Two March 2026 City notices document work at Walmart Store 131 before permits were obtained. Other records raise separate questions about project values, fee calculations and an October 2025 notice revision. Follow the documents, the City’s explanations and the questions that remain.
The City records unpermitted electrical and concrete work, permits, passed inspections and different fee treatment.
MARCH 2026 · CONFIRMED BY CITY NOTICES
Work began before permits. The fee treatment differed.
The electrical notice records a March 4 inspection finding light-pole installation and rewiring without a permit. The concrete notice records flatwork without a permit on March 10. Both records also show later compliance.
Two projects at the same property · records produced March 18, 2026
Record
Electrical · ELC35764
Concrete · FW35779
Work without permit observed
March 4, 2026
March 10, 2026
Permit issued
March 5, 2026
March 10, 2026
Recorded project value
$58,000.00
$42,566.00
Standard valuation fees
$711.25
$580.17
“Work Without Permit” fee
$711.25
No separate line on the produced permit
Total fees and payments
$1,422.50
$580.17
Passed inspection
March 10, 2026
March 12, 2026
Electrical source pages
Electrical case · City’s work-without-permit findingElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗ELC35764 · issue date, valuation, fees and paymentElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 3 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Electrical final · March 10 Passed resultElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 4 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Electrical case · City’s site photographsElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 2 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
Concrete source pages
Concrete case · City’s work-without-permit findingConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗FW35779 · issue date, valuation, fees and paymentConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 3 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Concrete/Flatwork · March 12 Passed resultConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 4 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Concrete case · City’s site photographsConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 2 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
The City’s response and the completed corrections
On March 18, Webster wrote that Ankrum spoke with the contractors and they pulled a permit within an hour. The produced records independently show issued permits and passed inspections before the March 17 Council meeting. Her reply supplies a timing explanation; it does not expressly explain the different surcharge lines.
Webster’s March 18 explanation · permits pulled within an hourMoring’s PDF conversion of the reply · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
Those corrections matter when evaluating the Mayor’s March 17 remarks about improvements at Walmart. The question is whether repeated permitting after work began answered the oversight concern—not whether the March permits and inspections never happened.
Why does one permit include an additional fee for work without a permit while the other does not? The forms establish the difference, but not its reason or legality. The electrical notice also displays a March 16 date and a March 14 compliance deadline; its preparation and service history need reconciliation.
MARCH 17 COUNCIL · AGENDA ITEM 25
What the City said. Which records answer it?
Read each assurance with its limits, then compare the actual permits. The March work, permits and passed inspections occurred before this meeting; the production followed on March 18.
Times below are from the agenda-excerpt transcript, not the full Council video. The video link opens the start of item 25; exact passage offsets remain to be verified. Selected wording and speakers use the completed participant checks.
Corbell asks how valuation and the permit charge are determined; Ankrum describes the estimate-and-fee-schedule method. Moring had just challenged the roof’s valuation and fee. His approximate spoken figure of $540,000 is not substituted for the documented $520,499.
March 17 · Corbell asks how valuation is determinedAgenda item 25 transcript · page 38 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗March 17 · estimated value, Table 1A and manual-entry explanationAgenda item 25 transcript · page 39 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What the permit records show
The May 27, 2025 roof email requests materials excluding labor. The March 4, 2026 lighting estimate instead covers labor and equipment but excludes Walmart’s pole purchase cost. The resulting permits use those supplied values.
The missing reconciliation is what counts toward estimated project value. Applying a fee table does not establish that the estimate contained all costs required by the applicable rule. The roof and pole projects remain separate transactions.
02 · Ankrum, with Corbell’s follow-up
“Cleared up” and a new spreadsheet—what was corrected?
Ankrum attributes one short permit fee to a manual entry during a system change and says he created a checking spreadsheet. He also says he is not sure what happened with the roofing matter. His uncertainty qualifies the assurance about the checking process.
March 17 · estimated value, Table 1A and manual-entry explanationAgenda item 25 transcript · page 39 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗March 17 · cleared-up assurance, spreadsheet and one-permit limitAgenda item 25 transcript · page 40 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What the permit records show
The March 5 electrical permit includes $711.25 for work without a permit. The March 10 concrete permit has no separate line for that fee despite its own work-without-permit notice. The March 18 reply says a permit was pulled within an hour; it does not expressly reconcile the surcharge difference.
