Current conditions
Overcast
Complete forecast sponsored by
St. Joseph did not apply for aid
Officials explain decision
Two explanations - one short and one long - tell why St. Joseph missed out on millions in government aid this week to address its sewer problem.
Gov. Jay Nixon revealed more than 50 Missouri communities that would receive funding for wastewater and drinking water projects Monday as part of the $266 million Work Now initiative. More than half of the money came from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act - also known as the federal stimulus - while state revolving funds from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources covered the remainder.
St. Joseph and its $450 million combined sewer overflow woes didn't make the list.
Judd Slivka, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, provided the short explanation for St. Joseph's absence.
"There's a simple reason," he said. "They didn't apply."
City officials don't dispute the claim, which leads to the long explanation.
St. Joseph has made multiple overtures to state and federal lawmakers to attract stimulus funds. However, it did not apply for the DNR's annual state revolving fund program. In fact, the city has not sought state revolving funds since the 1990s for two primary reasons: the application process requires the city to obtain voter-approved bonds, and the money comes in the form of low-interest loans which must be repaid. While a small amount of grant money is available through the program, it almost always goes to smaller communities.
City Manager Vince Capell said no one ever told the city it had to apply for a state loan to obtain a federal grant.
"It's like they assume the cities seeking SRF funds are the entire universe of those that need stimulus money, when in fact there are several legitimate reasons for communities like St. Joseph not to take part in the SRF program," he said.
Mr. Slivka said DNR used the state revolving funds application process to allocate federal stimulus funds because the state chose to issue its stimulus money as a 50-50 match, with communities receiving up to $3 million in stimulus money. For example, a $67 million project in Columbia, Mo., included a $3 million federal stimulus grant and $64 million in state loans that the city used to pay for voter-approved bonds.
"Everybody wants to get money, everybody wants to get a grant, but they have to demonstrate a willingness to put a little skin in the game," Mr. Slivka said.
City officials claim their combined sewer overflow project would not have been eligible for funding even if they had applied. DNR regulations require cities to provide a completed facilities plan to receive state revolving funds. In this case, design elements must be completed in time for the project to go up for bids by Jan. 15, 2010. The city's sewer consultant, Black & Veatch, isn't expected to complete the facilities plan until June 1 of next year.
"They could walk in today with $100 million and if we wanted to apply now, we couldn't do it," Assistant Public Works Director Andy Clements said.
Mayor Ken Shearin sent a letter to the governor's office Thursday, requesting a meeting next week on the issue. Mr. Capell said the city's legal staff is exploring whether the city has additional options to obtain a chunk of federal funds.
For now, the city will pursue its sewer situation as originally planned.
"It's a timing thing. If this would have happened a year and a half or two years from now, it would have lined up perfect for us," Public Works Director Bruce Woody said.
Clinton Thomas can be reached
at clintonthomas@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Expand
Policy
Comments are the responsibility of the person posting them. Comments will be removed if they: threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin religion or disability; ...
... contain abusive, vulgar or sexually oriented language; spread rumors or lies; or are written in all caps. Please stay on topic. Brief quotes are OK as long as the source is given. Comments must be 250 words or fewer. Newspressnow.com moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy.
Steve_O says...
Drop the Ball, then Pass the Buck !!!!
November 14, 2009 at 1:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trixie says...
No worries Steve_O, Mayor Ken has requested a meeeeting. LOL
November 14, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
xanzzz says...
This type of stuff gets people fired in the real world. It would not have taken much effort to look into and double check to make sure they were doing what they needed to do to be eligible to get the money.
Now we as taxpayers have to pay for other places to get their sewers fixed as well as our own.
November 14, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dges says...
If it would have been money to revitalize the black hole money pit we call downtown St.Joe .You can bet they would have been their licking their chop's
November 14, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
as i understand it, st joseph has very little, or no, bond debt. is this a part of the managerial style of the city manager? if the application process included a bond issue, would the voters have actually approved it?
