What’s on the Ballots in St. Louis County
The City of St. Louis is not the only area having elections on Tuesday. Municipalities throughout St. Louis County are also holding elections. Here are some highlights:
The Big Picture:
- Elections are for municipal offices, school boards, special (fire) districts, and propositions.
- All are non-partisan. This is worth repeating, all are non-partisan.
- Huge majority of aldermanic/council/board terms are for two years with some being four and a few being three. Mayorial positions are all four year.
- Only 90 out of 259 seats are challenged, a rate of 35%. Thus, the other 65% will be elected simply by filing for office.
- 86 municipalities in St. Louis County have elections on Tuesday.
- The City of Ferguson didn’t even get a single candidate for their council in ward 3.
- The Village of Sycamore Hills is to elect three trustees but only two candidates filed.
Recall Question – City of Overland:
- A simple majority of voters in Overland is all that is needed to remove controversial Mayor Ann Purzner from office.
- Purzner won the election a year ago by a mere four votes over Ward 2 Councilwoman Mary Beth Conlon.
- This is likely the main election result you will see on the evening news.
Propositions – all are simple majority votes:
- Lateral Sewer: Four cities are considering a fee up to $50 annually per sewer line; Bella Villa, Crystal Lake Park, Edmundson, and Greendale.
- Sales Tax Increase for General Revenue: Village of Bellerive
- Sales Tax increase for Parks & Storm Water Control: Beverly Hills, Charlack, Country Club Hills, Sunset Hills, Velda Village Hills
- License Tax on Outdoor Advertising: Charlack
- Sales Tax increase for Economic Development: Charlack, Normandy
- Business License Fee Increase: Glendale ($15 to $100 annually)
- Sales Tax increase for Capital Improvements: Lakeshire, Woodson Terrace (may include debt service)
- Property Tax increase for police & fire Pension fund: Maplewood
- Local Use Tax on purchases: Normandy
- Motel Tax for Tourism: Pacific
- Operating Tax Levy: Shrewsbury
- Tax on Public Utilities: Velda Village Hills
Charter Changes:
- Clayton is looking to bring their charter in line with state law regarding elections. Simple majority.
- Creve Coeur has six amendments which appear to be housekeeping items (they reference ordinance numbers. The sixth item requires a 2/3 vote of the city council to exercise the power of eminent domain. All are simple majority.
- Kinloch is considering changing the terms for their aldermen from two years to four years and making the mayor a full-time position. Simple Majority.
- Moline Acres is also considering increasing aldermanic positions from two to four years. Simple majority.
Municipal Bond Issues – City of Shrewsbury:
- Shrewsbury is trying to pass three bond issues totaling just over $2 million.
- $785K for public safety, including a new fire engine and ambulance.
- $615K for park & recreation improvements, includes Aquatic Center bath house and backup generator for city center.
- $660K for street and street-related improvements including replacement and reconstruction of city streets.
- These require a four-seventh majority to pass.
School & Fire Protection Districts:
- Nothing really stood out on these with the exception of a few proposed bond issues.
- Ritenour School District is seeking $32 million in bonds for an Arts Education Center, an Early Childhood Center, and renovating existing facilities. 4/7th majority.
- The Ladue School District is seeking just shy of $30 million to do a bunch of things such as repairs, furnishings, renovation and upgrading facilities. Includes additional security equipment. 4/7th majority.
- The Maplewood Richmond Heights School district is seeking $9 million for improvements and such to the High School, Middle School, Early Childhood Center and the central office. They also seek to do an addition to the Earlly Childhood Center. This requires a 4/7th majority. They also seek to increase the property tax levy by $0.3067 per $100 of valuation.
- It should be noted that 12 Fire districts have elections for director(s).
For more information see the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners.
Thanks for posting Steve. Sometimes we in the city forget about the county issues.
Sadly, 65% uncontested!!!!!!
What I would like to see is our Federal elected officials develop some plan/goal/something to reenergize the election process. Streamline the elections to once a year (twice at most), But engage the citizens again. Maybe some unrealistic campaign reform of no mudslinging, no fear of lawsuits to quite the oposition, stuff like that. I don’t know but something has to be done.
