Questions for the Candidates

At Monday's Council Meeting I gave each of the candidates a letter that included three questions we hoped they would answer for the voters. We asked our readers awhile back to send us suggestions for questions to ask the candidates and came up with 3 per ward for both Candidates to answer if they chose to. I specifically avoided questions that only one Candidate could answer and decided to focus on the more mundane issues. Though we had several requests for questions on the trash and the recall issues it's my opinion that those lines are well drawn at this point. I decided at the last minute not to include them (though I did have to call the Ward 3 candidates as I missed taking that off their list when I finalized the letter (we all make mistakes)).

In my letter I told the candidates that I would be publishing their answers on Friday, March 30th. I quickly received responses from half the Candidates, but decided to wait until Friday was all but over to give the others a chance to get their responses in. What follows are the Questions as well as the answers from the candidates that choose to send up their responses.

Ward 1:

Councilman Knode:

We did not receive answers from Councilman Knode by the time of publication.


Eedie Cuminale:

What are your ideas for improving the Lackland business area (businesses along Lackland between Woodson and Sims)?

First I would not change Lackland Road being a mixed use avenue. Mixed use benefits business by having the eyes of the residential community to monitor activity. It's a win for business. However I would like to make Lackland Road more welcoming in appearance, by planting street trees, (there are many that will not interfere with overhead electric and cable lines). Lackland Road can become a boulevard that would be an attractive place, which would upgrade the types of businesses that would want to open on Lackland Road. I would work with East West Gateway and the Overland Business Association to encourage business development on Lackland and hire a City Administrator to work with Public Works to facilitate the needs of the businesses and residential community to create an atmosphere of mutual benefit and increase city coffers.

How would you address the issue of cars speeding through the residential streets between Lackland and Midland?

As a person who walks many places I am very aware of speeding cars. They are a problem!

I would set up a citizen hot line directly to traffic enforcement. If the problems in a particular area are acute and there are many complaints, traffic enforcement could monitor those areas on a more continuing basis and issue stiff penalties for violating speed limits on residential streets.

Would you support the installation of a Traffic light at Lackland and Sims?

There is a stop sign at Lackland & Sims but if the stop sign is not enough to control traffic at that corner I would support a study to determine advantages and disadvantages. If the advantages out weighed the disadvantages I would support having a stop light.

Ward 2:

Councilman Sellers:

We did not receive answers from Councilman Sellers by the time of publication.


Mary Beth Conlon:

What are your ideas for improving the Woodson business area (on Woodson, from Lackland to the northern border of Overland)?

These are great questions and illustrate the profound issues affecting the entire community. The issues of blight, crime, and dilapidated buildings are related to each other; they go hand and hand as do the consequences of them. You could actually apply these themes generically throughout the entire city. This erosion of our business districts, neighborhoods and downtown areas didn’t happen over night; it happened over the course of several decades. The effect of the decline of the districts and neighborhoods became even more pronounced in the last decade.

I think it is important that we don’t piecemeal projects for individual corners in our city. Piecemealing will only aestically improve a small area temporarily. We need to be taking a comprehensive look and approach at the entire downtown district. The fact is the downtown area will never be desirable, revitalized or restored until the Midwood Building, which is in essence tenant housing for transient people, is eliminated. When the pedestrian center of the city is not a viable place to walk at night, you are not going to attract the type of businesses and shops needed to revitalize the area and locate here.

How would you address the problem of distressed and dilapidated buildings (reader gave the example of the buildings on Woodson next to the hotel at Midland and Woodson)?

Similarly, the problems with dilapidated buildings are an issue with Public Works enforcement and customer service. These issues didn’t just happen this year; it happened over the course of several years. Overland residents, new businesses and prospective entrepreneurs have been chastised and ridiculed, sometimes even punished by the Public Works management. This is unacceptable and has caused many problems which have accelerated the loss of business and kept potential new businesses out. While other communities were flourishing and enacting progressive policies to improve their community, Overland was withering at the vine. To reconcile this issue I am going to work diligently to get the City Administrator hired so Overland will no longer be held hostage by the dysfunctional patronage system of hiring. I want to eliminate the failed practices of the past; it’s time to throw the patronage system out the window and hire the most qualified personnel to manage our city and work with the businesses and residents to improve Overland.

What are your suggestions on how to address crime problems at the Overland Plaza (Schnucks Shopping Center)?

Issues with crime in the largest retail section within Overland require an open door approach with all of the businesses within Overland Plaza. I would suggest a meeting to start a dialogue of open communication with the management of the businesses, their employees, the patrons and the management team of the plaza to find out exactly first hand what they feel needs to be addressed and then work with the OPD and the management team of the Plaza to implement new policies and procedures to improve the situation. Similar to the problems and issues in Downtown Overland, when the largest retail space in our city has so many vacancies, a perception exists that it is not a viable retail space and people will choose to go elsewhere to shop. I want to change the perception of Overland. Overland must be forward thinking, we must put the politics of the past behind us and become a progressive and a viable community to live, work, shop and enjoy life. If Overland is to improve, we must start electing the most viable candidates to run our city; it is evident that insufficient ideas, vision and leadership have lead us to where we are today.

Ward 3:

Peggy Keller:

We did not receive answers from Peggy Keller by the time of publication.


Michael Oakes:

What are your ideas for improving business development along Page Ave?

I have already contacted 1 business and after I’m elected I will continue to contact them, spelling out the benefits of locating on a corridor that has traffic of 55,000 vehicles daily. That figure is estimated to go up 5000 to 8000 cars a day when work gets underway on the Highway 40 project. Along with this I have ideas to smooth out the process at City Hall for new businesses wanting to establish themselves in Overland, working closely with the O.B.A. and all city officials.

What are your ideas for improving the Woodson business area (from Flora to the southern boarder of Overland)?

Work is already underway on Woodson that looks very promising. The corner of Woodson and Trescott has been cleaned up and work is being completed on a Pizzeria/Creamery there as well. Farther south on Woodson, plans are in works to build a more modern “Mobile on the Run” where the current Mobile as well as the old insurance bldg is. Once the reputation in Overland is on its way to being repaired and we have a functioning government, the Council can more successfully promote Overland to businesses and franchises throughout the region. Overland is a great place to locate a business. We have a great, centrally located town that allows you to get anywhere in 20 minutes.

