Rohr, Mark - Trascript, 1-28-14 Investigation

Transcript of the Testimony of Mark Rohr (1-2814 Investigation)
Date: January 28, 2014 Volume: I Case: In Re: Joplin Critical Investigation
Printed On: January 30, 2014
Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. Phone: 417-358-4078 Fax: 417-451-1114 Email:daholliday@hotmail.com Internet:
Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)
In Re:
Joplin Critical Investigation
Page 1
IN RE:
JOPLIN CRITICAL INVESTIGATION
SWORN STATEMENT OF
MARK ROHR
Taken on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, from 1:07 p.m. to 1:54 p.m., at the law offices of Juddson H. McPherson, LLC, 626 S. Byers, in the City of Joplin, County of Jasper, State of Missouri, before SHARON K. ROGERS, C.C.R.650, a Certified Court Reporter and a Notary Public within and for the County of Jasper, and State of Missouri.
Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078
In Re:
Page 2
APPEARANCES
MR. THOMAS E. LORAINE Loraine & Associates, LLC 4075 Osage Beach Pkwy., Suite 300 Osage Beach, MO 65065
tellaw@loraineandassociates.com
In Re:
Page 3
S T I P U L A T I O N
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that this Sworn Statement may be taken by steno-mask type recording by SHARON K. ROGERS, a Certified Court Reporter, and afterwards reduced into typewriting.
In Re:
Page 4 I N D E X Page/Line DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LORAINE . . . 5-2
E X H I B I T S
Exhibit #54
6-16
Land Purchase Financial Summary
Note:
Exhibits in separate binder
(sic) - typed as spoken (ph.) - phonetic
In Re:
Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. MARK ROHR DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LORAINE: Q. Mr. Rohr, you remember we had a brief interview depo several weeks ago, probably a month now? that? Yes, sir. And at that time I had you sign what I call a Garrity Warning. Yes. And also we put you under oath at that time and you swore to tell the truth? Yes. I would like to remind you of those items and remind you, also, that this is a continuation of that depo and if you will be reminded that you're still under oath. Yes. I had a couple of follow-up questions, and I know we had a lengthy discussion, but there were some follow-ups necessary and I attempted to get information (Off record discussion concerning exhibits) Q. (By Mr. Loraine) Last time I was here I was Do you understand? Do you remember that? Do you have a recollection of
trying to determine on the Wallace-Bajjali
In Re:
Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. A. Q. matter all the matters that are in existence or all the transactions that have occurred between the 353 Corporation and Wallace-Bajjali to acquire property, that's the subject matter that I'm interested in. did not receive the participation that I had anticipated from Wallace-Bajjali or from Mr. Kuehn. Charlie. Yes. Yes. I was hoping to, therefore, have some of this information, but neither of them were forthcoming with the information. So what I You know who Mr. Kuehn is? I
am interested in, and I'm going to show you what's been marked Exhibit #54 for this portion of your depo, and I apologize, it's a little hard to read. The original I had was
in color and I can show you that, if you wish, but I'd like you to look at this #54. And let me say to you that this has been presented to me as a list of all the properties that have wound up in the 353 Corporation. Okay.
In Re:
Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. Q. A. Q. Now having said that you'll note in looking at that there's various categories of these items. Lot Size is the first column, Lot
Size/Acres, Settlement Date to the right of that, Valuation Amount to the right of that, Purchase Price, then the next one is Wallace-Bajjali Fee, then we've got Closing Fees, Total Amount Paid, Purchase Price Per Square Foot, and Appraised Price Per Square Foot. Have you ever seen this document prior
to coming in here today? I may have. This document itself doesn't
look familiar, but I've seen a list, a compilation of the properties at some point. And it may have been this list. for sure. Okay. You would be the one for the City that I can't say
would keep track of the 353 purchases? Not really. I think the Finance Director I'm kind
keeps pretty close track of that. of the overview. That would be Haase? Yeah, Leslie, right.
I mean I'm the contact
person with Wallace-Bajjali, but I don't mind all the details.
In Re:
Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Q. A. A. Q. A. Q. All contacts with Wallace-Bajjali come through you? We try to do that. That's been adjusted at
various times because that's been a source of problems when that hasn't occurred. That's your policy anyway, that all contacts should be made through you? It kind of ebbs and flows and we're now in the period where it's not. It's kind of
ebbing, meaning that there's more people having contact with them. Okay. And the reason for that is for the discussion details. And it frustrates me, but I realize there's a need for it because if they're talking about minute things, about CBG funds and even some things on here I wouldn't have any expertise to be able to refer to it and speed it up. Sometimes there is direct
contact made between someone from Wallace-Bajjali and someone from City staff. Are you generally made aware of those contacts? More often than not, but not all of the time. There are times where that does not happen,
