MOPR Notes:  Unfortunately I don't have the extra hours it takes to apply bold emphasis to this entire transcript.  On Docs Page is Condemning Ord 1622 passed tonight, amending Condemning Ord #1505 again.  Ord 1622 refers to Sunset provisions within Section 99.810(3);  deletes reference to blight/redev;  & states that the properties are for use by the city or its DESIGNEES.  


Present:  RH, TB, DA, JKB, MW, DM, EM, JW, RC, BL, KT.


1/5/04 BOA - Section  1 of  19


DM: ...could you take roll, please.  MW: (see above)  8 present.  DM:  Quorum being present, call this mtg to order for 1/5/04.  (Pledge Allegiance)  (RH, TB, DA, JKB & JW have nothing to add to the agenda & DM welcomes DA back.  DA has a brace on his neck.)  RC:  2 items, YH;  I'd like to uh briefly discuss the uh performance evaluation ord that we passed (someone coughs) (7 or 8?) months ago.  & I'd to uh, I've got 2, 2 or 3 motions I need to make on uh Morton's Grove - there's some storm water problems.  DM:  Do you wanna bring that up under PW _ _?  RC:  Whatever.  (BL has nothing to add to agenda) 


KT:  Uh, I would like to talk about the uh sidewalk on Vance Rd, & the mailboxes in Highland Vlg Subdiv.  DM:  _ motion to approve the agenda as amended?  RC: What do you have, YH.  I'm sorry _ _ _ _ _ - DM: All I had to bring it up tonight was Valley Days _ _ _ - RC:  Tku.  JW:  So moved.  DM: Is there a 2nd?  BL?:  2nd.  DM:  Any q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed) Mins for the bd mtg 12/15/03 - what's the bd's pleasure?  JW:  Move approval.  BL: 2nd it.   DM:  q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  2 of  19


Mrs. Kettler asked if we could do the uh Christmas Decoration Awards at this time _ _ _ permitted to go home & finish takin' down the lights before it got too cold.  ?: _ _ _ - Pam:  Uh, it looks like no one showed up, but I will announce the winners at this time.  Uh, the Decorating uh Contest for the Winter Festival winners were as follows:  Ward 1, Dalton, 204 Vest;  Ward 2, Henderson, 203 Lookout;  Ward 3, uh was William Schmidt, 103 Jefferson;  Ward 4 was Eugene O'Neill, 442 Emmanuel Ct.  In Ward 3, there was an overall winner, uh we have an overall winner also _ _ _ & that was Matt Sezlack at 40, excuse me, 704 Meramec Sta Rd.  & the signs were taken down in their yard.  We'll make sure that they all receive their plaque.  DM:  Tku.  BL?: _ -


DM:  Licenses & permits - Is there anything, MW?  MW:  Um, you'll notice on the desk this evening that there's a request from Lionell Hall.  He brought this in Fri & the packets were already gone, but he was (someone coughs) if he could have authorization for meat shoots on 1/3, 10, 17, 24, 31 & Feb 7, 14 thru Thurs, the 28th.  He didn't put on here fee waiver, but he asked me to pass that along _ _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Is there a motion to approve this with the fee waiver?  DA?:  So moved.  JKB:  2nd.  DM: q/c?  RC:  Uh, YH, I'll be uh, recusing.  I think I'm a member.  DM:  Any other q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.  _ _ _ _ _ _ _.


Cmte Reports - We have the P&Z Cmsn;  what's the bd's pleasure?  JW:  Move approval. DM:  Is there a 2nd?   ?: 2nd.  DM:  Hearing no cmts (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  3 of  19


DC couldn't make it in this evening, but we do have the report here.  So _ _ _ _ _ _ _ doing with this.  Got 4B started & like I said he's getting _ _ _  Phase B started;  hopefully this cold weather will break soon & get some of that work done. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  4 of  19


DM:  Moving on to Ords, Bill # 1752, was this properly posted, MW?  MW:  Yes, it was.  DM:  Please read it in caption form, please.  MW:  Bill # 1752, Proposed Ord # 1621, an ord amending 225.290 pertaining to Park User Fees.  DM:  What's the bd's pleasure?  DA?:  Move approval. JKB: 2nd.  KT:  Excuse me.  YH, in the written ord it has a total of $300 for non-residents (of which?) $_25 & then it _ _ _ it has 200 shall be refundable deposit.  DM:  I think there's a jinx in this ord _ _ _.  EM:  It should be $200;  300 & 2__. 


DM: The maker of the motion & 2nd agree, 200?  DA?:  Yes.  DM:  Where it says 225?  KT?: _ _ - DM:  Cross out the 25, so it simply reads $200.  JW:  What is the current fee that changed?  What's the current fee for a non-resident?  DM:  $50 before I think .  Pam:  Want me to answer?  DM:  Yes, Mrs. Kettler, if uno.  Pam:  Um, residents, it was uh $35 to rent the hall;  & uh for non-residents, it was 50.  DM:  Tku.  Pam: & it was approved in a Parks Bd mtg or a bd _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the residents fee's already been raised, _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  DM: Yeah, I think this was just to correct a typographical - Pam: _ _ - DM: it's not changing it, it's just _ _ _ _ _ _ _ appreciate KT _ _ _.  Any other q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries. 


MW, read it on 2nd, 2nd time, please.  MW:  Bill #1752, Propsed Ord 1621, an ord amending 225.290 _ _ Park User Fees.  DM:  Bd's pleasure?  JKB: 2nd it.  DM:  q/c?  Pam:  Uh.  DM:  Mrs. Kettler.  Pam:  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2003 _ _ - ?: _ _ - DM: _ _ - Pam:  Did we skip audience cmts_ _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Yes, we did.  Mr Soto's gonna be allowed to speak when we get to the ord.  Tku for uh _ _ _ -  He filled out a Speaker Request in case _ _ _ _ _ _  (roll call vote)  MW: ...8 yes.  DM:  Motion carries.  Ok, Bill # 1753, before we read it, Mr. Soto had filled out a Speaker Request & I apologize for missing it earlier.  At this time, you'd care to come up?  Audience - address the bd, please. 