Nobody told us?????? huh? otoh, there is so much confusion and insanity as this federal administration vomits "stimulus" funding into the pipeline, it is not impossible to credit a mistake, even though the city administration is at the same time indicating that our sewer project isn't "shovel ready ( i really loathe that term). i am at least heartened to see the comment by bruce woody, a man i believe is utterly genuine.
what i am looking at is the statement which claims that the stimulus money is being offered as a 50-50 match. the example of columbia and the 3 mil/64 mil ......... okay my math is shaky, but that doesn't add up.
November 14, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabble_Rouser says...
This is is inexcusable!!!!!!!! You could be sure that if this were stimulus money that could be used downtown it would not have been overlooked. This is a huge deal and should not be overlooked. Someones feet should be held to the fire over this mistake.
November 14, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlueMoon1941 says...
Brother, There is something wrong < No wonder St Joe keeps going downhill, you know what, might as well give up,
November 14, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i don't get all the ire about downtown?????? for that matter, the combined sewers are for the most part located in the historic districts, are they not? that would presumably include downtown.
the ARRA funding procedure is a labyrinth. there are nuances and qualifications which make careful consideration of each offering vital. i approve of accepting stimulus funds which do not create a perpetual unfunded situation once the monies are used up. those which simply create a new layer of govt are best left on the side of the road.
the shovel ready aspect of these applications is a genuine concern. there are only two ways to apply for these funds. one is if you by the simple grace of timing have a Valid approved project which just happens to coincide with the government's torturous application process. this process is completely uncharted waters, and the feds are flying by the seat of their pants, with local governments left with their proverbial landing gear up and a touch down imminent.
the second aspect of ARRA is fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. communities are dusting off old, invalid, unapproved projects for application, just BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE. these projects often did not pass muster on their first, second or often third tries because they were completely without just cause, or fatally flawed. the result is that many complete boondoggles are being financed by our tax dollars.
it certainly would seem that the administration may have missed this window of opportunity. however, i don't think it is possible to judge the extent of the problem from the information given i this article.
November 14, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
retired_man says...
one more reason City Manager Vince Capell should be fired!!!!
November 14, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
johncourter says...
This is another example of a result of a community not committing to investing in itself for future state progression. It is very simple in my view. If a measure was ran to gain voter support for bonds about this issue, would it have passed. The community struggles with supporting its educational processes into future state, so now we are going to slam city hall for this. That is not the correct approach. Until this entire community to change its mindset and culture to work together on moving forward into the future, issues like this will continually surface. St. Joseph has a reputation for the way it does business, it is very evident on the outside and within the political arena. That also hurts this community. It needs to change across the board in every infrastructure issue facing the city or we will continue to loose out on opportunities for our growth. This is a city of over 80 thousand people, we can do much better for our progression.
November 14, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
The city should have enlisted the downtown partnership they would have got results. They rammed a Quiet zone and DREAM projects down our throats. At least some full time jobs exist in trying to renovate the downtown, and by the way it's going they are going to be at it for quite some time. Apparently it's much easier to entice bars and restaurants than industry that pays a livable wage. We can hope the cities that did get off their thumbs and jump through the government hoops build something cool with our tax dollars. Perhaps when we go to Columbia we can say "oh that's cool".
November 14, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
The reason for having a professional City Manager.....is to have professional city management.
It is clear St Joseph does not have professional city management.
The only excuse for this catastrophic oversight is that the City Manager is BRAIN DEAD.
This is too big a mistake to casually explain it away.
November 14, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
I've given a lot of thought to this today. Here are a couple of points that should be made:
1. The bureaucrats in the state government took the easy route of the existing programs which required bonds rather than trying to craft a program to address the most crucial problems. Easier, didn't have to think. Unfortunately St. Joe got caught in a catch 22 on it. No bonds no money.
2. The head of the chamber of commerce has repeatedly made the point that one reason this city has problems is the unwillingness of the electorate to vote for general obligation bonds for capital projects. We can barely get the CIP passed let alone really big ticket items. So instead we limp along.
3. Our politicians failed us. Shearin has been wound up about sewers for at least a couple of years. Where's he been? Was he down in Jeff City trying to understand the available programs? No. He went to DC and met with Graves, Bond and McCaskill. Got to fly, see the monuments, eat at a nice restaurant where they don't hit you with a steak. Where was Wildberger (at his job interview)? Where was Rucker? These guys are from the party controlling this. They were AWOL.
