Vote expected Nov. 4 on $1M Shelby Road purchase, downtown city hall location

Poplar Bluff City Council members are expected to vote Nov. 4 to purchase 58 acres of property on Shelby Road for just over $1 million. At the same meeting, council members are also expected to vote to name downtown as the location of a building for city hall and city court.

The items were discussed Monday during the regular council meeting. The discussions resulted in a one split vote by the council and tensions boiling over between city officials and a member of the public.

An ordinance laying out the council’s intent to purchase property on Shelby Road was moved to the next voting session on a 6-1 vote. The motion was made by council member at-large Ron Black and seconded by council member Lisa Parson.

This image from the city of Poplar Bluff's Sept. 3, 2019, facility planning report shows a possible location for a new city complex between Shelby Road and Kannell Boulevard.Photo provided

Mayor Robert Smith voted against the item.

“I think it all should be downtown,” said Mayor Smith. “We acquired the property downtown to do that. In my opinion, we don’t need to go out and spend $1 million when we already have property.”

In early 2019, the council purchased 115 Pine St., which adjoins property that previously housed city operations along Second Street.

A lot of people are investing in downtown, Mayor Smith added, and the city does not need to remove any operations from the area.

City manager Mark Massingham told council members the property owner, First Missouri State Bank, is prepared to donate the majority of the appraised value of the acreage to the city.

The property has previously been appraised at a value of nearly $4.5 million, Massingham said.

Negotiations with the bank have reduced the purchase price for the city to just over $1 million, he said.

“I think that’s very generous on the bank,” he said.

The property may also be used for an additional fire station location, water tower or training facilities for the fire department, at a later date, according to the discussion.

Massingham suggested the city may need about four acres of the total and could sell the remainder.

“My recommendation to council is to try to sell off the rest of that property, reimburse ourselves for the $1,050,000. Any other funds that are left over, to be deposited into general fund, to get us out of our mess that we were left in several years ago,” Massingham said.

In making the motion supporting the Shelby Road purchase, Black said the police chief did an exceptional job explaining the rationale in a recent Daily American Republic article.

“I believe that is the right place for the citizens as well as for the police station,” Black said.

In the Saturday DAR, police Chief Danny Whiteley stated he supported the Shelby Road spot because of its central location to many critical areas of the city.

During Monday’s meeting, former police officer Tony Wallace also spoke in support of Whiteley’s recommendation.

“His heart is sincerely in the right place,” said Wallace. “I ask that you consider his learned opinion on the police department location and any other input he may have.”

Poplar Bluff attorney Robert L. Smith spoke against the Shelby Road location. The council also needs to answer questions from the public, attorney Smith said. This includes the status of previous agreements with architects Dille and Traxel to complete plans for city hall, he continued, and whether or not the city will continue to use consultant Navigate.

Discussion between attorney Smith and city officials became heated several times during the meeting, including over the possible size of the proposed police department and the procedure for comments to be made during the meeting.

It is illogical for the city to purchase 58 acres, attorney Smith said after the Shelby Road property was discussed.

“We’re not in the business of buying real estate and speculating on trying to sell it later if we don’t need it,” attorney Smith said. “The location there is wrong.”

The city already owns property in several areas that could be used, he said.

“That is exactly why there has been such an outcry about this council at this point,” attorney Smith said, adding later, “I presume it that will not stop the four of you from doing what you’re doing.”

He argued that location of the police department was not as critical because of zoned patrols, and said 27,000 square feet was not needed.

The debate between attorney Smith and Massingham boiled over when the size of the proposed police department was discussed and how it would be funded.

Attorney Smith suggested the city should not spend money on the building, when it could be used for employee benefits.

Attorney Smith also accused officials of making decisions based on their own interests, not in the public’s interest, but did not specify an individual.

Massingham reminded attorney Smith that money from the capital projects fund would pay for the building and land. Money from that fund cannot be used for employee benefits, Massingham said, adding that has been explained repeatedly.

“What makes you the expert on how much square footage they need,” Massingham asked.

“How many square feet do you need then,” Attorney Smith said.

“27,000 square feet. We’ve compared that to other stations with comparable personnel and that’s what we’ve come up with. Where do you come up with your figures,” Massingham said.

“Mainly common sense,” Attorney Smith said.

“So how many square feet do you think we need,” Massingham responded.

“Ask the architect. That would be a good step,” Attorney Smith said.

As the debate continued, Mayor Smith interrupted to say the council had a long agenda to get through.

Both attorney Smith and Massingham had parting shots for each other, with Massingham saying, “You’re an angry, mean little man,” and attorney Smith saying, “So are the people you are responsible too, over how you are handling their money.”

Earlier in the discussion of a city hall location, Smith thanked the council for choosing a downtown location, but also offered criticism.

“There was no decision to change the city hall to downtown until a massive outcry,” attorney Smith said. “People’s actions speak louder than whatever they may say at a city council meeting or how much they cry about their personal honor. The people want some responsiveness from the city council.”

Attorney Smith questioned mayor pro tem Steve Davis’ plan to hold a public forum starting at 4 p.m., and objected when Davis attempted to explain the timing, saying Davis should have requested the floor.

City attorney Mark Richardson stepped into the debate, asking attorney Smith to allow Davis to answer, and adding, “Let’s be civil here.”

Tensions between attorney Smith and the council have heated up in recent weeks over the city complex matter, which has also brought other members of the public forward to speak on the topics at previous meetings.