Hello, this is another request submitted and one can only guess what the reply was.....

7-01-13

PETITION FOR DISCUSSION

ACCORDING TO STANDING COMMISSION ORDER, CITIZENS MAY PETITION THE COMMISSION TO HAVE ITEMS PLACED INTO THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.  THE FOLLOWING IS A MATTER WHICH NEEDS DISCUSSION IN OPEN CHAMBERS:

THE COMMISSIONS CONTINUED FUNDING OF A "GRANT" PROGRAM BENEFITTING ONLY SPECIAL ROADS DISTRICTS THRU THE "FRANKLIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE".

IF THE COMMISSION ELECTS NOT TO BRING THIS ISSUE TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION, THEN THE REASON AND THE VOTE SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE.  THIS IS OPEN GOVERNMENT AT ITS CORE DEFINITION.

THANK YOU........                                                                      ERIC REICHERT

Their reply was: Re: your subject of Special Road Districts.

There will be no discussion regarding said subject as there is no identified issue from any Citizen, Municipality, or Official.

Hello, below is the inquiry and the reply was that the Commission would not testify.  No reasoning or explanation was given.....


7-01-13
SUBJECT: UTILITY REQUEST BEFORE THE PSC COMMITTEE
HELLO, WILL FRANKLIN COUNTY SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED REQUEST BY A UTILITY TO BE PROVIDED WITH A C&N PERMIT FOR A LANDFILL IN FRANKLIN COUNTY?  IT WOULD SEEM THAT SUCH A GRANTED PERMIT WOULD CONTRAMAND SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS FOR SAID LANDFILL,  THEREBY NEGATING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED LAND USE REGULATIONS AS PROMULGATED.
IF NO, THEN JUSTIFY SAID DECISION IN WRITING WITH THE VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. SAID ACTION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
 THANK YOU................................................ERIC REICHERT
                                                                                   CITIZEN,TAXPAYER,ELECTOR

Hello, concerning my post about the Commission addressing clarifications of public statements in PUBLIC, they have decided to deny my request for discussion on the matter.  They have stated that if somebody wants a clarification, etc, one can meet with them AFTER the Commission meetings about any statements they have made.  Essentially, they wish to do this OUT OF THE PUBLIC.

Therefore, moving forward, the Commission will be approached for clarifications with a WITNESS present..  What else can the Public do when the Commission refuses to be Open and Transparent, their pet "motto"?

I thought I would post that Pacific is appointing a Special Prosecutor for one case pending before the Municipal Court.  One wonders if this Special Prosecutor will be remunerated from the City Attorney's account or if the City of Pacific will have to pay additional revenue out for this Special Prosecutor?????

commission denying 1st amendment rights

7-02-13
SUBJECT:  DISCUSSION TOPIC
ON 4-23-13 A DISCUSSION TOPIC WAS SUBMITTED TO BE ADDRESSED AT A COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING, AS PER EXISTING COMMISSION ORDER.  AS OF THIS DATE, NOTHING HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SAID DISCUSSION TOPIC.

THEREFORE, I RESUBMIT THIS TOPIC: THAT AT EVERY COMMISSION MEETING THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATIONS, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ETC, CONCERNING PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE BY ELECTED/APPOINTED EMPLOYEES IN PRINT, TELEVISION OR RADIO.

IF COMMISSION ELECTS TO NOT BRING THIS MATTER FORWARD, THEN THE REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION, AND THE VOTE ON THE DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU........                                                    ERIC REICHERT

AGENDA 21 Be Scared Folks

Friday, September 30, 2011
THE NEW WORLD DISORDERThe county that struck back against U.N.Exclusive: Henry Lamb lauds officials not willing to buy into 'sustainable development'
Posted: September 30, 20113:16 pm Eastern
By Henry Lamb
Editor's note: Listen to this column online.
Local governments have two fundamental responsibilities: 1) protect the rights of the citizens; and 2) provide the services the citizens authorize. To meet these responsibilities, local elected officials must look to the future and anticipate what services their citizens may want, and construct plans to meet those needs. This kind of planning will be referred to as Planning 101.
Since 1992, with the emergence of Agenda 21, the entire concept of planning has undergone a major transformation. This new kind of planning will be referred to as Planning 102. Planning 102 is not concerned about protecting the rights of citizens. Planning 102 is not concerned with what services the citizens of a community might want in the future. Planning 102 is the art of transforming existing communities into the utopian communities envisioned in Agenda 21, and shoe-horning local citizens into them.
This process began in 1993 with President Clinton's executive order that created the President's Council on Sustainable Development, which focused primarily on transforming urban centers into "sustainable communities." The process continues now, with President Obama's executive order that created the White House Rural Council, which focuses primarily on the 16 percent of the population who live on 80 percent of the rural landscape.
This process is being advanced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through its $95 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program. To receive a HUD regional planning grant, all the counties and major cities within the region must sign a Memorandum of Agreement to implement the grant according to the dictates of HUD. It is no accident that the MOA requires the participants "to support multijurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments." These goals are the same goals specified in Chapter 7 of the U.N. Agenda 21 document adopted by the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.
The Meramec Regional Planning Commission, which is a part of the Missouri Association of Council of Governments, wants a hefty Sustainable Communities grant from HUD. Dent County, Mo., is one of the counties that must sign a MOA in order to get this grant.
Fat chance! No way! Forgetaboutit!
A Sept. 26 letter to Bonnie Prigge, executive director of the MRPC, begins: "The Dent County Commissioners this morning voted unanimously and without reservation NOT to sign the Memorandum of Agreement for the Sustainable Development Consortium as requested by the MRPC. …"
The letter continues:
"This Sustainable Development Program of HUD, DOT, and EPA is directly, and irrefutably connected with the United Nations Agenda 21. Both President Bill Clinton and most recently President Barack Obama have signed executive orders directing all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort to 'reinvent' government using the guidelines outlined in the United Nations Agenda 21. The tenets of Agenda 21 undermine private property rights and propose extreme environmental, social, economic and educational policies to be implemented worldwide by National, State and Local governing bodies through the use of Sustainable Development planning, programs and policies."
The "planning" required by the HUD grant is Planning 102. Fortunately, the Dent County Commissioners know the difference between Planning 101 and Planning 102, and have sent a clear message to the professional staffs of the relevant bureaucracies and to the federal government.
(Column continues below)
Dent County is not the only county in Missouri that knows the difference between the Planning 101 and Planning 102. Organizations such as the Property Rights Congress, with chapters in several counties, and Citizens for Private Property Rights, have been busy educating voters about the consequences of sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21. They have been busy educating candidates for public office and elected officials as well. That's why it is now impossible for slick, professional facilitators and bureaucrats to pull the wool over the eyes of many, if not most, of Missouri's county commissioners.
Missouri has 19 Regional Planning Commissions. The staff of several of these bureaucracies would like to have HUD grants to help advance Planning 102 within their region. Despite the strong and growing push-back by well-informed citizens and elected officials, HUD has been very successful in spending tax dollars to implement policies that originate in the U.N.'s Agenda 21.
With a deficit of $1.65 trillion dollars, growing by billions of dollars every day, why are HUD, DOT and the EPA trying so hard to spend money the nation does not have, on a program that the nation does not need, that will impose government-mandated restrictions on behavior that the people do not want?
To one degree or another, since 1993, the federal government has been dominated by people who believe that "government control of land use is indispensible"; that government control of the economy is essential; and that sustainable development is only government-approved development.
People who hold these beliefs have no place in any government in the United States. Voters put them in office, unaware of their beliefs; voters who have now seen the consequences of these beliefs can remove them from office on Election Day.

CHINA HUB Paul Curtmans wise comments

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Curtman Sent: Sep 2, 2011 1:26 PM To: bj Subject: Re: China Hub (Paul is our 105th House of Representative)
BJ,
There are a lot of issues I have with this, for example, most of the jobs that have been created for this program so far have been for lawyers and consultants paid for compliments of the tax payer. This further puts us behind China as a service industry to their manufacturing industry. Service industry nations can NEVER catch up with manufacturing based nations so why in the world would we even want to think about this? Further more, this does nothing to bring long term jobs, to do that we must create manufacturing jobs so we can continue to supply a global demand for products. In other words, its about time we did something to get more products stamped with "Made in the U.S.A."
The China Hub deal stinks from top to bottom. It involves putting tax payers on the hook for over $350 million dollars worth of transferable tax credits that we are being told are needed to encourage people to invest in the real estate industry as it pertains to storage facilities and warehouses. There is no reliable system of checks and balances to determine who gets these tax credits and a few people stand to profit millions - not from there own labor but straight from the tax credits themselves; I don't think anyone should profit or otherwise benefit from tax dollars except tax payers - for sure no one should be allowed directly pocket our tax dollars. Fredrick Bastiat, an 18th century economist referred to this type of legislative scheme as "legal plunder" because it is a case of the government taking what would otherwise be illegal and creating a law to make it legal.
What really baffles me is that even if we all the tax payers thought it was a good idea, we still don't have a commitment from China and they might not even commit to using the STL region at all. This lack of commitment from the other party means that the legislature and the Governor are about to gamble $350 million of our tax dollars in hopes of provoking China do business, meanwhile, a few others stand to profit greatly from the labor of the citizens buy pocketing tax dollars.

Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:15 AM, bj <beejayl@peoplepc.com> wrote:
for what it is worth, this o'lady is AGAINST anything to promote China. unless of course if the playing field for import/export were balanced to keep jobs here, not so attractive to go abroad. Especially not in favor of China Hub when Missouri will be giving them tax credits that will cost the citizens of Mo.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012

Did you know that Ron Paul has never filed to receive his congressional benefits!
His answer to that is, “It’s not my money, it’s your money, you have no moral obligation to pay me once I quit working for you.”
I think we need more people like him, if we can find them.

I donate, you can too no matter how small. http://www.ronpaul2012.com
even if you can not afford to donate, show your support at http://www.ronpaul2012.net by signing petition.

Pacific Local Contractor Crys Foul Over Bid Process

Local Contractors Cry Foul Over Bid Process - The Missourian: Pacific News
Local Contractors Cry Foul Over Bid Process
By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:32 pm
Local building contractors said the city did not play fair in letting the contract for the remodeling and expansion of city hall.
Speaking at the Aug. 16 board meeting, Justin Bingman of Bingman Construction, Pacific, said every one of the bidders talked with City Administrator Harold Selby and were told the importance of having a strong local team of subcontractors and suppliers.
Bingman said after the discussion he presented a bid that was competitive with the low bid that included $2.7 million in local subcontracts and materials.
“After the bids, I was brought in and you told me I had to get the numbers down to $3.4 million and (then you could) sell it to aldermen,” Bingman said. “I came in lower.”
“Do you have that in writing?” Mayor Herb Adams asked.
Bingman said he had received the assurance in a good faith discussion and believed that he would be the contractor for the job.
City attorney Dan Vogel said officials cannot make arrangements that are not in writing.
Bingman said at the bid opening, all the contracts came in close to each other and he was involved in discussions with Selby and Mayor Herb Adams after the bids had been opened as they were looking for ways to reduce the cost of the project. He thought they were meeting with him in good faith.
“You have to deal out in front. You can’t cut a deal,” Bingman said. “This is everything about honesty and truth. Here you are speaking one thing different than what happened.”
“We don’t have to go with the low contractor,” the mayor responded. “We can bring in those Harold was working with.”
Bingman said he had been led to believe that using local subcontractors and materials suppliers were the factors that would determine who got the contract.
“J.E. Foster (the contractors who received the contract) had $140,000 in local contractors and suppliers,” he said. “I had $2.7 million in local contractors and suppliers. The board split on this 3-3 and still the mayor decided to go with the out of town contractor.
“You promote the city of Pacific, but when it comes time for you to buck up and do the same thing you go with an out-of-town contractor,” he said.
Adams said he did talk with Bingman more than once. He said he had walked into Selby’s office when Bingman was there.
Bingman offered a different version of the conversation, saying he had been talking with Selby, who then walked out of his office and brought the mayor back to speak with him.
Adams said the conversations were not negotiations.
“The bid wasn’t close,” Adams told Bingman. “You were No. 9 and talk of a deal is clearly out of bounds.
“When all this is over I don’t want Channel 2 coming in here and calling me out on something,” the mayor said.
“Why was I led down this path?” Bingman asked, insisting that he had been told that all he had to was to get the bid down and use local contractors and material suppliers. He said Pacific Lumber, the city’s largest sales tax payer, was the material supplier in his bid.
Pat Hawkins, Pacific Lumber general manager, had signed a card to address aldermen but declined when his name was called.
Mike Gallagher, the electrical contractor on Bingman’s bid, said he had bid on the project.
“Even as a subcontractor, looking at $2.7 million going out of town is wrong,” Gallagher said. “If that money was here that would mean more insurance that I could buy from Alderman Reed, more fish that I could buy from Alderman Pigg and more employees I could hire from Alderman Eversmeyer. It would mean more money staying in town.
“This is absolutely wrong,” Gallagher said. “I could stop by Birdsong’s Gift Shop on my way home or go to Subway. To send that much money out of town is wrong.”
/* */

Pacific Chamber Unhappy with City Bid Process

Chamber Is Unhappy With City’s Bid Process - The Missourian: Pacific News
Chamber Is Unhappy With City’s Bid Process
By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:32 pm
The Pacific Area Chamber of Commerce went on public notice, objecting to the city’s decision to meet privately with the three lowest bidders on the city hall expansion project, allowing them to change their bids — and for eventually selecting a contractor from out of town.
Bill McLaren, Chamber president, spoke at the Aug. 16 board of aldermen meeting, taking issue with the process used in selecting the contractor.
“I’m here speaking for the Chamber of Commerce,” he said. The board of directors discussed this, they voted and asked me to speak.”
McLaren noted the city has done a great job of hiring local contractors in the past on jobs such as Highway F and Highway OO, where Unnerstall Construction got the job. On Osage, Unnerstall also did part of the work. West Asphalt, the primary contractor, is located in Pacific.
“Their employees pay taxes here,” he said. “It’s a wonderful thing, local contractors are working in Eagles View subdivision.”
But McLaren also noted that much local work is going undone. In West Lake subdivision, 350 lots sit empty. If they were sold, the assessed valuation of the city would be up.
“There were 25-30 houses demolished in the floodplain that pay no taxes now and there are vacancies on St. Louis Street,” he pointed out. “The situation is dire for construction people here.”
The $3.5 million contract to remodel and expand city hall was a chance to have a win for everyone, McLaren noted. It offered work for some smaller local contractors who don’t have the opportunity to bid in St. Louis, he said.
Chamber officials feel the city could have given seminars to help local contractors learn how to bid.
McLaren told officials that in addition to being Chamber of Commerce president he is a grading contractor who had been involved in many bids.
“If I bid on a job and see the low bidder does not get the contract, something is wrong,” he said.
McLaren said he’s never seen a job where contractors come back and start negotiating or where municipalities put rumors out and expect contractors to respond.
“This is not selling cars,” he said, reference to the mayor who sells cars for a living.
If the city intended to go back to the bidders, he said, all bids should have been thrown out.
“We struggle mightily,” McLaren said. “If you’re going to negotiate, you should negotiate with all the bidders.”
City Attorney Dan Vogel said it’s always the intention of the city to take the lowest three bidders and try to reduce the final cost.
“This was a process,” Vogel said. “All bidders knew that the top three bidders would be called in for further negotiation. We told everyone what we would do.”
“You, mayor, say buy local and you didn’t do it and you were the tie vote,” McLaren said. “This could have been done better.”
/* */

Pacific Alderman Approve Property Tax Rate Hike

Aldermen Approve Property Tax Rate Hike - The Missourian: Pacific News
Aldermen Approve Property Tax Rate Hike
By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:32 pm
Officials approved a property tax rate increase Aug. 16 following a lengthy debate between the mayor and an opponent of higher taxes.
Aldermen voted unanimously to raise the real and personal property tax levy from $0.37100 per $100 of assessed valuation to $0.3982. The bill was read twice in order to meet the Sept. 1 deadline for notifying the state auditor of the new rate.
The new tax levy is an increase of $.0272 over last year.
The measure will raise property taxes on a home appraised at $100,000 (and assessed by $19,000) by $5.17.
In the public hearing on the tax increase, which took place prior to the vote, B. J. Lawrence appealed to aldermen to vote against the increase.
“Why in this economy are you raising taxes?” she said. “You have to stop this. You have to live within your budget like the rest of us have to do.”
Lawrence said Pacific taxpayers are already suffering economically and cannot afford a tax increase.
Mayor Herb Adams countered by saying the city had no choice and had used a formula dictated by Franklin County and the state of Missouri. It’s the same formula that cities follow every year.
“If you don’t like it,” he said, “you have to complain to Franklin County and the state of Missouri.”
If the city officials did anything different, Adams said, they would have to answer to the state auditor.
The mayor told Lawrence she had sent out e-mail messages that were misleading. He did not elaborate.
Adams also urged people in the packed council chamber not to put their trust in either Lawrence or himself, saying they should check with Franklin County for the assessed valuation and with the state auditor’s office for the rules determining the new tax levy.
“I’m telling these people, don’t trust me and don’t trust you,” he said to Lawrence.
Jeannine Stevens, deputy county clerk, said she had confirmed to officials in August that the 2011 city of Pacific assessed valuation was $115,305,726, down from $121,197,065 in 2010.
City Attorney Dan Vogel said the formula that sets the tax levy is designed to create neutral taxation, with no increase and no decrease.
“It’s meant to balance out,” Vogel said. “Assessed valuation in the city is down he said so no one would pay higher taxes.”
Lawrence said the claim that assessed valuation of individual homes would decrease is not believable.
“I’ll bet the assessed valuation on my house didn’t go down,” she said. “I’ll bet that not one person in this room will see the assessed valuation of their homes go down.”
Wayne Overkamp, Franklin county deputy assessor, said some residential homes might have been appraised lower in 2011.
Using this reporter’s home as an example, Overkamp said the appraised value was decreased by $5,000 in 2011. This would result in a decrease in assessed valuation of $950.
“But you could still get a higher tax bill,” he said.
The formula used by cities to set the tax levy dictates the highest amount the city can raise taxes without going to a vote of the taxpayers, the attorney said.
When pressed, Vogel said the formula does not dictate the lowest tax rate officials can enact.
“You could go lower,” he said. “You could choose to have no taxes.”
Lawrence said the biggest factor in setting the new tax levy is the $200,000 the city needs to repay the bonds on the city hall expansion project.
“You’re doing this so you can put your name on a new city hall,” Lawrence told the mayor. “When you put the city hall expansion in the budget it raised the tax rate by that exact amount.”
Both Adams and Vogel stressed that the budget had nothing to do with the tax rate. That claim appears to go against state law.
Eric Reichert, Villa Ridge, asked to speak and when he was recognized he read a portion of the legal notice the city ran announcing that the tax levy public hearing would be held during this meeting.
“The legal notice said the levy was set at what the budget shows to be required beginning July 1, 2011,” Reichert said.
Vogel insisted that the budget did not have anything to do with the tax levy.
“I’m reading this right out of your legal notice,” Reichert said.
“That’s the language that we put in the paper every year,” Alderman Ed Gass said.
Missouri revised Statute RSMO 67.110 chapter states that budget officer shall present to the governing body the assessed valuation of property for the year in which the tax is to be levied, and that of the previous year, and the amount of revenue required to be provided from the property tax as set forth in the annual budget adopted.
Chapter 2 says in more simple terms the tax rates shall be calculated to produce the same revenues as required in the adopted annual budget.
Officials insisted that they followed county and state laws in setting the new levy. Property owners will see the new rates on their 2011 property tax bills.
/* */

