TITLE: "10 years is long enough."
LENGTH: 30 seconds.
CONTEXT: County voters in April, 2012 were asked to and subsequently approved a
The approval for the courthouse projects came four years after voters rejected a
In June, 2013, 14 months after voters went to the polls, the Dooley administration reconfigured its original estimate and requested that the
Stenger, challenging Dooley in the August Democratic primary, was one of five council members that balked at a request by Dooley that the council sign an agreement not to disclose the terms of the process prior to the awarding of a bid.
Dooley and Chief Operating Officer
"You know the old saying," Dooley told a reporter. "You never know what you're getting into until you actually get into it."
Council members in effect held their noses and approved the special obligation bonds by a vote of 6-0.
"I felt there was no choice,"
As depicted in the backdrop to the Stenger advertisement, renovations to the courthouse began earlier this year.
Stenger charges in the ad that project will cost "
Dooley's campaign claims the advertisement "continues (Stenger's) history of misrepresenting the facts to voters and fabricating stories for his political gain."
Had Stenger attended a council hearing a month after the 2012 referendum he might have been aware that courthouse budget would likely exceed original estimates, according to a statement issued by the Dooley campaign.
The Stenger campaign counters that the councilman skipped the hearing after learning of the additional cost in an earlier meeting with Earls.
The Dooley campaign also maintains that "Although (Stenger is) now critical of the increased construction budget, he voted in favor of the additional funds."
Stenger in fact abstained from the vote on the
General assignment reporter
(c)2014 the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Visit the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at www.stltoday.com
Distributed by MCT Information Services