MrS:  Uh, tku, good evening.  What I wanted to do uh, _ _ Parks _ _ bd is to read a uh parts of mins of uh the last bd mtg, 12/3/03, which refers specifically to the use of alcoholic beverages in the parks.  At our 11/5 mtg, 2003, a motion made & passed by the uh bd members;  & that motion was for the city atty to talk to Steve Marsh about the use of alcoholic beverages in the city parks;  & Mr. Martin was to check into city liability as determined by State uh Liability Statutes & return a his findings _ _ findings with a written report to the Parks Bd member.  As of the date of last mtg, 12/3, we haven't heard anything uh from this & that time, we requested the mayor to check into that;  & still hasn't heard anything.  DM:  We'll have Mr. Martin to check _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, but he did check with Mr. Marsh;  that's why we did the ord that's in tonight's packet. 


EM:  He actually appeared in front of the bd.  MrS: _ _ _ cause we haven't seen _ - DM:  As far as the liability, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - EM: Uh, yeah, it, he reported to the bd & it, it may or may not have been in Ex Ses;  I can't recall.  In fact, the, the, he thought it was a possible liability issue for the city & he did have uh liability coverage for the city serving alcohol;  however, we do NOT have liability coverage for the 3rd parties.  Uh, he recommended that uh anyone that was going to SERVE alcohol, uh prove that he had liability coverage uh _ _ _ _ _ um, & at that point, the bd determined me ta, to draft an ord _ (someone coughs).  DM:  Any other ques, Mr Soto? 


Is that - basically, I guess that _ _ long as the city's not the one that's serving the alcohol, that the city would NOT be responsible _ _ _ _.  Altho at several other cities, as I recall, Mr. Marsh said that they require people renting the facility to have insurance on their own which could run into the $1000 & up for somebody to have a private party I guess _ _ _city _.  MrS:  _ _ there been some type of methodology in the  process to have it include resolutions where _ at the parks?  DM:  We're about to vote or I assume we're gonna vote on the ord here, at least bring it up for discussion.  At that time I guess we could decide to change it or hold it over or put it in a cmte _ _ _ _.  DA: YH - DM:  DA, I think at that time _ _ _ (allow?) this to be read. 


DA:  I'd like to make the motion to place this into Leg Cmte.  If I can get a 2nd, I'll explain why.  RC:  I'll 2nd that.  DA: We had a Parks & Bd Recreation mtgs this Wed;  um, the Parks & Recreation Bd can review this ord & between now & Wed, any ques um if the Parks Dir can ask & see if this satisfies um what the Park Bd was um asking.  If not, it will give us time & the Parks Bd to um uno make some uh recommendations for adjustmts.  Um & then the Leg Cmte can um look it over;  um, & then the city atty can prepare an ord at that time.  _ _ I think - I don't know that there's a big rush to pass this tonight, so I think _ _ _ _ to allow more time _ _ might _ _ _ meant to be.  Tku.  DM:  So, technically, you said put it in Leg Cmte - DA: Yes, yes.  DM:  _ _ - DA: _ _ - DM:  But it'd be the same effect _ _ _ just to make sure we - the bd's clear on what the motion will be.  TB: Could we give uh Mr. Martin a chance to kind of explain what we have up here?  Might explain it to 'em better?  DM:  EM. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  5 of  19


EM: Absolutely!  Uh, currently, the, the VP Ords says that NO ONE can alc, alcoholic beverages in, in the parks or in any city uh facilities that are _ _ _ _  the public, except when expressly authorized by the City of VP BOA.  Um, there's a blanket one, but I think the majority of the bd some time that that gave the bd a lot of discretion that you probably didn't _ _ _ _ _ either prohibiting or permitting the use of alcoholic beverages.  What this ord does is _ _ _ _1753, is simply repeal that provision.  Therefore, ANYONE can bring alcoholic beverages at any point into a city park facility. 


The Parks & Recreation's Chapter has a provision that says that Parks & Recreation Bd shall adopt & promulgate such rules & regulations for the conduct in the parks as in use in the (federal?), subject to the approval of uno our BOA.  My problem with that, this would take this out of Leg approval & get it back into an Administrative approval which is work (someone coughs)  it should be.  & if the Parks Bd & Recreation, uh Parks & Recreation Bd feels that a bond is required or whatever, it'll come back to this bd.  The bd will approve it, deny it, or give whatever uh guidance & counsel it has on, on the issue.


But certainly, this would not - the provision in front of you would NOT preclude people from taking alcohol.  It simply says NO MORE do these people have to come before the BOA for approval or denial _ _ _ application _ _ _ _ _ _. 


DM:  Somebody'd have to rent the facility before they could bring alcohol in or somebody just went into Leonard Park, say 6-pack of beer without reserving it, do they - EM:  Well, I think anybody - with the repeal of this, anybody could go in with a 6-pack of beer or whatever _ _ _.  I mean technically I suppose, you're, you're in violation of the ord if you go down there with a 6-pack of beer _ _ _ _ BOA _ _ -


DM:  I've had several phone calls from people when they saw this in the paper that we were gonna vote on it about people bringing beer in the parks.  If we were silent, well then I could bring it in without 1st reserving it;  especially down on River Rd.  Sometimes they hang out down there, so I think it's wise that DA made the motion to either put it in Leg Cmte & maybe _ _ _ tweek it a little bit better or make a good adjustmt on it like Mr. Soto spoke _ _ _ _ _ _.  Any other ques or Mr. Bolte, er I'm sorry Ald TB, do you have anything else to bring up on it at this time?  TB:  No, I just _ _ _ _ - DM:  Any other q/c?  Is the motion to place this in Leg Cmte?  DA: Yes.  DM: Hearing none (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Leg Cmte, TB, in case you're running out of _ _ _.


1/5/04 BOA - Section  6 of  19


DM:  Bill # 1754 - Was this properly posted?  MW: Yes, it is.  DM: Please _ - MW:  Ok, Bill # 1754, Proposed Ord 1622, an ord amending Ord # 1505, an ord for the purpose of authorizing the acquisition of real estate by condemnation & aprop thereof;  describing the real estate subject to the aprop & condemnation;  naming the owners thereof;  setting forth the general purpose or nature to be made of said real property & declaring it to be necessary & for the general benefit of the City of VP, MO, at large;  declaring that funds may be advanced for the acquisition of real estate & that condemnation shall be in full force & effect from & after the date of passage. 


DM:  What's the bd's pleasure?  DA?: Move approval.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  ?:  2nd. - DM:  EM said he'd like to have a few cmts on this. 


EM: Th, this is a very technical uh amendmt to an ord that already passed _ _ _ _.   All I'm doing is uh explaining in finer detail the reasons that the city exercised its right of Eminent Domain for uh the VP levee project.  & it has to do with upcoming litigation _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Any q/c? 