Pacific Mayor Adams Defends Controversial Bid Process

By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:32 pm
Mayor Herb Adams defended the controversial process the city used in selecting the contractor who will remodel and expand city hall, saying that city officials must play by rules that serve the municipality.
Adams was criticized for negotiating with three contractors privately after the bids had been opened publicly and for selecting a St. Louis contractor who had listed most subcontractors and material suppliers that were located out of town.
The mayor said he had an obligation to citizens to negotiate the best deal he could get.
“We all do what we know how to do best,” he said. “I am a trained and skilled negotiator. That’s what I do for a living.”
At the Aug. 16 board of aldermen meeting, Adams faced complaints about the bidding process from a local contractor who had bid unsuccessfully on the contract and from the Pacific Area Chamber of Commerce.
They said the city slighted a local contractor when it negotiated with the three lowest bidders and hurt the community by not selecting a local contractor who planned to use local subcontractors and material suppliers.
Adams said contractors and local business people who had heard him promote buying locally were confusing his responsibility as a person with his responsibility as mayor.
“If I’m buying something with my money I can afford to spend more,” he said. “I can speak about individual money, asking people to pay more, but when I’m dealing with city money another set of rules apply.”
Nine contractors bid on the contract to remodel and expand city hall. Bids came in between $3.7 and $3.9 million. The city negotiated with the three lowest bidders to get the total cost down to $3.5 million.
“We asked the three contractors to find ways to reduce the cost without eliminating any of the elements that our department heads thought were important,” Adams said. “We wanted a city hall that worked for everyone, but built at a cost we could afford.
“That is what negotiating is,” he said.
It’s understandable that people would want all the contractors and material suppliers who worked on the project to be local, he said, but they all had the same opportunities when they put in their bids.
The mayor insisted that the city administrator, city engineer, police chief, whose department would see the biggest expansion, and the project architect had made the best choice in selecting J.E. Foster for the job.
“We said all along that we wanted contractors from Missouri, not those from within the city limits of Pacific,” Adams said. “That would have been impractical and impossible. We chose a good contractor.”
Adams said it’s unreasonable for a contractor who came into city hall or called him about the project to think they had a deal with the city.
“Unless you have something in writing, you don’t have a deal,” he said. “That’s how it is in selling cars, which is what I do, and how it is in life.”
Comments about closed meetings also are misleading, he said. The city did meet in executive session to discuss the bid process. Because it was in executive session, the conversation was intended to remain in executive session, but someone had leaked details.
“Because the discussion was made public, I am now free to speak of it,” Adams said. “In the closed meeting, aldermen voted to authorize the mayor and city administrator to negotiate with the three lowest bidders. It was never said to the mayor or staff to re-let the bids.
“As mayor, I called for a vote to let us negotiate,” he said. “That’s what happened.”
Adams said Justin Bingman of Bingman Construction, Pacific, did talk with City Administrator Harold Selby’s office and called the mayor on the telephone.
“He is right, we did talk,” Adams said. “But his memory is different than mine. I never made any promises to anyone.”
Adams said city officials had to get the bid down to $3.5 million, which they did using the skills they possessed.
“We will never surrender free enterprise,” he said. “We cheer for the home team, but we could not afford the luxury of spending another $200,000.”
/* */

Pacific Mayor Adams City Hall Expansion at ANY COST

Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:32 pm
Our local Don Quixote has finally found a dragon with which to do battle.
B. J. Lawrence has been described more than once in this column as a misguided knight — errant out tilting at windmills, in search of dragons to slay, an allusion meant to illustrate her unending struggle to defend the poor and downtrodden.
Last week, at long last she found a foe to match her intensity.
At the Aug. 16 board of aldermen meeting, the mayor provided the first thrust, attacking B.J.’s credibility and her truthfulness, accusing her of spreading rumors in her blog. She ignored the jibe and aimed her lance directly at the heart of the hero of the hour. This time he had gone too far, she told the mayor. He had taken a step that everyone in the city would feel.
What she railed against was a decision by aldermen to raise the property tax rate 2.72 cents on every $100 of assessed valuation.
The unfortunate Pacific taxpayers were already suffering, she said, and could not afford more taxes.
In a series of thrusts and parries, she attacked the aldermen’s decision to inflict more cost on taxpayers with the intensity of a noble knight out to save the world.
And then — wonder of wonders — they spread before her an exposed flank, a mile-wide gap in the official armor. They said they really were not raising taxes at all. They said that the city of Pacific would see a decrease in assessed valuation and property owners would not pay more taxes.
They said they were using a formula based on neutral taxation — no increase, no decrease — that was set forth by the county and the state. In this case, they said, they had to yield to a higher power.
Why they gave her such a perfect opening befuddles the mind and beclouds an otherwise clear issue.
She said she did not believe that the assessed valuation of her home would decrease and she doubted that anyone in the room would see a decrease in the valuation of their home.
The room happened to be full. It appeared that most of the audience members were there to address yet another city action, the method in which the construction bid on the city hall expansion was handled. For whatever reason they were there, the people in the audience heard her arguments and those of the mayor, who addressed her directly, saying, “I’m telling people, don’t believe me and don’t believe you.”
Members of the audience squirmed in their chairs and mumbled under their collective breath.
What people can believe, the diminutive jouster said, is that the new tax rate will produce exactly the amount of revenue needed to pay for the annual bond repayment on the city hall expansion.
This has been another one of her dragons, the elected officials’ decision to expand city hall. She said local taxpayers would have to pay for it and local taxpayers could not afford it.
Now he had proven her accusation to be true by beefing up the city budget to cover the bond payments on the construction job.
The tax rate didn’t have anything to do with the city hall expansion, officials said.
Oh, but it did, she said. The rate was determined by the budget and the budget was inflated by the cost of city hall expansion. They could have held off on the city hall expansion, not budgeted the money, and they would not have needed to raise taxes.
I have to tell you . . . I saw a very different story in this newspaper last week on an almost identical municipal action. When the city of Washington raised its property tax rate by a similar amount, the lead sentence in the article said “Taxes go up slightly.”
It leaves one to ponder why Pacific officials didn’t repeat, in simple phrases, what appears to be the reality of the new tax levy, “a slight increase in taxes,” instead of saying over and over, it’s not a tax increase.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should report here that I personally don’t think the tax increase is all that bad and I don’t think expanding city hall is a bad idea. But I do think citizens know what the phrase “Read my lips. No new taxes,” means.
One can speculate that city officials missed an opportunity for literary excellence. They could have orated about small tax costs to individual taxpayers and big gains for the city as a whole with a new city hall, instead of holding forth with the theme that taxes would not go up.
They could have disarmed their unlikely opponent with her own weapon, saying we’re a small city and we’re making a small tax increase and we’re asking property owners to make a small sacrifice instead of prattling on about being hamstrung by higher powers.
Instead of dismembering his opponent, the mayor enhanced her image as a dreamer — someone willing to face a foe she knows had already won and to say out loud what no one else was willing to say. Rather than disarm her, he made her stronger.
She didn’t slay any dragons — the property tax rate increase was passed. But at the end of the debate she was still in the game. As jousting goes in La Mancha, folks, our little Don Quixote punched a few holes in a badly positioned windmill.
Contact Pauline Masson at paulinemasson@att.net or 314-805-9800.
/* */

Pacific City Attorney Paid $32,996 just for month of June 2011

thats correct folks, $32,996 for just one month for a city attorney that represents other cities and the Missouri Municipal League....

ask why Pacific does not employ a city attorney that represents "only" Pacific, for much less???

you know if Pacific were a "booming" town, which it is not, maybe our elected could better justify the expense of Dan Vogel/city attorney. Washington and other Franklin County towns are booming and they do not spend anywhere near what this little town does for a city attorney.

the State Auditor is still in town. If you have something you wish to share with him, it is completely confidential, he can be reached at 314-340-7575 or carl.zilch@auditor.mo.gov

Mayor Adams Pacific MO Unhappy About State Audit

the red highlight is original responce to Mayor Adams, & below is the actual Missourian Article
if citizen of Pacific has concerns to share with the state auditor, completely confidential contact Carl Zilch 314-340-7575 or carl.zilch@auditor.mo.gov

Resolution 2011-40 audit another audit happens yearly in Pacific - or twice - depending on how much grant
We have three audits recently and we pay around $10,000 –
For the state audit of $50,000. the state audit is "estimated" $35 to $50k based on actual cost.