4. Again on our politicians, council as a whole does not want to deal with the elephant in the room ... the CDOs/sewers. They want to bicker and send nasty memos to Capell. Capell is forced to spend months of time dealing with penny ante stuff like the museum because council fails to rein in their members and get a small deal done. Fiddling while Rome burns.
On the sewers, I have a question. Decades ago we converted creeks into sewers. As a result all the regular flow of those creeks is required to be treated and adds to the CDO problem. What if we fixed that part by some proper method. That would eliminate at least some of the flow and the CDOs would be less likely to overflow into the Missouri. I assume creeks are still allowed to flow naturally into a river.
November 14, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
drb, once again, we agree on several points.
can you tell me in recent memory whether a bond issue has actually come to a ballot? i have heard often that "voters won't support a bond initiative" but has there actually been a recent effort to pass one? the CIP is a pet peeve of mine, politically and fiscally. it is the definition of a pet project pork trough in so many ways, and so like the way this city seems to shove the hard decisions off on "citizen" committees. i respect the work these committees put into the issues, but when we have elected officials who leave the hard decisions to the ocofod, cip, ...... one wonders where the buck stops and how we achieve accountability?
never mind the museum wars.... the council has spent months on the recently passed alcohol servers licensee issues!!!!!
November 14, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
What, so, the State says all we had to do was apply, and the city says "no one told us we had to apply".
Well, uh, well -
I'm pretty much speechless.
November 14, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OfCourseWeCan says...
As long as we're assigning blame, a load of it has to fall squarely on the shoulders of the citizens of St. Joe - especially the ones who devote their lives to thinking about why the city shouldn't do anything that involves change or spending money.
November 14, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Heritage, according to the latest adopted budget of the City, there is no outstanding debt on general obligation bonds.
The total legal debt allowed is 185 million.
There is nothing I could find on when the last GO bond debt was issued but obviously it is paid off so I would assume at least 20 years ago or more.
Gee, think what we could do with say $150 million? Do a big fix on sewers. Build a bridge over the tracks on Alabama. Build real roads in the northeast with curbs and gutters and ... gasp ... sidewalks. Bring sense and MM1967 together in peace. Well, I guess that's just wishful thinking. We'd solve Iraq first.
November 15, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
attaboy says...
heck people need to be willing to pass a bond, read the article (that is 57% in regular election 66% in a special)...additionaly I'm on a septic and make the sewer users pay not me. Plus the raising up of White and Black creeks are in the planning stages and could not meet the timeline.
The last bond was paid off 1997 or so the city needs to sell 70-90 mil in bonds to fix Mansfield Rd, Pickett Rd, Riverside Rd, Kearns Rd, Cook Rd,the bridge down south end and Easton Road. Screw the sewers I have septic.
The last bonds were passed in about 1981 to renovate Missouri Theater and build Civic Arena....
IDIOTS THE CITY WANTED TO CONTINUE THE DEBT LEVY 12 YEARS AGO AND TAKE ON SOME STREETS BUT SOME PEOPLE CALLED VOTERS SAID NO!
November 15, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
drb, thanks for confirming that information. i had understood that we currently hold no GO debt. don't want to rub salt in a wound, but sidewalks etc in the NE should have been financed in part with impact fees paid by the developers who made the profits and who created the need. another one of the administration's policies which i find incomprehensible.
attaboy, the feds will not allow the city to continue to be in violation of the now generation old clean air and water act......there will be massive fines accrued soon if we do not move on with compliance on the sewer issue.
November 15, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Heritage, the new subdivisions in the NE do have sidewalks internally (12 Oaks, Carriage Oaks, etc.) It is the areas in the NE developed prior to about 1990. There are significant areas developed in the 40s, 50s, etc. which did not have sidewalks or proper constructed streets. Now you have to realize that some of these neighborhoods were developed prior to annexation into the city. Impact fees in the St. Joseph market place are a non-starter. According to impactfees.com there are only two cities in Missouri charging them. Those are KC and Lee's Summit. About $700 and $1000 respectively. These are not widespread in the midwest. They are primarily on the coasts (CA and FL plus AZ account for about half of all in the country.)