On the corner of Page and Woodson, I think it would be in the best interest of the city and its residents if some large retail stores or some light Industrial was located there to provide some jobs for our residents. I would also be great if we had some sit-down restaurants on the outer edge of that development. This can be further discussed and more citizen input obtained at Council Workshop meetings to start the process of moving the city forward.

What would you suggest to address crime problems at Brooks and Woodson Parks?

I am not aware of any problems at Woodson Road Park. I have recently heard of a drug problem at Brooks Park and know our Police Dept. has recently been made aware of it also and I am confident our Police Dept. will take the appropriate measures to ensure citizen safety.

Ward 4:

Tim Jones:

We did not receive answers from Tim Jones by the time of publication.


Sherry Karr:

What ideas do you have for the Seminary Property at 2500 Ashby?

I believe that the Seminary property at 2500 Ashby has the potential to be something that everyone in Overland, young and old alike, can enjoy. I think that we need to get everyone together as a whole to come up with ideas as to what needs to be done with this building. As I stated at the candidate's forum, it is my opinion that this be brought to the residents as a vote.

Would you support the installation of a Traffic light at Lackland and Sims?

For me to support the installation of a Traffic Light at Lackland and Sims, I would have to look more into an accident study at that intersection. Another thing that would need to be considered is how costly this would be.

Do you have any ideas on how to make Wild Acres Park more accessible (the reader seemed to feel that the entrance to the park was not safe or easy to use)?

Wild Acres Park may be more accessible by providing an access road to the Seminary property from the park providing a entrance/exit from Ashby Road.



I would like to thank the candidates who took the time out of their busy schedules to respond to these questions. I believe their answers will help Overland voters get a sense of their individual approaches to everyday problems and the solutions they think will address them.
I waited to the last hour of Friday before posting this article in the hopes that we would receive answers from the other Candidates. Comments are NOT enabled on this post as I wanted to let the Candidates answers stand on their own merits without commentary.

March 26th Council Meeting

Don't forget that the Overland City Council meeting is typically aired at 10PM on Thursdays on Channel 18 (on Charter Cable). Unfortunately, this meeting does not make Overland look good, no matter how you slice it. Hopefully, we won't see this sort of conduct in the near future. You can read the articles about this meeting in the Suburban Journal here, the Post Dispatch here, and you can see Channel 4's coverage of it here.

Edited to add: Well, it appears Charter Cable dropped the ball again. Another meeting doesn't make it to the "Public Access" channel. Wasn't the intent of the regulations requiring that Cable TV providers make this service available created to ensure the "Public" had "Access" to information? Rumor had it that Charter Cable was none too happy when Overland authorized AT&T to provide their future Television and High Speed Internet access via their own wires to our area (unanimous vote of the Council). One of their complaints is rumored to be that Charter Cable didn't think it was fair that they had to provide meeting coverage and the like when AT&T did not. Well, considering how Charter doesn't appear to take this responsibility seriously and makes it extremely difficult to find any contact information for the personnel who run Channel 18, perhaps we will all be better off when we can make this service switch.

We were able to get our video online so our readers can watch it. You can see that video by clicking here. The video is 1 hour and 17 minutes long and please excuse the look of this video as Google uses it's own compression that reduces the quality.

Early on, the Mayor claimed that she "adjourned" the City Council Meeting of March 12th because the crowd had gotten unruly. In reality, the crowd was no more or less unruly than has become typical in the last year or so (clapping and booing here or there, an occasional outburst, etc). The crowd only got out of hand, to a degree, after the meeting "adjourned" and Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers, Mayor Purzner and Councilman Ownesby all walked out.

The meeting of March 12th never officially adjourned. Besides the fact that the Council typically calls for full vote on adjournment (despite this regular practice, I'm not sure it's required), it is generally improper to make a new motion when another is on the table. Councilman May clearly made a motion, it was seconded, and required a vote of the Council. The Mayor claimed it was improper and refused to call the vote. However, the motion was legitimately worded and referred to city business so there was nothing improper about it. The Mayor claims because that motion references a legal case, the issue cannot be discussed in public. The Mayor does not understand the Sunshine Law. When the Sunshine Law references closed meetings, executive sessions and the like, it identifies what CAN be legally discussed in a closed meeting out of the public eye. It does not require that anything be limited to executive sessions and the like (as you can see for yourself here). There was no legitimate reason this motion could not be addressed.

All these issues came up again in the March 26th, 2007 meeting as they were left unfinished on March 12th when the Mayor and others walked out. After much discussion on the issue (discussion being a rather kind word for much of the meeting), rather than properly address the motion Councilman Knode lead the way as he walked out of the meeting, soon followed by Councilman Sellers, Councilman Owensby and shortly there after, Mayor Purzner. They did not allow the Council to complete the unfinished March 12th meeting and left before March 26th meeting was even called to order. So, as ridiculous as it sounds, the March 12th meeting still needs to be adjourned.

The reason Mayor Purzner as well as Councilmen Knode, Sellers and Owensby walked out is because they did not want to address the subject of Councilman May's motion, nor would they apparently consider adjourning to executive session to discuss it. The subject of the motion was settling the lawsuit brought by the 4 Overland Police officers whose pay raises and promotions where wrongly taken away by the Mayor. We already know the Mayor will not listen to the legal advice by the City Attorney (which has resulted in at least 3 lost lawsuits costing the City tens of thousands of dollars), but now it appears that the Mayor will not listen to the legal advice from the City's insurance company lawyers who have been telling her to settle this suit because the City's position is not defendable.

The City has already paid $23000.00 in legal fees on this case and is risking additional legal fees, the legal expenses of the four officers, and 3 times their back-pay (which they are entitled to in employment law should they win this suit). The officers apparently are willing to settle for their legal fees and their actual back-pay (not 3 times that amount) which is admirable of them. They are willing to settle a suit that the attorneys are telling the Mayor is unwinable and yet the Mayor insists on letting it continue. She went as far as to walk out of the March 12th Council meeting as well as the March 26th Council meeting to avoid discussing the issue (we covered this case when it all started both here and here).