When we look around our community and think of a wish list of what we would like to do, we need side walks, curbs, pavement, new streets. There are expenses for our park system, water run off, we need more police protection. yes, this community has many needs. but it seems far more important for our current administration to spend money on a city attorney at $295/hr. ($381k in one year), a city hall expansion $3-4 million, purchase of Brush Creek $2.3 million, city museum property change at a $42k loss not counting needed improvements, and many other embelishments that might be nice but not improving our infrastructure. it is true the older part of town & our park system needs are extensive. it seems that little thought goes into "maintiance" of what we have. Last yr. city gave over $50k employee pay increases and more this yr., when social security/senior citizens have not gotten a cost of living increase for three years.

I can think of a lot that can be done with $80 or $90.000.

It’s redundant to have 3 or 4 audits and they‘ll all tell you the same thing.

All audits come out same. They suggest that we should change this and change that. No one was ever caught with a hand in cookie jar. And even now this petition does not accused any of us with hand in cookie jar. all audits are not the same, a state audit is far more detailed.

This is all about policy and disagreement about policy. We should not be spending $50,000 just to say you disagree with policy. WISH "POLICY" WOULD BE DEFINED, SO IT COULD BE ADDRESSED.

If this audit suggest things that are easy we will do it. If it suggest things are not easy. The administration will not be making changes.




I‘m not ever going to change my policies. new state auditor/Thomas A. Schweich just might have other ideas about that "not ever" going to change policies. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_c2e660a8-3a22-11e0-8a1b-00127992bc8b.html#.Te_FhBNpoSk;emailLastLast 18 months, we had three audits, this will be our fourth one.

Selby tried to keep track of hours I was spending with auditors. I just gave up. We have three auditors. Sit right there. If they are not with me they’re with Kim. our city administrator salary is $77,508 and city clerk salary of $42,670, it is part of their jobs.
It’s time consuming. Lot of stuff they ask has nothing to do with numbers. Takes a lot of time. On top of that this budget. It’s been a lot of work. It’s been hard trying to squeeze out everything we have to do with three guys here. We paid for him to stay in our hotels and I encouraged him to eat in town. the cost of Carl Zilch/state auditor & his assistants is included in cost of audit. Not sure why state auditor would stay in hotel as he lives St.Charles County with a wife and small child? (and he is a frugal fella that brings his lunch) (But you would have to ask the auditor about these things)

487 resident registered voters signed the petition. We do not understand the anger from our elected city officials. This state audit is citizen rights/Missouri Law. Wish our elected would learn from the audit and imbrace all suggested improvements for the city's benefit. Using words "never" change "policy" is not productive.

BJ Lawrence, Chief Petitioner for State Audit


Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:25 am Updated: 3:21 pm, Thu Jun 16, 2011.
Mayor Unhappy About State Audit Under Way By Pauline Masson Pacific Editor The Missourian 0 comments it is interesting that this article did not appear on the Missourian website, until it was brought to their attention.
Mayor Herb Adams said the city is up to its eyeballs in auditors and the cost of the work could fund any number of public works improvement projects.
Adams said the lack of new sidewalks, curbs, pavement streets and stormwater improvements, is due to the cost of the state audit currently under way.
The mayor's comments were made at the June 7 board meeting, as aldermen approved a resolution for the city to enter into a contract with Ross, Spinner & Kummer, P.C., for a compliance audit for the year that ends June 30, 2011. Cost of the audit is $10,000.
"We have had three audits recently and we pay around $10,000 for each one, but the state audit is $50,000," Adams said. "I can think of a lot that can be done (for that.)"
Three state auditors have been working in city hall for weeks, occupying the time of City Administrator Harold Selby and City Clerk Kim Barfield, asking to see records of city activities.
A total of 487 registered voters signed the petition for the state audit and the work could cost the city between $35,000 and $50,000.
Adams said the audit is not necessary and is costing taxpayers money that could be spent on other things.
"It's true that the older part of town and our park system needs are extensive," said BJ Lawrence, chief petitioner for the state audit. "But it seems that little thought goes into maintenance of what we have. Last year the city gave over $50,000 in employee pay increases and more this year, when senior citizens have not gotten a Social Security cost-of-living increase for three years."
The state audit won't reveal anything more than what the city-ordered audits find, according to the mayor.
"It's redundant to have three or four audits and they will all tell you the same thing," Adams said. "No one was ever caught with a hand in the cookie jar. And even now this petition does not accuse any of us with a hand in the cookie jar. This is all about policy and disagreement about policy. We should not be spending $50,000 just to say you disagree with policy."
Lawrence pointed out that new State Auditor Tom Schweich has unveiled a plan to pursue an enforcement role for state auditors as his office looks for not only official malfeasance, but inefficiencies in governmental agencies.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Schweich said after audits are done he will try to hold officials' feet to the fire by asking them to swear under oath to implement his recommendations by a certain date. At year's end, he'll issue a report listing who did and who didn't.
Selby said he has made an attempt to keep track of the hours he spent with the auditors, but gave up. He said auditors are asking few questions about spending and many questions about what the city does.
"This disagreement was about policy," Adams reiterated. "In the end, the auditors will say change this or change that. If the changes are easy we will change them, if they suggest things that are hard to change we will not change them.
"I will never change my policies," Adams said.
Lawrence said she and other petitioners don't understand the anger from elected city officials.
"This state audit is a citizens right under Missouri law. We would hope our elected officials would learn from the audit and embrace all suggested improvements for the city's benefit," Lawrence said. "Using words ‘never change policy' is not productive."

Mayor Says State Audit Won’t Impact Citizens
Audit Will Prove City Has Done No Wrong
Posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:32 pm Updated: 11:30 am, Wed Apr 13, 2011.
Mayor Says State Audit Won’t Impact Citizens By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor The Missourian 0 comments
A state audit of the city of Pacific being done at the request of a citizen’s petition won’t have any impact on residents, according to the mayor.
Auditors started work on a review of city business and ordinance compliance last week.
Debbie Woods with the Missouri State Auditors St. Louis office addressed the mayor and aldermen at the April 5 board meeting.
“Carl Zilch will be the one doing work here. He started work today,” Woods told officials.
“There are a few things I need to go through. The reason for the audit is that we received a petition with 434 valid signatures,” Woods explained. “Only 416 signatures were required.”
The cost of the audit will be between $35,000 and $50,000. Auditors were required to meet with the board in a public meeting.
“We will also meet with the petitioners to obtain their concerns,” Woods said. “And we’ll put things in papers to let citizens know that they can also contact us.”
Woods said all contact with state auditors will be confidential. Nothing will be known about questions they ask unless something is found and then what is found will become known in the final report.
The audit will take 10 to 20 weeks to complete. After field work is done, the auditor’s office will issue a report of findings. At that time, there will be a closing meeting with officials that will contain the report and recommendations.
“After all that there will be a public meeting,” Woods said. “The whole process can take six to 12 months. We will work mostly on the year ending June 30, 2011. But we will do some work in the prior year because a lot of the concerns had to do with that time period.
“This is a performance audit where we will review management practices. You have a CPA audit,” she added.
Mayor Herb Adams asked Woods whether the audit would be a review of the policies of the board of aldermen and administration.
“For the most part what we’re looking for is are you complying with your ordinances,” Wood said. “But we will look at your policies if your action is not in best interest of citizens.
“For example on the TIF what we’re looking at is did you follow procedures,” she said.
One member of the audience asked whether the $50,000 possible cost of the audit would affect property taxes, but Adams assured her that the city could pay for the audit without increasing taxes.
Adams said $50,000 is a lot of money, but citizens will see very little effect from the audit.
“We’ll be taking money from different departments,” he said. “They’re sharing the cost of this audit.”
Adams said some projects that had been planned might be affected, but citizens won’t see the change.
The city won’t be billed, Wood said, until the audit is complete, which would place the cost in next year’s budget.
Adams reiterated that the city is financially sound and even though the economy is still in a recession his administration is determined not to participate in the downturn.
“We’re making more and better improvements than in the past,” he said. “This audit will not affect our employees or equipment they need to do their job. Our intentions are that our citizens won’t see any impact.”
Adams said he’s anxious for the audit to be completed because it would clear up the impression that the city had done something wrong.
“Someone is right and someone is wrong,” he said. “I think the mayor and board of aldermen are on the side of right.”
Adams said he believes the audit had been requested because some people have a problem with policy. The municipal election, he said, is the way to change policy.
“I don’t think it’s reasonable that we spend $50,000 to say we disagree with policy,” he added.
“Sometimes people try to take advantage,” he continued. “Asking for a state audit gives the impression that the city fathers have broken the law. The audit will prove that wrong. They have complied with law. There is no fraud. This is just a case of people disagreeing with policy.”
Wood said citizens can contact the State Auditor’s Office at 800-347-8597 or moaudit@auditor.mo.gov. or Carl Zilch 314-340-7575 carl.zilch@auditor.mo.gov

