City Hall delays, downtown enforcement dominate Cameron Council discussion

Council members pressed for more accountability on City Hall repairs before Dr. Mark Carr urged stronger action against downtown property owners

By Sean Shaughnessey,
Publisher of Across the County Line

CAMERON — Frustration over stalled projects took center stage at Monday night’s Cameron City Council meeting, as council members questioned the pace of City Hall repairs during the City Manager’s Report before later turning to a sharper debate over downtown nuisance properties, unpaid demolition costs and whether the city should pursue foreclosure against former councilwoman Gina Reed-Hibler.

The meeting began with a relatively routine agenda, but the most significant discussions came when council members pressed city staff over projects they believe are not moving quickly enough.

During the City Manager’s Report, Mayor Pro Tem John Feighert and Councilman Dr. Mark Carr raised concerns over the lack of visible progress on City Hall repairs.

City Manager Scott Meszaros told council that JR & Company, the contractor from which the city has been awaiting bids, had pushed its bid timeline back by another couple of weeks. That delay sparked questions over who is responsible for keeping the project moving and whether the city needs a clearer point of contact for construction, engineering and repair work.

JR & Company had requested to act as the general contractor on the project, a move presented as a way to consolidate the work and make coordination more convenient. But that request drew pushback from council members who questioned whether shifting the project into that kind of arrangement at this stage would help or create further delay.

Carr asked whether the city could appoint or hire a single point of contact to oversee the project, make sure construction and engineering crews are working diligently, and provide the council with clearer updates on timelines, deadlines and delays.

Feighert opposed hiring a new person for the role, but said it made sense to assign those responsibilities as part of someone’s existing duties.

City Attorney Padraig Corcoran cautioned that hiring a general contractor at this point could interfere with the statutory process for appointing a construction manager at risk. Corcoran said taking that route could potentially set the City Hall project back six to eight months.

However, Corcoran said an owner’s representative could be an option. That role would not replace the contractor or construction manager, but would give the city someone responsible for monitoring the project, tracking progress and serving as the city’s point of contact.

The City Hall discussion set the tone for the rest of the evening: council members want more progress, more accountability and fewer open-ended delays.

That same frustration carried into miscellaneous comments from council, when Carr shifted attention from the city’s own repair project to downtown property owners he said are holding back Cameron’s progress.

Carr said he had been drafting a proposal aimed at problem property owners in the downtown area, beginning with Reed-Hibler and the vacant Third Street property left behind after the city demolished her former downtown buildings.

Carr said he had spoken with Reed-Hibler recently and came away convinced she remained unwilling to either surrender the land to the city or pay the roughly $121,000 special tax bill tied to the demolition.

Carr characterized the situation as what he called a “tax-free loan” from the city — apparently referring to the lack of interest being charged on the debt — and said Reed-Hibler wanted to retain control over the future development of the property while also recouping both the demolition-related debt and money she spent on engineering work.

Carr also restated his position that Reed-Hibler was “kicked off” the council because of the money owed to the city, a comment that again brought the long-running Third Street dispute into public view.

Corcoran answered Carr’s questions cautiously, outlining the city’s general options without getting deeply into legal strategy. Corcoran said one path for the city to gain control of the property would be to initiate foreclosure proceedings against Reed-Hibler. Should the debt remain unpaid, that process could eventually result in a judicial sale.

But Corcoran remained guarded as Carr continued pressing the issue. When asked about the cost of pursuing that route, Corcoran warned the action would make the city “an attorney’s best friend,” signaling that litigation could become expensive and drawn out.

As the discussion continued, Corcoran declined to keep answering some of Carr’s questions in open session, citing concern that continued back-and-forth could cross into attorney-client privileged territory. The meeting agenda already included a closed executive session for attorney-client communications and real estate.

Carr’s comments did not stop with Reed-Hibler’s property. He broadened his concern to several other downtown sore spots, including the remaining fire site and buildings he said raise aesthetic, safety or nuisance concerns.

The Little Blessings building at 106 E. Third Street and the property at 112 E. Third Street were both mentioned during the discussion as nuisance concerns.

Carr asked whether there was a way to force a new engineering report to determine whether there is truly a common wall between 106 E. Third Street and the adjacent property. Such a report, Carr suggested, could help determine whether deterioration has reached the point that the building is dangerous.

Economic Development Director Lance Rains, speaking in what he described as an unofficial and layman’s capacity, said the city would face limits because of private property rights. Rains indicated the city could not simply force that kind of engineering review absent a proper legal or code-enforcement process.

Carr pushed for a broader step-up in code enforcement, saying the city needs to act against property owners who fail to maintain their buildings and, in doing so, drag down surrounding property values.

The exchange showed growing frustration inside City Hall over the pace of downtown cleanup and redevelopment. Carr’s comments also suggested at least one member of council wants the city to move beyond requests, negotiations and waiting for voluntary action from property owners.

Noticeably absent from the public discussion, however, was any mention of Smoke Maven or the other smoke-shop retailers located directly on Walnut Street, Cameron’s main commercial corridor. Those businesses have drawn scrutiny over THC-A, kratom and related products, yet no council member publicly raised the question of why similar attention has not been directed toward stores operating along roughly a half-mile of Walnut Street.

That silence stood out because the city’s discussion Monday night focused heavily on what property conditions, visible business activity and enforcement priorities say about the community.

During public participation, Linda Penrod, a candidate for Clinton County presiding commissioner, addressed council and introduced herself as a challenger to incumbent Patrick Clark. Penrod discussed her background in county government and local issues, including roads and planning.

Across the County Line will publish a previously conducted interview with Penrod later this week.

Council also approved several routine items.

The consent agenda included approval of the June 1 regular session minutes and annual liquor license renewals for Los Perez Inc., doing business as El Maguey at 909 N. Walnut St., and TrexMart #15 at 614 N. Walnut St. The consent agenda passed without extended discussion.

Council reviewed appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Cameron Housing Authority.

Under new business, council approved Resolution 2026-27, authorizing the sale of real estate to JAD Properties of Missouri LLC. The property sale was discussed in connection with the community center project and passed 5-0.

The Police Department also gave updates on equipment and staffing, including body cameras, tasers and dispatch recruitment. Officials noted the department had lost another dispatcher but had experienced applicants moving through the hiring process.

The sharpest parts of the evening came from the same basic concern: stalled progress.

On City Hall, council members questioned why bids and repairs continue to move slowly. On downtown properties, Carr questioned why the city has not been more aggressive with owners who owe money, leave buildings deteriorating or prevent redevelopment from moving forward.

Whether that leads to an owner’s representative for City Hall repairs, foreclosure proceedings against Reed-Hibler, stepped-up nuisance enforcement against other building owners, or a closed-session legal strategy discussion at a future meeting remains to be seen.

But Monday’s meeting made one thing clear: patience is wearing thin at City Hall.