Interestingly, one of the claims repeatedly made by Mayor on this case is that the City cannot authorize these pay raises because a budget has not been passed. However, everyone of these jobs were in the previous budget (which is what the city is currently working under as per State statute). The reason for the promotions is that a captain retired. As a result a Lieutenant was promoted to Capitan, a Sergeant was promoted to Lieutenant, a Corporal was promoted to Sergent, A Patrolman was promoted to Corporal, and a new patrolman was hired. The new patrolman was hired at a starting salary that was significantly lower than the experienced patrolman that was promoted. Also, the Capitan that retired was at a higher pay rate than the the promoted lieutenant starts at as a Capitan. As a result, these promotions actually cost the city less money than was budgeted in that previous budget.

This is not new behavior for the Mayor. As you can clearly read in the editorial from the Suburban Journal here Mayor Purzner refuses to believe she's been wrong on any legal challenge. She even goes as far as the question the ethics of several St. Louis County judges rather than admit she violated the law on numerous occasions. Violations that one does not need a legal degree or even college education to understand. The Mayor will not admit to her mistakes so how could we be expected to think she's learned from them? her mistakes already cost the City about $50,000.00 in legal bills in less than a year, and that's with a case still in court and another pending.

The Mayor does not stop there, as her April Localite Ad is more of the same:

(click the image to view a larger version)

In this ad, Mayor Purzner Claims:

Former Mayor Dody sold 17 acres of land to prevent Walmart and Lowes from coming to Overland. Of course this ad cites no reference material to research. One has to wonder, how did Former Mayor Dody sell land without a vote of the Council? More importantly, how did Mayor Dody sell land neither he nor the City of Overland ever owned? I am not a particular fan of the the Dody administration (though I also don't think they were the boogie men of Overland), but I am going to have to see some supporting facts before I can take a statement like this seriously.

She says this is why she walked out of meetings. Even if the above had been true it's not relevant to the Mayor's decision to walk out of the last two meetings rather than consider the legal advice to settle the lawsuit she effectively forced the police officers to file against the City. Why is it that the Mayor, and many of her supporters insist on living in the past rather than address the issues facing Overland today?

The Mayor claims she attempted to suspend the Chief of Police because he embroiled the city in "over a million dollars in unnecessary lawsuits" and goes on to claim that many were filed by police officers. The only lawsuits we've found did not cost nearly that much. There was one where 3 officers sued, and the City WON that lawsuit (though the legal defense cost $100,000.00 or so), and another where the Department was sued over the death of a man who had been in the City's custody but who actually died 5 days later in the custody of another agency in Montgomery County. In that suit the City's insurance company chose to settle for $90,000.00 because they believed the cost of defending the suit would be much higher than that.

$100,000.00 plus $90,000.00 is a far cry from "Millions of Dollars" Mayor Purzner.

The Mayor failed to mention that the St. Louis County Courts ruled that she had overstepped here authority by attempting to remove the Chief of Police without a vote of the City Council and later ruled that she overstepped her authority again by attempting to suspend the Chief of Police without the consent of the City Council. This requirement of consent of the City Council is clear both in Overland Ordinances as well as Chapter 77 of the Missouri Revised Statutes as we have cited here several times in the past.

We can't tell you what the Mayor is talking about when it comes to the $10,000 - $30,000 in escrow that new developers are "required" to put up, and no one seems to know what she was getting at there either. I'll give her that one since no one seems to know what this is about. If you know more on this issue (or any of the others) feel free to let us know by adding a comment to this article.

Finally the Mayor says if you want City Services restored like "Free" trash services you should vote for the listed Candidates. I am having a hard time keeping up with this. A lot of the campaign literature put out by the Mayor and her supporters when she was running for the office said they would bring back "free" trash service. Then, a few month's ago Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode and others made fun of the phrase, saying that of course nothing is for free and tried to blame the use of the term on their opponents on the City Council. They started calling it "city paid" trash service after that (an issue we covered at length here). That is until now as it seems the Mayor is back to calling it "free" trash again. I think I am going to have to have score cards made to be able to keep up.

When it comes to the trash issue, there is one important question that Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers and Councilman Owensby have consistently refused to answer. How is it possible that the $616,000.00 in their budget proposal for "City Paid" trash service can pay for the $1,200,000.00+ in services the residents are currently paying? The Mayor, Councilman Knode and others have consistently claimed that they have no bids or proposals from any trash companies, yet they want us to believe that somehow the service will now cost 1/2 as much as it currently does. You would think that if Mayor Purzner, Councilman Knode and others had managed to find a way to get trash service for about half the current cost they would be shouting about this success from every rooftop. Their silence on this issue speaks volumes in my opinion. How could anyone expect the residents to support a service when it appears to be underfunded and they offer no explanation accept to belittle the question by suggesting we care "what color the truck is"?

8801 Page Redevelopment

(Satellite Picture thanks to Google Maps)

At the last Overland City Council meeting (03/12/07) a public hearing was held to consider the redevelopment of 8801 Page, a section of unused (or at least "underutilized") land next to the QuikTrip near the Page and Highway 170 intersection. There was a also Council Workshop meeting covering this issue (03/19/07). So far there has been no official announcement as to when the next public hearing or meeting on this issue might take place.

The Developer is seeking a Tax Abatement from the City of Overland. If approved the Development Area would be subject only to Real Estate taxes on the unimproved land for 10 years and subject to only 50% of the total tax liability for the land and the improvements for the following 5 years. This would mean a significant savings to the property owner that could be passed along to future tenants, making the property more attractive for leasing.

I have no issue with development projects in Overland. Personally I welcome them, and I am glad to see Mr. Cozad and others take an interest in this property in particular. However, the proposal, as presented, is not "ready for prime time" in my opinion. That is not to say that we shouldn't move forward with this project in the future. We just do not have enough details to move forward with it at this time.

The Development Plan for 8801 Page, as presented does not include any specific detail of what will be built there. The closest it comes is on page 1 (2nd paragraph) where it says:

This plan is submitted to the Overland Redevelopment Corporation, a Missouri Redevelopment Corporation in good standing (the "353" corporation), to facilitate and incentivize the redevelopment for mixed commercial use of the Redevelopment Area which is currently vacant and underutilized. The redevelopment proposed by the 353 Corporation and its successors for the Redevelopment Area will additionally result in job creation and increased tax revenue, and will serve as a catalyst for future economic development efforts.

and Page 3, section B where it says:

This plan proposes the wholesale redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area including the completion of fill and finish grading of the entire site, installation of water service, sanitary and storm sewerage, installation of on-site parking and vehicular access, provision of landscaping and construction of new mixed use facilities consisting of retail, office and service commercial, supported by either multi-story hotel development or light industrial uses, based upon market demand and potential user interest for each such use (collectively the "Redevelopment Project").