State Audit of City of Pacific began Apr.5, 2011

STATE AUDIT for CITY of PACIFIC the State Audit officially began April 5th, 2011 If you have a concern about Pacific government questionable spending you can arrange to meet privately with the auditor, Carl Zilch 314-340-7575. carl.zilch@auditor.mo.gov It is estimated the audit will take 6 - 12 mos for completion. At that time the audit will be presented to the city and its citizens with the recommended corrective actions, if any. We really have already paid the expense of this audit(est: $35-$50,000): Pacific pays taxpayer dollars to be a member of the MML (Mo. Municipal League) ($225/yr plus 95 cents per person) MML got Pacific a settlement with AT&T, which $112,437 has been deposited into Pacific’s rainy day fund. AT&T is now charging its customers for that litigation with the MML, on your monthly bills. So, even with the possible cost/estimate of a State Audit, YOU have already paid for it thru your taxpayer dollars and now your AT&T bill. Respectfully, Chief Petitioner, BJ Lawrence, 1207 W. Congress, Pacific, MO 63069 636-271-7817 beejayl@peoplepc.com Contact if you wish to be kept advised.

Constitutional Rights Constantly in Jeopardy

From: David Roland Sent: Apr 22, 2011 6:17 PM Subject: FCMo Update - April 2011
Friends of the Freedom Center,

Has our nation really come to the point where Girl Scouts have to get the government's permission before setting up a cookie stand in their own driveway?

The City of Hazelwood sure thinks so! Prompted by a neighbor who complained that her dogs were barking at cars that stopped to buy cookies, Hazelwood city officials told the Mills family that city ordinances prohibited the front-yard stand that Caitlin and Abigail have operated for a few weeks in each of the past six years. And why does the City feel like it needs to take a hard line against these Girl Scouts? Because if they can have a cookie stand on their property, "the neighbors who need extra money to feed their families [could] each set up mini stores in their front yards." You read that correctly - the City is arguing that it needs the authority to prevent poor people from using their property to earn money to feed their families. That's why on April 7th the Freedom Center of Missouri filed suit against Hazelwood on behalf of the Mills family. In Mills v. City of Hazelwood, we're asking the courts to rule that if constitutional protection for property rights means anything, it means that families cannot be prevented from having something so simple and harmless as a cookie stand in their front yard. This case has generated media interest nationwide, including the opportunity for our clients to be interviewed on Fox & Friends and MSNBC!

In our other cases, we're continuing to prepare for May 10, when we'll try to convince the Missouri Supreme Court that even occupational licensing laws cannot avoid the constitution's protections for free speech, and we are pleased to announce that the Freedom Center recently won two important victories on behalf of Brooke Gray in her fight against the Veterinary Medical Board. While we have not yet been able to ensure that Brooke's case will be heard by a jury of her peers, the judge rejected both the Attorney General's request to limit the evidence she is permitted to introduce at trial and the Attorney General's effort to prevent us from arguing her constitutional defenses against the government's action. The next hearing in Brooke's case will be May 16, when we will argue that the case should be thrown out because the government violated its own statute in filing its lawsuit. As always, you can get a good idea of what we are up to by checking out www.mofreedom.org or visiting our Facebook page!

For those of you who are already contributing to our efforts, we cannot thank you enough and we hope you are so pleased with our work that you will continue doing so. If you have not yet become a donor, please consider doing so even if you can only give a little. Our ability to keep up this fight will depend on people like you being willing to provide the Freedom Center with financial support, and every little bit truly makes a big difference. You can make a donation online at this link. Our cases are the front lines in Missouri's battle for individual liberty and limited government, and no other organization in the state is using our combination of research, litigation, and public relations to illustrate the vital importance of adhering to constitutional principles. Thank you very much for standing with us in this fight!

For Liberty,
Dave Roland
Director of Litigation
Freedom Center of Missouri


P.O. Box 300464
St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Phone: (314) 604-6621
Fax: (314) 720-0989
Email: dave@mofreedom.org

Volunteer Gardener Resigns After Old Tree Cut Down - The Missourian: Pacific News
Volunteer Gardener Resigns After Old Tree Cut Down
By Pauline Masson, Pacific Editor Posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:32 pm
After voluntarily tending the city park entrance planter for the past seven years, BJ Lawrence said she will do the work no longer.
In an e-mail addressed to Mayor Herb Adams, City Administrator Harold Selby, Park Board President Stephen Flannery III and Public Works Director Ben Boedges, Lawrence said officials will have to make other arrangements.
“I, BJ Lawrence, resign as volunteer gardener to the city park garden entrance,” the e-mail message said. “This being my seventh year having supplied the plants, the mulch, the pre-emergents and the labor all at no charge to the city of Pacific.”
The reason for the abrupt resignation was the cutting down of a 35-year-old, 18-inch-diameter green ash tree in the city park, which Lawrence believed that she and other petitioners had rescued from being cut down in April.
As the tree grew, the roots had pushed up the sidewalk and officials worried that someone might trip. Officials said they would have to replace the concrete.
The mayor said he was told a conservation department officer had informed officials that the tree would die within five years.
The green ash, which occupied the center of a concrete circle in the sidewalk leading to the Rulon Pavilion, was the topic of a discussion in April.
What Mark Gruber, conservation agent, actually said was because of the root distress caused by the concrete, the tree might not reach its normal height of 80 feet, but it might live for 10 years.
Trees take on a life of their own, Gruber said. If they don’t have the space, sun and water required for good health they might never grow as tall as their potential height.
At the time of Gruber’s visit, Adams said he would not allow the tree to be cut down and Selby said he was considering pulling up the cracked concrete and placing the circular pathway farther away from the tree.
But two weeks ago Boedges cut down the tree with no notice to the petitioners who tried to save it. He planted two samplings near the circle where the 6-inch trunk was still dusted with sawdust.
“He will still have to take up the concrete,” Lawrence said. “It’s hard to see what was gained.”
In trying to evaluate the loss to the city parks by taking down a large tree that was not disturbing any other tree, or being disturbed by other trees, petitioners talked with Perry Eckhardt, Department of Conservation urban forester.
When asked what the value of the tree was, Eckhardt said it’s not possible to put a value on the tree.
“To replace a tree that size would cost in the thousands of dollars,” he said. “In fact you wouldn’t replace it. It’s irreplaceable.”
Lawrence said her volunteer work had not always been easy.
“But cutting down this tree was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she said.
Lawrence also said she did not understand the city trying to pacify citizens by planting trees in 100-degree temperature and expecting them to survive.
“Well, you fellas are just way smarter than this ol’ lady,” she said.
/* */

This message is specifically addressed to Herb Adams, Harold Selby, Steve Flannery and Ben Boedges. (the rest of you are F.Y.I.)

I, BJ Lawrence, resign as volunteer gardener to City Park garden entrance
This being my seventh year having supplied the plants, the mulch, the
pre-emergants and the labor all at no charge to the city of Pacific. (except for one year the park board president made me beg for money for mulch and three hosta’s) Have dealt with three park board presidents that did not know squat, much less care about our parks and not their ego’s, but cutting down this tree was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Since your ultra egos prize a piece of concrete over a living tree, and try to pacify the situation with re-planting trees in 100 degree temperatures and expect the tree to survive. Well, you fella’s are just way smarter then this O’lady.

This city is deficient in the thought process of maintenance. The City Park is a prime example: standing water for mosquito breeding, now standing water around your new playground equipment (replacing the old that wasn’t maintained), and how about over $3000 for mulch for that new playground, (guess to soak up the standing water), when our basketball court has a 3-4” crack perfect for a broken ankle, the pavilions are showing signs of needed maintenance, trees have been cut down and not replaced, many of those were memorial trees, the memorial plaques are being swallowed up by mother earth (which perhaps is fitting), not all memorial trees have plaques and since the city does not keep a file of the applications that had to be submitted and approved, you had no idea if that tree you chose over a piece of concrete was a memorial.

In conclusion, hope that you read the following from wise men, or better yet understand what the words mean, but that would require putting your ultra egos and testosterone aside.

Good luck finding another volunteer for the park garden, or will you just let it go back to the weed patch it once was….probably.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. ~Chief Seattle, 1855

The control man has secured over nature has far outrun his control over himself. ~Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, 1953

The old Lakota was wise. He knew that man's heart away from nature becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to lack of respect for humans too. ~Chief Luther Standing Bear

The magnificence of mountains, the serenity of nature - nothing is safe from the idiot marks of man's passing. ~Loudon Wainwright

Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve its life than destroy it. ~Henry David Thoreau, "Chesuncook," The Maine Woods, 1848

28th Amendment call/email/write your representatives

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives;and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/orRepresentatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of theUnited States ."

