MOPR's 1/6/03 VP BOA PARTIAL MTG MINS


Notes:  This is a partial mtg transcript since I left at about 8:35 pm after they approved Condemning Ord 1588.  (Docs Page, Ord 1588)

 

Present: RH, TB, DA, RS, PP, DM, EM, JW, RC, BL.


1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    1 of  11

DM:  Call this mtg of the BOA mtg for 1/6/03 to order.  PP, would you take roll, please?  (roll call - see above)  PP:  7 present & accounted for.  DM:  Tku, sir.  (Pledge Allegiance)

DM:  One speaker request from the audience ;  are there any others?  BOA Ald Helton, do you have anything to add to the night's agenda?  RH:  Nothing, YH.  TB:  I have a couple items for PW.  DM:  Wanna bring 'em up at that time, TB?  TB:  I _ _ _ next time, now or _ _ - DM:  You can dispense with 'em now & then under the PW Report, we'll address - TB:  I just wanted to compliment the street dept _ _ _ _ they did on snow removal;  & uh a couple of street signs maybe, give 'em a little bit better directions to Jefferson up there at the stop light & Methodist Church - somewhere incorporate that into it.  DM:  Tku. DA.

DA: Yes, YH, I have 2 items.  Um the first item would be Galaxy Mgmt Co, the rezoning; I've got some ques on that.  I don't know if we need to do it under the Mayor's Report or - ques on that.  DM:  Ok.  DA: except it's (not an?) ord.  Um & I'd also have um under Bills & Ord, that we um consider at that time, taking the employee evaluation um bill that was placed in the um Leg Cmte out of cmte ;  we can do that at that time.  & that's all, tku.

RS:  Nothing, YH. JW:   Uh, yes, sir, I just want to get some clarification on some financial disclosure statemts.   DM:  Anything else to add?  JW:  No.

RC:  Uh, yes, YH, I'd like to uh make a recommendation at the proper moment on uh, uh who I'd like to see do the Comp Plan for the _ _;   we had uh, uh paperwork I think in the packet on that.  Uh, I'd also like to uh, at some point, ask uh about the newsletter &, it getting approved by the bd prior to it being printed.  & let's see, I'd also like for the uh Mike Croghan memo which is now signed, uh to get a little bit of attention so perhaps we can jump-start a, a mtg & update our budget to where our salaries & stuff are.

Uh let's see, I'd also like to uh get a vote where uh all the candidates to get packets. I'd also like to ask that uh before we get too much further down the road with MODOT, some of our problems with the uh new hiway that uh this cmte get put together so we can have, all have a full-ward input on it;  & I'm gonna be slain, but I'monna be in the 3rd Ward on it, uh I'd also like uh JB had a, I think he had a leave-of-absence request;  I'd like for us to vote yes or no on that.   & I'd also like to figure out if uh we should be a comp-time paymt situation.   Uh, we already have the evaluation ord ;  uh, uh that's been agendized ;  I, I'll just wait for that.

I'd like to have a vote put to changing the old biz of our agenda to what it really should be, & that is items that haven't been completed & uh set another spot in there for ords & resolutions;  it's just been something that uh, we'll probably have less items;  if I can get them on an agenda so we can not have to bring 'em up 15 times to get the attn they need.  I'd also like to ask if JM uh doing uh, uh that his time would maybe uh drive some of the new subdivisions & , & check their sidewalks & see if we need to set up a plan to do some sidewalk work.  I've got a couple of specifics I'll mention to him.

I'd also like to have this um MO Amer Water letter that was written concerning uh the fence, discussed a little bit.  I felt they were a little strong-handed about the way they wrote it.  & let's see, I'd also like to ask that uh we have the city atty send a letter to uh Mr. Helton concerning the uh trash bill situation. If we could've had a discussion about it at the mtg prior to this one, perhaps I wouldn't be talkin' about it; but it didn't seem like too many people were interested in it.  So those are the items I have, YH.

BL:  Nothing at this time, YH.   DM:  Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended.  RS:  So moved.  TB:  2nd.  DM:  (voice vote - none heard opposed)   Motion carries.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    2 of  11

DM: & then Mr. Beard, uh address the BOA - 2 mins. MrB:  The only thing I want to speak of... (exchange tapes - I apologize for not noticing the need right away.   Per the city's minutes:  MrB addressed the bd on the zoning of his area & that it was to be zoned commercial, & he asked who is on the Bd of Adjustmts;  DM advised that he would look into the issue;  RC motioned to approve the BOA mtg mins for 12/16/02.  This is where my taping picks up again.)...DM:...Is there a 2nd?   DA:  2nd.  DM:  q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    3 of  11

Are there any licenses or permits, PP?  PP: Yes, sir, uh I have an American Legion Post requesting to have us struck-up a license process over again.  The commander will be a Mr. Lionel Hall & also on the bd will be uh a fellow, other citizens that are in the Mr. uh Warren Hedricks.  & uh that Lt. Mowery do a background check & everything was checked-out ok.  So all I need is a motion & bd approval to go process the - DA:  Move approval.  ?:  2nd.