In Re:
Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. there's lapses. This would be a concern of yours to try to funnel the information through you and on to the other people and vice versa? I've tried to. It's been problematic at
least twice and I've tried to take corrective action and now like I said we're kind of bouncing back into it again. Let's look at the column on this particular thing on the very bottom. it says $8,818,765.00. I see a figure and
Now I'm told that is
the total amount paid to Wallace-Bajjali from the 353 Corporation. No, I think what that is, sir, that's the amount that the 353 has paid the individual property owners which forms the cost basis going forward and Wallace-Bajjali's fee is part of that. means. Okay. So in other words they have it broken That's what I think that
out here. So that would be the new basis if we can in all this acquired property then? I believe so. And I think that forms the
basis for the repurchase of the property as it develops by Wallace-Bajjali.
In Re:
Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. Now according to this
Wallace-Bajjali's fee on at least the properties, I counted them, maybe there are 36 of them or something, but in any case on this exhibit that's marked #54 there appears to be a Wallace-Bajjali fee of $417,900.00? Yes, and I would presume that's probably 5.75 percent of the 8.8 million. And neither of us being mathematicians and not having computers I'll give it to you that's a pretty close guess. Or 5.75 percent of the 8.2 number. Yeah, I
believe that's more accurate because that's the base number and the fee is added onto that, so the far column the higher number would be the amount that would be paid for that lot because it includes all the fees including the Wallace-Bajjali fee when they buy it back. Does that make sense?
Yes, so the $8,818,765.00 figure, that's the one on the far right, -Yes, sir. -- that would be the cost to Wallace-Bajjali when they buy it back from the 353? That's my understanding.
In Re:
Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Okay. Now that has not occurred? At
No, they're on the verge of doing that.
the time that they would take that property down or purchase it would be when a development goes forward, and I think we're on the verge of doing that for what they call The Villas which is the senior housing down at 26th and Maiden Lane, in that vicinity. And that wouldn't probably be all of this property, that would be some portion of it? Yes, you're right, that's only a subset of the overall property list. Now when I look at the column called Purchase Price I see that the other closing fees and the Wallace-Bajjali fee is not included in that figure? Yes. You would agree with that? I think you're right. Now on that purchase price figure what my goal is and what I'm trying to find out is this is the price that Wallace-Bajjali paid somebody else to acquire all of these properties? Actually literally the 353 paid someone else
In Re:
Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. and Wallace-Bajjali will pick it up at the end. And thank you for the correction. Technically it's going to wind up with Wallace-Bajjali after they buy it back, but right now the 353 has paid that amount? Yes, sir. Exclusive of other costs and Wallace-Bajjali fees? I think they paid that, too. Well, I mean the figure of $8,267,000.00 does not include Wallace-Bajjali fees and other closing costs? That's hard property. That's a good word. Let's call it hard
property costs. Now what I would like to know is how much was paid by the 353 Corporation to the various entities that owned these properties because I'm anticipating there was additional price upgrades or additional costs over and above from the original purchaser? I'm assuming that the price they paid to the owner of the property is that middle column which says Purchase Price which adds up to your $8,267,000.00. That's my understanding.
In Re:
Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Q. A. Q. A. A. A. Q. A. Q. Q. That would be the amount that was paid to let us say there's a middle man. Let's say
Mr. Kuehn bought one of these pieces of property. Uh-huh. Now would Mr. Kuehn have gotten a profit figure over and above what he paid to acquire the property? It's my understanding he could have. And how do we know what that figure is? can we establish that? You'd probably have to find out through the tax records. Well, the tax records won't indicate that. The county records? I don't think so. You're an attorney. do. You know better than I How
I would think it would be available at
the county because it would be the amount of the transaction that Mr. Kuehn, if he's the intermediary, would have paid to you, for instance, if you were an individual property owner. Because this came up in one of the
JRC meetings. I know it has and people have asked for this
In Re:
Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. A. Q. number before. And I'm asking for this
number and I can't - so far I've not been able to acquire it. Okay. I don't have it.
You do not have it, however I'm presuming that you have the authority to acquire that number. You certainly can request it of
Wallace-Bajjali, call the closing sheets of each one of these if you have to? I would think that I wouldn't. I'd have to