65% uncontested. Yet how many voters in those areas feel disenfranchised or blame the elected officials for their lot in life?
65% uncontested. Pathetic state of affairs.
Governing in the StL area is so complicated it is almost impossible as a citizen to understand even a small portion of what is being voted on in your own municipality let alone in over 90 others. Of course the politicians and lawyers have a lot of respect for this structure. Confusion and misinformation reigns supreme in the StL region.
Thanks for posting these.
The Shrewsbury ballot issues were seemingly slipped in under most people’s radar. The Board of Aldermen printed a full-color flyer and distributed it to residents, saying they “unanimously” support these wasteful bond issues.
What they don’t say is that several of the six have expressed to residents in private that they wished there had been a public forum for residents to speak their minds, yet not one put forward such a proposal in the BOA minutes to my knowledge. Of course, they are six months behind posting such trivialities on the city’s website, but have the time and money to send these flyers out first-class.
The most wasteful is a $500,000+ issue to replace a pool house that will “soon represent a hazard”. Yet there has been no structural engineering report or specific reasons given for this imminent danger until now. To any eye, the poolhouse is a solid brick structure with a newer roof and very solid, well-maintained timber supports. No reason is given that if — big if — the pool house needs repears, that it can’t simply be refurbished rather than torn down and rebuilt at a half-milion dollar cost. That may not sound like much, but we are only a small community of about 6600 people. The poolhouse is naturally only used three months out of the year.
Another $100,000+ would go to add a new generator at our city center. After having gotten along without one for decades, this is now a dire necessity. By the way, homeland security dollars already paid for a new generator at the firehouse, so it’s not like the city center is a life or death situation. Not to nitpick, but running a backup generator is many, many times more expensive than power from the grid, so a few days of running that would make a serious contribution to energy costs.
The fire truck issue also seems wasteful and unconscionably deceptive. We recently passed a .25 cent sales tax to be earmarked for public safety. As is common in the wake of the “hero” post-9/11 mindset, this tax passed by a landslide. Of course, an equal amount (I believe $300,000 annually) was funneled right back into the general fund from the fire department. So of course, the “public safety” tax was just another way to get more for general revenue.
Officials say the old fire truck has (gasp) 60,000 miles on it. My research shows that these vehicles typically get about 150,000. But again no word is given of why this one’s lifespan is supposedly nearing an end. Rather than get rid of the old “relic” and replace it, we would keep it and buy a brand new one. This would of course double maintenance costs and we’d be fueling both instead of just one. Again, after many decades of coping just fine (and not expanding boundaries), we all of a sudden need to double our fire equipment? If this were really necessary, we could consider drop providing fire service to Marlborough (which represents an added 30% population) and cover our own city with existing equipment. But as is typical, that was not discussed, and “more is better”.
The road issue (“R”) is another money grab. The first line of business in the official literature is replacing a one-block long, dead-end street with asphalt. This streets appears to have numerous new sidewalk slabs, and is in fine shape for the little that it’s used. Even if it was on the drawing board to get repaved, we already have bonds issued for street repeair. Why we need a new bond for this one-block street is anybody’s guess. A little further down, it says it will go towards some concrete slab work; the majority of concrete is in the mayor’s subdivision.
Proposition T just adding 14 cents per $100 to the general fund. No reason given other than it will “help beter fund day-to-day operations”. Talk about finding ways to spend money. The BOA has never in my recollection said “NO” to any proposal that comes along. $50,000 chipper, yep. $5000 window tinting, yep. $6000 gravel spreader, sure. This will just give them more money to spend as they please.
What is frightening is that property assessments have consistently increased at about 10% compounded annually. At that rate, an owner of a $200,000 home would be paying over $20,000 PER YEAR by the time these bonds are retired, and that’s assuming that we don’t issue any more (and of course “important” things always come up). It’s also ironic that these four dire issues just so happen to coincide with the expiration of our previous bonds, so that the Board can unanimously say “NO TAX INCREASE”. Odd that our taxes have grown at multiple times the rate of inflation.