DM:  Just for clarification, you said this is for the liquor license for - PP:  For the Amer Post.  DM:  Amer Post, ok.   PP: Am Legion Post;  they're startin' all over again.   DM:  We have a motion & a 2nd;  any q/c?   RC:  One, YH, uh being a, a member, I'd like to recuse from voting. DM:  Let the record show that RC will recuse or abstain from voting.

JW: I have a ques.   Will this put us over the maximum # of licenses we can have in VP?  I thought we was at our max. EM: &, & this is for the uh, _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  I'm sure _ _ - This just for Sundays?  PP:  It's for all time, sir.  It was already there;  it was just, they just never renewed.  I don't know the history of what happened, but they just weren't allowed to renew. So I don't know the history behind it.  So they just never applied - DM:  So they're renewing a former license;  so it's not an add'l requiremt - PP:  But they're going thru the whole process again.  DM: (Their last?) they're starting back up again _ _ -  PP: So they have to ask the State.

EM:  I'll take a look & see how it fits in & what, WHAT it is.  JW:  Well, as long as they don't go over that # that we originally uno submitted for this, for the town - 9 or - it's by ord so it won't be hard to - DM:  So if it does put us over, I guess _ - JW:  Come back to the bd then?  DM: would be taxable with the understanding that it doesn't exceed that.  EM:  Absolutely, absolutely.  

DM: Would the maker & the 2nd agree that it will not exceed, er we'll check to verify it does not exceed the city's limit.  q/c?   (voice vote - none heard opposed) Motion carries;  one abstention.

Any other licenses or - PP: Yes, sir, (I mean no?).  DM:  Any reports under Aldermanic uh Cmte mins?  Hearing none, we'll move on.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    4 of  11

JW: Can you discuss that uh financial disclosure?  Clerk's Report _ _ _ _ already?  -  DM: Yes, yeah, we'll bring that up. JW: Ok, I think just - PP: _ - JW: helpful memo just was on the desk here tonight & I know you mailed off, but just for clarification, new candidates, or people who try for office have to file & - PP:  No, sir.  Ok, the, right now, the way this, since we have it, you revised the ord last yr in Nov, since we now have a ord that's stated when a conflict of interest - the only ones required to file is the mayor because he is basically, the administrator for monies & stuff like that.  The new candidates who apply & then the ald in service right now who are going for candidacy, have to submit one.  So everybody else, the other ald don't have to file their _ _ _ going (forward?) this yr.

JW:  Ok, yeah, 'cause wondering why I asked that, I know every yr, uh I mean we, most _ , BL brought up, they'd always mail you one.  It seems like even tho it's in your - PP:  They changed that & that's why I put that info in this goody uh Sam uh Brown said, now, we have a ord on file there with the Ethics Cmte.  Only the aldermans who are running as candidacy will be applying to run will have to file;  the other ald do not have to, unless you're in contract with the city $500 or more.

JW:  & the last ques on that statemt says FROM & THRU - what time period do they want from & thru?  1/1?  PP:  Yes, sir, 1/1 to the end of the yr.  JW:  thru 2002?  PP:  Yes, sir, for taxes.  DM:  JW called me last wk to verify since you are a candidate this yr, & so I called this Sam Brown - I forget his title up in Jeff City, he's in charge of financial disclosures - I had understood her to say only the mayor in this case, 'cause I'm the chief administrator officer, & anybody who's running for mayor, but not anybody who's running for ald, doesn't need to file.  So what I'll do, is have her send a letter tomorrow since - PP: _ _ - DM:  I thought you said ald.  PP:  Yeah, since JW is filed & TB, they will have to file _ _.

DM:  I understood her to say that ald DO NOT have to;  candidate, only candidates for mayor, which this yr of course we don't have any, need to file.  So I'm gonna have her send a letter just to clarify that;  'cause I understood her to say something different than what you're sayin'.  So just, maybe just try to clarify what she said so that - don't want anybody being late on sending their statemts in if they're required to or _ _ _ _.  But I understood her to say this yr, only I would need to as the mayor & next yr, anybody who runs for mayor would have to.  So I'll have her send a letter soon as I (someone coughs) have my secretary, Mrs. Helton, send it out for all the ald & to the candidates _ _ _.

BL: Um, I think it's actually the 4th physical page of this packet, it's the 3rd #'d page, can we get that date clarified up there _ _ _ _ also, under your signature?  It's 2002, right?  DM:  It'd have to be since I signed it _  - BL:  Right, has - DM:  It says 2000 here, yeah, it does.  PP:  The original will have it;  I just reran that one.

DA:  Could we also um after we receive that info, um fwd that to the candidates that have also filed for the various offices because - PP:  I mailed those out already;  everybody, all the candidates have their _ _.  DA:  Ok, but if they're not required to do so, I'd ask that they also be sent a copy of that letter 'cause this form does clearly state that the following info is required from each elected official.  So the paperwork's saying one thing, but the opinion seems to be um otherwise;  so I'd appreciate clarification on that.

DM:  That's good suggestion, DA.  I'll send it to all candidates & all, all the ald.  We'll get it clarified.  Any other ques on disclosure?  We'll send the letter out _ _ - JW:  Yeah, because uno, I talked to DA before we (ping?) the city & got fined $100 per person in one yr because of improper filing charges.  They didn't file, I don't remember exactly what it was, but we did get fined on _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    5 of  11

DM:  & on other cmte reports - I don't see DC in the audience - wait till the next mtg because there's a levee mtg coming up in 2 wks.