talk to an attorney before doing so, but I don't think that I would. but I guess -Well, let me ask you this. to a personal attorney? No, I mean legal advice. I don't care about that. And I'm not saying that to be contentious, I'm just saying I would think that I have that right, but I don't know that for sure. We'd have to refer to some of the documents that we have in place as in the contractual arrangements, I would think. Well, here is the thing, you know, I'm trying to investigate under the City Council's You have to talk I don't have them,
In Re:
Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. A. Q. A. Q. mandate, I'm trying to investigate and find out certain things. And to the end that I'm
trying to find those things out I do not have control over Mr. Kuehn or Wallace-Bajjali. I certainly have control over you and I have control over Mr. Head. And I'm not fighting you. I understand that. But to the extent that I
need to acquire information I can't make Wallace-Bajjali sit in here. grand jury. You have more control over me than -I have total control over you, but I do not have total control of them. I didn't know what we were meeting about today. And I understand that. So I mean if that's something you're asking me to do what I will do is go back and have to talk to Brian about it and see whether or not I'm entitled to that information as the contact person for the City. And I don't This is not a
know that I would be, you know, not contending with what you're saying, I've just got to - not being a legal authority I've got
In Re:
Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. A. Q. Q. to -Well, you don't have any legal training as I understand from your prior depo? No, sir. So you're saying, your question in your mind is does the City have the right to know what I'm asking. saying? Yes, and I have no direct knowledge on how this works or what the legal requirements are. I do know I'm working with vital That's what you're really
businessmen that they're not as forthcoming with information as the City has to be by virtue of the Sunshine Law. Exactly. Exactly. We're working with
Wallace-Bajjali on a contract. Yes. So one of the questions that seems to me that you're asking is would your contract rights with Wallace-Bajjali extend what I'm questioning or what I'm seeking to force them to answer your questions? That's exactly what I'm saying. And I think that's legitimate for you to inquire into that. And now let's stop that
In Re:
Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Q. A. A. discussion for a second and let me ask you this question. Whom else for the City would
I seek this information from if not you? Let me caution what I'm saying. I don't know
that Leslie or Brian would have this information. They do not apparently. But they in certain instances are more acquainted with the details of this than I am. Not that this hasn't crossed in front of
me at some point, it's just that I'm the City Manager and the CEO and I deal with more widespread things than details and they handle the details for it. So I'm not saying
that they have that. To answer your question I would think it would be one of those two, but I don't know that they have that. Well, let's suggest this. I talked with Mrs.
Haase about it and I talked to Brian and neither have that information. And that doesn't surprise me, but I'm saying to answer your question it would be one of us three. That would be it then. There would be nobody
else other than you three?
In Re:
Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. A. Q. A. I wouldn't know of anyone else. Well, that helps me. And perhaps maybe Troy Bolander as the Planning Director. Who is he now? He's the Director of Planning. promotion. He just got a
He's one of the two assistant
department heads in the Public Works Department. I don't think he does, but it's
a possibility that he might. Okay. Can you do this, Mr. Rohr? I'm under
what I call considerable time constraints and this issue must be answered really by Monday. I would like to give you until the close of business Friday to do whatever you think you can do to acquire that information. Can you send me something asking me for that? Q. I'm telling you right now. If you'd like to
have a copy of this portion of the transcript -Yeah, I'd like to have something. I have gone through the exhibit, I'll give you a copy of that exhibit. We've gone
through that exhibit and we've talked about what it is that I am seeking. Do you
In Re:
Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. mind. BY THE WITNESS: (By Mr. Loraine) mrohr@JoplinMo.org. address? BY MR. LORAINE: give that to him? BY COURT REPORTER: If you don't Okay. Would you A. Q. A. A. understand what we have talked about? Yes, I do. Okay. That's what I want.
You wouldn't send that in an email to me? No, sir, I will not. I will give you a copy
of this document before you leave today. BY MR. LORAINE: Can you send him a
copy of this portion of the depo? BY COURT REPORTER: that you want? BY MR. LORAINE: Yes. Okay. Of the request
BY COURT REPORTER: BY THE WITNESS:
Do you want my email
And I'm sorry to put you
under the time constraints, but unfortunately I'm under the same, really worse time constraints. This perhaps could have been
answered by Wallace-Bajjali, but they haven't cooperated. It perhaps could have been
In Re:
Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. answered by Mr. Charlie Kuehn, but he did not cooperate. And probably it may well be that