What Missouri needs is a Hancock “lid” for property tax revenue to all entities, from municipalities down to school and fire districts, as well as the County. Revenue could only grow by a calculated percent based on CPI and residents’ incomes. As it is now, the growth will be unmanageable for taxpayers within ten years.
It’s just incomprehensible that only 35 percent of the offices are contested.
Or it means that people don’t like change.
Steve – one – any endorsements for the SLPS Board? I’ve only seen one article in the SW Journal.
Two – I really like ShrewsburyWatchdog’s thorough analysis. I don’t agree with all the conclusions and I don’t live there, but the voters need critical analysis before they can make informed decisions (and the ones advocating for ballot issues certainly aren’t going to be neutral or “fair and balanced” in the information they present).
Three – getting people to run is a challenge and getting harder. For most local races, raising campaign money really isn’t a big challenge. The big challenge comes from the self-righteous criticism that certain segments of the population likes to heap on all politicians. Personal attacks have become a tool that gets used way too often. None of us is without flaws and we all make mistakes. We also will never find someone who always votes the way we want on every issue. The local recall culture is also a disincentive – why would someone want to run knowing that any controversial initiative could easily get them recalled? Sometimes, unpopular choices need to be made for the greater good and for long-term growth and/or improvement. Combine the growing impact of the internet, where information, both true and false, can and is presented in multiple forms, and it becomes easier to just say “No! I don’t need that kind of brain damage!”
Finally, there’s also a fiscal difference between truly part-time positions and what are, in reality, if not technically, full-time positions. For a position like the President of the Board of Aldermen, the salary needs to be high enough to let someone who is not either retired and drawing a pension or independently wealthy serve without going bankrupt. (For part-time positions, the salary becomes irrelevent.)
In the City’s March Democratic primary, 8 of 16 positions had two or more candidates. If competition is a good thing in elections, and if 50% challenged is better than 35% challenged, the county municipalities obviously need to follow us and establish partisan elections.
Under the county munies absurd 2-persons elected from each ward, Fergusan’s 3rd Ward doesn’t have to worry about no one filing because they still have a back-up councilmember.
SW: You say “What is frightening is that property assessments have consistently increased at about 10% compounded annually.” I would think that’s a good thing – it means your property is worth more every day. (I’m sure there are some folks in East St. louis that would like to have that kind of “problem”.) Assessments should reflect a property’s actual value, not its “highest and best use” and not an artificially-low number put in place in response to poltical pressure. What needs to be looked at carefully are not assessed values, but property tax rates. There’s not a lot of reason for a government’s budget to reap a windfall just because local property values are rising rapidly. If assessed values are increasing rapidly, tax rates should be dropping, albeit, less rapidly. But as much as politicians like to wrap themselves in the flag of “no new taxes”, few polticians are willing to see any existing taxes “go away” – they’re just too many “worthwhile initiatives” out there that need to be addressed . . .
Do you or do you not think competition is good in the election process? If you think it is good, is not 50% challenged seats better than 35% challenged seats.
Jim Zavist: You are absolutely right. I should have said that the assessment increase is frightening BECAUSE municipalities reap the tax benefits with no reward and no accountability. Why do entities like school districts (specifically thinking of SSD in the November election) cry about “not having a tax increase in six years” when, in fact, their tax income has increased at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation? Because they can, and voters don’t understand. That’s MHO.
Shrewsbury Watchdog, I also appreciate your analysis, although I don’t have enough knowledge of the facts to judge most of the matters for myself. I wish more people had access to more informed, fleshed out opinions about political issues. What the mainstream press gives us as political coverage is pathetic at best.
But so far as the SSD goes … aren’t they limited by state law that their income can’t grow more than a small percentage each year, no matter what the assessments are? My vague impression is that if the assessments go up too much, they have to decrease the rates to keep the growth under a limit. (if someone else actually understands this law, please enlighten me.)