Parks & Recreation - Mrs. Keller, you got anything for us?   Pam: Uh, yeah, you uh we have the mins of a special bd mtg that was 12/16,   & that uh mtg was basically put together thru the parks dept to let the Sacred Heart Athletic Assn, uh to let them know what to expect during & after the const of the levee;  & that's basically what the new mins reflect there;   so if you guys have any ques about that.

TB: Yes, if that's my name, I'd like to have it corrected to Bolte instead of Bott.  Pam:  Oop, yeah, I sure did, I had 2 T's there.  Ok, sorry about that.  TB:  No problem.  Pam:  Any other ques on that.   JW:   Down there, it says the cost of re-coding the electric will be City of VP's - Pam:  Responsibility.   Uh, that's what I've been told from DC & everybody else. JW:  Ok, 'cause it says reasonability.  Pam:  Ohhh, I'm sorry;  they're nit-pickin' tonight.  JW:  (chuckling)  I thought maybe there was a new word out there that I wasn't sure of.  Pam:  I guess I'll hit spell check next time.   Are there any other ques on that?

I'd like to thank everyone that did volunteer for the Winter Festival.  We had our Winter Festivals 12/21;  we had a really nice turnout;  the school participated;  uh the Meramec Valley uh Baptist Church participated;  & the choir & the band both participated.  & I'd like to make some special tku's to all the park bd's members:  Phil Soto, Pat Dougherty, uh Cindy Crumpecker, & I'd like to thank some people here in the office:  Terry Helton, Cassie Kollmeyer, that's her new name?  I keep wanting to say Whitteaker.  Patti Warbler & uh also Roxanne.  they were really helpful;  & Pat & Don Smith.  I could not have done it without them.

Uh these events the parks dept puts on thru the City of VP are very beneficial for the uh people within the cmty & our, our children & without volunteerism, we could not do it;  & I would like to thank everybody that does volunteer & I'd like to thank DM, uh the mayor, & his wife, Marcy Michels for helping out also.  & if I forgot anybody, I apologize, but I DO appreciate all the volunteerism we get from the parks.   So if anybody wants to volunteer here, let me know.  DM:  _ _   express my tks for all the work you've done help set that up not only for Christmas time, but thruout the yr.  It was a very nice ceremony _ _ _.

Pam:  Tku. I'd also like to uh remind everybody that the blood drive that we're havin' here at the city hall is 2/3, prior to the bd mtg.  So uh everybody can go ahead & uno volunteer for that if they're able to;  we would appreciate that.  & the upcoming  Fishing Derby is scheduled for 4/2(6?).  Tku.  

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    6 of  11

DM:  Also, I rcv'd a letter earlier, was I believe the Mer River Recreation Assn;  now been a member of 10 yrs, I'd like to congratulate (they?) all the work you've done for that;  you're a member for 10 yrs;  that shows good dedication workin' with that, especially being next to the river here.  That's very nice;  _ _ the city _ _ have good representation on _ _ _ -

Pam:  Tku.  Um, the Stream Team, uh I've been a member of MRA for quite a few yrs, & with Stream Team, I've done water monitoring, quality (someone coughs) periodically for them;  & uh, it's a really good org.  I'm on _ _ _ _.  DM:  My wife & I have also attended a class on how to monitor the stream.  It's very interesting to see the different types of organisms that live in the water & helps to communicate what the quality of water is by what types of different creatures are living there.  Pam:  Yeah, it's very interesting & it does help.  Working together, we all can make a difference.  Tku.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    7 of  11

DM:  Under Old Business, we got Bill 1715, an ord authorizing - here I'll let PP go ahead & read the caption form, please.  Was this properly posted?   PP: It'll be uh Bill #1715, an ord authorizing the City of VP, MO to enter into a Task Order for planning & eng'g services relating to a Comprehensive Plan for the city. DM:  RC, I believe at this time you wanted to uh _ _ _ -

RC: Yes, YH, I'd like ta recommend Zambrana for this uh, this uh job , if I could get a 2nd & I'll include that in my 2nd _ _.  DM:  Is there a 2nd for Zambrana?   ?: 2nd.   DM: I'd like to quick cmt on my own - I felt that Horner & Shifrin gave a, well in my opinion, the best of the 3.  Also, JB who is gone now, but as bldg inspector, offered his opinion also as Horner & Shifrin;  but I'm sure all the 3 are well qualified, but Zambrana does have some past experience working with the city, or rather the city code, _ _ _ _ _city.

TB:  Uh, I kind of agree with you & I kind of impressed by Horner & Shifrin.  I thought they were  - he made a good presentation & _ _ _ - ?:  _ _ _ _ _ _ -   TB: _ _ _ _ _ Zambrana when he was our eng.  He probably does a fine job;  I don't know.  I guess _ _ _ _ _.   How much money were we gonna limit that to, $10K this yr?  DM:  10K's what's budgeted at this time & I believe he, all 3 of 'em seemed to indicate $80 to 90K overall it would take. So I don't know - ?: _ _ - DM: once we get the initial to do the complete, so once we it started, I guess we'd sit down with 'em & say what add'l monies we need to budget for the (well?) next FY, & go ahead & _ _ the  plan.