Based on these descriptions, just about anything could be built there without risking the loss of the proposed Tax Abatement. On the up side, the property is approximately 15 feet below Page and needs a lot of work done before it is ready for development, so a Tax Abatement would seem reasonable here. On the down side, there seems to be no restriction on what the Developer can build there.

Normally, Cities give tax Abatements in an effort to convince a developer to bring something in that would benefit the City. Though this is entirely possible with this development, there are no guarantees. Of course any deal like this includes a certain amount of speculation and risk on the part of all parties. However, this deal is so open ended as to what might be built there we have no way of knowing how it would possibly impact the City.

At the Workshop meeting I asked Tom Cunningham (the Attorney representing the City on this project), what happens if hypothetically all of the developers best laid plans fall through and say a parking garage facility is built there (or something else of minimal value to the City). Mr. Cunningham responded by saying that the Agreement was "Self Policing". If the developer doesn't build they don't get the Abatement. That seemed like a reasonable answer at the time. However, after reviewing both the Development Agreement and the Development Plan the language is so open ended I am not entirely sure that there is anything the Developer could build there (other than some sort of Residential project) that would not fall into one of the definitions above. As a result, there seem to be few,if any, limitations on this Tax Abatement and few, if any, protections for the City.

Most Developers provide detailed plans to Cities when seeking tax abatements and the like. Development plans are typically highly detailed, include drawing and site plans. This proposal however has none of that. Though the developer did provide of folder to the Council that included drawings and the like, and does have those drawing and site plans on their web site for prospective tenants to review, they are not included in the Development Plan. If they are not in the Development Plan (or Agreement) they are not legally binding.

The Developer has explained the lack of detail by saying that they need the tax abatement now, as a selling point to bring in potential tenants. While I sympathize with the developers position, I am not convinced we need to sign off on a deal that is devoid of detail.

When people rent homes, they often sign a lease contingent on the property successfully completing the Occupancy permit inspection. In Real Estate, contracts with contingency arrangements are the norm. I would think that this developer could market the site to prospective tenants and sign leases contingent on the tax abatement proposal being approved. Then once he has a reasonable number of tenants lined up he could come before the City seeking the Tax Abatement. He would be negotiating from a much stronger position because he would have deals in place that depended on the Abatement. He would also be able to provide a much more detailed plans for the City to consider, as he would now have a better idea of what his prospective tenants seek as well.

At that point, I seriously doubt the Developer would have any issue receiving an abatement from the City. No one on the Council now, and none of the possible future Council members I have been able to talk to on this issue oppose the plan in general. However, several are leery of signing off on a deal when no hard details are provided. That is understandable. Think about it. If someone came to you and said they want to Rehab your house, but they are not sure exactly what they would work on. Maybe the bathroom, maybe the kitchen, maybe finish the basement. They won't commit to specifically what they are going to do but they assure you that whichever project they decide to complete, your property value will increase. Would you cut them a check and say go ahead?

I have no reason to believe that Mr. Cozad or anyone else involved in this deal intends to do wrong by Overland in any way. I would love to see this property developed, and I happen to like the look of the drawings that appear on Cozad Commercial Real Estate LTD.'s website promoting the site. I just can't see the City giving away its only bargaining chip on such an unknown. In my opinion, the City should ask the Developer to come back to them to revisit this proposal when he has more detailed plans available. Perhaps the Council could pass a Resolution stating that they are open to passing the Tax Abatement should the developer return with more detailed plans for them to consider. That might be a helpful sales tool for the Developer when negotiating with prospective tenants.

One other Issue I had with this arrangement was in the Development Agreement itself, page 4, section 11.:

Modifications to this Agreement. The Developer or any of the Developer's successors or assigns and any affected developer or sub-developer may make minor modifications to or departures from the Plan without the City's consent. Any modification that substantially departs from this Agreement or the Plan shall require prior approval by the Developer, the affected developers or sub-developers, and the City.

Looking into this provision I've found that it is customary in agreements like this. It is designed to streamline the process. For example, if the Development Plan calls for red striping on buildings and the Developer decides to go with blue instead that would be a "minor" change that the developer could make without seeking a vote of the City Council. That seems reasonable, and would be acceptable if there was any level of detail regarding this development in the Development Plan or the Development Agreement presented. With such a non-committal, open-ended plan I have to wonder, what would be considered a "minor" change? If a more typical, detailed development plan was presented to the City I probably wouldn't have an issue with this item. As it stands now, the lack of detail in the Plan and the Agreement calls the meaning of the word "minor" and this provision into question for me.

I believe this development has the potential to greatly benefit Overland. I just feel that the "plan" as it stands, is not ready for serious consideration. We are continuing to investigate various aspects of this proposal and will follow up and on any progress or new developments as they come up.

Ultimately there seems to be little reason to rush on this as the Development Agreement itself does not even require the Developer to have controlling ownership of all the land within the Development Area until December 31st, 2012 (Development Agreement, page 2, section 3.). I still welcome and support this Development Project and look forward to the time when the Development Plan is detailed enough to allow a successful vote of Overland City Council on this Tax Abatement (which will likely be be unanimous).

For your review here is the relevant documentation I've gathered on this project:

The Development Agreement:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5

(The remaining two pages were simply signature pages. We did not post these pages because we didn't feel they were necessary. However, if you would like to see them please feel free to email me by clicking here and I will scan and email them to you)

The Development Plan:

Cover Page
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

(additional pages were the exhibits, which included the Certificate of Incorporation for the Overland Redevelopment Corp., the legal definition of the Development Area and an extensive relocation plan for residents or businesses in the effected area (that is required by State statute to be included even though there is nothing needing relocation within the proposed Redevelopment Area). We did not post these pages because we didn't feel they were necessary. However, if you would like to see them please feel free to email me by clicking here and I will scan and email them to you).

