Residents and public advocate press Dardenne Prairie over Sump Road runoff, cost overruns

Joel King, a resident of Tucson Drive, told the Board of Aldermen that recent work near Sump Road is redirecting stormwater onto his property and increasing erosion. "All the water is coming to my, my place, my property," King said, describing yellow- and blue-lined diagrams shown to the board and urging the city to commission an independent downstream impact study rather than rely on the current consultant.

The issue surfaced again when Arnie C. AC Denoff, identified himself as a county and city public advocate, questioned project oversight and spending tied to the Sump Road project. Denoff said the city’s bills show "over 25,000 in legal fees" and estimated the law firm Hamilton Weber receives roughly $400,000 a year from the city. He said the Sump Road work "has been a total cluster," that the project is costing "over $2,000,000," and he urged the board to request a detailed report and an audit at the upcoming County Road Board meeting.

Why it matters: Residents described faster, higher-volume runoff, which they say increases erosion risk and property damage downstream. Joel King cited the Missouri Supreme Court's reasonable-use principles to argue the city may not lawfully redirect water onto private property. Denoff framed the problem as both a technical and fiscal concern, linking perceived management failures to rising costs charged to residents.

What the board said and did: During the meeting aldermen acknowledged the comments. The presiding official said he would talk to the developer; another alderman said she would ask the police department to step up patrols in the area. No formal motion to require an independent study or to audit the project was recorded during the session.

Details and outstanding questions: King asked explicitly for an independent downstream impact study "not HR Green, not Tom," seeking a consultant unaffiliated with the current project team. Denoff asked when the project will end and whether the $22,000 and the $130,000 appropriations referenced earlier had been spent as directed; the meeting transcript does not record detailed accounting answers. The transcript records the Sump Road cost figure and the legal-fee claims as comments by Denoff; the city did not provide a response in the meeting record.

Next steps: Denoff said he will request a status report and an audit at the County Road Board meeting. The board did not take formal action on the requests during this meeting.