DA: Um I'm familiar with Z Eng'g.  Um, they were the former City Planner/Eng & thru my experience with 'em has been good;  um I have no reason to vote against this ord. Um, one point bein' with the first appropriation of $10K, um, we would spend a great deal of that for a new co to um just get familiar with our rep, where Z Eng'g is already familiar.  So I think um that's, there's some merit to that.  DM: Tku.  q/c?

JW:  I'm against Z.  I think they was an inferior co;  that's why they are not the current eng & uh PH Weis is re-working a lot of their past levee work.   & uh, RC brought up a good point that uh, he's concerned about up-dating the uh budget.   & uh I believe before we spend this money, that this should go into FW&M because I'm not sure that 10K's there, after we gave the employees the extra 25-cent raise.  We said yeah, it's in there somewhere & uh I would agree with RC & I think that we shouldn't be spendin' this money till we currently have an updated budget to make sure that 10K is there.   & uh, I agree with RH, TB & the mayor, Horner & Shifrin was 2 heads above the rest of the companies in their presentation & their experience.  So I think VP should move fwd with a large co like that.   Tku.  DM: Tku.  Anyone else on the 1st time around?

BL:   Yeah, only thing I don't know when you talked to JB, I talked to him his last day;  &, & I really didn't have an opinion;  I thought a couple of the presentations were good.  I asked JB um, uno, if it came up, if you were still with the city, I may call on him, who would you recommend?  & he told me flat to my face, the only co I would recommend was Z.   & I said, well, am I gonna put you on the spot & bringin' you up & askin' you that in a mtg;  & he said no.  So I, that was his last day.  Now I don't know when you discussed it with him, but I was still, at that time was in the air & wondered how he felt about it.

DM:   I apologize for not putting it in the packet;  he gave me a letter; I guess talkin' more to him about whether or not he would stay on.   (someone coughs) a letter in there tonight about consulting.  In that letter, he stated that Horner & Shifrin was the best.  Now, perhaps he reconsidered or got further, maybe he made some follow-up calls to change it to Z, which everyone's entitled to change their minds, but in the letter, he said different.  But if it's the bd's pleasure to with one of the others, besides Horner & Shifrin, in this case Z, that's what_ _ _ the bd's desire.

RC:  YH.  DM:  As TB asked the 2nd time around, er since you had - ok, RC, I'm sorry, you haven't had your 1st time around.   RC: I think uh the idea of JW implying that he is agreeing with me that we need to do something with the budget, that's sort of the apple here & the orange is the fact that, that we did look at some budgets.  & we are runnin' out of time pretty fast.  We've come to this Comp Plan;  we've, we've gotta levee that's closin' in & will be finished.  & if we don't get this under control, it's going to be chaos as far as uh if we - if this thing hasn't needed to be done for 3 or 4 yrs, so now I , I do believe that he understands the city;  he, he's got the history & I, I also think that he has probably given us enough info that he can update the demographics a lot quicker than it would normally be done. I think we're gettin' a - if, if the man & folks who aren't interested in him at this point, uno, Z doin' it, would understand that this is not a, this is only for the $10K.   There's, the other 70 or whatever it is gonna be, that could be done separately as well.  We just need to get movin' on this, so.

DM:  I agree with you that we do, uh do need to get moving, but we need to keep in mind where we spend the $10K now on, would be hopefully who we spend the other 70K on;  but let's spend 10K now on (someone coughs) months from now we'll pick somebody else & say well, that 10K money just uh scattered to the winds & then start over from scratch.  So it's, whoever we, if we do pick somebody tonight, whoever we pick, hopefully we're sure that's the horse we wanna ride.   Anyone else on the 1st time around?

RH:  RC mentioned Ward 1 & the levee;  is this for Ward 1 only & the levee?  RC:  YH, Did I say Ward 1?  I don't recall sayin' Ward 1.  RH:  I think you said that the levee coming, so uno that _ - DM:   Well, I think the levee makes it more important to get something going, but it's not only Ward 1, but it's probably the bulk of the impact _ _ - RH: I mean I agree, Ward 1, I do, but  - DM: Well, it's gonna be more affected, but this is - RH: that's my whole point , uno;   I mean uno I'm mainly residential;   I don't need anybody tellin' me what to do in Ward 2 because, hey, looks pretty well, uno, it's, it's done;  it's somethin' - maybe the McGhee property - but uno, it's, I would rather concentrate, my point is, the levee in Ward 1;  that $10K would REALLY _ _ _ _ _.

DM: I think that'd probably more of this impact on Ward 1, but it's for the whole town 'cause what happens here, affects the other (anchored?) wards as well so _ _ _ all 4 pull together for a new direction fwd. TB, you asked for the 2nd time around.

TB: Uh, yeah, I was, just wanted' to be, I mean other than, 'specially when the guy got (knifed?) with them, I mean I _ _ the other ald which (wasn't that?) I agree or more that I - if it could go into a cmte just for a short time with a discussion, who we did think was the best or whatever. Uno, I'll, it's obvious that some people were impressed by Z & some people were impressed by another _ _ _.