Congressional Reform Act of 2011.1.
Term Limits....12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms. B. Six Two-year House terms. C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms.
2. No Tenure / No Pension....A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security....All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. And none if our seniors do not get a raise.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make the current contract with members of Congress. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work in the private sector..

copy paste this to your emails to your representatives. don't know who your rep is (shame) look them up at

CONTACTS FOR PACIFIC GOVERNMENT

C ity of Pacific Administration contacts
MAYOR HERB ADAMS 877-352-3781 work 636-271-0500 city hall
CITY ADMIN. HAROLD SELBY 636-271-0500 city hall
MUNICIPAL JUDGE, RON REED 636-257-4553 work 636-257-1376 home
WARD I, MIKE BATES 636-271-5797 home
WARD I, ED GASS 636-271-4911 home
WARD II, BRAD REED 314-477-3521 cell
WARD II, JERRY EVERSMEYER 314-550-2139 cell
WARD III, MIKE PIGG 314-707-2017 cell 257-7750 home
WARD III, WALTER ARNETTE 314-456-6796 cell 257-4338 home
This is a the state senate website that will get you point-and-click addresses and allow you to send a message directly from the website to all of your reps. The only thing you need is your entire zipcode including the extra four digits (and for those who don't know their entire zip, below is the website to get it.)Find your representatives: http://www.senate.mo.gov/llookup/leg_lookup.aspx Find your nine-digit zipcode:http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp For all other representatives http://senate.mo.gov/ or http://house.mo.gov/

MML Promoting Warrants/in YOUR HOME for Code Violations

HERE GOES THE (MML) MO. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ......AGAIN. MML NOT ONLY INTERFERS WITH MO. CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INITIATIVE PETITION, NOW THEY WRITE POLICY FOR ITS 660 MEMBER CITIES TO ENTER YOUR HOME, ON THE SUSPECTED CODE VIOLATIONS. MUNICIPAL SEARCH WARRANTS IN MISSOURI by Paul Martin This article considers the use of local search warrant procedures in Missouri for municipal code violations related to the condition, use or occupancy of property. Specifically it addresses the need for local search warrant authority, the legality of municipal search warrant legislation, the In Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, the United States Supreme Court applied the amendment to municipal code enforcement searches, holding that entries onto private property were “significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” The Supreme Court concluded that the constitution required either the owner’s consent to search or a warrant.1 The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals followed suit in Bezayiff v. City of St. Louis, declaring unconstitutional an ordinance permitting warrantless entry onto private property to remove a derelict vehicle.2 And while the Bezayiff court considered only the application of the Fourth Amendment, the Missouri Constitution also protects against warrantless, non-consensual private property searches.3 It seems plain that to satisfy the privacy protections established by the federal and state constitutions, a municipal official generally needs either the owner’s consent or a warrant to enter property for code enforcement purposes.4 Unfortunately when an owner refuses consent, state law offers no warrant assistance to local governments for property inspections or nuisance abatement. While Missouri statutes establish a warrant procedure for the investigation and prosecution of criminal actions,5 municipal ordinance proceedings by law are civil in nature,6 and there is no complementary statutory warrant procedure for investigating or enforcing municipal regulations. Without warrant authority, owners and occupants of property can frustrate the enforcement of applicable ordinances simply by refusing entry even though local officials may have actual knowledge of code violations. Local officials in Missouri presumably have responded to this situation by exercising one of two options. Either they ignore the constitutional privacy provisions and enter private property without a warrant and regardless of owner consent, or they delay or abandon any attempt to enforce their property codes. By ignoring the warrant requirement, officials place themselves and their governments at obvious risk; warrantless, non-consensual searches can obviously escalate an already tense encounter and property owners can sue for the violation of privacy rights.7 On the other hand, abandoning the enforcement effort leads to increased safety risks and additional public welfare concerns, such as the possible spread of blight to neighboring properties and a consequential decline in property values. The need for code enforcement mechanism to permit lawful, non-consensual private property entry is manifest. The Legality Of Municipal Search Warrant Legislation A possible solution to the code enforcement dilemma came to light in Missouri when the state Supreme Court decided the case of Frech v. City of Columbia.8 The city of Columbia, a home rule charter city, adopted a Rental Unit Conservation Law. The ordinance authorized the City’s municipal judge to issue a warrant “for searches or inspections” of apartments and rooming houses to determine the existence of violations of the City’s minimum building standards and zoning classifications. Building owners challenged the law on the basis that it exceeded the City’s legislative power, arguing that the ordinance contravened the state’s criminal warrant statute and the Missouri Supreme Court’s authority to regulate warrant procedure.9 The Supreme Court rejected both claims. The Court found that Columbia’s search warrant ordinance was limited to municipal code violations and accordingly did not intrude on the state’s criminal warrant authority. The Court also found that the ordinance did not impinge upon its own constitutional rule-making power.10 While Frech did not address the question of the City’s authority to enact the ordinance in the first place, this legal authority appears to exist for both charter and statutory cities. With regard to charter cities, Article VI, § 19(a), the Missouri Constitution grants all powers which the legislature is authorized to grant, regardless of whether a singular power is specified in the charter itself.11 Since the Missouri Legislature can establish the practice and procedure of courts to issue search warrants in the absence of applicable Supreme Court rules,12 charter cities would also have this authority. Statutory cities (third and fourth class cities and towns and villages) are bound by Dillon’s Rule. They possess only those powers that are (1) expressly granted by statute or (2) necessarily or fairly implied in or incidental to express grants, or (3) essential, i.e., indispensable, to the declared objects of the municipality.13 No Missouri statute authorizes third or fourth class cities, towns or villages to establish procedures for administrative search warrants. In the absence of an enabling statute, the authority to establish search warrant procedures must necessarily be found in either the second (implied/incidental) or third (essential) standard of Dillon’s Rule. This seems well within reach when one considers the myriad Missouri statutes authorizing statutory cities to enter on private property for inspection and abatement purposes. All statutory cities have such power over construction on private property,14 public health and nuisances,15 and commerce.16 All statutory cities are authorized to abate debris accumulation, including trash, rubbish, lumber, overgrown weeds and vegetation, derelict cars, broken furniture and other materials.17 All cities are authorized to inspect milk and food,18 and they have general legislative authority to abate nuisances and assess the costs of abatement against the property by special tax lien.19 Local governments also may provide for the towing of derelict motor vehicles from private property.20 But because of constitutional privacy concerns, statutory cities may not fully enforce their regulatory authority without the property owner’s consent. When an owner or occupant refuses entry, a warrant is necessary if the public health, safety and welfare is to be served. In these circumstances one could easily conclude that an administrative search warrant ordinance is “necessarily or fairly implied in or incidental to” express grants of authority and even “essential, i.e., indispensable, to the declared objects of the municipality.”21 The “Probable Cause” Standard Having established the legitimacy of a local search warrant ordinance as an enforcement tool, it is important to consider the quantum of “probable cause” needed for the issuance of a warrant. In Camara the United States Supreme Court relied on the “unique character” of code enforcement searches to require a standard different from that traditionally reserved for criminal cases. In Camara the local authorities were conducting area-wide inspections and prosecuting those who refused to consent to a search for failure to cooperate. The appellant claimed that absent consent, the officials needed a warrant, supported by evidence that this particular dwelling contained property conditions in violation of the city code; only then could an owner or occupant be insulated from “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Camara, 387 U.S. at 534, 87 S.Ct. at 1733-1734. The Supreme Court observed that the proposed standard was borrowed from that used in criminal cases and that probable cause “is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness.” The Court then distinguished administrative search warrants from criminal, noting the broader governmental interest at stake. Referencing examples of both safety (fires and epidemics) and general welfare (unsightly conditions adversely affecting property values) concerns, the Court summarized local government’s interest as “to prevent even the unintentional development of conditions which are hazardous to public health and safety.” Thus, in determining whether a particular search is reasonable and whether probable cause justifies warrant issuance, “the need for the inspection must be weighed in terms of these reasonable goals of code enforcement.” Camara, 387 U.S. at 535, 87 S.Ct. at 1734. With housing code enforcement, the Court noted, “the only effective way to seek universal compliance with the minimum standards … is through routine periodic inspections of all structures.” The decision to inspect a given area, then, “is unavoidably based on … appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole.” Camara, 387 U.S. at 535-536, 87 S.Ct. at 1734-1735 (emphasis added). The Court found three factors that supported the reasonableness of area-wide inspections. Such programs “have a long history of judicial and public acceptance.” In addition, “the public interest demands that all dangerous conditions be prevented or abated,” and many of these could not be discovered other than by interior inspections. “Finally, because the inspections are neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of a crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizen’s privacy.” Camara, 387 U.S. at 536-537, 87 S.Ct. at 1735. After concluding that an area-wide search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the Court noted that probable cause would exist to issue a warrant provided “reasonable legislative or administrative standards” were satisfied: Such standards … may be based on the passage of time [between inspections], the nature of the building (e.g., a multifamily apartment house), or the condition of an entire area, but they will not necessarily depend on the specific knowledge of the condition of the particular dwelling. Camara, 387 U.S. at 538, 87 S.Ct. at 1735-1736. Under Camara, then, while an administrative warrant application can specify a single property with known or suspected code violations, the application may also proffer more sweeping characteristics germane to the kind of property at issue, the nature of the surrounding neighborhood, and even the time lapse occurring between inspections. All of these factors can be used to support the issuance of warrant. Presumably other factors touching on property maintenance could also serve as legitimate standards for warrant issuance, such as property ownership (absentee landlords), high tenant turnover and being located in an area declared “blighted” pending redevelopment. The Scope And Limitations Of Administrative Search Warrants Several additional factors need to be considered in administering a search warrant ordinance for code enforcement purposes. Missouri statutes should serve as the parameters of any local search warrant activity. State statutes authorize entry onto private property for enforcement purposes (both inspection and abatement) involving the condition, use or occupancy of property or structures; they do not authorize entry for the investigation or prosecution of any other municipal ordinance violations. Without such statutory authorization, the use of administrative search warrant procedures would be constitutionally suspect from the state perspective.22 Moreover, in light of the reliance placed by the Camara court on the distinction between criminal and administrative investigations, the use of municipal warrants to pursue local prosecutions premised on state crimes might well tip the balance of public and private interests away from a finding of “reasonableness.”23 Similarly, a police officer executing an administrative search warrant should do so in light of the statutory authority on which the city’s warrant authority is based. This article does not consider the admissibility of criminal evidence seized as a result of an administrative warrant search, but use of the administrative warrant process as a pretext for a criminal investigation obviously raises the question. And if in the course of a legitimate administrative warrant search a police officer finds evidence of a crime, the officer must exercise his or her judgment with regard to the action taken, if any. The safest course of conduct would be for the officer to make application for a criminal search warrant to the circuit court, but if the circumstances justify immediate action, the officer’s search warrant authority may (or may not) be sufficient for the seizure of criminal evidence or the arrest of the owner or occupant of the premises. One should also note that warrants aren’t always necessary for entry onto private property. The requirement applies “only to those entries which intrude on constitutionally recognized expectations of privacy.” Bezayiff v. City of St. Louis, 963 S.W.2d 225, 234 (Mo. App. 1997). In Schneider v. County of San Diego, a property owner parked several inoperable vehicles on his own open land next to a house he rented to tenants; the Ninth Circuit held that the property owner lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy because he did not live in the rented house.24 Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has held that a property owner had no legitimate expectation of privacy in dilapidated buildings demolished by a city without a warrant; the property had become a haven for transients and the owner did not live in the buildings and failed to take any steps to protect his property.25 And it is implicit that any property condition requiring immediate abatement for the public health, safety and welfare, such as fire or chemical spill would justify warrantless entry.26 In Camara the United States Supreme Court recognized other emergency situations that would merit warrantless action, including food contamination, diseased cattle destruction and compulsory smallpox vaccinations.27 Some final observations should be made in conjunction with warrant limitations. Both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution require that the warrant “describe[e] the place to be searched.” The Fourth Amendment actually is more specific; it includes “particularly” as an adverb to the word “describing.” This language leads to the conclusion that an administrative search warrant should identify the specific property to be searched, despite the existence of area-wide probable cause factors used to justify the particularized search. Also, the Supreme Court in Camara alluded to this particularity requirement and made two additional observations pertaining to the implementation of administrative warrant authority. After noting that most inspections did not require immediate entry and most citizens consented to municipal inspections, the Court suggested that baring exigent circumstances, warrants “should normally be sought only after entry is refused.” The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals seemingly has embraced this as a warrant prerequisite.28 In a similar vein, the Supreme Court observed that the “prevailing local policy” of most municipal inspections – entry by consent or lawful authorization rather than by force – should remain in tact. Camara, 387 U.S. at 539-540, 87 S.Ct. at 1736. Both of these concepts would tend to reinforce the reasonableness of the city’s actions, both in adopting a warrant ordinance and in actual warrant execution. Contents Of The Administrative Search Warrant Ordinance An administrative search warrant ordinance in Missouri should establish detailed procedures for the application, issuance and return of the warrant consistent with the Camara and Bezayiff decisions. Using Missouri’s criminal warrant statute as a guide (Section 542.261 et seq., RSMo. 2000), local warrant legislation could include the following: • A local police officer, code enforcement officer or attorney must apply for the warrant to the municipal judge. • The application must include a statement of probable cause, supported by affidavit, detailing the actual or suspected property conditions – whether applicable to a specific property or a general area – that justify entry. The statement normally would be prepared by the city’s code enforcement officer with the assistance of the city attorney. • The application should also show that the municipality requested entry on the property and that the owner or occupant refused such entry. • If the judge finds that the facts establish probable cause to believe that a code violation may exist, the judge will sign the warrant and authorize the requested entry. • The enforcement officer then has ten days to execute the warrant, during daylight hours. The municipality should require a police presence during warrant execution, both to encourage peaceful cooperation and to ensure the safety of the code enforcement officer. • The police and enforcement officer(s) must inspect the property for code violations, record or seize appropriate property as evidence and/or abate existing nuisances, all as directed by the terms of the search warrant. • The police and enforcement officer(s) must also prepare a “return,” consisting of a report of the search and/or seizure including copies of receipts for any property seized as well as the seized property. • The police and enforcement officer(s) must also leave copies of the warrant and any receipts for property seizure with the property owner or occupant or, if no one is available, in a conspicuous place on the property. Conclusion Local warrant authority promotes three laudable goals. First, it allows the municipality to act in those unique cases when a property owner refuses to allow access for property code enforcement purposes and so ensure the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Second, it protects the constitutional rights of the property owner by requiring that a judge consider the known facts and determine whether probable cause exists for the municipality to inspect property or abate a nuisance. Finally, it establishes a defense if a property owner subsequently files a lawsuit claiming an illegal invasion of privacy rights. While the warrant procedure imposes additional administrative burdens, it also helps protect owners, occupants, the general public, local officials and the municipality itself from the adverse effects of private property entries. Paul Martin is with the firm Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O’Keefe in Clayton, Missouri. He can be reached at 314-725-8788, or e-mail pmartin@lawfirmemail.com. Footnotes available upon request by contacting Missouri Municipal League at 573-635-9134 or e-mail info@mocities.com.