ELC35764 · issue date, valuation, fees and paymentElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 3 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Concrete case · City’s work-without-permit findingConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗FW35779 · issue date, valuation, fees and paymentConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 3 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Webster’s March 18 explanation · permits pulled within an hourMoring’s PDF conversion of the reply · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What remains unresolved
Which permit, corrected invoice or payment supports the “fixed” statement? Does the new calculation method address the fee difference and the estimate’s missing inputs? The March records predate the meeting; their later production is not a new post-meeting violation.
“it was an error that staff made and it was an $80 difference.”
Rob Vine
“That's why I am just speaking for the one.”
Rob Vine
Vine says he had already addressed the staff error with Moring. Moring distinguishes other permits whose paperwork showed no fees. Vine expressly limits his answer to one item.
March 17 · cleared-up assurance, spreadsheet and one-permit limitAgenda item 25 transcript · page 40 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What the permit records show
The roof valuation, the corrected CAR25958 import value, and the March lighting/concrete records each require their own reconciliation. None is identified in this exchange as the specific $80 item.
Identify the permit and corrective transaction behind the $80 figure before using it to explain other discrepancies. Moring disputes receiving this explanation in the December 3 or February 18 meetings; prior transcript searches did not locate it, which is not a full-audio proof that it was never said. Blank fee fields alone do not prove nonpayment.
04 · Mayor Wesley Lyon
Improvements acknowledged; the oversight question remains.
“improving on things, but it's not gonna happen overnight.”
Wesley Lyon
“So I think what you're wanting to happen is happening, right?”
Wesley Lyon
Lyon refers to changes he has heard about, Walmart’s own inspections, Home Office visits and OSHA attention. Moring responds by requesting written acknowledgement with a timeline, independent review and consideration of his ethics complaints.
March 17 · Lyon’s improvement remarksAgenda item 25 transcript · page 52 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗March 17 · Moring’s requested remedies and Lyon’s responseAgenda item 25 transcript · page 53 · agenda-excerpt clock · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What the permit records show
The City’s records substantiate electrical work without a permit on March 4 and concrete work without a permit on March 10. They also document permits and passed inspections before Lyon’s remarks. The City supplied these records to Moring on March 18.
Electrical case · City’s work-without-permit findingElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Concrete case · City’s work-without-permit findingConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 1 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Electrical final · March 10 Passed resultElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 4 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Concrete/Flatwork · March 12 Passed resultConcrete Case, permit, and Inspection.pdf · page 4 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What remains unresolved
The corrective work supports part of the improvement account. It does not answer why permits followed work or why the fee treatment differed. Whether those changes fulfilled the requested independent review and documented follow-through is a separate question.
FOLLOW THE INPUTS, THEN THE CALCULATION
What value was used—and what did it include?
A project’s construction value, its permit fee and its property-tax appraisal are different figures. The records below concern specific permits; they should not be combined into a single claimed loss.
01
ROOF35226 · 2025 roof
What the records show
Application: $959,950. The City then requested materials excluding labor; the permit and later City report to Titus CAD use $520,499. The permit records $3,250 in fees.
Official response or explanation
The May 27 correspondence documents the City’s materials-only request. The permit history preserves changes to the record.
Which valuation rule, complete project costs and calculation reconcile the application, permit and amount charged? The City report does not establish a change to CAD’s tax appraisal.
02
CAR25958 · separately corrected value
What the records show
The City’s history records a September 2, 2025 change from $19,633,400 to $1,023,210. Titus CAD’s August 2026 production includes the related City correspondence.
Official response or explanation
Ankrum confirms the lower application value and attributes the mismatch to importing permits between systems. A correction is documented for this permit.
Which other imported entries were checked and reconciled? This record concerns construction value, not a proven reduction in a property-tax appraisal.
03
ELC35764 · March 2026 light poles
What the records show
On March 4, the contractor supplies $58,000 for labor and equipment only and says Walmart has not shared the poles’ purchase cost. The March 5 permit uses $58,000.
Official response or explanation
Reynolds’s reply acknowledges the estimate. The March 18 production preserves both that exchange and the issued permit.