DM:  Well, we do have a motion at this time for an ord with Z in there.  If that fails, then somebody could - I'm not trying to lead anyone in any particular direction, but if it perhaps one or the other - should we just say all 3 be reevaluated to see if we agree with this in principle & pick which one of the 3 & we'll probably just go in that direction or if we pick Z or if we pick Horner & Shifrin.

JW: Uno uh, Z, we have our current Comp Plan that Z did the first time, & uh some of these guys' displays that they brought in, were better than Z's Comp Plan that we currently have.   If any of the ald need to see it, I've got a copy of it & when you see it, you're gonna laugh at it!  I wouldn't wanna give that back to the same co to do that again.

I believe I said earlier, I 'm not sure we got the money. Yeah, it was budgeted, but there's been some overtime that uh wasn't budgeted on our (someone coughs) with all the snow;  there's just a lot of items that uno, nobody's perfect.  I think the city should review their uh spending & what they have before they proceed with an investmt like this & then to change it after you give $10K - say well, we could go to another co;  I think that'd be a waste of money.

DM:  Anyone else on the 2nd time around?   DA: Yes, YH, Uh first uno, I don't wanna take anything away from um Weis Eng'g if they were able to do this, that, that would be who I would be goin' with.  They're doin' a fine job;  so I don't want anybody to, to read anything into um that;  they're a good co. Um & again, the presentations by all the um gentlemen that come fwd were good;  I think they're all uno equally qualified.  My only point, I know, uno, um Z Eng'g personally, that's the only uno the only edge that I give 'em.  So ever how it turns out, that's fine, that'd be what we do & move fwd on this.

DM:  Tku, DA.  Anyone else, 2nd time around?  Hearing none - (voice vote & roll call:  Yes:  RS, DA, RC, BL.   No:  RH;  TB: only because I think it should be put in a cmte & discussed;  JW.)  Motion carries, 4 yes, 3 no, so this, on the uh 1st reading, it does pass 4 to 3;  but it would of course not be enough for a - to become the ord at this point.  Bd's pleasure on the 2nd reading?

RC:  Uh, YH, I'll make a motion that we put it into Leg Cmte, if one's comin' up, we'll discuss it.  ?:  2nd.  DM:  I have a motion & a 2nd to put it in Leg.  Is there any cmts?   RC:  Or we can bring it back at the next mtg.  DM:  All if favor of putting it in Leg Cmte - (voice vote - none heard opposed)  

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    8 of  11

DM:  Bill #1716, was this properly posted?  PP:  Yes, sir.  Bill 1716, an ord for the purpose of authorizing the acquisition of real estate by condemnation & appropriation thereof;  describing the real estate subject to the approp & cond;  naming the owners thereof setting forth the general purpose or nature to be made or said real property & declaring it to be necessary & for the general benefit of City VP at large;  declaring that funds may be advanced for the acq of real estate & that cond shall be in full force & effect from & after the date of passage.  DM:  wbp?  DA?:  Move approval.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  ?:  2nd. DM:  q/c?

JW:  That list looked like it uh, grew in size.  EM:  It did. There's a couple things that's different from this ord than the other.  For one thing, you need statutory authority relying on the TIF District has been deleted & we're going under the city's constitutional authority, statutory authority of a 4th class city for public works projects.   Um, you'll see some new additions;  let's see, uhm, for one thing, the uh,  let's see, E (Maureen Morris') property is going to be a complete take.

Um, Halibut Properties, LLC, that's paragraph K;  it's uh 404 (ord says 405) River Dr, it's a lot down on River Dr & its , its uh, completely surrounded by city or county park property.  However, it happens to be the property that uh, a newly designed outfall goes thru, uh for stormwater drainage.  So we have to have that.  Um, the, the property would be Young's & that's for a, a sewer uh, stormwater sewer uh line.

Uh, & other than that, I, the, the Diamond Group LLC is a name change;  it used to be uh, Meramec Valley Venture Associates & now it's called Diamond Group LLC.  That should be a complete list of properties that looks like maybe we can't reach an agreement with, altho, or we're in the process.

JW:   YH, just, I think Eric clarified it, but just for clarification, I feel like we're strong-armin' these people if we haven't went thru - 'cause I thought we bought the Halibut property.  We bought some from him already;  we paid him money.  EM: Oh, no, no, no, we just - we've never been in any exchange with them.  JW:  Maybe I'm thinkin' Halamicek.  EM:  Oh, yeah, that's a different - Hallibut is a fictitious name;  it's a -

JW:  Oh, ok.  But, uno, as long as you tell me & the bd that you met every, or tried every avenue - I want this to be a last resort is what I'm sayin'.  I just think this looks - EM:  Oh, well this, this authorizes the process to start for these people, uh &, & it continues towards this.  That's all this is.  This is -

JW:  I seen some of 'em it's already been started, like uh, the Harrawood & Maureen Morris;  I thought that was already in litigation.  EM:  It is.  It is.  JW:  Well, how do you bring it out then - do it again?  EM:  We're, we're not.  I've simply restated them &, & just for, for clarity sake, all the Brown's & Harrawood's uh &, well that's it;  in litigation now to allow us to go in litigation with Morris & uh, DeWitt, Diamond Group;   that, that's the people that we're gonna be - JW:  So - EM:  with now.