I’m disappointed to learn that they have so many unchallenged races despite the non-partisan elections. I think the factors that Jim mentions are a big reason. I used to have an interest in running for office myself, but I’m unwilling to put my family and friends under the microscope for it.
And yes, Maurice, I think limiting to one or two elections a year would save money and help increase participation. The husband & I were just discussing that particular thing this morning. By the end of the day Tuesday, we will have had 4? elections in the City in the last 9 months, and the highest turnout was what, 50% in November? Really shameful.
Lisa, that was the Hancock “Lid” I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, it does not apply to local or district spending, only to spending by the State of Missouri. So SSD, when they said they had not had a tax increase, were effectively lying: their tax revenue grew at the same rate as property assessments, which is to say, much faster than inflation. They deceptively only referred to their tax rate, conveniently ignoring the valuation by which it’s multiplied.
http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bilsum/commit/sHJR48C.htm
It is my contention that we need some form of lid like that at the local level. It would not prohibit municipalities or school districts from increasing tax rates to puchase needed items; it would (ideally) simply prevent runaway tax revenue arising solely from assessed property valuation. This is called accountability; why should a city or school district get a huge increase in funds with no voter approval, simply because the value of your home goes up, whether or not your income has done the same.
Florida is struggling with a constitutional amendment that limits property tax increases to something like 3% a year (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2006/04/09/s1a_SOH_0409.html).
Colorado has two constitutional amendments that do this (and also have unintended consequences) The Gallagher Amendment (http://www.coloradobudget.com/repository/PDF/GallagherOverview.pdf) addresses how property taxes are proportioned and the TABOR amendment limits tax increases: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/research/issuebrf-proptax.htm, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/taborpts.htm, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/slmag/2005/05SLJan_CoTaborAmendment.pdf,
The teachers unions have worked to change them: http://www.coloradoea.org/media/Gallagher%20TABOR%20etc.%20most%20up%20to%20date.pdf
The man behind TABOR, Douglas Bruce, has a website (http://www.douglasbruce.com/) that presents his own unique views on taxation . . .
Bottom line, none of us likes paying taxes, but it takes taxes (from somewhere) to deliver the services that citizens demand of their government. While SW may be perfectly happy with an old fire truck and patched streets, apparently other citizens want better – the election on Tuesday will see who’s in the majority on these issue . . . Taxes are also a lot like health insurance – we want to pay as little as possible, but when we get sick, we expect the medical profession to do everything possible to fix what ails us!
Jim,
You portray me as an anti-tax person. I am not. Nor am I necessarily anti-tax increase. In fact, I voted for a number of tax increases in recent elections.
What I am against is the deception by which the citizens are “informed” of these so-called critical bond issues — $2 million+ in brand new money –and the lack of transparency by which it’s done. Shrewsbury did not even post BOA meeting minutes where they “unanimously” decided to recommend these to the citizens. A number of Board members have expressed misgivings in private about putting forth the recommendations to the public in this manner. Yet somehow they wound up on the ballot, and portrayed to the citizens as “unnimously recommended.”
Information is minimal. If it weren’t for a letter written by Kurt Odenwald to the local paper, I feel that even the brochure posted by the city on its website would not have been distributed at all. As it is, the day his letter appeared critisizing the manner in which the measures were put forth, the brochure appeared as if by magic — the website had not been updated with critical information in almost six months, and the very day Kurt’s letter was printed…wow, information (as limited and biased as it was) shows up. By the way, the website is still otherwise six months behind.
As an aside, this is similar to the way the aldermen banned pit bulls last year. They held a meeting with almost no notice to the public, and banned the breed without a public vote or public input. When hundreds of citizens demanded accountability, they suspended enforcement and placed the measure on the ballot shortly thereafter as “Shall the city continue its pit bull ban.” They portrayed is as the status quo. A voter who was not savvy in uncovering information on how it came about likely saw this as the status quo, and voted Yes. It passed by just a few votes.
