor strongly believes that Charlie Dooley is good for St. Louis County,” Mr. Callow said.
Under Missouri’s current anemic campaign ethics laws, these contributions are legal. Committee-to-committee pass-throughs, done to fuzz up the source of money, happen all the time. Campaign money buys influence.

The other front-runners for the project — McCarthy Building Companies and KCI Construction Co. — do not show up on campaign reports as having made contributions to either Mr. Slay or Mr. Dooley this year.

The Clayco-Alberici team’s contributions do not guarantee that those companies will win the bid, either. Indeed, the companies may merely be showing their support for the enlightened policies of Mr. Slay and/or Mr. Dooley. But the timing is curious.

Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, sought confidentiality from the parties involved in the attempt to approve an additional $29.5 million in special obligation bonds. That lack of transparency raises suspicions about other aspects, including the campaign contributions.

Voters had already rejected a more extensive $120 million project in 2008 to build a new St. Louis Family Court Building, refurbish the existing main courthouse and perform various other building projects.

When they were presented with a proposition in April 2012 to spend $100 million to build the Family Court building and do some long-delayed and necessary work on the main courthouse, voters approved it.

Last year’s proposition did not require a tax increase, which the earlier proposal would have. Mr. Earls said that if the county had sought $130 million for the project last year, it would have required a tax hike.

That is the key point. The same county officials who in 2010 said the budget was so stressed that they’d have to close parks and cut jobs, were reluctant to ask voters to approve higher taxes in 2012.
So they asked for less money than it now turns out is needed. Mr. Earls said it was an honest mistake; the work turned out to be more expensive than anticipated. On the other hand, allowing for inflation, it’s about the same as the 2008 project that voters turned down.

Read the rest of this story at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-campaign-money-and-that-higher-cost-st-louis-county/article_14e5e748-14d7-5dae-a6b3-ca6f6d361fff.html

Compliments of Post Dispatch.

Stenger raises more than $241,000 while winning St. Louis County Council seat

According to the St. L Post Dispatch, Steve Stenger, the Democratic candidate for St. Louis County Council member from the 6th District, raised $241,320.28 in his successful bid for the seat. He defeated Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, who was seeking a third term. (We didn't know this job paid that well)

Stenger, a lawyer living in Affton, was among candidates who filed reports on their campaign finances 30 days after the election, as state law requires.

In a reporting period between Oct. 28 and Thursday, Stenger raised $13,425. He received a donation of $2,500 from the Stone, Leyton & Gershman law firm of Clayton. The Building Trades Political Education Fund contributed as did several other skilled trades unions and Democratic Party organizations.

Stenger reported spending $214.443.37 thus far and $13,094.20 in the reporting period. Most of the money in the reporting period went to Phase 3 Inc., his campaign consultant. Stenger lent $150,000 to his campaign; the committee has repaid none of the loan.

Campisi reported raising $23,968.93 and spending $24,962.22 in this election. In a reporting period of Oct. 24 to Nov. 29, Campisi raised $6.845.65 and spent $16,150.23.

Among contributors were developers McBride and Son Management Co. and Mayer Custom Homes. Most of his spending was for printing.

In the 4th District, Councilman Mike O’Mara, D-Florissant, who won a third term reported raising $11,200 and spending $4,500 in this election. In a reporting period from Oct. 24 to Nov. 29, he raised $1,550 and spent $4,500.

O’Mara received a donation from the North County Labor Legislative Club. Most of his spending went to Roman Communications for campaign consulting.

Eugene Dokes, the Republican candidate for the seat, reported spending nothing in a reporting period from Oct. 29 to Nov. 13. Theo “Ted” Brown Sr., the Libertarian candidate, said he neither raised nor spent more than $500.

Council Chairwoman Kathleen Kelly Burkett, D-Overland, who was unopposed, said she raised $500 in this election and spent $1,798.84.

County Council Continues Trash Talk; No Action On Important Issue

Trash talk replaced formal action on a controversial trash bill Tuesday night at the St. Louis County Council meeting.

Midway through, Council President Kathleen Burkett, D-Overland, called for delaying a vote on a bill to amend the county's waste code to penalize unauthorized waste haulers in the new trash districts. Such "hold" requests are usually granted without discussion.

Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, objected to Burkett's motion. "I'd like to bring that bill up now," Campisi said. "There has got to be some closure on this." County Counselor Pat Redington interjected, "We're moving on." "There is no moving on!" replied Campisi. "I can bring up a bill if I want." Council member Barbara Fraser, D-University City, then weighed in, accusing Campisi of using the issue to gain political support.

Eventually a vote was called and Burkett's motion to hold the bill was upheld. The trash issue has generated heated debate since it was proposed two years ago. Trash districts went into full effect Oct. 1, with low-bidding haulers selected to serve them. That left haulers who were outbid angry and vowing to cross district lines to win back customers. The bill in question would fine or jail unauthorized haulers.

Later in the meeting, Fraser asked for a delay on a routine bill, this one dealing with storm sewers in Tilles Park. "I'd like to hold on the bill - as long as no one's going to challenge me on that," she said.

Campisi shot back: "As long as you don't politicize it!" The pair sparred again when Campisi introduced a resolution calling for the council to support a 6.5 percent pay raise for police officers and 14 percent for dispatchers. A crowd of 90 officers, dispatchers and supporterswere on hand.

Fraser objected, saying such a resolution was not appropriate. "It's not legal, and the illegality of it will only get us into trouble," she said.

She said the issue needed to be studied in light of the county's budget crisis. She then suggested that Campisi should have studied the trash bill before he voted in favor of an early incarnation of it in 2006.

"I am against the trash bill!" Campisi said, his voice rising." Well, you voted in favor of it," Fraser said. Campisi pointed his finger at Fraser, saying, "And you promised that you were going to vote against it and then you changed your vote!"

Councilman Mike O'Mara, D-Florissant, weighed in against Campisi. "I don't appreciate you making a political tool out of this issue to force a wedge between us and the police," he said.

Campisi Bill To Modify Trash Program Defeated

A bill to eliminate the trash districts and mandatory recycling and minimum level of services was defeated by the Council Council on April 22. The bill was submitted by Councilman, John Campisi, and defeated by a vote of 4 to 3.

Campisi introduced Substitute Bill 1 to Bill 42, on April 15, 2008. This legislation would allow homeowners to again make your own choices.

Chairwoman, Kathleen Burkett, voted against the bill saying she was supporting her constituents in her district. Ms. Burkett represents 16, 632 residents while Campisi represents over 51,874 in his districts. Fair? It's called "politics."

Council Hears Objections to Trash Plan But Refuses to Make a Sound Business Decision

St. Louis County should not force residents to receive recycling services they don't want, opponents of trash collection districts told the County Council this past Tuesday.

Minimum trash collection standards that took effect on Jan. 15 require haulers to provide trash and recycling pickups once a week and bulky waste pickups twice a year. Some haulers do not offer all these services. The county is enforcing the standards by making haulers show that they will provide this service when they apply for renewal of their yearly permits on April 15.

"People should not have to pay for a service they are not going to use," said Celeste Witzel, one of the opponents.

County Council Chairman Kathleen Kelly Burkett, D-Overland, said she must pay for the recycling her city requires. "If people are going to nit-pick at trash collection service, it is not going to work," she said.

HELLO! Ms. Kelly, "nit-pick?" You got to be kidding. Is the following "nit-picking?"

• The County Council has not discussed the annual replacement costs of trash bins now being distributed to residents in unincorporated areas. Who is going to pay for stolen and broken trash bins?
• The selection of non-union trash haulers serving union employee residents of St. Louis County has not been discussed by the County Council. Many union residents of St. Louis County want to do business with a union trash hauler.
• Subdivisions who opt-out can select any number of trash haulers which results in no changes what-so-ever . . . other than higher trash costs.
• A resident who has a trash pick up on day one and a yard waste pick-up on day two, will now have a recycle pick-up on day three. For those using the county's program, this increases the truck traffic in the subdivision by 50%.
• For those subdivisions using three haulers in a subdivision, they will have 9 trucks per week cruising the subdivision.
• The County has no realistic budget to properly manage this program - prosecute residents who don't comply, prosecute haulers who don't comply, replace carts, require subdivision trustees to police their residents for compliance, provide manpower to manage problems, etc.

When government officials - county management, county council - fail to act on obvious problems, it's time for new officials. Nit-pick? No way. Let's run the county's business as a business. We hope you don't run your household business like this.