JW:  So Roland Young & US Cotton Co & Diamond Group has told us that they wouldn't voluntarily sell us the property?  EM:  Young has not said that yet uh & our plans aren't in yet.   Uh, & Pantaz, we won't have a _ _ _ -

JW:  I'm gonna vote no.  YH, I'll just be voting no just because there's a few of 'em that haven't had the proper, I feel is proper, notification from the city before we just come up & strong-arm somebody.

EM:   W, w, once again, I mean this is, this is saying we need property.  It's not - JW:  It's not the right to condemn?  EM:  It, it is the right to condemn, but you can't condemn someone until you follow the statute.  JW:  Right.  EM:  &, & this is not the statute.  I mean the Statute is Five Uh Chapter 523.  This is just saying that we need this property & you're AUTHORIZED to start the process.

JW:  I agree with that, but when Roland Young says, comes up to me & says, why did you pass an ord for uh, uno, condemnation, when you didn't even approach me in a uh, uno, mild manner.  I mean that's, that's one of my point I'm tryin' to say.  EM:  Right.  JW:  I know we need the property for the levee & I'm not against those, but I'm just - we've been black-eyed before on some of these dealings & -

EM:  Well, I don't think we've got a black eye, but nobody's, nobody is, is, I mean we're not, we're not gonna go out & file a lawsuit (tomorrow?) _ _ _ _ until procedure is done properly & it's, uh have the property properly surveyed & give them an offer of just compensation that's been approved by the COE.

DM:  Did we pass this ord for other props that we've already purchased?  EM:  Yeah, all, we, we uh - DM:  I mean every piece of prop that the city's bought, have we passed a similar - you said this was to get the process started - EM:  We've done this - DM:  but I think this - like JW, I agree with him;  it sounds like this is further down the line.  EM:  Well - DM:  Did we, did we pass this for other people's props?

EM: This, this is very much of a FORM ORD.  We've gotta do this in order to proceed with land acquisition.  NO, we don't do this by & large on properties that we voluntarily have a, an agreemt with;  uh, altho we have, I would say. DM:  Well, Young's for instance, that's just one (friend?) we knew of.  Weren't there - are there others on this list then that were - haven't talked to yet to know if they're willing to sell without going thru this condemnation process?

EM:  We've contacted every prop owner on here other than um, Young & Pantaz.  & we're in various stages of negotiations with US Cotton.  But this is just - this ord is in case it doesn't work out!  Then, & then we do what we have to do!

MM:  Can I say something?  RC: YH.  DM:  RC.  RC:  If we could digress just a second.  Did you indicate that this was happening under a city's authority, versus under uh another authority?   Did you say something like that earlier on?

EM:  Yeah, b, before, we had couched our authority under the TIF Act;  & it appears that that act may not be applicable to certain areas;  & that's why we're basically redoing the old ord.  & then we added new props as the COE has deemed necessary for uh revisions of, of the levee or (rinlehand?) the uh, uh structures necessary to support the levee & the project.   RC:  Now a follow-up question, if I can, YH.  DM:  RC. RC: Now that it is under the city's authority, does that not give the city a lot more authority to negotiate than it might have under the other?

EM:  No, we're, we're following the Federal Relocation uh, in, in Acquisition & it's, it's the same no matter which way we proceed;  it's just a different statutory authority.  Even tho we haven't stated authority before;  because it's a federal project, you have to follow federal laws in how we approach it.

RC:   & a final one is, if this isn't uh, done, how much time would it add on to the levee project, uh, assuming you had, you had the official or individuals here who just uh, didn't, didn't understand or whatever question I would say?   Would it, would this uh -

EM:  Well, I mean uno, this, Maureen Morris, for instance, I, unless you give me the right to condemn her, under the statute, er the statutory authority, she's gonna be in LIMBO. Uh, uh, you say how much time, it's, it could be forever , uh because we're certainly at an impasse uh with with her particular case.   Uh, same thing with Lillian DeWitt;   uh -

RC: So you have talked to each, each of the individuals at least once or something;  said something to them?  EM: Yeah, but for the Pantaz family & the Young family.  Those are the only 2, simply because we don't have the uh, appraisals uh on those props which -

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    9 of 11

RC: YH, I think I have a recommendation that might make everybody happy; & that is, is it possible for uh, when the city atty is discussing some of this stuff, to ensure that there isn't maybe a heavy-handedness, that maybe someone be designated to just sit & listen?  I mean that I think is, the fear that maybe've avoided.  It could be a fear of being found as false evidence appearing real;  I mean it may or may not be the case.  So uh, what's the possibility of, of that being kind of a part of the understanding?  Not all of the talk, but just, just some of the talk; that seemed to have helped in the past.

DM:  Which talks has it helped in the past?  RC: Well, I think it helped with uh - we had some situations over in the AL, just in general (someone coughs again).  Uh, there was one biz in particular where there was uh some type of discussion.  I think you even uh was at the mtg at that time.  Remember that mtg?  DM:  I remember not being invited, yes.  RC:  Well, that's fine, but I'm just saying the talk helped.  & I'm saying that that sort of cleared the air for everybody & everybody felt comfortable.