Contractor’s March 4 estimate excludes the poles’ purchase costElectrical emails.pdf · page 2 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗Reynolds’s March 4 reply with the estimate beneath itElectrical emails.pdf · page 22 · repeats the same estimate · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗ELC35764 · issue date, valuation, fees and paymentElectrical Case, Permits, and Inspection.pdf · page 3 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
What remains unresolved
Was the owner’s pole cost obtained separately or added later, and what rule governed the valuation? The reviewed pages do not establish the omitted dollar amount or a precise fee shortfall.
OCTOBER 2025 · THE AUTO-CARE COMPLAINT
One visit. Two notice versions.
The City’s October 20 notice says an October 17 visit followed a complaint about work without a permit in Walmart’s Tire & Lube Express area. It describes sandblasting, painting and replacement grates—and concludes, “No permits are required.”
The fuller notice
It includes the interior-work account and a permit citation referring to City lake property, alongside the fire-alarm finding.
It omits the interior-work paragraph and lake-property citation. Both versions retain the fire-alarm issue, its correction and the statement that no follow-up was required.
On October 20, Ankrum circulated a report at 10:29 a.m., then an updated copy at 10:47 a.m. His second email says the earlier copy contained the work-without-permit code reference and that Lynn Barrett suggested taking it off. Native-message checks establish that sending order; Moring’s saved PDF preserves the wording.
Ankrum’s internal email explains the revisionMoring’s PDF conversion of the internal thread · page 2 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
Moring reports receiving the shorter version first and discovering the fuller notice and internal explanation in the February 2, 2026 production.
What remains unresolved
What rule or exemption supported the no-permit conclusion for the work actually performed, and why did the revised notice omit the complaint account? The documented revision deserves explanation. The fuller notice’s own conclusion and mismatched citation do not establish that a valid permit violation was erased.
Moring’s concern extends beyond large projects: he describes contractors regularly working at Store 131 without corresponding permit records, while small businesses and residents face permit requirements. That concern calls for a job-by-job comparison.
What was raised in the meeting
On February 18, Moring said a facility-maintenance worker told him other cities required permits for plumbing or electrical work at Walmart, while Mount Pleasant did not. He also compared the City’s treatment of small businesses. This is Moring’s account of what the worker said, not an independently verified list of unpermitted visits.
Lyon asked Vine to look at the issue. Vine discussed ordinances and said many were out of date. The recording preserves their full responses.
What the City publishes
The City’s current Building & Development page describes oversight of residential and commercial projects, says contractors working inside City limits must register, and lists electrical, plumbing, heating and air-conditioning work among permit and inspection categories.
Checked September 23, 2026. This current web page does not establish which code edition or exemption governed every earlier job. Contractor registration and a permit for a particular job are separate records.
For equivalent work, did the City require the same application, valuation, permit, inspection and added fee from Walmart contractors as from small businesses and residents? No matched small-business or residential enforcement file is established in this comparison yet. A contractor visit alone does not establish a permit requirement, and a missing record in a production does not prove that no permit existed.
The records that would answer it
Match each dated work order or documented job to its contractor registration, applicable permit rule or exemption, permit issue date, valuation inputs, inspection and fee decision. Then compare the same work, rule and time period at another property. The two March City findings provide confirmed examples; the broader regular-contractor concern remains to be tested against that record.
HS GOVTECH · ELECTRONIC RECORDS
What the City’s contract and files show
The City supplied its signed HS GovTech agreement on August 26, 2026 and stated that the request was closed. Its contracted printing and publishing features can be compared with the electronic inspection records actually available. Read the delivery email ↗
Printing in the City’s own contract
The 2023 signed agreement covers Food, Pools, Code Enforcement, Planning and Building. Its Form Builder includes configurable printed output, and its Violation Library includes inspection content and output configuration. The scope also includes online inspection results and publishing public inspection information configured for the Department.
The July 9, 2025 Walmart inspection supplied in the City’s July 31 production contains visible generated report text over a form background. Its file properties identify PDFKit. The August 25 letter later supplied by DSHS also contains generated body text. These are electronic copies of these particular records.
Mount Pleasant’s portal provides pool inspection reports; NET Health’s portal provides food inspection reports on the same My Health Department platform. The linked City pool and NET Health food report pages each provide a printable PDF. That demonstrates these specific public outputs, not publication of every City food inspection.