Links to other information:

Overland Redevelopment Corporation Filings
Cozad Group Listing for 8801 Page
8801 Page Flyer from Cozad Group


If you know of any other information sources on this proposal feel free to let us know.

Overland Debate DVDs

As you all know from this post The Overland Examiner was able to tape the Overland Council Candidates Debate. What you might not know is that we also put together a DVD of this event. We contacted all of the candidates as well as the Mayor offering a free copy to them. 5 responded positively, while 4 chose not to respond at at all. I have no idea why someone would not want a free copy of this DVD as well as the opportunity to copy and distribute it to their constituents (or prospective constituents). However, the lack of response from Mayor Ann Purzner, Councilman Knode and Councilman Sellers, (Edited: as Candidate Keller contacted me on 3/23/07 asking for a copy of the DVD)suggests they have no interest in providing this information to you.

Since they are apparently not interested in these DVDs that leaves us with a few more we can hand out to Overland Residents. This DVD is the complete debate. The only edits to the video are where we cut and merged files to allow us to break the DVD up into 3 chapters, which are:

• Opening Statements
• The Questions portion
• Closing Statements.

This DVD is Copyright John Moyle of The Overland Examiner with some rights reserved. However, as we clearly point out in the Terms of Use on the DVD, we encourage those who can, to copy and distribute it so long as they use the entire DVD, do not edit it in any way, and credit The Overland Examiner as the source. The only other limitation we have is that this DVD cannot be used for any commercial purposes without written consent from John Moyle of The Overland Examiner.

If you would like a copy of this DVD all you need to do is email me by clicking here and we can work out how to get one to you. Supplies are limited so if your interested please email me right away. This is a FREE service, we are not charging for these DVDs and we only ask that once you've watched it you pass it along to another interested resident and encourage them to do the same.

On another note, I am proud to announce that The Media Giraffe Project recently published a Scout Report on our efforts here. The Media Giraffe Project promotes Citizen Media efforts and is associated with the University of Massachusetts - Amherst as well as the Giraffe Heroes Project.

I've known about the Giraffe Heroes Project and the Media Giraffe Project for some time. They seek to promote civic involvement and community development by highlighting people working for change on their own. The Giraffe Heroes Project has a program for schools that uses real people and their efforts to show children that anyone can make a difference (A program I hope the Ritenour school district will adopt in the near future). The Giraffe Heroes Project's seeks to teach that you can "Stick Your Neck Out" and effect positive change (which is also the title of the book by John Graham on the subject). The Media Giraffe Project focuses on Citizen Media efforts designed to "foster participatory democracy and community". They focus on identifying and highlighting "Media Giraffes", because they believe "focusing on the stories of individual people is the best way to inspire additional leadership and action." Both are organizations worthy of your time, attention and donations.

I am proud to announce that our efforts here have been recognized by The Media Giraffe Project. The Overland Examiner's primary purpose is to help inform the residents of Overland, Missouri and fill the role of "City Hall Watchdog" to the best of our ability. That will always be our main mission here. However, we do hope to soon expand the site to cover all the news in Overland as we believe that City Hall is only one of the many areas residents of Overland could use better information. We are developing this "bigger and better" version of the Examiner as time and money allow.

In the end, this recognition would not have happened if we didn't have our readers. You've been supportive, informative in your own right, and occasionally critical. I wouldn't have it any other way. Thank you for your continued support. Without it, this site would have likely disappeared a long time ago. It's our readers that keep this project alive and keep me motivated (though excessive energy still comes from coffee by the gallon). Thank You Very Much For Your Support!

One Last Note: Remember there is a Council Workshop Meeting Scheduled for 6:00PM today at the Overland Community Center. The subject of this meeting is supposed to be the proposed Cozad Development at 8801 Page Avenue. The number one question I have on this issue is: Why is the City considering giving a Tax incentive for this program when the people behind it will not commit to what the project will be or even if they will continue to own and operate it long term? I hope to see you all there.

Overland Canidates Debate 03/14/07

Thanks to The League of Women Voters and the Overland Lions Club the residents of Overland, Missouri had an opportunity to attend a debate between candidates for the City Council. The Overland Examiner requested permission to tape this event so that we could make it available to all interested residents who might not have been able to attend.

What follows are a series of video clips for the event. Limits on file sizes and time lengths at YouTube required me to break the video up into shorter clips. I tried to break it up into logical segments for easy viewing. My approach was to separate each candidates opening and closing statements, and treat each debate question individually.

Though you can watch the videos in the small windows that appear in this article, we recommend you click the link below each one to see them at full size at YouTube.com.

There can always be technical issues with projects like this. We had two problems with this one. The first was my fault; I made a bad lens choice at the start of the event. You will see my hand, and have a hard time hearing the second question asked by the moderator which was “Will you work on obtaining a City Administrator?”. I decided to make the lens change to allow for a closer zoom on the candidates. Unfortunately there wasn’t a good point to make this change. Any insights from palm readers and the like can be sent to me via email here.

The second problem we had was the way the camera handles its video files. The camera starts a new file every 30 minutes or so. Since the debate was nearly an hour and a half long the camera saved it as 3 files. This resulted in two points where the camera saved one file and started another in the middle of a speaker’s comments. The first time this happened was when Mary Beth Conlon was talking about housing code. I merged the two portions into one file for ease of viewing. As a result you will see a small jump in the video. Nothing was lost or changed. The Second time was when Tim Jones was talking about state audits. This break happened right at the end of his statement as he was saying the word “Overland” which caused that word to be marginally distorted after the two parts were merged. Other than that distortion, nothing was lost or changed. We had no other technical issues at this event.

The clips were marginally edited. When we could, we took out dead time (such as well the microphone gets passed from one end of the table to the other if the moderator was not speaking). Otherwise, the footage is unedited. We will gladly work with any interested parties to make the raw footage (approximately 5 gigs in all) available (with some use limitations as described below).

These video clips are Copyright 2007 John Moyle of The Overland Examiner with Some Rights Reserved. We are making these video clips freely available to everyone. We welcome and encourage everyone who can, to host these videos on their own sites with some limitations. Those limitations are that any clip used be copied in its entirety and not be edited in any way. We further require that you state on the site hosting them that the clip(s) is being reproduced there "with the permission of John Moyle of The Overland Examiner" and include a link back to this article. Finally we specifically forbid the use of any of these clips for Commercial purposes without written consent from John Moyle. If you have questions or concerns about these limitations please feel free to email me here.