ADAMS/ALDERMAN PACIFIC REPORT CARD

ADAMS & PACIFIC ALDERMAN ADMINISTRATION REPORT CARD
(from here forward referred to as “The Adams Family” in an endearing way.......as a reference to an old t.v. program in jest)

SECOND TERM 2010-
12/2010Administrative Warrants/issued by Municipal Judge Reed on "suspicion" of code violation (bill#2791) to enter your homes. 12/21/2010 promoted by MML.

1/2011 City Hall expansion, 3.5 - 4 million, no public participation
1/2011 sold museum city property at a $42,000 loss



FIRST TERM 2006-2010
Just before Adams took office 2006, a resolution was signed unanimously to file maps with St. Louis County to annex all property east of Pacific to Eureka. The intent was to stop Eureka from further development by TIF’s (Tax Increment Financing) and use of Eminent Domain that would deeply affect the Meramec Valley School District.

Adams immediately starting holding closed door sessions and announced two days before the dead line, that he had entered into an agreement with Mayor Coffee of Eureka. This agreement gave Eureka the south side of route 66, Pacific the north side and that maps had already been re-filed indicating this change. Closed door sessions is a method of operation for Mayor Adams. Just recently an Alderman indorsing Adams, said he can’t wait til he can share the projects “in the mill”……(what mill, why is it a secret?)

Adams also cancelled Administrative meetings (less formal, less intimidating to citizens). In his first appearance at this Administrative meeting Adams(sitting in the audience like the rest of us) wanted to have the ability to issue search warrants of your homes in Pacific without going thru Franklin County. Luckily Judge Ron Reed said NO. But then soon these important meetings were eliminated.....ask your selves why, heck ask Adams why.

Missouri Municipal League (MML) Pacific is one of 660+ cities that are members, (paying $225/year & 95cents/per person of taxpayer funds) First, lets point out that the Pacific City Attorney, Dan Vogel also represents the MML. He and his firm put together training propaganda material for cities to use on their citizens. (check out their RED ALERT) http://municipalfirm.com
1. The MML entered into a law suit to stop Citizens Right to Initiative Petition (against Eminent Domain Abuse) Their soul purpose was to take up precious time needed to collect signatures for Nov.2010 ballot. (This was disclosed by an attorney of the MML)
2. The Adams Family was approached to either withdraw Pacific’s membership or compose a resolution addressed to the MML to stop interfering with Citizens Rights. (Elliott Davis “You Paid For It” showed up in agreement and reported as such.)
3. The Adams Family unanimously refused. (keep this response in mind as you read on…”the money MML got for Pacific in the AT & T settlement is worth it.)

The Adams family recently decided they would compose a resolution to Ameren UE and copy the MML. That they oppose the proposed 18% rate increase. (Note: in time for re-elections, sounds good, but remember they wouldn’t write one to protect your constitutional rights for initiative petitions)

The Adams family entered into agreements with both the Pilot and the Osage Street developments, charging 1% more in sales taxes applicable in both those areas, to help fund these developments. This is a sales tax that was not put on a ballot and NOT VOTED ON BY CITIZENS. (but, don’t forget folks, they want us to shop in Pacific, even though we will pay more to do so)

The City Attorney, Dan Vogel last year received $381 thousand dollars from Pacific, even if we take out $178 thousand dollars for litigation, that is more than the Cities of Washington/Union/Sullivan/St. Clair/and Franklin County. The Adams Family think that the $381 thousand is totally acceptable…..do you? Couldn’t part of that salary have gone to hiring another police officer or improvements in our city parks?