The vendor’s instructions describe enabling export, choosing fields and exporting selected records to Excel or CSV, or the filtered record set to Excel. A configuration instruction does not establish the settings of a particular Mount Pleasant user.
Oregon Health Authority’s CloudSuite manual describes exporting a filtered set to Excel and combining selected records into one PDF. These instructions document Oregon’s implementation.
The City’s Building & Development page directs contractors to the MyHealthDepartment portal to apply for and pay for permits. This connects the City’s permit process to the platform.
Payments shown in the supplied City accounts-payable extract
Two invoices marked paid; three accounting lines. Amounts below count each invoice once.
Payment date
Invoice
Paid amount
May 2, 2024
2023-194 A P
$42,000
November 21, 2024
2024-169 A
$18,000
Total in this extract
$60,000
The $18,000 invoice has separate $3,000 and $15,000 accounting lines and describes annual maintenance for December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025. Its invoice total repeats on both lines. Adding those repeated totals would overstate payment. This extract does not establish the City’s complete vendor spending or which export functions were used. Download selected accounts-payable columns · CSV ↗
Additional software references
Anaheim’s agreement describes downloading the entire dataset and exporting data in multiple formats, subject to permissions. Anaheim’s terms do not determine Mount Pleasant’s terms. Anaheim agreement · PDF pages 32–33 ↗
What this establishes: printing and public inspection publishing are in the City’s contracted scope, and particular electronically generated inspection records exist. PDFKit metadata alone does not identify who created a file, prove intentional alteration, or establish universal export capability. Permissions, templates, historical versions, attachments and completeness still require record-specific checks. These sources do not establish that every requested export was available to a particular employee on a particular date, or that a disputed charge was improper.
THE EARLIER WARNING · FY2020 AUDIT
Could another person reproduce the fee?
Finding 2020-005 identifies incomplete permit documentation: missing applications, missing fee details or remodel-cost specifications, and absent inputs such as fixture counts prevented auditors from recalculating selected charges. They recommended keeping the applications and the inputs needed to reproduce the fees.
The finding’s scope
The auditors classified 2020-005 as a significant deficiency. It is not the separate material-weakness finding, and it does not specifically find Walmart undervaluation.
FY2020 financial audit · finding 2020-005 and City responsePDF page 190 · printed page 182 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗FY2020 financial audit · significant-deficiency classificationPDF page 182 · printed page 174 · view pageOpen source page at full size ↗
The City said it was resolved
The City’s response says the matter was addressed with the new Building Official hired in August and that the issues had been resolved as of October 2020.
The later roof and light-pole records return to a related question: can the retained records explain the costs included and reproduce the fee charged? That connection does not establish one continuous failure since 2020 or the same personnel’s responsibility throughout.
The July 23, 2021 fire inspection and its production history
These three entries preserve matching copies of the same three-page MPFD inspection. Read them with the later fire-inspection reports and contractor letters, while keeping the original production references.
October 18 request records and Rob Vine USB materials · pages 1–3
Source check. The three published copies have matching images on all three pages. Each file and its collection associations remain separately identified.
Scope. These copies describe one inspection. Their repeated appearance does not establish three inspections or resolve later permit, correction or completion questions.
SOURCE HISTORY
The same City permit report, two CAD source descriptions
The CAD entries retain two useful descriptions of the same three-page file: internal forwarding of the City’s March 2026 permit information, and the Walmart electrical and concrete permit entries in that exchange.
Titus CAD records · permit-entry context · pages 1–3
Source check. The complete files are byte-for-byte identical. Both record IDs, source-file references and caption contexts are retained.
Scope. This is one file with two catalog descriptions. It does not establish a second permit event or a new finding about project compliance.
SOURCES AND CONTEXT
The records behind the comparison.
The source links identify the cited pages. March notices, permits, inspection summaries and contractor emails come from the March 18 production. The October and March replies are PDF reading copies converted by Moring; the October sending order was checked against native messages. The financial audit is a separate City report.
Repeated copies of the March 4 estimate represent one exchange. The permit matters are compared separately, with each finding presented alongside the City’s response and any documented correction.
Permits, values & equal treatment | Mount Complacent