Please, enjoy these videos, and remember to vote on April 3rd. The polls will open at 6AM and remain so until 7PM. If you have any questions or concerns about voting, please visit this article where we've compiled a number of links to resources for voters. We also have a list of the Candidates including contact information here. If you have any questions or concerns for us at The Overland Examiner please feel free to email me by clicking here.

Tech Note: if you view these videos on this site after watching several you might start finding videos that will play, but without sound. If that happens refresh the page and you should be fine.

Opening of the Debate:

(full size)

Opening Statements:

Eedie Cuminale................Councilman Knode
.....
(Full Size)........................(Full Size)

Mary Beth Conlon...............Councilman Sellers
.....
(Full Size).....................................

Michael Oakes....................Peggy Keller
.....
(Full Size).......................(Full Size)

Tim Jones........................Sherry Karr
.....
(Full Size).......................(Full Size)

Debate Questions:

1> "How would you attempt to establish a working relationship with the St. Louis County and State of Missouri Economic Development Councils as well as the East-West Gateway Development Coordinating Committee?"

(full size)

2> "Will you work on obtaining a City Administrator?"

(full size)

3> "What do you see as plans to enforce the housing code?"

(full size)

4> "What is your opinion of occupancy permits?"

(full size)

5> "How do you feel about Immigration Ordinances?"

(full size)

6> "Can you somehow work into the budget trash pickup and a swimming pool?"

(full size)

7> "Are you for or against a State Audit of the City of Overland?"

(full size)

8> "What do you think should be done with the buildings at Wild Acres?"

(full size)

Closing Statements:

Sherry Karr........................Tim Jones
.....
(Full Size).......................(Full Size)

Peggy Keller....................Michael Oakes
.....
(Full Size).......................(Full Size)

Mary Beth Conlon...............Councilman Sellers
....
(Full Size).....................................

Councilman Knode................Eedie Cuminale
.....
(Full Size)........................(Full Size)

Closing of the Debate:

(full size)

I hope that you found the above videos useful. If you have any questions or concerns about these videos or The Overland Examiner in general, please feel free to email me by clicking here as comments are not enabled on this post.

City Council Meeting 03/12/07

The Council meeting of March 12th started out OK. Several businesses were approved for licenses in Overland, the Council approved the use of the Woodson Municipal parking lot for the 2007 Overland Business Association Spring Fest (May 4th and 5th), and a resident reminded us that the Overland Police Department was one of the few locally who did exceptionally well during an investigative report by KTVI News where people were sent in to ask for complaint forms. Councilman O'Connell referenced the March Newsweek article where the American Institute of Architects named the Alberici Headquarters in Overland as the #1 green project in the country. BRAVO Alberici!!

It was nice to see the Mayor cheering so enthusiastically considering how strongly she opposed Alberici when they originally came to Overland. Looks like Mayor Purzner is finally on board with them now.

The meeting was led by a public hearing about the 8801 Page development project. The Council voted to table the Ordinance associated with this project so they could properly review the material presented. We will be covering this project later this week as some questions were raised about it and we are investigating. I will present what our research turns up prior to the Council Workshop meeting scheduled to address this issue on Monday (March 19th, 6PM, at the Community Center). I'll present what our research turns up prior to the Council Workshop meeting scheduled to address this issue on Monday (March 19th, 6PM, at the Community Center). Video of the hearing is available in two parts: Part 1, Part 2 (part 2 includes concerns raised by Douglas Baum, CFO of the Ritenour School District).

Once again, the City's acting Public Works Director, Roland Lettner was not in attendance. Mayor Purzner claimed that he injured his knee, could not walk, and may need surgery. Though I hope Mr. Lettner is well soon, his frequent absences from Council meetings are a problem. Mr. Lettner was not present at the previous Council meeting (which was of little consequence as the meeting failed to take place due to a lack of a quorum), and has missed several meetings prior. I can understand that there are times when Mr. Lettner cannot make meetings due to illness, injury or even scheduling conflicts. What bothers me is that there is no one there from Public Works at all.

Mr. Lettner is not alone at Public Works, people work under him. When Mr. Lettner cannot make a meeting why is it that no one from Public Works appears in his place? Why doesn't our Streets Director stand in for him? How are the Council and our concerned residents supposed to get answers from an empty chair? Not being able to attend a meeting is understandable; not making provisions to ensure someone is there in your place in inexcusable. If the acting Public Works Director cannot ensure there is representation from his department at all Council meetings then perhaps he should stop acting.

Also at this meeting the bill for the $53000.00 new Dump Truck for Public Works was approved. I am not sure if the old one (with a stop sign for floor boards) will be taken out of service or kept in reserve. It's nice to see those hard working folks finally getting better equipment.

The Mayor announced the creation of an Emergency Management Committee. This Committee seems to have been named without input for the City's Emergency Manager, Chief Herron. Among the names I didn't hear was our City's Community Police Officer who is highly trained and qualified, or several residents who've expressed interest in getting a volunteer organization going. I also didn't hear any names I recognized from the C.E.R.T. (Community Emergency Response Team) class that Overland held several years ago (though I might have missed someone). I would like to know what Mayor Purzner based these appointments on? There are many residents in Overland with Emergency Management, Volunteer Fire, Construction, and Emergency Medical expertise. Are any of them on this new Committee?

At the beginning of the meeting several resident comments were missed when the Mayor decided to answer what one resident said, without stopping the 15 minute clock. Near the end of the Meeting, Mayor Puzner, Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers, and Councilman Owensby all walked out (without a majority vote to adjourn). As a result, residents seeking redress from their government through resident comments once again could not be heard.

There was a heated exchange about lawsuits filed against the City. Councilman May made a motion that the City restore the promotions and raises that were improperly taken from four Police Officers in order to end the unnecessary expense of the the lawsuit the 4 officers had to file. Mayor Purzner claims these promotions cannot go into effect if the budget is not passed. However, per state statute the City is legally operating off of last year's budget. These positions are not new, they are vacated positions at the department that need to be filled. There are no new expenditures here, so there should be no reason these officers cannot receive the promotions and raises that go along with them as these jobs existed in previous budgets. For your review we covered this issue originally back in August 2006 both here and here.