Wallace-Bajjali continues to not cooperate and if that's so then I need to know that. So I think they'll instantly say, oh, yeah, we can do that for you, or they'll say, no, sir. And one of the things you'll know by That's all I'm
Friday close of business. asking for.
I am going to also ask Mr.
Woolston to do the same task so I'm giving you a heads up on that so that maybe you could talk to Mr. Woolston and he will say, oh, I have that information already. Mr.
Woolston has given me a list of properties as an exhibit whereby he says, oh, I've only taken one fee out of all this list. I don't
know if you've seen that particular list, but he has given me one. telling the truth. And I'm sure he's He's under oath and I
have no reason to doubt that he would lie on that issue, so the question really that list may or may not be the exact same as this list. I suspect it is.
Do you know how many properties are on that list?
In Re:
Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. A. Q. Q. Q. A. I just counted it. I think there were 36.
So every one on that list is property that Mr. Kuehn bought? No, I wish it was. Some of them are Mr.
Kuehn's property, some of them are one of Mr. Kuehn's corporations, some of them are Mr. Woolston's corporations, one of his partnerships, and some of them are else wise. So I don't know. of these easily. Because I have no idea what that number is. And I understand. I fully understand. But We can certainly get some
this is something that the Council has asked for before. This is not something that I
just dreamed up here. I'm not saying you did, I just think that's the total list of property that the JRC has bought, but not all the properties on that one location is what I'm trying to say. And that's probably true, yeah. I think it is. Yeah, and I think Woolston was probably more interested in a certain location than he was generally all this property, but I don't know that. I'm speculating. But in any case now
In Re:
Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think we can leave this topic for right now. I'll get you a copy of this before you
get out of here today. (Transcript of Sworn Statement above emailed to witness at the request of Mr. Loraine) (Sworn Statement Continued) Q. (By Mr. Loraine) topic, if I may. Now let's go to another It's my understanding that
Wallace-Bajjali, some due diligence was done on their corporation or company and I think it was done by Mr. Woolston. No, there were two separate fronts that were investigated, if that's the right term. There was a field trip that certain individuals from the Cart Committee went on and I think one of the Council members, Ms. Rainey went, and actually went to Texas to look at some of their work. And then I
spearheaded and did probably most of the work via phone on investigating them that way, calling different City Managers that they had projects in their town performed by Wallace-Bajjali and doing some other things. I wasn't the only one that made those calls, but I was spearheading that portion of the
In Re:
Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. A. Q. effort which brought it altogether which was then reported to City Council. Are you telling me that Mr. Woolston did not do any of that due diligence? He may - I don't recall for sure. He didn't
go on the trip, but he may have made some phone calls but I did the lion's share of the phone calls. Okay. I couldn't even profit you a percentage on that. I don't know who did what level.
And to the extent that we have a Chapter 353 Corporation whose idea was that? To? To form the 353 Corporation. All that predates me, sir. That's a
mechanism from years ago that assists the City in redevelopment and it's established or the legislation is passed by the state which entitles the City to do that. I don't
remember when it was first done, but it was before my time. Well, I understand what a 353 Corporation is. A. I don't want to condemn you, I'm just --
My question is, how did we decide, we being
In Re:
Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. A. Joplin, to use this particular entity of that statutory authority in this case to rebuy land? Well, based on my recollection I think that Brian and Rob O'Brien probably have the most experience with it and found out was the best mechanism by which to do this. So it was Brian Head and who? Rob O'Brien who is the chairman or the President of the Chamber. The Chamber does
the City's economic development function for us. Okay. That's what I think. I don't know that It wouldn't have
beyond a shadow of a doubt.
been me because I wasn't aware of the capabilities of the 353 Corporation. something that's unique to Missouri. Right. And it's been dormant since I've been here. Relatively dormant. And once again that would be pretty much a legal decision? I'm confident Brian had input. I don't know That's
that Brian actually made the decision, but I
In Re:
Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. think Rob also had input. And I was probably
involved in those conversations, but I don't have the level of experience and expertise in the 353 to have determined that on my own. All right. Was there any outside lawyer that
assisted in the 353 formation or in the 353 process to the best of your knowledge? I don't know about its inception because I wasn't here. We've had other attorneys involved at various points in this. I don't