I feel it’s similar here; they put it on the ballot quietly, portraying it as “no tax increase”, and not prodiving but a shred of information about why this is needed when it duplicates other bond issues. In fact, the mayor’s letter to the paper today called it a “no tax” bond issue a number of times. So few citizens are aware of what it actually means (extending expiring bonds for twenty more years); the few of us who do are trying to inform others with the few resources we have, while the city spends our tax dollars to disseminate their side of the story only.
Your wording on how I am “happy with an old fire truck” seems on the far edge of reason. The fire truck is at less than half the mileage of the lifespan of a typical fire truck. In addition, the city is not just replacing this “old” truck. They are keeping it and adding a new one. So after decades of remaining the same size, not adding population, and actually losing commercial space, we need to double the fire fleet? We need to add another new ambulance? We need to add another new police car? Realize that the public safety fund already budgets for the regular rotation of vehicles — the new bond issues seek additional vehicles, for no understandable reason.
Likewise, nobody said anything about “patched streets”. Our streets are among the best in the area, no doubt about it. Wake up after a snowfall and the plow has likely been through even the smallest street at least twice. I have no problem keeping good services, and understand that “it takes taxes to deliver the services”. But years ago we passed a bond issue to replace streets regularly. Most of them are in excellent condition. Each Spring, a few are replaced, in regular rotation. In fact, I can’t think of a single “patch” on any street in the city. So why is it critical now to pass half a million new dollars to replace one block of a dead-end street?
We voted for the pool, too. Nobody is anti-pool. Certainly not me; I enjoy going. What I question is why we need to replace a building that is 35 years old (it was 40 according to city literature; a letter from the mayor in the paper today says it’s 35). This is a solid brick building, well-built, with no readily apparent structural defects. It is actually one of the nicer ones I’ve seen and perfectly adequate functionally for the three months of the year in which it’s used (my site has pictures if interested).
But the information we received about the pool house said nothing like “Engineering Company XYZ analyzed the building and found faults A,B, and C, which would cost $Y to fix, and recommended completely rebuilding”. No, rather they give the opinion of the aldermen (not an expert) saying that the building is 35 years old and ‘needs’ to be replaced? And it will “soon represent a hazard” to citizens? Who said? If it does, fine, I’ll even vote for Proposition P. But there is no professional recommendation or description of these so-called hazards. Why would I vote for this based on such shoddy information?
They say they have run deficits in recent years. But they don’t explain why our costs have risen faster than property tax revenue, which has risen at 300% the rate of inflation. Where did that money go? They don’t even mention what steps they have taken to contain costs before coming to the taxpayers with their hands out. They don’t say where the all the revenue from the additional sales tax, which was then shifted to general revenue, has gone.
“Other citzens” want better? Maybe. But I feel that the information presented is slanted and terribly incomplete. I’m not against taxes, or even raising taxes if needed. But I am for transparency and accountability.
We are actually pretty lucky, but I don’t want to fall into the trap that other residents in the area have been exposed to. I was talking to a resident of Crestwood this week. Their new aquatic center was built with a promise that it would be supported completely by admissions and sales tax revenue. This ballot issue also included a “Taj Mahal” police station. Hundreds of thousands of dollars went into the design of the police station, but it was never built. The aquatic center didn’t support itself. In order to try to stem the losses, the city began letting more and more non-citizens use it to the point where it wasn’t much of a benefit to the citizens who built it. The city’s reserve fund was depleted so badly by the fiasco that the city had to raise property taxes by 0.25 per $100 to cover the losses. Many residents felt they were basically sold snake oil by being told the old pool was deteriorating and dangerous (just like our pool house is here in Shrewsbury). Had residents raised the questions and demanded real information, its’ possible it wouldn’t have happend.
In short, I appreciate your insight, but I believe your post has misrepresented me as someone who doesn’t understand why taxes are needed, and that I’m anti-tax. I am none of the above; I just demand a local government that represents me and treats me as the informed citizen that I am.