The result of that exchange was the Mayor seeking to adjourn the meeting. Though there were not enough votes to do so, Mayor Purzner and Councilman Knode, Sellers, and Owensby once again walked out of the meeting. As a result this issue is still unresolved. The City has already had to pay $23,000.00 or so in legal fees and the case is far from over. Anyone looking at the facts of the case can see that the City will lose because the actions of the Mayor were not in keeping with Overland Policy, Employment Law or State Statute. The Mayor and her supporting Council members will not even discuss ways to mitigate the costs here. It's the residents who will be stuck with the bill.

Another problem with this walk out is that the Executive Session scheduled to follow the meeting never happened (rumored to be needed to address how the termination of a city employee was handled). The Mayor later claimed that there were no plans to hold an executive session after the Council Meeting. However, the Agenda for the March 12th, 2007 Council Meeting clearly shows one on the schedule as item #16.

Councilman Knode walked out rather than deal with these issues as well. On his website Councilman Knode says he believes in delivering:

• Increased Accountability to Tax Payers
• Tighter Fiscal Controls & Accountability
• Oversight of Expenses/Contracts
• More Honest & Transparent Government

Residents have asked Councilman Knode how $616,000.00 in his budget proposal will pay for 1.2 million or so in trash services? But he will not answer or provide any specifics (other than to belittle these concerns by suggesting we care what color the truck will be). Councilman Knode as Budget Committee Chairman went 6 months without a Budget Committee meeting even though we still do not have a budget. He has not called for a vote on the budget at Council meetings in months. Now, rather than discuss ways to reduce the cost of these lawsuits (and prevent others) for the taxpayers he walks out of the meeting. Councilman Knode may say he wants to deliver the above to Overland Residents but actions speak louder than words.

So far the legal expenses to the City have included:

• $23,000.00 in legal fees Paid so far for the promotion fiasco lawsuit
• $21,000.00 in legal fees and judgements due to the Sunshine Law suit
• $6000.00 or so in fees to investigators and others due to personnel issues

With at least one case still in court and several other lawsuits possible due to improper handling of personnel issues these expenses are only likely to increase.

One interesting funny moment was when Councilman Owensby questioned Chief Herron, stating that residents in his neighborhood have seen the chief's car in the area frequently. Councilman Owensby went on to ask the Chief if he needed his Cell number to get in touch with him. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone complain about the Police doing too good of a job patrolling their area before.

Councilman Owensby, residents of my neighborhood (in Ward 1) have seen your "green machine" (car) on our block frequently, even parked in front of my house at least once. I am wondering Councilman Owensby, did you lose the phone number I left on your answering machine? Are you not aware that you can email me here? Councilman Owensby, you're welcome to come up and knock on the door, I'd welcome the opportunity to talk to you. Of course I am not suggesting that Councilman Owensby had any questionable motives for being in my area....that would be ridiculous paranoia.

In Her Own Words

At the council meeting of March 3rd 2007 several issues where raised. Not the least of which was some issues with the proposed development on page. Also, Mayor Purzner, Councilman Owensby, Councilman Sellers and Councilman Knode all walking out of the meeting when it was not properly adjourned (the majority on the Council voted against adjournment) which also prevented the Council from going into executive session. The City is currently dealing with several lawsuits and the majority of the Council wanted to discuss options to resolve these issues. Executive Session is generally where these discussions happen. Since we could not have one I imagine the City can expect the unnecessary legal costs to continue to climb.

I am currently working on the video of the meeting as well as researching some of the issues that arose there. However, I thought I would share one piece of video early.

At this meeting while delivering the Public Works report (as the public works director was absent yet again) Mayor Purzner said something that I believe the Residents of Overland should really take to heart. She commented briefly on the concept of personal responsibility and how actions have consequences. It will be interesting to see how many residents agree with her position on these issues come April 3rd.

The Trash Talk Continues

"Blue Eyes", a poster at OverlandChat, states in this post that former Councilperson Mary Beth Conlon voted for having residents pay for trash service. "Blue Eyes" is not alone, as Councilman Sellers has made this false claim in the past as well.

"Blue Eyes" suggested people "look it up".......I Did.

For your review:

At the June 28th, 2004 Council Meeting the Council voted on the General Revenue Budget for 2004/2005. This vote can be seen in the publicly available minutes of June 28th, 2004 Council Meeting on page 15. There you will see that Councilperson Conlon clearly voted NO on the General Revenue Budget for 2004/2005 (which included the change in trash service).

Councilman Stuckey moved that Bill No. 43-2004, AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CURRENT REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF OVERLAND GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004 AND JUNE 30, 2005, be adopted as Ordinance No. 2004-43. Councilman Saye seconded the motion. Mayor Dody polled the vote as follows: Paul - Yes; May - Yes; Stuckey - Yes; Conlon - No; Purzner - No; Owensby - No; Corcoran - No; Saye - Yes. (Yes - 4; No - 4). Mayor Dody voted YES, breaking the tie vote.
(emphasis mine)

Further research shows that at the January 10th, 2005 Council meeting, the Council voted on amending the contract with Allied Waste (dba Midwest Waste). That vote was to change the contract to start billing the residents for the services. This vote can be seen in the publicly available minutes of Jan 10th, 2005 Council Meeting on page 6. Once again former Councilperson Conlon voted NO on this measure, which made the contract change to begin having residents pay for trash service.

Councilman Stuckey moved that Bill No. 03-2005, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OVERLAND, MISSOURI, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT FOR THE COLLECTION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF NON-HAZARDOUS RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE, YARD WASTE AND RECYCLING WITH ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, LLC D/B/A MIDWEST WASTE, be adopted as Ordinance No. 2005-03. Councilman Paul seconded the motion. Mayor Dody polled the vote as follows: Paul - Yes; May - Yes; Stuckey - Yes; Conlon - No; Purzner - No; Owensby - No; Corcoran - Yes; Saye - Yes. Motion carried.
(emphasis mine)

It is clear to anyone who takes a moment to review the documentation that former Councilperson Conlon voted against having the residents pay for Trash service.

"you are entitled to your own opinions,
but not your own facts"
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927 - 2003)

Should I feel flattered of violated?