know if Brian consulted others in us making that determination or not. you'd have to ask him. That's a Brian question then? He would know better than I would. All right. Now did Wallace-Bajjali I don't know,
participate to your knowledge in selecting the 353 avenue? I don't think so. They're a Dallas company. No, they're out of Houston. Okay. Houston.
But they approached the City early on, I think I described this in my earlier testimony, they were having dinner with one
In Re:
Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. Q. of the Crossland boys the night the tornado struck and that's how they found out about Joplin and Joplin's situation. They had come
to town prior to us going through the RFQ process and we had had some discussions with them, but we went through a formal process at Brian's request to solicit proposals from other companies. And then the Cart Committee
vetted all those proposals and scored them and then made a recommendation to City Council and that's when the recommendations or the investigations, if you will, over the phone and the visits took place. That was
all conveyed to Council and they made their decision based on the tally of that information. And over what period of time did that develop, if you can give me insight on that? I would think - they came to visit before we started the process. In terms of the actual
RFP process or Q process probably three months. So pretty close to the date of the tornado? Well, I don't remember exactly when it was. It was quite a few months after that, but it
In Re:
Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. Q. Q. A. A. Q. wasn't right after that. Okay. As you sit now I understand that the
independent baseball idea, the baseball team, is going forward. statement? Yes, sir, there's one more document that has to be formalized and approved in order to be finalized. Obviously the development itself Is that a correct
to occur, also, but there's one more step in the process with City Council. It is now with the City Council? It hasn't been presented to them. I think
Brian is working on drafting that and then it will be presented to Council. Is that now going to be a Wallace-Bajjali project? No, sir, they have nothing to do with it. And why do they not have anything to do with it? Really wasn't one of their projects. They
had suggested as part of the 800 million dollar's worth of projects a multi-purpose facility which is government lingo for a baseball stadium that could be used for a lot of different things to defray the cost of the
In Re:
Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. expense of it, but this is outside the EER and this is developed and enhancement of an existing stadium so it's not really one of their projects. So it's different than a
brand new stadium, it's rehabbing an old stadium that's been in existence for a hundred years for that purpose. make sense? How then did this property come to the City? The minor league baseball project? Yes. Mr. Cotten brought it to our attention. made contact. weeks ago. He Does that
I asked him that a couple of
I believe he called someone from
Kansas City T-Bones and was just running the tryouts trying to make something happen and became aware of the El Paso franchise looking for a new home and he made the call to them and got them interested. And then he brought
them to me and then together we sat down, and Brian had some role in it, and figured up the financing on the City's end. Negotiated the deal, figured up the financing, and started developing the documents that we have to present to Council.
In Re:
Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. Q. A. Q. Q. A. A. Q. So that was developed within the City itself from staff? Yes, and as a matter of fact there's more recently, I don't know how close you track the local paper, -I don't. -- the gentleman that's the league of the developing group for minor league baseball Mr. Wallace had had some past dealings with, didn't leave them on the best terms, and that was an article that appeared I think a week ago Sunday in the paper. Independent baseball club and Wallace didn't want it? It wasn't necessarily the club, it was the guy that was teaming with the team for the development. There was going to be a
development aspect outside the stadium and outside the team itself. This is this Robby Joe Stadium or whatever it is? Joe Becker Stadium. Joe Becker. That's the one where Mickey
Mantle played? Yes, sir.
In Re:
Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. What's Mr. Cotten's position with the City? Parks and Recreation Director. Mr. Cotten, is that a department head? Yes, sir. So he would be directly supervised by you? Yes. And I think that you said he was running the tryouts. I think what that means to me is he
would just -Trying to make something happen. Try to make something happen. thing, isn't it? Yeah, I think I know where you're going with this and I've got an explanation. Tell me what I'm doing then. Well, you said something when we left, and I may be wrong, but I think I know what you're doing. I can like I said explain it. You That's a good
said something in our last discussion which prompted me to go back and I asked for a copy of a letter that I had sent Chris and asked my assistant who wrote the letter to call them back up because I was stimulated to do so by our conversation. And I read it and it had to do with him being taken to task for
In Re:
Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. being involved in the minor league baseball effort. Who took him to task? I signed the letter. letter. You signed the letter against Mr. Cotten? Yes, it was more of a - and the thing of it was it wasn't the only issue. I don't I I didn't write the
remember how actually it was worded. didn't write it, I just signed it. Who wrote the letter? My assistant.
My assistant, Sam Anselm, but
I signed it so in a sense it was my letter. Sam works for you? Yeah. Does he directly work for you? Yes, but Chris - the letter was the tip of the iceberg with respect to some issues that Chris had. He's a good employee and I'm not
trying to impede that in any way, it's just that he sometimes gets ahead of me on different projects and talks with the Parks and Rec board and other people all in good spirit and all in the interest of moving the City ahead, but sometimes gets ahead of us
In Re:
Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. which causes some problems. So the essence
of the note might have been slow down on this particular project, but it was indicative of a larger problem that we've had with Chris that since he curbed. What is the larger problem? That he sometimes gets out in front too far and creates a little bit of a problem. It
wasn't anything to do with Wallace-Bajjali, although I may have received a complaint, I got a couple of complaints about him having done that. I don't even remember where it
came from, but one of them could have been from Wallace-Bajjali. What would be the significance of it not being a Wallace-Bajjali project? They wouldn't get the fees. What kind of fees would be generated? Well, the way the contract is written and what you see there is they had 5.75 percent of property sales and the actual development of the project when it goes forward. So the
fact that it is not a Wallace-Bajjali project means that they're not involved financially in the Joe Becker Stadium project.
In Re:
Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. So how much is the Joe Becker Stadium renovating -It's not that much. We think it's going to
be 4 million for the City and the secondary type of development that the team will advance is probably in the neighborhood of 4 to 6, somewhere in there. So we're looking at 4 plus 6. 10. 10 million? Yeah. And Wallace-Bajjali would be then getting 5 point something percent of that? If it were their project in theory. not. It's outside the storm zone. But it's
What's the math there, a million some odd? Probably, what, $57,000.00 on the million so $570,000.00 probably. Half million dollars? Yeah, probably. mean. I understand neither one of us have a computer. Sure. Chris is a good employee. I want it Off the top of my head, I
to be on the record.
It's just that
In Re:
Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. It would be more than that? Building a new stadium you're talking 30 to 50 million bucks. So now you're going to write him a thank you letter for his -I hadn't thought about it. Well, maybe you should do that, Mr. Rohr. Maybe I should. Yeah, maybe you should. But once again I'm calling attention to the fact that was just indicative of some of the problems that -A. A. Q. Q. sometimes in his efforts to hustle and get some things done he gets a little far out in front and I've got to pull him back and that was the purpose of the letter. The letter that you're making reference to would be put in his personnel file? Personnel file, yeah. So are you now going to write him one and say thank you for saving the City a half million dollars? Well, actually if their project would have gone forward it would be even more than that.
In Re:
Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I understand that's your position. Yes. Okay? Okay. If you want to supplement by Friday all the things that you didn't like about Chris -It's not I don't -No, I'm serious about this. Now if you have
an explanation that you just have tendered me I'd like to have it in writing. So if you
want to write all the things down that you had in mind when you signed that letter perhaps you should do that. If it's important I guess I could. Well, maybe you should then. It's up to you
to decide whether it's important or not, but you've brought the issue up and I'm interested in it now, okay? Okay. Are there any other things that we should talk about that? Because this is my final
time to talk to you before I have to write a report and is there anything else that comes to your mind? I mean it wasn't my thought because I sat
In Re:
Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. through the Council discussions that I was the target of the investigation. I have
heard through the grapevine that you talked to some people in the Public Works Department. We had a huge issue in the
Public Works Department that we had to deal with last July involving some mismanagement and I think you just need to be aware that there's other issues associated with that if you're forming any judgments based on that. And probably two of the people that I've heard talked to you, don't know for sure, just second and third hand, are people that would have been terminated or were on the verge of termination as a result of that. Who would those people be? Mr. Cope and Mr. Schaller. And Mr. Schaller
had another issue prior to that whole Public Works investigation going on that I had to address and did address and that's when his perspective changed on things and it got worse over time, and he did some other things that were in my mind poor decisions. So Mr.