SW – I guess a bit of sarcasm and cynicism came thru in my response. While you may not view yourself as “anti-tax”, that’s the spin I picked up from your initial post – you seemed to have a reason to vote against every inititive. And while I live near Shrewsbury, I have no clue whether or not these bond issues are needed. That’s why I was trying to respond to your concerns about limiting the rate of increase on total tax revenues, not to judge the values of the various bond issues. I do agree with you that elected officials are adept at providing only the limited and “spun” information to the public that they need to move any of their initiatives forward. That’s also why I appreciated your take on the Shrewsbury issues. In the limited time I’ve been here, I’ve seen way too many elections happening where, if I’m clueless, I’m pretty much sure everyone else is (about what they’re voting for).
Transparency can be legislated. Colorado publishes a “blue book” that gets sent to every voter before an election, with viewpoints from both sides of each issue. Local governments and their elected officails are strictly prohibited from advocating for or against any ballot issue that affects them or their entity directly. That’s why I find it troubling that “The Board of Aldermen printed a full-color flyer and distributed it to residents, saying they “unanimously†support these wasteful bond issues.” Aren’t elected officials spposed to recuse themselves henthey have a conflict of issue?! And if it’s happening here, I can only asume that it’s happening elsewhere?
I’m very much in the middle when it comes to taxes. I don’t like to pay them, but I understand why they’re needed. Living in Colorado for as long as I did, I’ve experienced both the positives and negatives of strictly limiting local taxes thru changes to the state constitution. Up to a point, most governments can operate more efficiently. After that, services do need to be cut. It should be up to each individual community / governmental entity to figure out what that level should be. That’s why it’s hard to discuss the specifics of any of the ballot issues in Shrewsbury – you live there and you pay property taxes there, I don’t. But I also know that 20-30% of any community will always vote against any tax increase, and they’ll continue to grumble about those taxes they voted against, if and when they pass . . .
To use your fire truck example, as a hypothetical, I would probably vote for a new one. Yes, 60,000 miles is a young “middle age” for the vehicle. And while it may go 150,000 miles, that last 20,000 ain’t gonna be pretty (and will require more and more maintenance). Plus it never hurts to have some “reserve” equipment (instead of relying exclusively on mutual aid agreements). And, like many voters, I want my fire department to have the equipment they “need” to do their job. The other part of this equation is when will the FD get another shot at replacing it? When will there be another bond issue? If it’s in 3 years, sure, “we” can wait. If it won’t be for 5 years, you’re “rolling the dice”. And if it’s longer, you’re probably looking at some serious response issues. (And it’s not unusual for something like this to be brought back to the voters several times before it does get passed). Even though fire trucks are heavy-duty vehicles, they operate in a demanding environment, and these 60,000 miles were probably done only 2 or 3 at a time.
A bigger picture question (that you alluded to), is whether or not the Shrewbury FD is too big. You seem to think that Marlborough is getting some sort of deal for (I assume) their contracted services. Again, I don’t know any details, but my guess is that the SFD thinks they’re being fairly compensated, or that would be an issue for discussion. And while you’re suggesting smaller, I’d suggest looking at a county-wide fire service. That would eliminate a lot of needless duplication of management, would allow more leverage when it comes to purchasing and would likely result in a lower total cost to taxpayers. Sure it’s cool to have the local FD show up with their fancy engine for the 4th of July parade every year, but the reality is that there’s a lot of unneeded duplication of effort to deliver quality services to each community. Bottom line, it just means higher taxes to keep all these small fire districts!
I think we’ll probably just disagree on several points, but what do you mean by: “Aren’t elected officials supposed to recuse themselves [w]hen they have a conflict of issue?!” Do you mean that if
three of six elected officials disagree with a particular standpoint for the sake of their constituents, that they vote for it anyway, knowing that the mayor would break the tie vote in favor if they didn’t?
What I’d really like is accountability and some level of transparency. If they can show me a need for something, other than through random conjecture, I’ll even vote for a tax rate increase. But don’t try to slip things in under the radar. Voters will, eventually, grow weary of the ease with which they spend mushrooming amounts of money without being accountable for it.
Must’ve been bad typing – meant to say conflict of interest, as in you shouldn’t be using your position of authority to advocate for a bond issue that primarily benefits the streets in just your own subdivision . . .