Recently a new feature was added to Councilman Knode's web site). That feature was actually the video I shot of the Budget Committee meeting of 02/22/07. As that video was shot by me and originally appeared on The Overland Examiner it is copyrighted material. That particular video was poor in quality in my opinion (lens issue I believe). Also, Councilman Knode had his own camera setup at that meeting (but chose to use my video instead of his own). I guess I should be flattered.

I actually have no issue with Councilman Knode or anyone else using my material. As the Creative Commons License (in the footer section at the bottom of this web site) clearly states, people are free to use my material so long as they do not modify it, they attribute the work and they do not use it for commercial purposes. When using content from this site for non-commercial purposes all someone needs to do is reference that it originally came from John Moyle (or Overland Sailor) at The Overland Examiner and link back to the article it originally appear in (in this case: here). This was not done on Councilman Knode's site.

Originally I emailed and called Councilman Knode so we could correct this issue. I pointed out that all he needed to do to use that video on his site without violating my Copyright would be to attribute the work by adding that the video was copyright John Moyle of The Overland Examiner and provide a link to where it first appeared (here). However, considering the fact that Councilman Knode never calls me back when I call and he hasn't responded to email from me in months I decided to take a proactive approach to this violation of my rights. I pulled the video from Google video and re-posted it without the ability to embed it into a web site (as you might imagine, I have yet to hear from Councilman Knode on this issue). I still have no issue with Councilman Knode using that video if he would simply respect my copyright by attributing the work and linking back to where it originally appeared.

Councilman Knode's response to this situation is to post the following on his site in place of the video:

Sorry,

But the GOOGLE LINK to this previously uploaded video has been modified by complaining parties in order to prevent the viewing of the public February 22nd 2007 Budget Committee Meeting as previously available at this public link.

(...we must have hit a nerve or two....)

We continue to keep you informed.....

The above message, though it appears in the window the video previously appeared in on Councilman Knode's web site is not a message from Google. This statement completely mischaracterizes the situation as well. The public is not prevented from viewing this video (as it can be seen here). The change in hosting of the video is simply to prevent people like Councilman Knode for violating my Copyright and using the video without properly attributing it. For your review, the original article I wrote about the Budget Committee meeting of 02/22/07 where this video was originally linked can be seen here.

This appears to be yet another example of how little regard Councilman Knode and others have for the law and the rights of others. Something I certainly will remember on April 3rd.

The Red Light Camera Issue

Recently, Councilman Knode posted on his website (in the scrolling text section) his own take on the traffic committee meeting that covered the Red Light Camera issue. I made it clear that I was unable to attend that meeting when I briefly referenced the issue on this site earlier in the week. In my article that covered the City Council Meeting of 02/26/07 I mentioned several areas of concern I came across when researching the history of these devices. I went on to say:

The City, and the company seeking to bring their service into Overland will need to show how all of these various issues listed above are not a problem before we should seriously consider entering into a contract for this service.

Based on what I read about these cameras and the legal history associated with them I voiced concerns that I feel need to be addressed before the City should enter into a contract for this service.

On Councilman Knode's website he says:

So if you read someone else's report on the meeting and they give it a negative report, find out why before you decide who is telling the truth. Call ATS (American Traffic Solutions) representative Mr. Dan Reeb [I'm not reposting the phone numbers unless I hear from Mr. Reeb that he is OK with that]. You can also contact retired St. Louis County Police Chief Ron Battelle at [ not reposting the phone number unless I hear it is OK from Chief Battelle].

First, I would like to point out again, as I made clear in my article, I was not at this meeting. The concerns I voiced were with the cameras in general and the host of problems that have been associated with them in the past. I'd welcome hearing from either of these gentleman about the cameras. I 'd also like to hear what they have to say in regard to how their systems would not be subject to the same problems that have plagued other systems in the past.

As for American Traffic Systems (ATS) I would love to hear from them in particular in regard to the host of independent studies that suggest Red Light cameras may reduce "t-bone" type accidents at the expense of increasing rear end collisions.

I welcome hearing from Retired Chief Battelle as well. I would like to know what his opinion is on how easy these cameras are to defeat, and the potential for abuse of the system.

I'd welcome an opportunity to speak to Judge Vatterott to better understand the possible constitutional issues associated with these systems. I'd welcome a professional legal opinion on how this system, and Overland's use of it will be able to avoid the various lawsuits other municipalities have been subjected to, like the class action lawsuit I referenced in my last article.

Any of these folks (or anyone else) are welcome to contact me via email.

Based on what I've read about these systems so far, they look like a bad idea for Overland. The current administration has racked up some serious legal expenses for the City that continue to increase (like the current case in federal court were 4 of our fine Police officers have been forced to file suit against the city because the Mayor pulled there promotions will out following normal procedure or statute (as detailed here)). As a result I want to know that we are on solid legal grounds before proceeding with a system such as this. The last thing Overland needs is more lawsuits.

What intrigues me is that Councilman Knode doesn't seem interested in the various issues associated with this camera and suggests that we contact the company seeking this contract to get the truth. Why is is that Councilman Knode is ignoring all the issues raised? How can he expect us to support something with all these unanswered questions on the table? Is the company seeking the contract really the best source of information regarding all of these concerns?

I am always open to more information, and if this company and others can show that these cameras would be viable in Overland and would not put the City at a greater legal risk then I might be convinced to support it myself. Either way I would certainly present their information on this site.

On key area for me is whether or not a cost-benefit analysis has been done. I'd like to know how much this will cost the City for the service (including what's ATS's cut of each ticket issued?). I'd like to have the numbers and projections so we can compare them to what it would cost Overland to hire additional police officers for traffic enforcement. A human being is always a better law enforcement tool (and more versatile in emergencies) than a machine in my opinion Though sometimes additional Officers are not cost effective. I would like to see the hard numbers so we can judge this for ourselves.

However, considering Councilman, and Budget Committee Chairman Knode's record of getting hard numbers to the residents regarding the proposed "City Paid" trash service, Budget Proposals, etc, I'm not going to be surprised if no hard numbers are provided on this issue as well.

Councilman Knode suggested he could give us details before when asked about the various "City Paid" trash services:

We're still waiting for those details Councilman Knode.