DM:  I guess I don't feel too comfortable because Mr. McGhee's property was, was mentioned at that mtg & here it is on the list here. So I guess I'm kind of at a loss to know what - it hasn't really helped, other than - DA: YH, on my first time - DM: _ _ _ the (billing or building?) over city _  RC still has the floor.

RC:  That's fine, YH.  I just wanted to recommend that sitting & talking & hearing the biz or owner talking with the city atty, who happens to be the Levee Counsel here in this case, was, was quite beneficial to everybody I thought.  I didn't hear things second-hand & what-not.   Uh, I'm, I'm fine;  DA can go now.

DM:  Tku for letting me upon him, RC. DA. DA: Tku, YH. At first, I share yours & JW's concern um, about taking someone's prop.  It's a very serious matter.   Um, & not, I'm not particularly proud to have to be the sponsor of this motion;  however, what we've got to realize is we're going to build the levee.  These props have been identified by the COE as necessary to build this levee. Um, certainly by passing this ord, gives us the right to condemn it;  however, it doesn't say we cannot go ask these people that have not been contacted, giving them the opportunity to um, take a, a fair market uh, uno, value for their prop;  & if they're not , uno, satisfied with that, they still got the right to um, uno, go thru the procedure as we will with the condemnation.  & in many cases, by experience, we probably have paid more by going thru condemnation than we have by giving fair market um, uno, pay-outs on this.

So I don't see that the prop owners are gonna lose;  they're gonna lose out regardless because I think we're all committed to building this levee.  So we're gonna be needing these props today or tomorrow.  What I'm sayin', let's move fwd with this, passin' this.  EM & whoever, uno, he feels is necessary to go with him to speak with these people, or the mayor, to go speak with these people, um, we could get this done.   Um, but my point is, either we're gonna build this levee or we're not.   & if we're gonna do it, we're gonna need to do this.  & we've got plenty of delays, many, many excuses & blame.  Certainly if we do not pass this, this one's on us.  I'm sayin' let's pass it & let's, let's go fwd.  Hopefully everybody comes out of this uh, as good as can be expected.

DM: Just as a follow-up, the mtg that RC uh, referenced earlier, you were at the mtg as well & there was a resolution that that area could be left alone.  & when I say that area, off the Env'l Landscape, Mike McGhee's property, & I think there was a 3rd property involved there, that if they wanted to develop that on their own in the future sometime, once the levee's completed, that they would be allowed to do that.

Now Mr McGhee's been given a letter stating that he can be bought at single-family residential, which we've already had contacts, as I understand, from uh various individual, like a gas station I guess, type, Quik Trip, who would want to come in there & develop.  So, but in being right next door to commercial, I hope we're not being heavy-handed by telling him he's residential.

We've already had some other land that we bought, told them they're residential, & then now they're being taxed at commercial uh prop rates.  So I'm not sure when that fell into place, zoning change rather took place. I'm kind of leary too I guess of this.   This, to me, when it says condemnation, appropriation thereof, sounds like the final step.  I would hope we've contacted everyone.  I've been told - (for hurry to get thru the conversations?), that we've talked to everyone except for the Pantaz family & the Young family.  So I don't know, perhaps we at least talk to them initially & see what they're, or what the others, or why they're on here, this list, initially, if we haven't uh surveyed yet.

But again, I wanna get the best deal for the city.  I would like to see the levee completed.  I'm as much in favor as anyone.  It's gonna be a big hope for the residents as well as the bizs that are down here & the ones that hope to relocate down here in the future, help the city to move fwd, but on the other hand, I don't want to it at the expense of uh somebody who's just, I guess, felt steamrolled.   Any other q/c?   RH:  YH, My - DM:  First time around, RH.

RH:   Mine's brief.  Uno, & that's my only concern is delay & the deadlines.   Uno, I mean, we face this & face this.   I mean our last mtg, I think if I'm not mistaken, they said we had to buy this prop up & get it done within a certain amt of time & not - or it's gonna drag on for another yr & perhaps more money.  & went out & borrowed more money;  isn't that basically what they said, or am I wrong?  EM:  You're right!  RH:  Did they give you a deadline?  I mean if we beat around the bush, it's gonna be another yr, uno, & that's my only concern.

& we can sit here & talk about commercial & residential - my prop, I could have somebody come to my house, or get somebody interested in buyin' my property 'cause I have an acre of land.  & they say, yeah, we'll tear your house down & we can make it residential, it's - or commercial - the prop is residential.

If we're gonna do that, then we'd have to do that for everybody in AL, to me, that we already bought out as residential - give 'em commercial, uno, price for it. I don't, uno I'm not a lawyer, but the prop's commercial, er residential, & that's the way it is.   That's all I have.

DM:  Anyone else, first time around?   BL: First time around, YH.  Yeah, I also sat in that last levee mtg with RH.  I mean I'm kind of, I look at that shovel back there & the names on that shovel & the dates from when this - that's was actual just the ground-breaking ceremonial.  The plan was conceived long before that & here we still sit. I - up, like they told us, they look at award that contract for that final piece this Fall.   Um, & depending on the const timeline, they may or may not get to start on it before the Winter.   But, uno, I don't know what this would do.