Of that $381 thousand, $93 thousand is ear marked as “reimbursable”. There is no record kept of this $93 thousand actually being reimbursed. Jeff Palmore (yes, he is running for Mayor of Pacific) paid out of his pocket $600 for the City of Pacific to research and provide accountability for this $93 thousand of reimbursements per the Sunshine Law. We are told the report will take 4-6wks, which is after this election Apr.6th. Have heard that retired Joanne Hoenne, former City of Pacific City Clerk, has been brought out of retirement to create this report accounting for $93,000. What does this indicate about the City’s accounting system?

OH YA, Remember the AT&T settlement that the Adams family was so happy to receive (didn’t care if they were dealing with the devil…MML) check your AT&T bills, folks. You not only pay to be a member of the MML, but you are now going to pay AT&T for the cost of that lawsuit. Look at your AT&T phone bills for December and January. Read these news story links,
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/C097FBF19935C7CA862576A4001019B4?OpenDocument
also read:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/investigative/story.aspx?storyid=193099&catid=70&provider=email

We are being encouraged to shop/spend our dollars in Pacific, but our attorney lives in Wildwood and his firm is located in St. Louis County. (surely there are qualified attorneys in Franklin County that would better represent Pacific for a fraction of the cost)

The Adams Family gave all elected officials a pay raise Nov.2009 (now that was a bad move just before re-election time……wasn’t it) That is Mayor/Alderman/Collector/Police Chief…..and a few salaried employees. Did you get a raise in your Social Security or job this year?

Now lets get this straight, we are not against prayer and God. But, don’t you think it is a bit curious that it starts up at Alderman meetings at re-election time, so that Mayor Adams can boast his is a Godly Man.

The Adams Family totally supports the MVR3 bond issue for Apr.6, 2010 ballot. $15.3+ million dollars for maintenance. Randy George has said to be clear, this bond WILL NOT off set the coming State reductions in school funding (what will?). Don’t know folks, where I come from, if you borrow $15.3+million……….it has to be paid back, and with the current economy why would anyone take on more debt? And why wasn't maintenance part of the school budget? Oh gosh, of course, it is for (heart strings now) our kids. Yes, our poor kids and grandkids, we are creating/leaving a heck of a mess for them in so many ways. Schools must figure out a way to cut spending without laying off teachers. Each one of you had to figure out ways to cut your budget. Government and schools need to learn the same lessons.

Just read Mayor Adams campaign letter received 3/23/2010. Goals: sidewalks Highway N to Riverbend School (still searching for grant money, this took second place to sidewalks approved on O'Gray Summit Rd), creation of Civil War Memorials (that is another group), Increase in revenue stream for Tri-County Senior Center (not sure what the City could do here)although they did approve giving the Senior Center half of recycling funds collected with our new trash provider(as of yet we do not know what that will amount to, and have many ask me who approved this appropriation when there are so many other needs in our community), creation of permanent revenue stream for parks(it has been suggested by Adams that this would be a sales tax possibly 1/2%)
It implies that the positive track record is largely due to this administration. I agree they have gotten good at getting their share of grant money. The Tri County Senior Center(the city had no involvement in this success story), construction of new I44 ramps has me puzzled...as we just had new ramps east/west exit & entrance.
Yes, all of this is good for this city, but it just amazes me how much embelishments candidates take liberty with.

Talk about taking liberties.....the Pacific news letter that we haven't seen for along time, now has come out twice since January. And of course, Mayor Adams has "used" it to promote himself. Folks that is your tax dollar at work.

If you havent kept up with the city, you won't know much of this, so come on "get involved", be informed! ! !

Jeff Palmore for Mayor and BJ Lawrence for Ward II Alderman both HAVE NOT ACCEPTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, our costs have come out of our own pockets. That can not be said for many who are running, and you can see the amounts of money being spent by others and might want to ask yourselves WHY.

I recommend: Jeff Palmore for Mayor, Steve Flannery for Alderman Ward I, and
BJ Lawrence Alderman Ward II Time for open, and honest Change
paid for by bj lawrence
feel free to call me 636-271-7817 or email beejayl@peoplepc.com

ps Ask the current Administration why Pacific no longer has a Pride Day Parade (a
30+ year tradition)it has to do with extra insurance on our streets for a parade, that would be a drop in the bucket of the money Adams boasting putting in reserve.
Ask why after 4 years, suddenly the current Administration sees the need to cooperate with its citizens and the many groups that invest their time and money in our community. (ie: PCAC who brings to you the yearly car show and other events without the help of this Administration) By the way this group can use your volunteerism and you will have a great time participating....many of our finest organize these events...contact Loyd Harris 314-614-2538 GET INVOLVED

Pacific City Attorney paid $381 thousand dollars

February 16, 2010

Dear Pacific Council,

I want to bring to your attention a matter of great concern regarding the amount of money that is paid to Pacific City Attorney, Dan Vogel. The period of time researched is June 2008 thru August 2009. The total for that period is $381,558.62, breaks down as follows:

Frederich Construction $178,367.32
General 40,127.71
City Attorney 15,362.50
Utility Matters 26,975.94
Zoning & Development (reimbursable) 20,481.11
Jeff Palmore vs City of Pacific 20,015.72
Economic Development Fund (reimbursable) 22,498.17
Osage CID (reimbursable) 32,131.64
Flood Mitigation (reimbursable) 7,440.50
IAD Bond Redemption (reimbursable) 4,028.30
Employment Matters 4,153.00
Tax Protest Matter (reimbursable) 3,352.86
Pilot/Thorton Rd.Dev. (reimbursable) 3,643.95
Annex/Sewers 1,079.00
Union Matters 154.50
Immigration 491.40
Walgreen’s 354.00
City Hall 901.00
_______________________________________________ $381,558.62__________

*note: the $93,576.53 in funds paid to Vogel as “reimbursable”, that there is no accountability for those dollars. There seems to be no record kept of items that were actually reimbursed. Told Vogel is not responsible for getting the reimbursements and that often the funds are held up front/like an escrow account………but still no record. There has to be a record, but as of yet I have not been supplied with one.

Pacific’s current Ordinance #2298, Aug. 6, 2002. Contract with City Attorney. Basic Services at $115/hr. include only Aldermen meetings and communications with the Mayor and City Administrator up to four hours per month.
All other legal services for Vogel $255/hr. and with office staff from $90 to $255/hr.

*note: that Jan.2009, Dan Vogel & firm started charging $5 to $10 more per hour (except for their employees Slater $115/hr and Shaw $90/hr which seem to have remained the same.) Ordinance 2298 allows for increase not to exceed 4% per annum.

City and Attorney have the right to immediately terminate this agreement in its entirety, anytime with or without cause.




Possibilities to consider:

1. Why are we paying more than our neighboring communities?
2. Perhaps it is time to renegotiate our legal contract.
3. Our current City Attorney represents three cities and the Missouri Municipal League, his firm and residence are in St. Louis County. We are being encouraged to spend our money in our neighborhood, this would be a good place to start.
4. Franklin County Auditor, Ralph Sudholt and a couple of Finance Officers in comparison cities, asked WHY we didn’t hire our own attorney as an employee, and why we had a St. Louis County attorney rather than a Franklin County attorney.
5. Think of hiring our City Attorney for less than $265/hr. Think of what the city could do with the money saved. Hire another patrolman (or two), help our Parks and Streets without a tax increase, etc..


























Comparisons: Other Cities in the area and their City Attorney fees:

City Contract Population
Pacific, MO $381,558 actual 5249

Union, MO $32,000/yr.max 9368
*includes: All meetings, not just Council. Every Friday meets with department heads to write ordinances, etc.. All staff, anytime can email the attorney (actual cost last yr. $21,000) Union Finance Officer was once an auditor for cities, and says she never saw such high fees, only one coming close was Arnold with all their Eminent Domain and TIF’s a couple years ago.

Sullivan $44,383 City Attorney& Prosecutor/$2,115 Special Prosecutor/$23,115 Special Counsel (total $70,108) 6350

Wildwood $4,000/mo. 36,786
$115 for extras (Total $199,969)

Washington *$43,687 13400
*City counselor, advises council, mayor, & staff, attends council meetings, writes ordinances, etc. $130/hr. (City Attorney elected $9600/yr plus $130/hr. = $5,447= total $15,047) (total of both $58,734). (at the request of Harold Selby, Washington was contacted again with inquiry to their Phoenix & HBAS Mfg. Developments, that still would put them at $123,615 Harold’s figures, which is still $257,943 more than Pacific)
Still await Washington’s response.

St. Clair $29,150 6,xxx
*$80,000 in additional services. (total $109,150)

Franklin County $98,300
*Attorney is an employee @ $59,000/yr, plus $14,150/yr for secretary, total $98,300 to run the entire department. They do not have any other legal fees at this time.

At the request of our City Administrator, Harold Selby, all cities were recontacted to confirm that legal fees for Economic Development were included in their figures, they all report the figures above are complete. (await Washington’s response)

Respectfully,
BJ Lawrence
1207 W. Congress, Pacific, MO 63069
636-271-7817