RC:  YH, could uh we hear what the addresses _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - EM:  Uuummm, the, these would we be all the addresses in Arnold's uuhh Arnold Dr area other than of Maureen Morris & Michael McGhee's properties. 


DM:  Any other q/c?  Hearing none (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.  MW, read it in caption form, please, on 2nd reading.  MW: (see above)  DM: What's the bd's - DA: _ _ Bill 1754, Proposed Ord 1622 on its 2nd reading.  DM: a 2nd?  ?:  2nd.  DM: Any q/c?


RC:  Uh, yes, YH, how does this ord strengthen our, our case or - EM:  & that's exactly what it's for.  DM:  Any other q/c?  KT: YH, is this - I don't see particular addresses in here.  Uh, this - what would happen down the line when we want to condemn other properties? 


EM:  This really has no effect - this is, this is an already done deal.  We're simply going back & saying we're amending something that's already been done.  DM: Any other q/c?  Hearing none (roll call vote)  MW:  8 yes.  DM:  Motion carries. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  7 of  19


DM:  Under the Mayor's Report - _ _ cold weather, it's - RC:  Wanna do this uh performance evaluation before we _ _ _ - DM:  Ok, go ahead & bring it up, please.  RC:  Well, I _, YH, you could hold on I guess.  Uh, that'll be passed uh the 1st reading on an ord establishing a performance evaluation system for the employees of the City of VP, MO.  Uh, & what I'd like to ask is that uh somehow we revisit this & I've even added one uh section in here because I think it might be beneficial to us.  Uh I would hope that the Leg chair_ _ agree to call a mtg to talk about this. 


DM:  I'll place that into Leg Cmte by Ex Action & cmte mtgs will probably disuss that along with Parks.  RC: _ _ _ _ _ this mtg might take place?  TB: _ _ _ _ accommodate _ _ _ _ the next mtg - RC: _ _ _ _ _  TB:  He had a - he has a hard time gettin' _ _ _ _.   RC:  I added section, I added Section 3.  TB: _ _ _ before the next bd mtg.  DM:  Tku, TB. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  8 of  19


Under the Mayor's Report - Last summer we had uh, for Valley Days, there's cmts about the carnivals.  Some people, like I guess who worked with the parents & various things, & also workers said that provided - praying to get electric together _ _ _.  So talked to a Bill Lowery aat Lowery Carnival.  He had the weekend open of 6/17, 18 & 19, Th, Fri & Sat - people go ahead & start scheduling that 'cause it's only 5 months off.  & I think it'll be a little cooler in June, than in August;  so that'll be a big plus.  This is the same carnival that does the St. Louis Air & Fair Show out here in West County at Spirit Airport;  also done St. Paul's Church in Fenton a few times so I think they'll be a big plus.  So since he had that weekend open, I went ahead & signed up with them to do that.  Calling a cmte mtg here in the next couple wks to get a band & various things lined up.  _ _ _ _ volunteer _ _ _ volunteers work on the cmte.


JKB:  YH, Did we make or lose anything on last yr's _ (someone coughs) - DM:  I thought the sheets were in the packet, but I think with the 5000 the bd put in, it was $500 in the hole or it was right at the break-even point on it.  All the revenue Mrs. Lauper put in,_ _ report to the next mtg.  DA:  Also, YH, uh I think probably it'll be necessary to um reaprop 5000 add'l because this will be aprop'd in our budget again this yr.  DM: That is correct, yeah, _ _ correct this yr.  DA: _ _ _ _at the next bd mtg, you wanna _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ motion _ _ _ _.  DM:  Alright, tku, DA.


KT:  Um, I, I would probably vote yes for this _ _ _ _if, having had a cooler time of yr, we still lose money, that we consider ending the Valley Park Days.  Do we, does it bring any business to the city or wherever you have it, it's all of their own busineses uh that have been bringing in this uh McDonald's or 2 gas stations.   DM:  Seems to bring a lot of people traveling by on Big Bend & Dougherty Ferry & those other traveled roads;  plus, it's advertised thruout of the (south?) & PW Dept puts the signs up around the area that helps bring people in;  especially Sat evening.  Fri night & Sat nite _ _ pretty well attended I think.  A little bit cooler weather I think _ _ _ _ _ _ _.


KT:  Well, that's, that's why _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I would like to take it into consideration.  If we're constantly losing money on it, where is the gain?  What is the purpose of it?  DM:  I think the purpose is for the town to have a good time & _ _.   RC: YH, _ _ _ _.  DM:  RC.  RC: I'm just sayin' - I don't wanna - did I hear you say that because we donated about $1000, we broke even?  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?  DM:  I believe, yes, I believe those were the #'s.  I'll double-check  'em & see if that's - RC: So doesn't that kind of mean we didn't - since we donated to it ourselves & probably lost $5_00?  DM: We probably did. 


RC:  Ok, I, I would, I would recommend that maybe we could, uh if I can get a 2nd, that we have the Parks Cmte uh look at maybe havin' say an all-day picnic or something & scale it back a little.  If I can get a 2nd on that, I'll - TB?:  I'll 2nd it.  DA:  YH, Again, I, I realize that, that last yr, we, the city donated $5000 towards Valley Days.  We've done that since I can remember & I know that we, we don't necessarily make money on it.  However, it's a celebration for the cmty;  a time for uh people to get together & socialize & do things that they don't get to do.  So I, I regret that Valley Days has become an item that we look at as we need to make money on it.  I see it as a service that we're providing the cmty whether we make money or not.  So again, it's a matter of how you look at it that, I, I think it's a tradition that started a long time ago & um, if we didn't like the way it went last yr, let's let the cmte make changes & make things better.  But again, I think this is something that we're givin' back to the citizens, um at a cost of $5000.  _ _ _ _ plant trees & a few other things;  this is just another service uh we give & I, I certainly _ _ coninue to have Valley Days.  I certainly _ _ _ _ _ motion _ _ _ _ addition of $5000 _ _.  So again, I'm askin' that we, we _ _ _ _ _ _ _.


DM:  JM, Do you remember roughly what we spent on electricity this past yr?  Like 1000, $1200?  JM:  Our largest expense is the uh the generator to run the booths & things like that.  I wanna say probably _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - DM: 'cause this carnival does provide their own electricity, so that'd be a big savings there, but we'll still need some _ _ booths.  But I think we break even on that at least, or maybe even a little to the good, so that'll cut really _ _ $5000 _ _ _ which is one of the reasons that I picked this carnival.  Like I said, the rides look pretty good when I saw 'em on the webpage;  & the gentleman assured us that they would all wear uno uniforms & _ _ _ _ shirts & pants & present a good image for _ _ _ _ _ town;  not to say the other one didn't.  Hopefully going the right direction. 


KT:  Uh, _ probably misunderstood me _ _ _ _ _.  It isn't the fact that we spent $5000 on it & this yr it's gonna end up _ _ _.  But I feel as tho um, out of the village _ _ across _ _ _ that, & I wouldn't mind going to the different business owners & seeing if they can donate to that so that it isn't the idea of making money;  it's the idea of breaking even.  We're having a hard enough time with our budget as it is & we do do a lot for the cmty;  um the Winterfest & the um hayride.  Uh uno, I'm all for helping the cmty, but I would also be willing to go & ask for donations.


DM:  Are you still in favor of the motion to have just a one-day picnic in lieu of Valley Days?  KT: I'll (rescind?) that.  RC:  My motion's gonna stand.  DM:  Is there a 2nd for RC's motion?  ?:  Could you read his motion?  MW: Yeah, I _ _ _ _ RC moved to uh turn over to the Parks Dept to plan a one-day picnic instead of a 3-day Valley Days event.  RH: I'll 2nd for discussion, YH.  DM:  RH, You have the floor. You said you wanted to discuss it, right?  RH:  Well, for discussion.  DM:  Ok, _ _ _ 'cause you-


1/5/04 BOA - Section  9 of  19


RH: I, I've lived in unincorporated St L Co before.  I moved away from here;  moved to uninc St L Co;  I moved back here 17 yrs ago because I like the small-town atmosphere.  Valley Days gives me the small-town atmosphere, _ _ get to know each other a little better.  Uh, if we get rid of Valley Days, everything we've lost with the city, we might as well go uninc'd St L Co & close this place down.  Period, tku.  KT:  YH.


DM:  I'll have EM pull out the sheets here, before she had it, actually with the $5000, so _ _ _ we had $14 to the good;  so we lost $4986.  But I think part of it, we're gonna save on electricity & hopefully carry over from our experience from last year's bands & various things.  & one thing that's quite touchy, would be the fireworks;  that's $5000 right there.  So you could say in effect, the city puts on the fireworks & the fair breaks even.  But we need to get it set up early enough if we're gonna start - I mean if we're not gonna do the fireworks, you have to get a _ _ _ _, so if we say no to it now, then it might be too late _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 


KT:  YH, May I respond to RH's - DM:  Anyone else?  I think we're losing the turns around - Anyone else on the 1st time around?  TB:  I have a cmt, YH.  I just think it's really _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ city experience _ _ the city _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ city should sponsor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - AP:  Can't hear!  DM:  TB said we're not necessarily making money on it, but it is a pretty good time.  So - ask everyone to speak up so _ _ JW.  


JW:  Yes, YH, I was hopin' that the city could uh _-up like a small neighboring cmty with us that, if uh $10,000 worth, so I mean I guess I'm goin' just 100% opposite this yr.  I'm wantin' to see a whole larger fireworks display, but - DM: If a neighboring cmty wanted to have joint fireworks with us, it would save each _ about $4000 _ _ _ _ _ fireworks.  So maybe if these ideas come up with the Valley Days Cmte _ _ _...(exchange tapes)... 

KT:  ...yes, uh RH _ _ _ objection to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ wonderful way he has grown up in a small town all my life & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  What I was TRYING to get across was why don't we try to get more city businesses involved.  That's all - so that it doesn't come straight out your budget. 


DM:  RH, Are you gonna with, withdraw the 2nd on this then or if now that we've had discussion or _- RH: Yes.  DM: Is there a 2nd to RC's motion?  Hearing none, we'll have the Valley Days.  We'll be able to determine - or see if the bd - we'll do more probe on here if JM _ _ (someone coughs) _ _. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  10 of  19


I guess go ahead & discuss mailboxes at this time if you want to discuss mailboxes _ _ _ _, KT.  KT:  Right.  Um I would like to go back - I don't know if we have to go back to the Ex Cmte or if we can just uh go ahead & um, I make a motion on it that mailboxes have to be (moved?) (she coughs), excuse me, to the opposite side of the road that parking is allowed on.  In the Highland Vlg Subdiv, of which there are 3 associations, needs to include all 3 associations, uh as an experiment to see if it would eventually work out in the city.  So uno, I don't, I don't wanna be the ONLY place in the city that this may work.  Eventually, uno uh we may incorporate it later for some other subdivs. 


DM:  Is there a 2nd?  TB: 2nd with discussion, YH.  She's askin' for it just to be in Highland Vlg where there's _ _ be a certain amt of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ residents do have a problem _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - MM:  I'm sorry, could you please turn on your microphone?  TB: _ _ _.  I don't believe that uh a lot of the other ald feels of that part.  (mic feedback).  He's had problems with his mail.  I don't know - I don't see why it wouldn't work uno to have the mailboxes on one side.  But I'll 2nd - or it's just once _ _ _ _ - I have no problem in my ward.  I don't know if it's uh just the way the city's set up;  it's gotta be smaller lots up there.  DM:  This'll be I guess - you said the Highland Vlg Subdiv, so it's not the entire ward, just for clarification _ _. 


KT:  Just, just Highland Vlg Subdiv.  DM: There's 3 associations.  KT: From where you drive into the Highland Vlg Subdiv.  There are 3 associations in there & it would involve all 3 of 'em as we are uh getting mail from uh another association in there that is causing problems.  RC: YH, Is this a situation where she's askin' for the city to _ _ the uh post office to do this or is this something that - I'm just tryin' to figure out - can, can a bd say which side of the street my, my uh mailbox is gonna be on? 


EM:  I, I talked to the postmaster, but lemme go back & (someone coughs).  Historically, what the problem, I think is, um back in 19 uh 85, Highland Vlg was of course uh, submitted to the city, it was uh intended to be uh, uh condominiums for a subdiv where mailboxes were in groupings.  The parking was gonna be off-street & the streets were narrow.  The streets were not the normal 50-ft width that we find thruout the flat areas of VP.  The concept uh didn't, didn't work.  Uh, uh the original devr was superceded by Lindbergh Properties without the infrastructure because that was already in;  the streets were in.  We, we platted the lots, &, & made his almost-zero lot-line lots in there for, for single families.  Uh, so he, he ended the idea of having these groupings of mailboxes & off-street parking in favor of narrow streeets, houses that are single-family & parking on one side only of the street. 


That's led to a problem.  According to the postmaster, there is a problem.  The postmaster indicated that altho mailboxes, or the design of mailboxes, & the placemt of mailmox, mailboxes are regulated by the federal gov't, uh, the placemt of mailboxes CAN be regulated by the city.  & we DO own, the City of VP does own the parkway area - that is the area between the sidewalk & the street.  Uh, we further discussed one other matter & that is made - you can it voluntary (on the part?) & it was pretty much the postmaster's thoughts, not mine, it's either all or nothing.  _ _ _ _ _ his thought was that it should be mandatory & if uh, uh people don't comply, uh they'll be violating the ord.  I don't know what, what the position of the mail_ _ _ _ _ _ _. 


DM:  You say all of 'em - we do it in ALL of these other (someone coughs) all over town?  EM:  No, no, all of the subdivs - DM:  We can do a subdiv - EM:  Ab absolutely.  He can specify -  ?: (green?) area.  BL:  Yeah, we had this in Leg Cmte with Tom before & kind of beat this thing up a little bit & we brought it out.  & I think, Eric, you even draw, drew up an ord or something or it got to a point where we were ready & it just - it didn't work 'cause it was gonna go from one neighborhood TO the entire city, but I think you're well aware - I don't think the streets in your neighborhood, you've been in both neighborhoods, seem much different than the streets in mine, width _ _.


DM:  Seems like they're the same width.  EM:  Exactly.  DM:  They're the same (someone coughs) - DM:  lots are smaller;  I think was part of the problem.  BL:  I don't doubt that we don't control the strip of ground between the sidewalk & the street.  I know we don't maintain it & along with it, weed-eat it & all of that, but I mean the people I talked to seem concerned that all of a sudden uno now there's gonna be another, somebody's gonna come over & dig a hole & concrete in another mailbox pole on their property.  Um, I know you say we control it;  I guess there's an esmt sentence?


EM:  It's my understanding that area is the parkway area & in the subdiv plat itself, that that is part of the area that was dedicated as part of the street.  So the area between - BL: Technically - EM: sidewalk - BL: if all these people knew this, they may get filed & the city have to come out there & maintain that if it's our responsibility?  EM: Well, I, typic, typically, you're gonna maintain - you - BL: Right.  EM: in the _ _ are out there, you wanna see your lawn trimmed &, & you wanna look at it as part of your lawn. 


BL:  I just, uno, everybody I talked to - I'm, I'm  kind of like KT - it was mixed.  I mean some people said it sounded like it might be a, a fix;  uno other people didn't like the ideal & the other people don't have a problem.  But uh, I don't think my problem is so much;  I'm on the no-parking side.  I mean I get my neighbors' mail on both sides of me.  Sometimes I've got so much mail in my mailbox, I have to take it in & sort it & then take it where it goes.  I think it's just a problem with the mail_.  Um, now the people on the other side of the street, yes;  they - now you can't park one vehicle in front of your house & still be able to get proper clearance from the mailbox so I know it's a problem.  But we've just been thru this before & it just seems like it's a tough thing to do, to do it just for one neighborhood only. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  11 of  19


RC:  Question.  DM:  Are any other ald aware of a problem outside of Highland Vlg.  I guess BL stated that this - hate to see people movin' mailboxes in another part of town _ _ _ _. RC.  RC: Uh 2 ques.  1st ques is, if these, if this were to happen, is this goin' to the opposite side of where the fire hydrant is?  So that the fire can do their thing if they have to?  DM:  I thought fire hydrants are always on the non-parking side.  BL: I think there's some on both sides.  KT:  There's some on both sides.  BL:  They've switched the non-parking so many times in that neighborhood.   KT:  There's some on both sides _ _. 


RC: That's one reason I don't wanna get too hasty on this.  The 2nd reason is mailboxes - DM?:  would be in the way of the fire hydrant.  ?:  _ use _ - RC: Well, I'm talkin' about if, if you put the mailbox on the side of the fire hydrant, then you can't park there anyway.  So perhaps the mail could be delivered there because you couldn't have any parking there anyway.


Now the 2nd ques I have is, who's payin' to move all these sidewalks from one side to the other?  ?: _ _ - EM:  Well, it would be an ord & it would be the property owner's responsibility (I would think?).  RC:  Which, which leads me to a 3rd thing.  Is there any way that we could have some contact with these trustees so that they know this is comin'?  DM:  Well, it seems like a - or have you talked to the trustees or other subdiv members - KT:  Yes, I have talked to the other trustees & we have taken, we have taken a uh - DM:  What was the general - was there a general concensus _ _ - KT:  Half & half.  


DA: YH, um KT's motion tonight is not to authorize or to approve doing this.  I believe, if I'm understandin', her motion is have the city atty draft an ord um to the effect that the sidewalks will be placed on the no-park, er the uh mailboxes will be placed on the no-parking side.  DM:  That's what I - ?:  to the _ _ - ?: Right.  DA:  What I think would be appropriate, let's go ahead & have the ord drafted & then the 2 ald can take that to the trustees, have a series of trustee mtgs & then bring a recommendation back so either we pass that ord or we do not pass it based on what they report back.  But I think get the ord in-hand;  it gives us something material to look at to make a decision on.  Um so really, you're just authorizing that ord to be drafted;  we're not passin' that ord tonight.  So I think it would be appropriate to do so & we could get beyond this issue on down the road shortly.  Tku.  DM:  Sounds like - KT:  Right.  DM: a reasonable _ - KT:  I agree.  DM: Any other q/c?


JW:  YH, Would the Police Dept enforce this or would the postmaster enforce it?  EM: I think our police dept would & the postmaster would enforce federal laws.  We, we would, the bldg cmsnr or _ police dept _ city ord.  LtM?:  We, we enforce the parking ord - parking or do they have to move their mailboxes?  KT:  _ you'd have to enforce the parking.  DM:  What if somebody didn't move their mailbox?  KT:  Uh, the association will go in there & take care of their own _ (someone coughs) or charge the homeowner.


EM:  Not really;  I, I think you'd have to adopt any insurance to do that, but uh - KT: Right.  EM: not - KT: Right.  EM:  If it's an ord on the books, whoever the code enforcemt official is OR the Police Dept.  DM:  I think as DA suggested, if 2 alderpeople from Ward 4 talk to the trustees & some of the residents - 'cause if we get half & half, then half the people _ - KT:  Right.  DM:  But if there's something _ _ _ _ - KT:  Right, we'll, we'll take it to theuh other, other associations in the subdiv also _ _ _.  DM:  Any other q/c? 


RC: Uh, YH, I, I'm, I'm just gonna go on record for voting NO 'cause I just still wanna make sure that these trustees & the folks who are livin' there are - uh this seems intrusive a little bit.  I know that not gettin' your mail is just as intrusive, but so I got 2 wrongs don't make a right.  So I'd rather, I'd rather let us have - everybody else may approve it, but I'd like to have a _ (someone coughs) -


DM:  Alright, tku, RC.  Any other q/c?  The motion is for EM to draw up the ord on mailboxes albeit on the side of the street where there's no parking.  But in the meantime, I think it would be appropriate for BL & KT to discuss this with the subdivs so we don't spring it on 'em.  KT: Right.  DM:  All in favor of the motion?  (voice vote - only RC is heard opposed) (roll call vote - Yes: DA, JKB, RH, TB, JW, BL, KT.  No:  RC.)  MW:  7 yes, 1 no.  DM:  Motion carries.  I guess that's all we have for the Mayor's Report.  Clerk's Report. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  12 of  19


KT: YH.  DM:  KT.  KT:  Uh, I did have another one;  uh re the Vance Rd sidewalk.  DM:  _ bring that up - KT:  Should I discuss that with the PW?  DM:  We'll have the PW _ _.  ?: _ _ -  MW: Ready for me?  The only thing I have is that uh we're still accepting filings for anyone who wants to run for mayor, BOA & our municipal judge uh thru 1/20.  & all of our slots are _ _ candidates.  So that's all I have. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  13 of  19


DM:  Parks Coord's Report - Mrs. Kettler, is there anything to report?  Pam:  Hope everyone had a happy & health, healthy holiday season.  Uh, the Winter uh Festival went over very well.  Um, we had the uh festival at the city hall on 12/6 & went over well.  We had a Santa Claus at the caboose for 2 Saturdays & Sundays;  also, that went over very well. We had a really good, warm response to that & everyone seemed to be pleased that we used the caboose for something. 


Um, we have a Parks Bd mtg uh this Wed & I'll report back to ya at the uh later, the 3rd Mon in the month on that.  Also I believe the Winter Festival winners for Ward 3 is here now.  So on behalf of the Parks Bd & the City of VP, the mayor & the ald, we appreciate your dedication uh to making our city uh bright & cheerful this holiday season & tku very much.  ?: Tku.  (aud applauds)  Pam:  Is there any ques for me?  DM:  Ques for the Parks Coord?  Pam:  Hearing none, then I'll see you the 3rd Mon, tku. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  14 of  19


EM: Uh, Pam.  Pam: Yes, sir?  EM:  I, I just, I did wanna report that I, I was instructed by the BOA to enter in negotiations with this 420 & Leonard - Pam:  Right.  EM:  Ave;  & I did, uh & - Pam: Ok.  EM: I just wanted to let uno that the - Pam: No response yet?  EM: dialogue is going - uh an offer was made &, & a response _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Pam:  Ok, well tku very much.  


DM:  Also, Mrs. Kettler reminded me, the 3rd Mon this month is Martin Luther King Day.  I'm glad she mentioned it;  so this reminder, it'll be on the 20th which is the 3rd Tues of the month for the next bd mtg instead of the 3rd Mon.  I'm glad you talked about that.  Pam:  Ok, tku. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  15 of  19


DM:  JM, PW Dept. JM:  YH, I only have is to uh answer the ques the ald had.  KT brought up Vance Rd sidewalks & uh, based on working with JEM, the Cmty Dev Dir, both devrs will be responsible for putting sidewalks into that area of Vance Rd as it is in the final dev plans.  & uh, me & Marks & also TW, in my conversation with him today, he told me he's still workin' with St L Co & tryin' to close up everything that we need on our part _ (someone coughs) _  - KT:  I just didn't want to lose out on it.  JM:  He also informed me that the Crescent Valley, he's mtg, I believe he said it is Wed of this wk, we have MSD to hopefully close the final deals & he is to have a field summary report to the mayor, & they will - if anyone would like a copy of that, hopefully by Fri. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  16 of  19


Last, I believe, the mayor or somebody had Morton's Grove.  DM:  RC, you had something on Morton's Grove to be discussed.  RC: Uh, I'll just keep the ord we've got. The problem has spread out;  it's not just in Morton's Grove any more.  Uh the problem is over on uh Jeff er Guylyn rather;  it's also uh - it's just, it's comin' - it's gonna end up down on uh Jefferson uh before we know it.  All I'm askin' for is that the eng be allowed to work 3 hrs to uh come up with a game plan:  what size pipe;  where it needs to go;  uh what our options are, that kind of thing. 


Uh, Sun morning _ _ _ that water was cascading & if this problem isn't gonna get any better because chances are there's gonna be another house put in next to that 211 on uh Jefferson.  I, I foresee that uh uno, in our infinite wisdom, we'll allow that.  So could I uh, I'm just gonna make a motion to do that, try not to be too um, uh - DM:  Repeat  - RC: negative.  DM: the motion, please. 


I believe you set it at 3 hrs.  RC: 3 hrs. I need to know where the pipe needs to go &, & uh just get a game plan here to come back & let uh people talk about it.  JW: 2nd with discussion, YH.  I also seen that excess water out of there, but I really don't feel that it's a city responsibility.  I believe the contractor who built that home, & he doesn't have the permit yet to occupy it.  So I would hope that the city, I guess meaning JEM, enforces what codes we have to uh make sure the contractor who's causing the problem, corrects the problem;  rather than the city expend our money.  I mean that's not a city problem.  We are out to help the residents, but let's make the responsible parties pay for their own devs.  & I was told uh, maybe JEM can confirm it, that there WILL NOT be another house built in that hole. 


JEM:  Um, tku, JW.  There are 2 things.  The devr of the single home that is there now, has been instructed uh how the rear yard has to be graded in order to take care of the hi-speed runoff on the yard.  Uh, that decision was made with the counsel of TW;  uh, we went out there & took a look at it.  Unfortunately, it's been raining ever since the 6" rain, so you can't get in backyard with any kind of piece of equipmt to do any grading.  So the siltation fence has been reinforced with add'l straw bales to try to help slow down the drainage runoff.  Um, when it dries out or freezes, one or the other, to the point where they can work on grading it, the grading solution should solve the hi-speed runoff on that lot.


Uh, concerning the adjacent lot, um I do not consider it to be a buildable lot.  I don't know how you can put a house, orient it on that lot, & get the side yard & rear yard setbacks that you need when you build it off of Jefflyn or whether you build it off of Jefferson.  So in conversations with the builder, I've told him that he needs to present to me a site plan that would prove that it's a buildable lot in accordance with our zoning requiremts or it's not a buildable lot.  It's my understanding he is attempting to package that lot with the new house now, after having that conversation, as a joint parcel. 


JM: _ _ based on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  - DM: Ques, RC?  RC:  Uh, I, I still want the motion - DM:  Ok, we're gonna - any q/c on the motion for 3 hrs of eng's time to study the flooding problem in the Guylyn/Morton's Grove area?  JW: _ _ _ _ - DM:  JW.


JW:  I believe JEM said that uh TW has already looked at this.  Do you think he could look at it another 3-hrs worth & determine anything different than he looked at before?  DM:  Or is this the homeowner, the builder's problem I guess?  JEM:  There's 2 problems that actually exist on that lot.  One is the results of the new house being const'd;  of course they clear all the trees & that speeds up the water runoff.  But there's another problem that affects Morton's Grove & that is Jefflyn.  Um, there, at one time, was a swail that caught the drainage from Jefflyn's backyards that went towards Morton's Grove 20 some odd yrs ago when the subdiv was built.  As with most swails, they silt-in over time. 


I believe that part of Morton's Grove's problem is the result of the deterioration of the swail at Jefflyn;  particularly, this individual homeowner's problem.  Uno, there's a section of his fence that's 4" underground & it didn't happen in the last 6 mos;  & he readily admits that when you talk to him.  Uno there's been a lot of problems with soil movemt in his yard.  Some of it is definitely because of this house that's been built, but a lot of it is because of the deterioration of the swail behind Jefflyn, just over time.  & there's, if you drive down there & you just stand at the intersection of Jefflyn &, & Jefferson & look straight down the backyards, there's a tremendous amt of water that comes down those yards into that Morton's Grove area. 


So solving the problem for the house that's under const, I don't know that we need another 3 hrs.  If we're trying to solve an overall stormwater problem, I don't think 3 hrs is a drop in the bucket because I think there's gonna have to be something significant done behind Jefflyn to fix it.  The swail's grown up with some pretty good size trees.  Even it you wanted to get in there & reconstruct the swail, you'd be looking at an awful lot of manpower to clear the swail out.


JM: _ _ goin' on  private property;  also gettin' the esmts & TSCL.  JEM:  Right. JM: _ _ _ - ?: _ - JW: That was gonna be my next ques to JEM, was I know that's a private subdiv or private property down there.  & I know that'd be a situation for the city to go in & spend $300,000 on a storm sewer system, if you could touch it for that, in a private area.  So I guess somebody comes up with this solution, it's gonna be a duzzy. 


JEM:  If we're talkin' about pipe, I think it's gonna be an expensive project;  & I don't know what, what outfall we have, _ _ something downstream.  I mean I think it's gonna take more than 3 hrs to design a pipe-fix for this project.  But 3 hrs will definitely give you an overall, we should go this direction or that direction recommendation, & then maybe not the final design of the project, but at least give a recommendation on what the best method for cure is I'm sure.  JW:  Tku.


DM:  Any other q/c?  The motion is for 3 hrs TW to uh evaluate this problem.  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.


1/5/04 BOA - Section  17 of  19


JM:  Is there anything else on Morton's Grove?  RC:  One more, YH.  The 2nd thing is since uh, for whatever reason, uh all the rock is pretty much washin' away on one of those roads & if the city has to go down there (someone coughs) pick that trash up & stuff, I wonder if we can't throw a couple loads of rock at it or something where in the next couple of wks so it - uno it's washin' away basically.  Uh, JM can explain that.


DM:  We did or arranged it or - JM: I didn't say the rains washed it away.  WE backed the trash truck on it is the only time that we're on the road.  Um, if, if we would put gravel on this road, the only thing I would hope is - there's more than one homeowner there & I would hope that all the homeowners would sign a Hold Harmless Agreemt.  Because I wouldn't want 'em to come say they didn't like the rock we put in there that their car's gettin' dirty or something like that.  But if the bd chooses &, & would ask me to put rock in that, I, I would assume that I could probably get away with gettin' 'em 15 tons of rock & a couple man-hr um (someone coughs) weather permitting & grade the road in.  & yeah, I guess I would say we do a little bit of damage by backin' our trash truck thru there.  Um  -


DM:  Is this a private road?  JM:  I believe so;  yes, YH.  (chuckle)  I mean we, we asphalted our section of Morton's Grove & it, & it kind of dead-ends into the - & I, I think if you (add Vest?) it kind of dead-ends into 1 or 2 or 3 homes.  There's 2 or 3 homes that go back;  Mr. Ferguson & another _ _ that I'm, I'm not sure of & I believe it's private property.  RC:  I'll make a motion that uh if he can get the whole problem & agreemts, that uh he can work the details out with _ _ on it.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  JW: I'll 2nd.  DM: q/c?  You know roughly how - you said about 12 to 15 tons?  JM: Yeah, uh, I, I, I'm assumin' I can get it with one single-axel load;  inch minus & a big batch over a couple hrs (someone coughs) tractor, blade on & drag it out. 


JW:  Just for informational purposes, I know at one time I think the city might've uh rcv'd an asphalt box & we was lookin' for some areas to test;  & a previous mayor, I know paved partially up in there, up to the 1st intersection.  JM:   Yeah, we, we paved to the, what we were told was city property.  That, that's what we did at that time;  about 4 yrs ago I believe, JW. 


JW:  I guess the ques for EM is, what happens if all the homeowners would say we want to give all this to the city & we don't want the streets?  Is that a possibility or - EM:  It's a possibility as long as they meet our uh subdiv & uh our other code provisions for accepting the streets.  It is - I mean clearly tho, it's, it's at, it's your prerogative;  if you wanna accept it, you can accept it.  JW: Well, we'd have to if we went ahead & decided to put in a major storm system for (insurance?) _ _.  EM:  I would think it'd be the smart thing to do;  absolutely.  JW:  Otherwise, we couldn't spend the money on private property.  EM:  Right, right.  JW:  Tks. 


JM:  The last thing that I have - RC:  We need to vote on it, YH.  JM:  Oh, I'm sorry.  DM:  So could we, EM, could we - city spend I guess city funds to put gravel on this private street as JW is saying _ - EM:  Well, I think to the extent that the city MAY HAVE degraded that that's been there thru its actions _ _ _ _ _ - EMorDM: Replace what damage we would've done by - DM:  I guess the asphalt that we, we would wanna get more - _ _ actually get a _ _ turned over, & not just asphalt something that the city doesn't own.  EM: Again, that's your prerogative.  DM:  Have it turned over instead of subdiv (addition?) work to contract to the city property - _ biggest - RC said the motion at this time is to put gravel down in back & _ _ _ _ _ _ proper - RC: Yeah - DM: (addition?) against a - RC:  & if uh, uno, if somebody says they _ _ _ _ Hold Harmless if it's done.  Let me know if that's a problem;  we'll try to (dump?). 


JM:  &, & my only reason for that is because if we already have a storm water problem & we put rock down, I, I don't want 'em to say, well, then they blame the city & then the storm water problem IS ours - DM: _ _ _ _ _ problem - JM:  Right & I mean in, in today's world, uh that happens a lot;  so I, I just thought it was a good suggestion.  The last time I had as I spoke with the mayor -


RC?: _ _ vote on that now.   DM:  q/c on RC's motion?  TB: We're voting on just how the city can, can get a Hold Harmless Agreemt?  I mean what's it, 2 or 3 residents back there?  JM:  Yes.  DM:  It would be to put down the groundwork if we can get the Hold Harmless Agreemt signed.  TB: I'd go for that if - KT: YH.  TB: as long as we get the agreemts up front?  KT: That's correct.  TB: Registered _ - KT: That's _ - DM: Would you please wait until you have the floor? 


TB: Uno, before that, some of the - we have to get a temp esmt or human effort?  That's how the deal registers & then - JM:  Yes, sir, TB.  DM: KT, Did you want the floor?  KT: This, this will be just groundwork?  We wouldn't wire, wouldn't require _ _ (someone coughs) _ _ - DM:  At this time we're just putting down groundwork;  that's correct.  KT:  _ _ _  - DM:  Any other ques?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries. 


JM:  One quick ques for the atty on that 'cause I think I gave you the wrong info.  On a Hold Harmless Agreemt, we don't have to register with the county;  we notarize it, it's between us & the resident, correct?  EM:  If you have to be _ _ _ -  JM:  TSCL has (someone coughs) registered.  DM: Will they just sign it?  It doesn't need to be notarized?  We just hold onto that agreemt?  EM: Yeah.  DM: Alright, tku.

1/5/04 BOA - Section  18 of  19


JM:  The last item as I was sayin' is I spoke with the mayor a little bit this evening, we rcv'd an inspection from MODOT on the Hanna Rd Bridge.  &, & I've discussed this in the past with uh our city eng.  & I believe even in the west-side storm study, that the ald all rcv'd a copy of, there's some #'s in there where he refuted himself &, & some costs for repairs.  & uh I spoke with him because I, I wanted to find out - I, I didn't want the, the mayor or the city to come back down the road & say he didn't;  this proves the carrier, how he didn't notify us.  &, & so I, I've talked to Tom.


There's a grant available;  it becomes March of this yr.  There's no guarantee we'll get it.  Um I think Tom cost, said the cost est would be gonna be around $2500 for him to repair, for him to prepare the grant.  Since we got the grant, uh I'm not for sure if it's a 60/40 or maybe 20.  I haven't got that far into the detail of what the audit, um but we would um then have assistance in repairin' that bridge.  & uh if not, he, it was gonna cost us $1500 for him just to prepare a cost on the (very?), of what it would cost for us bidding this out & gettin' this repairs done. 


& I, I told him that I felt that the (pre?) for that deal for the extra $1000 to have the grant prepared & whether we get it or not, I think it's a pretty good insurance uh of doing that.  Um, probably needs a little more part of the jew with TW & the mayor.  But uh just so the bd knew where we are at on that Hanna Rd Bridge "op".  We get an inspection once a yr from MODOT on it. 


DA:  Make a motion to pursue um on the grant application using PH Weis & Assoc.  TB: 2nd on discussion. On this 2500, we'll get a cost est of what it's gonna cost to cost to fix the bridge anyway _ _ _?  JM:  Yes.  TB: For another 1000 you're sayin', we're was gonna prepare the grant?  JM:  Right.  DM:  But for the 1500, we would get the cost est like he said for add'l thousand, that we apply for the grant, then we know how much it's gonna cost. & even if we don't get the grant, at least we can still - ?: still have - ?:_ _ - ?: _ -  DM:  we'd have the paperwork there showin' which work needs to be done. 


JM:  & I'm also gonna ask Tom prior in, in just layman's terms, a brief summary of his grading on the bridge & the safety of it so, so that uno we're not lookin' at this elaborate report from MODOT.  If uno if Tom says overall, this bridge is in still fair condition, then so the bd members are aware of that;  &, & uh they're not gonna be worried the bridge is gonna collapse or anything down the road.  DM: Any other q/c?  (voice vote - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.  JM: Tku.  DM:  Tku, JM. 


1/5/04 BOA - Section  19 of  19


Did JEM step outside or?  MW: _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Lt Mowery, anything to report tonight?   LtM: Nothing, _ _ _ _.  DM:  I'd also like to note that Lt (Berra?)'s in tonight.  Appreciate your taking the time to come in.  Is it the police coord'g er contracting officer is the - I forget the exact title, but I know you've worked with the contracts toward the county police & cities.  LtB: YH, I worked with uh in Chief Battelle's office in Municipal Svcs & of course he encourages me to get out to all the different cities that which we are contracted with _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mtgs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Welcome you to _ _ _ _ _.


JEM, anything?  JEM:  I have nothing further unless - DM:  Any ques for JEM from the bd?  Seeing no bills, is there a - JW:  Move to adjourn.  (2 or 3 2nd's)  ?: All we have is _.  DM: (voice vote - none heard opposed)  (End of mtg - about 8:30pm)