Cope already had a disciplinary hearing that was set that would have dealt with his role
In Re:
Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. in the mismanagement of the Public Works Department and that had been established when he resigned. coming. I think he knew what was
And Mr. Schaller had some other
issues going on and he was upset that he was not appointed as Acting Public Works Director and I think that has affected his decision making. And who have you talked with about all this? No, I just ruminated in my mind that you wanted to talk to me and I had heard that they had talked to you so I -Who had you heard I had talked to about it? I heard that they spoke to you and that there may have been some other people in the Public Works Department that spoke to you. Who told you that? I don't even know. going around. Yeah. A. you. and -And now you think according to you that Well, who did you hear the rumor from? I mean there's a rumor
I don't even remember, sir, to be honest with I've heard it on a number of occasions
In Re:
Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. you're the target of the investigation? No, I don't know that I am, but I know that when Council formalized the things that they wanted whomever, which ended up being you look into, didn't have anything to do with me other than the post-it note, other than someone took the post-it note from my office. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay. about? I don't know. I would ask that you would ask Anything else that we should talk
me if there's something on your mind I'd be more than willing to address it. Yeah, I think we've talked about the things that I was concerned with. I don't know what you're thinking so it's hard for me to bring up things because I don't know what you're thinking. Well, I have to say on something like this Cotten thing you brought up, if there is something that I need to know about Mr. Cotten I would like to see that. He's a good employee. He just gets
aggressive sometimes, overaggressive sometimes and creates some problems and it's
In Re:
Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. A. Q. A. Q. Q. my job to pull him back in. And I can
understand after reading that letter after we spoke the first time how that could get misconstrued. That wasn't the intention, it
didn't have anything to do with trying to feather Wallace-Bajjali's nest at all. I'm sure it didn't. about this. And let's just be frank
Are there any fees going from
Wallace-Bajjali to you in any way? No, sir, not a penny. And are there any promises? Not at all. And are you now satisfied with Wallace-Bajjali? When I say satisfied we're
two years into a contract and -I'm like everyone else, I'd like to see some dirt moving and some bricks being laid, but you know, I understand that there's reasons for that and it's my job to work through those reasons and make sure it happens. Their contract, is there a time schedule for them to reasonably respond? better to ask that question. No, I know what you're saying. I don't I don't know how
remember if there's a deadline in that
In Re:
Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. A. Q. Q. contract. Brian drew that portion up. I
don't think there is, but there's no benefit for them delaying. I mean they make that fee On the real
once those projects go forward.
estate fee they're paying that back when they buy the property, so they're not here to sell property and then to buy it back adding in the other costs, they're here to develop a project. So I think legitimately in my mind Are
they want to see those projects advance. they going as fast as I'd like? not. Probably
But again that's my job to work with
them to expedite it as much as we can. Okay. To the extent that they buy the costs
back regardless of what it is in here, you know, that's just their basis that's on? Can you say that again? To the extent that they buy this property back -They're not making anything because they're paying their own fee back as part of the acquisition fee. And that then becomes their basis in the project? Yes, sir.
In Re:
Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. Okay. Whatever went on before that, who made
what money, is of no consequence to them at this point? question. Are you with me? That's a
I know it didn't sound like one.
Can you go over that again so I understand? Yes. Whatever Mr. Kuehn or one of his
corporations or one of the other people, when they bought it from Joe Schmo, the little landowner, okay, and they bought it for $100.00 and they sold it to Wallace-Bajjali for $200.00 they made $100.00? Yes, sir. And that would become part of the basis when Wallace-Bajjali buys it back? That's my understanding. And that's the question I guess I want to know is how much did all these little entities make and that was what I had asked you to determine if you can by Friday. Do you see why I'm interested in that? Sure, I understand. Because this is not a bowl brush here. That's not the purpose of redeveloping. Right. And we're not interested in certain people
In Re:
Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. A. Q. A. Q. getting rich over other people. interest in that. Right. And so now we want to know if that did occur, and if it did occur we want to know to what extent it occurred, okay? Okay. I appreciate you coming in here on short notice like this because for me I wasn't even planning on being here, but there was no way to get these numbers that I'm seeking other than go to the man. Right now you're the man We have no
