Whack-a-Mole Leadership:
Why Cameron Needs a Real Plan

By Sean Shaughnessey

Across the County Line

MAYSVILLE, Mo. — I’m new to the area. Which is another way of saying: “You’re not from here. Mind your business.”

I learned that lesson pretty quickly during my short stint at the Citizen-Observer.

I was talking about this recently with a buddy of mine who happens to lead a large fire department around here. He was born here. His family moved to the area in the early 1960s, and they’re well respected throughout the community.

So I was stunned when he told me that apparently he wasn’t from here either.

“I wasn’t from here until I married [his wife].”

Apparently, you need three or four generations before you’re officially “from here.”

Fair enough. I chose to come here. That means I have to understand the reality of the place I chose.

But that cuts both ways.

Those of us without the pedigree have to find a way to fit in. But those with the preferred credentials eventually should recognize the skills, experience and ideas that exist outside the familiar list of last names.

I’ll come back to that, but for now, let’s talk about something considerably more important:

Monday night’s Cameron City Council meeting.

As I’ve said before, Cameron is the economic 800-pound gorilla of this region.

If Cameron is winning, the rest of us benefit. If Cameron is hurting, those of us in Maysville, Hamilton, Gallatin, Plattsburg and all points in between had better pay attention.

And I’m here to tell you: Cameron is facing some serious pain.

For more than two decades, councils and city leaders of memories past have repeatedly kicked the infrastructure can down the road.

Now the bill has come due, and today’s city leaders are scrambling to figure out how to pay for problems many of them didn’t create.

But that fact doesn’t make the bill disappear—nor does it relieve current leaders and taxpayers from addressing the issue.  

The reality is ugly: Cameron’s infrastructure is aging, expensive and increasingly unforgiving.

Electric costs are climbing. Water infrastructure needs work. Sewer infrastructure needs work. Lift stations need work. Streets need work. City Hall needs work.

Looming over all of this is the monster nobody wants to talk too loudly about yet:

Cameron’s wastewater treatment plant.

Zac Johnson, chairman of the Great Northwest Wholesale Water Commission, has told me on the record that replacing that plant is expected to cost somewhere between $30 million and $50 million.

At Monday’s meeting, city officials again acknowledged that a new wastewater plant is in Cameron’s future — probably sooner rather than later.

So if you think today’s utility increases hurt, understand something: We haven’t reached the expensive part yet.

Economic forces beyond anyone’s control are already placing tremendous burdens on families, small businesses and municipalities. Those realities are hard to bear, but eventually, somebody must shoulder the burden.

That somebody is us. Residential customers and commercial customers. Taxpayers.

Today. In this moment.

Now, I can already hear the argument: “We have money in reserve! Spend it instead of gouging the taxpayer!”

And you know what? That would probably work. Today.

We could spend down reserves, avoid some of these increases and everybody could go home feeling a little better.

Until life happens.

A tornado.

A catastrophic equipment failure.

Some multimillion-dollar surprise nobody penciled into the budget.

Then what? Insurance?

Sure. Eventually. But anybody who has ever been involved in a serious insurance claim knows carriers don’t sprint into town waving checkbooks.

Claims take time. Coverage gets disputed. Deductibles exist. Settlements don’t always match expectations.

So we borrow the money.

And that’s where another uncomfortable reality enters the conversation.

Cameron already carries substantial long-term obligations.

The city’s most recent audited financial statements showed roughly $24.4 million in certificates of participation (CIP) debt outstanding. (By the way—municipalities often use CIP financing because it doesn’t need voter approval like a bond issue)

That doesn’t mean Cameron is bankrupt or the sky is falling. But it sure as hell means that whenever somebody says, “We’ll just borrow it,” the rest of us ought to ask a few more questions.

Because loans are easy to get. It’s the terms of the loan that hurt.

And make no mistake: carrying roughly $24 million in existing obligations while staring down a potential $30 million to $50 million wastewater project is not an irrelevant detail. Bankers take note when reserves are tapped in advance of a large capital expenditure. 

Bottom line, if Cameron needs another loan, the terms might not be great. 

Which brings us to another idea floated during Monday’s discussion:

Move money between city funds.

Interfund borrowing can be a legitimate municipal-finance tool when it is properly structured, but moving money from one column to another does not create revenue.

If Fund A lends money to Fund B, Fund B still owes Fund A.

The city’s total cash may not change, but the financial position of each fund certainly does.

And if a department cannot sustainably support its own operations, borrowing from another department does not solve the underlying problem. It postpones it.

Sometimes that is necessary, and sometimes it's prudent.

Interfund borrowing can buy time when appropriate—but time is not revenue—and Cameron needs revenue.

And moving numbers around a spreadsheet is not economic growth.

That brings us to the first governing fantasy Cameron needs to abandon:

The idea that the city can simply refuse to spend its way out of decades of deferred maintenance.

It can’t.

If a lift station fails, somebody has to fix it.

If a water line breaks, somebody has to fix it.

If the wastewater plant reaches the end of its useful life, nobody gets to stand beside it and yell, “Fiscal responsibility!” until the sewage starts flowing correctly again.

There are legitimate obligations city government must meet, and refusing to spend money to meet them is every bit as irresponsible as spending too much.

And this is where Councilman John Feighert’s instincts deserve a closer look.

Feighert has been remarkably consistent about affordability. Cheaper. Find another way. Stop spending.

Do we really need this?

And frankly, I’m glad somebody on that council keeps asking those questions.

The residents who spoke Monday night about utility costs were not making up their pain. One businessman described an 87-year-old widow living on less than $1,400 a month who no longer runs her air conditioner because she cannot afford the bill.

That ought to bother everyone sitting behind that dais.

But “cheaper” only works when it is attached to a plan.

Cheaper where?

Cut what?

Which maintenance expense can be postponed safely, and which one turns into a four times larger problem five years from now?

That is the difference between fiscal discipline and simply refusing to spend.

And when Feighert loses one of those arguments, I have heard the response:

“Go ahead and do it. You’re gonna do what you want anyway.”

That isn’t enough either.

If the majority is wrong, then make the case. Offer the alternative. Show what should be cut, what should be preserved and how your alternative gets Cameron where it needs to be.

“No” can be the right vote—but “no” is not a governing plan.

Feighert and I talked after Monday’s meeting, and he made another point that I think explains some of his frustration.

Cameron has planned before — and past councils have failed to execute. I don’t dispute that, but Feighert and I draw exactly opposite lessons from it.

If previous councils failed to follow their plans, that is not evidence that planning was a waste of time: it’s evidence that those councils failed to follow the damn plans Poor execution is an argument for better accountability, not for wandering around without a map.

And that brings me to the other side of this mess—which I’ll address tomorrow. 

But for this evening, let’s focus on the fact that the Cameron City Council—perhaps our entire region—is suffering from common people problems: no clear vision, written goals, action steps or active accountability. 

The community has entrusted its civic well-being to a “whack-a-mole” method of leadership. Are you comfortable with that?