Again, I know that the city's atty acts on the city's behalf & if we direct him to uno, negotiate in good faith with these people that are left on here that haven't been contacted, he will.  But we need to move on this. I mean, I mean it just drags it out further & longer.  I mean maybe the contract's not awarded till the Spring of 04 or the Summer of 04 & uno, what are we gonna do when that water comes back up?  We're all gonna be able to hear, we're gonna be on the news camera again, we're gonna be in the paper, acting like we were so upset, that we delayed it & then we held it up;  um, we just gotta move on this.  This levee has to be finished.   Go back & look at the date on that shovel.  I just talked to talk to Kyle & Mayor Palmer, former Mayor Palmer, & asked him how long this has been in the works, so let's move fwd on this.

EM:  But the trouble - some bd members that, that, that haven't contacted the Pantaz or Young family, uno, it, it doesn't hurt the ord to take L (Pantaz) & M (Young) out.  Uh, & I can come back &, & report back.  It's just that we will need to, of course, amend the ord uh to get these props - RH:  Or can you add an amendmt, Eric - EM:  Yeah!  RH:  that you WILL talk to 'em & pass this ord & that - EM: Well - RH: & that you will, uno - EM:  I have - RH: amendment - EM: Well, I have to as a matter of law.   RH:  Sure, do it then.

DM:  Does the maker of the motion wish to amend the motion, amend this motion to take out L, sections L & M?  DA? DA:  YH, I would agree to that with - after that -   I'monna make that motion, but I'monna make a comment if I can get a 2nd.  RH:  I'll 2nd.  DA:  Ok, while I would ask that this motion passes that the city atty will pretty much immediately contact these 2.  Then if necessary, present a new ord at the next bd mtg to include those 2 items.

EM:  I, uno, I can't contact 'em until they get an appraisal & that's what I'm waiting for.  DA:  Ok - EM:  So it may not be ready by the next mtg.  DA: Or, or immediately after the appraisal.  DM:  2nd agree, RH?  RH:  Yes.   DM: Any other q/c?

JW:   I have one, YH. I believe this is gonna help this ord & everybody'll be a little bit protected & uh, as far as one of the ald wanted a watchdog, so to speak on this;  the last time we had a watchdog, it cost us 2 esmts down on Vance Rd, 6K & 5K.  So I don't want to pay twice on this & Vance Rd still ain't done.  So that's a little bit like the levee too.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    10 of  11

DM:  Any other q/c?  All in favor of the motion as amended - (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.  What's the bd's pleasure for the 2nd reading of Bill 1716?  DA:  Move approval.   DM: There a 2nd? RH:  2nd.   DM:  Motion was made by DA, 2nd by RH;  any q/c?

Read _ - PP:  Ok, this will also include DA _ - EM:  The amendmt passed! uh, if you noticed, but then, I don't think the motion - the uh, the vote wasn't taken on the first reading. You just, you just -  ?: _ _ _ - EM:  No, you, you just - DM:  As amended;  is it legal to do it that way or should we vote on - _ _ _ recommend vote on the main motion.  EM: I, I'd say vote on the main motion which is, shall Bill 1716 be passed as amended on its first reading?  PP:  The way I put it legally was that Bill 17 was to include that the city atty will contact families at Item L & M & after appraisal, will - amend those 2 items? Or maybe - EM:  I thought we were deleting new Items L & M.

DA:   YH, my motion was to amend this ord or bill, to remove Items L & M.  EM:  That motion carried.  So you got Bill 1716 as amended, &, & it's necessary now - ?: _ _ _ - DM: Ok, for clarification, all in favor of motion 17, uh Bill #1716, as amended - (voice vote - none heard opposed) Ok, amended with removal of Sections L & M passed on the first reading.  PP: So the first one was just to remove it?  DM:  Yes...(exchange tapes)...

PP:   Ok, this will be Bill 1716, with the amendmt to remove Items L & M;  an ord for the purpose of auth'g the acq of real estate by condemnation & appropriation thereof;  describing the real estate subject to the approp and cond;  naming the owners thereof setting forth the general purpose or nature to be made of said real prop & declaring it to be necessary & for the general benefit of City VP at large;  declaring that funds may be advanced for the acq of real estate & that cond shall be in full force & effect from & after the date of passage.

DM:  wbp?  DA:  Move approval.   DM:  2nd? RH:  2nd.  DM:  This is as amended, removal of Paragraphs L & M.   q/c?  Hearing none, role call vote, please, PP.  (Yes:  RH, TB, DA, RS, JW, RC, BL.)  7 yes, pass. DM: Motion carries, Bill # 1716 appropriations, er motion carries 7, zero.   JW:  YH, what's the ord # on that?  Do you know?   PP:  Ord that will be assigned to that will be Ord #1588.

1/6/03 BOA  -  Sec    11 of  11

DM:  Next, we have a resolution to rename the Helfrich Expressway. A couple yrs ago the bd passed a resolution to name the street up at the top of the hill, _ _ _ the new 141, the old...(about 8:35 pm, end of taping of 1/6/03 VP BOA mtg)