and I don't know of anybody else that can marshal these assets and contacts and come up with this information. Now I will be asking
Woolston the same thing, and some of them he would be able to give us probably instantly anything he was involved in, but he may not want to, you know. And he's really not a
City employee, you know. Sure. May not be in his best interest to do so. Sure. I don't know.
Yeah, I don't know either. He's told me the same thing he told you about
In Re:
Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. the one property. Yeah, and I believe that. I believe that. me. I don't have any reason to disbelieve that, but it does seem to me that there certainly have been people in there telling me that the prices of the property have been multiplied by 200 percent and 300 percent. Now those He's always been honest with
are people that probably don't know what they're talking about, but I don't know, maybe they do. And if they do know what
they're talking about and if the City Council wants to know that it seemed wise for me to have an answer to that. Well, I appreciate you wanting the report on verifiable information, not rumored innuendo. That's exactly what I want. Okay. And really there is no one else. You're it.
So if you can't come through with this I would be disappointed and I would like to have that information irregardless, if that's a word, I would like to have that information, but if we don't have it, we
In Re:
Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. A. A. A. Q. don't have it. We tried. I'm at. Okay. If I can have that information -And that's where
I think that's the most important key thing that we need to determine at this point and kind of go from there. Okay.
(Off record discussion with Mr. Loraine and court reporter) And I intend to write Chris a letter. I will
not back off his needs, make sure that he clears certain things with me and doesn't get too far out in front of me, but I can understand in light of how things have developed how that specific reference in that other letter to Wallace-Bajjali could be misconstrued and that's not fair to him. (By Mr. Loraine) I understand. It is not.
I try to be fair and probably
what happened was I conveyed to Sam the overall general concern based on the fact that this just happened and I didn't read the letter closely enough and it wasn't as expansive as it needed to be. He still has
that issue at times, but he's also a good
In Re:
Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (SWORN STATEMENT ADJOURNED) A. Q. Q. employee and he also gets things done and that's what it's all about. I would think, you know, just my guess, I mean if I were you I would be happy if somebody got some dirt turned. That's what we're working on. Okay. Thank you for coming in, sir.
In Re:
Page 46
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF MISSOURI ss. COUNTY OF JASPER I, SHARON K. ROGERS, Certified Court Reporter in the State of Missouri, do certify that pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation the witness came before me on the 28th day of January, 2014, was duly sworn by me, and was examined. That examination was then taken by me by
steno-mask recording and afterwards transcribed; said Sworn Statement is subscribed by the witness as hereinbefore set out on the day in that behalf aforesaid and is herewith returned. I further certify that I am not counsel, attorney, or relative of either party, or clerk, or stenographer of either party or of the attorney of either party, or otherwise interested in the event of this suit.
________________________ SHARON K. ROGERS, CCR-650

Rohr, Mark - Trascript, 1-28-14 Investigation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rohr, Mark - Trascript, 1-28-14 Investigation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript of the Testimony of Mark Rohr (1-2814 Investigation)

Printed On: January 30, 2014

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

JOPLIN CRITICAL INVESTIGATION

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Page 4 I N D E X Page/Line DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LORAINE . . . 5-2

Land Purchase Financial Summary

Exhibits in separate binder

(sic) - typed as spoken (ph.) - phonetic

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

trying to determine on the Wallace-Bajjali

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

to coming in here today? I may have. This document itself doesn't

I mean I'm the contact

person with Wallace-Bajjali, but I don't mind all the details.

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Now I'm told that is

basis for the repurchase of the property as it develops by Wallace-Bajjali.

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. Now according to this

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Okay. Now that has not occurred? At

No, they're on the verge of doing that.

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

I would think it would be available at

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. A. Q. number before. And I'm asking for this

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078

Mark Rohr (1-28-14 Investigation)

Joplin Critical Investigation

Holliday Reporting Service, Inc. 417-358-4078