We are different in certain respects. First, our water system is not owned by the city so impact fees would have no effect. MOAM water does charge developers. Second, most of our subdivisions are not of sufficient size and scale to support a set aside requirement for schools. Third, we do require our developers to deal with sewer costs. Just look at the Greystone development which paid for a main (or will pay for). Inside of the developments the developers pay for the sewers 100 percent. The streets inside the development are paid for by the developer 100 percent and sometimes money is set aside for adjoining street improvement. Streetlights inside the development are paid for by the developer (personally I don't care for them) 100 percent. The real impact is on the arterial streets, etc.
These are sound bite type ideas which turn out to be hollow when examined. I hope your campaign for council will not rely on such things.
November 15, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
As I recall, it was reported some time ago to be 500 million dollar estimate for the sewer upgrades that are eventually going to have to be done. Even if the stimulus funds would have gained us 100 million, that still leaves us 400 million that will have to eventually be obtained. We have seen in the last couple of years where improvements and planning have already been started and are ongoing, which the city has already paid for.
It's easy to sit here and blame our local leaders (they do share a bit of it), but for DNR to take this position is asinine. The real failures and the majority of the blame goes to state regulators.
You can only qualify for stimulus money if you make application for the SRF? How a local entity chooses to finance their projects should have absolutely no bearing on the dispersal of funds.
So how does DNR not figure the city has any "skin in the game"? What agency do you think has ordered the sewer improvements?
If they don't know what the city has or hasn't done, and they don't know the investments that have and will be made by local funding, then Governor Nixon needs to start removing DNR officials from the top down. They have been shown to be inept at handling environmental issues from industrial pollution, to lake contamination cover-ups, and to response to local concerns.
DNR has a history of ignoring the needs in St. Joseph. Some of that blame is shared by our local regulators who should be working hard to ensure this community is served as well.
November 16, 2009 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
drb, i found the reasoning expressed in a work session on impact fees to be faulty. the mantra of the developers is that they "want a level playing field". coming from the east coast i have seen impact fees at work..... simply because missouri does not now utilize this financing tool is not a particularly valid reason to completely discount them. this is the st joseph "you can't do that here" litany. if the city was not so intent on making impact fee free zones and charged a more equitable amount to the developers across the city, these fees would place the burden of some improvements on those who profit most from them. the CM discounted using impact fees because they would not produce much in the way of income( it was only $500),,,, this in a city where people begrudge a public servant a catered sandwich lunch.
i am sorry you saw my observation as a sound bite!
November 16, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
Heritage, on the east coast these fees are primarily in Florida and even such tax happy places like MA don't have them.
How would you determine who has to pay them (residential, office, retail, industrial)? Would the builder of an in-fill lot house have to them? What about existing subdivisions?
I have seen the finances on some of these residential subdivisions and because of the low lot prices and time needed to sell out the subdivision you really have to watch the dollars if you are a developer. Plus taking a say 100 lot subdivision and putting an extra $50,000 or $100,000 in up front costs on top of land acquisition, roads, sewers, water, power, cable, telco, etc. adds a lot.
November 16, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dillygent1 says...
There have been some very good and informative posts on here. But the primary question seems to be: Why don't we pass bond issues? The answer is quite simple...people don't feel they make enough money to be able to finance bond issues. A quality salary structure often determines a person's, or a community's, self-worth. If the public is mired down in lower paying jobs, it doesn't help their self image. If their self-image is suffering, they could care less about what the city wants to do, to improve the city. You can knock the government all you want to, but the problem in St. Joseph, is still low pay. To my knowledge, the latest industries to come to St. Joseph, has been Mitchell Plaza, opening the 36 Street Restaurant, and Country Kitchen, now becoming Basils. Oh wait! I think there is a Chick Fillet, coming! This is still a town that has traditionally used, as a recruiting tool (to come here), its low salary structure and its low tax base. Until something is done about salaries in St. Joe, forget much progress. Note to MM...liked your comments, especially about the sad state of Shooters Building, which used to be the old Plymouth Building. To John Courter...I'm going to start referring to you as "Future State." You can refer to me as "Low Salary Structure."
November 16, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drbjr says...
dillygent1, so what is your solution? Should the City pass an ordinance to give all employees pay raises?
November 16, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )