MOPR's 2/17/04 VP BD OF ALDERMEN MTG PARTIAL MINS
MOPR NOTES: Partial tscript regrettably due to time constraints. Mtg time 7:30 - 9:23pm. Ords on hardcopy agenda: Bill 1756 - An ord approving a preliminary dev plan for a Planned Residential Dev for 903 Forest Ave submitted by Kim E. Gardner for Enchanted Forest Condominiums, LLC identified as P&Z Pet # P-2003-04. Bill 1757 - An ord amending Schedule I of Title III of the Code of Ords pertaining to speed limits on Hwy 141.
Some section - topics: Ofcr Greg (Vanmerlow?) is introduced. ES addressed the bd re Ord 130.050 pertaining to city employees' add'l pay. Donahue's liquor license. American Legion meat shoot. ID's for ald. A police call concern. 101 - Levee (see below). Mr. Kim Gardner addressed the bd who voted no on Bill 1756. TW reports on - 102 - Forest Ave; 103 - AL lift sta; 104 - Crescent Valley Channel improvemts (JKB questions private property & Fund 17); 105 - Hanna Rd Bridge (see all below). 105 - Hwy 141 speed limit. Updating the Employees' Handbook & the Holidays Book. Tory Catanzaro's tree order. Hanna Rd Bridge pedestrian walkway; Parks Cmte member resignation. Striping at Helfrich's Expressway. Vance Rd sidewalk, Dick James' property sold & grant money. 106 - Opposition to Crescent Valley TSCL's (see below). Annexation of Peerless Pk. 107 - Levee related MO Am Water Co situation in front of Meramec Valley Elevator (see below). 108 - 518 Meramec Sta Rd tenant. 109 - Having someone with a badge & gun on hand for Ex Sessions (see below).
PRESENT: RH, TB, DA, JKB, MW, DM, EM, JW, BL, KT. (absent RC)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 101 of 109
(MTG IN PROGRESS)...DC: They just wanted to know I had a pretty extensive report this time - if anybody had any ques on anything that I had in there. DM: Bd have any ques re the levee? (none) DC: That's all I have. (MTG CONTINUES)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 102 of 109
...TW: I could give the bd a quick run-down on various projects; I'll be very brief. DM: Ok, go ahead. TW: I'll even start talkin' before I get there. (a few chuckles) DM: _ _ _ _ _brief. TW: Yeah, very briefly, uh Forest Ave, uh as the weather has broken now a little bit, we'll be back out there; you'll be seein' our survey crews out there on Forest Ave.
2/17/04 BOA - Section 103 of 109
AL lift sta relocation uh that was discussed in the levee mtg. Uh we're trying to find an alternate to a uh larger-cost solution by trying to come up with a smaller grinder pump situation. We have 4 uh businesses that need to be uh pumped & which is a very small forced main, 1 to 2" forced main to uh service those 4 businesses to the tune of only about 4 gallons/min; 2,000 gal/day.
So a very, in other words, we're trying trying to get MSD convinced that we do not need to put in a full-blown hi-$ lift sta similar to what we're bldg down at Kena when we're only servicing those, a very small area. So we're in that process; it may - it's taking some time to try to uh come up with a solution that will (appease an estate?).
2/17/04 BOA - Section 104 of 109
Uh Crescent Valley Channel improvemts, we are ready to go uh go out to bid. The spec is sitting uh on Shelly's desk ready to go to the printer, but we had agreed, I mean you had agreed as a group, to NOT proceed with the project out to bid until we knew we had all the TSCL's in-hand. Which is again, the temp slope licenses, it gives the contractor permission to go on people's property as necessary to perform const, the job to tie into the grades.
We do not have those in-hand. Uh, Jim's been working to get those signed & is running into some minor problems. I hope they're resolved so we can go out to bid. Um & Jim may be able to report to that a little bit more in his report I think.
Uh the mayor had asked me to talk with you about the Hanna Rd Bridge; & that is, do we want to file for a grant thru the T-21 Program just like we did for Forest Ave to obtain that money for fed help? It is an eligible road; however, that bridge has been uh rated very poorly by MODOT.
The grants are due the beginning of March. (!) I would like to have some direction from you tonight if possible. I'm est'g my time to, to apply that same type of grant that was done for Forest Ave, about $2500. Um it's a pretty lengthy process; I do have to give tract acct info; it's cost estimates we have to provide. & uh it's at your discretion, but - ?: So moved. ?: _ motion_ - KT&?: 2nd.
TW: Again, these monies are - if we are successful, those monies are 5 to 6 yrs away; much like we had to wait for Forest Ave. So the overlapping funds, the timing should be such that Forest Ave would be done being paved with your match.
JW: How much money possible? TW: Well, that's a pretty good size structure. Ballpark #, $1M! DM: $1M to fix that bridge? TW: Yes, sir, not to fix it; to replace it. ?: Ok. TW: That's, that's - JW: The grant could be _ _ _? - TW: No, that's what we would probably go for. I, I have to put - obviously, I haven't spent the time to build a good est, but that's a ballpark based on some other bridges we've built.
DM: What's the match under a T-21? TW: 20%. DM: 20%. We have a motion & a 2nd; any ques or cmts? All in favor of the motion for TW to go out for a grant for T-21, say aye. (voice vote - none heard opposed) TW: That's all I have for now unless I have ques.
JKB: YH, that Crescent Valley, is that private property up there? DM: Yes it is. JKB: Is that comin' out of Fund 17? JW: It's not comin' out of anywhere yet. MW: I don't _ _ _ _ _ _ _. I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . JKB: I'd just like to know if it'd be legal to take it out of Fund 17 for private property.
EM: Yeah - DM: _ _ _ _ - EM: You, you can take it out. If, if you aprop that, you can spend it on CREEK stabilization, public improvemts. JKB: But this, isn't this on private property tho? EM: It's continuity unless (so forgot or oh for God?) it was a subdiv assn's cmte. It's sort of in-common property so to speak.
DM?: It's private property. JKB: So that's legal? EM: IF, if the bd wants to go ahead, then go for it! ?: If the bd approves it, yes. KT: I've got some structures that need improvemt on my property. JW: Git right on it. ?: If it don't matter. JKB: He says it's legal? ?: _ _ _ - (end of topic here)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 105 of 109
DM: So Bill # 1757, was this properly posted? MW: Yes. DM: Please read it caption form & _ update _ _. MW: Bill # 1757, proposed Ord 1623, an ord amending Schedule I of Title III of the Code of Ords pertaining to speed limits on Hwy 141. (MTG CONTINUES)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 106 of 109
...JM:...The last thing I have, YH, is the TSCL for Crescent Valley. As you guys know, before the last P&Z mtg, 3 of the residents came in & reviewed the plans with Paul from PH Weis & Tom was here, ald was here. Uh we had a very good mtg, but uh we seem to let the residents push us around with these TSCL's. & uh we, we gave them every answer they needed. They didn't sign. We're gonna take 'em - wound up we're gonna take 'em & let their lawyers review it.
Uh one gentleman was real nice, I'm gonna take it & review it, I'm gonna have it signed & I'll mail it back, notarized. But he did that, but he didn't initial-off on the exhibit in the back. So now I'm chasin' my tail tryin' to get him to come in & the 2 #'s that he gives me is no longer his & nobody knows who this man is. (bd members chuckle) JW: (laughing) Maybe he wasn't the property owner!
JM: There's a total of 6 of 'em all together & one of the residents, they wanna amend our TSCL per their atty's request. Uh I was gonna bring that to you once I got it & see whether you wanted to allow that to do with the project or if you wanted me to just deny it.
DM: As JKB said, we're spendin' money on private property & here we are - I'll look at it when they send it, but it seems kind of - JM: I could recommend that we have your sec'y prepare a letter to mail out these, by no means of threatening, but it would be advantageous to sign the original TSCL & get them notarized & back to the city in order to be recorded uh to proceed with this project before the project gets put on the back burner.
DM: Definitely want 'em registered & everything so we don't get away from - somebody moved or - JM: If the bd would authorize me to have Rosemary prepare the letter & _ _ (meets?) & the people are the people who _ an outlet. Uh uno, like you said, we're doing this on their property & it's a standard interview form & they just - uno we just let them go into an outlet tho. So that's all I have on - (for the bd as for?) that. DM: Tku _, tku, JM. (MTG CONTINUES)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 107 of 109
...JEM: Had 2 questions: 518 Meramec Sta Rd & the situation with MO Am Water Co in front of the Elevator; uh tackle the shortest answer 1st. Uh the water co situation in front of the Elevator - I don't know whether everyone's aware of the fact that MO Am Water Co installed a new water main on Marshall Rd from Front St to 141. As part of the levee project, they're relocating some utilities & they're increasing the pipe sizes because they're eliminating some water mains. They have not repaired the grassy area on 141 & Marshall in front of the Elevator & the last time I was down there, there were still steel drive plates over the area, driveway leading into the Elevator.
The reason for that is because part of the relocation of water mains requires that a new water service line be provided to Meramec Valley Plaza. It's currently fed off the back of the plaza & from the corner of the dev out into those bldgs by a main that parallels the RR tracks where the water plant used to be. They're abandoning that main adjacent to the water track, the RR tracks & there are discussions about how they will run the new service. But they are going to have to bore underneath Marshall Rd, go thru - it's my understanding that their route now is to use the ROW of Marshall Rd & the ROW of 141 which _ parallel 141 & then enter the shopping ctr dev toward the rear of Shooters 141 & make a connection of the main & kind of back-feed it.
EM: It used to be, but that changed.
JEM: See, I'm behind; a page behind. At any rate, that's why everything is still a mess down there because St L, MO Am Water Co has to bore under 141. That's why the drive plates are still there. They can't backfill the hole 'cause that's where they have to go under the _.
I've got a mtg set up with uh the gentleman from the Elevator - I don't have my notes & can't remember his 1st name - I think it's Mike - concerning another issue uh later this wk. & I'll certainly talk to him about his concerns, but he's never expressed them to me when he set up the mtgs about possibly (selling & deciding?).
2/17/04 BOA - Section 108 of 109
JW brought up 518 Meramec Sta Rd - it currently got a tenant in it that has been there for over a yr who uh likes to take things apart & sell them for parts value. DM: Take it apart. JEM: Cars, road graders, uh pretty much you name it. JW: This is front yard material. JEM: It's front yard material. Uh for the past several months, I've been working with Ofcr Luis uh in an attempt to resolve the siutation at this location. Several visits at the location were made by Ofcr Luis with results in some improvemt in the situation. When conditions started to deteriorate again, a certified letter was sent to the property owner; it was on 12/26. & that letter, by ord, we can require a nuisance to be abated within 5 days & if you fail to do that, the city has the power by our ords to go in, abate it & charge you $50 per every 30 mins minimum; clean it up & bill you for it. If you fail to pay the bill, we can of course place a lien on the property.
JW: (Don't?) think our dump trucks would be prosecutable (with those?). JEM: Well, we've had a couple of properties where they weren't big enough, but we paved most of those. I gave a copy of this letter to Ofcr Luis; he took it up & showed it to the occupant & he cleaned up right away. By the middle of Jan, the property was in the best condition it's been in since I've been with the city. Recently it started to go downhill again...(MTG CONTINUES)
2/17/04 BOA - Section 109 of 109
(during Lt Mowery's Police Report - obviously difficult to hear)...TB: Well, just as a recommendation from me & I don't know if _ _ _ _ _ _ bd would want it, but I've asked Officer Mowery some time ago - how we go into a Ex Sessions & they kinda go on a tour of the place; they don't _ _ _ _. I asked that they stayed out in the hall or somewhere thereabouts 'cause sometimes it gets bad in Ex Ses here & uh just as soon have somebody present as a uno _ uno with an access to the gun over there. So uh whether somebody's just got a badge & a gun close - uno if it has to go before the bd or whatever, but I don't real er call official, a mtg officially over till we're (off the bd?). DM: So you're askin' 'em to be just outside of the door here, Ex Sessions? TB: That would be fine. DM: You need a motion or do you think he could wait outside the door in case there's hear somethin'? LtMowery: I'd probably - DM: Hear shots - LtMowery: wanna stay myself I'll have _ _ _ _ - DM: Ok, either you or an ofcr _ _ _ _ - (silence) LtMowery: It's a shame that you feel that this is necessary, TB. TB: (I'm not the only one?). ?: _ _ - (a few people chuckle, almost laugh, cough & mumble for a sec) DM: Any other q/c?
KT: This is for _ _ _ _. Is Abbott for uh the county or the city? LtMowery: That's the uh, that's the new name (forsh?) put out. DM: So it's county, right? LtMowery: Right, it's uh, it's over in Clayton if, if you uh _ _ _ _ _. KT: What _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VP's own court order or is it county? LtM: It may be a specific type of incident _ _ - KT: (chuckles) Do all of - you go & you're speeding _ _ _ _ _ - LlM: If we have an ord for it, we _ _ _ _ some reason _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - KT: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _the city? LtM: We try _ _ anything that's a felony, we try to get issued to the state. KT: State court referees it. DM: Any other ques. Tku, LtM, appreciate it.
Next we have the bills. What's the bd's pleasure? JW: Move approval. JKB: 2nd it. DM: q/c? (voice vote - none heard opposed) Motion carries. Is there a motion to adjourn? JKB: I'll make a motion to adjourn. JW: 2nd. DM: q/c? All in favor, say aye. (ayes are heard) Mtg adjourned.