MOPR'S 6/7/04 VP BOA MTG MINUTES
Notes: Mtg adjourned at 10:10 pm. Section 5 is actually levee info. As below & likely on MOPR Mins posted after 8/6/04, "TOPICS/INFO ONLY" denotes sections not transcribed due to time constraints. Levee mtgs will always be completely transcribed.
Present: RH, TB, DA, JKB, MW, DM, EM, JW, MP, MMW (Ald Mike White), KT.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 1 of 29
DM: MW, Will you take roll, please? (see above) Quorum being present, call this BOA mtg for 6/7/04 to order. First, before we do the Pledge of Allegiance, I think we should do a moment of silence for former President Reagan passing away. (so done) Tku. (Pledge)
RH, Do you have anything to add to tonight's agenda? RH: Uh, parking on Fernridge. (TB has nothing to add at this time.) DA: Yes, YH, if I could under the Mayor's Report, I would just like a moment um in regards to Pres Reagan. DM: Ok, tku. DA: That's all. JKB: Yeah, just the 600 block of Leonard - lotta cats. JW: Uh, YH, one item, an update on the Crescent Valley Storm Water Project. DM: That is your only item? JW: Yes, tku.
MP: Just a couple of things, YH, _ trash - MM: Can you turn the mics on? (insignificant efforts are made) MP: Big trash pick-up & uh Casey Williamson's Walk. MMW: Uh, yeah, just a pre-fab uh, uh sidewalks over by Vance & Hanna, are kinda shiftin' & fallin' away & breakin' up. Um, I want to discuss - probably the Mayor's probably got uh - the extension of the dump contract; & uh I also wanna touch base on parking in the subdivs along Vance Rd; & get an update on what, what's goin' on with uh regards to the handgun restriction, carrying concealed handguns.
KT: Yes, YH, uh one is hwy dump by uh that (McGilroy?) dumped next to Valley Material; the parking on Valparaiso; landscaping on the corner of Marshall & 141; & might bring something up later during _ _ - DM: During _ _ _ _? KT: During the LEG mins. DM: Ok, tku.
Need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. JW?: So moved. DA: 2nd. DM: q/c? Pam: YH, Are the mics all on? It's really hard to hear back here. AP(audience person): Impossible to hear. MM: Tku. (some tap & adjust) Pam: Tku. DM: Can you hear us now? MMW: Is that on? ?: Right. DM: All in favor of the motion to approve the agenda as amended, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 2 of 29
First, there's a few Speaker Requests from the audience. First is Karen Bergfeld. You wish to speak on parking or since it's brought up, you - MsB: Yes. DM: you wait - MsB: The parking on Valparaiso is worse. There are cars parking on both sides of the street & it's created a dangerous situation due to the children that play out in the street & it makes it difficult to get between the 2 vehicles. & I'd like to see parking on one side of the street only with signs that indicate that. DM: Alright. Anything else to bring up? Or - MsB: Uh, yes. DM: If you so, _ appreciate you come up to the uh podium here so the audience can hear what you have to say. MsB: Ok. DM: State your name again for the audience. MsB: Karen Bergfeld. DM: However you feel comfortable. (her mic is adjusted) MsB: Can you hear me tho (chuckle) ? DM: Yeah, _ _ _ _ -
MsB: In addition to the parking onto Valparaiso, um myself & uh a number of other folks in the subdiv are very concerned over uh things - property values relative to people doing what some believe as home improvemts, but I would not call home improvemts. Um I think there should be some guidelines pertaining to what kind of uh improvemts can be done & that they have to be approved relative to uh painting exteriors of their homes; uh uno there's paint chipping on houses; uh some of the lawns just - they look terrible. It, it almost looks like Section 8 Housing in some of those locations.
DM: Do uno if the trustees have been told of this? Or if they're - MsB: That's the other ques I have is, who are the trustees & what do they do? DM: Scott Young was the last one I remember being in that area. We used to have a list here at city hall. So what I'll do is give it to the police to see if they still got - they used to have a list in the past to be able to indicate the various things. & hopefully, _ _ _ _ give us a good start with this, especially looking into the indentures & see if, if the subdiv 1st can look into something & see what _ - MsB: Is, is he, if, is that the gentleman that's lives on the corner of Valparaiso & Petty's Hill? DM: That is correct. MsB: He's one of the parking problems that we have too. DM: _ (parking there?)? MsB: Yeah, but I don't know any other trustees; I, I heard that he was.
Uh in addition to that, I uh have had an opportunity to stay at home for a couple of months & noticed that many of the trash pick-up people, the recycle people, stop across the street from my house where the common ground is & go over behind the trees to urinate. So I think that should probably be stopped especially if there are kids out during the summer; I don't think it's appropriate. & that's all I have. DM: Ok, tku. MsB: Tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 3 of 29
DM: Scott Bolten, _. MrB: Uh I was gonna add - there's nothing to add to the parking situation & it is as she says & it's primarily at the corner there & it's very difficult. I, I actually live a little to the left so it's not as much of an issue for me but there is issues on that parking; but tryin' to go around that corner is downright dangerous. You cannot see who's coming. The kids are dartin' out from there for some balls that are in use. It's quite dangerous; I'm surprised something hasn't happened yet. Uh, just curiosity question - we have no Section 8 up there; is that correct? DM: I'm not aware of any. I certainly hope not. MrB: (chuckle) Ok; it sure looks like it! ?: Yeah.
MrB: Uh the only other thing I'd like to address is the noise pollution that - a problem that I have at the end of my subdiv which is at the very end uh down where - at the end of Valparaiso on - DM: This the east end or west end down towards - MrB: This would be the east end. DM: Ok. MrB: Ok, I have a gentleman that lives next door that has a son that's apparently in a mosh band or I don't know what they call 'em nowadays, & it just, it's been goin' on for a bit, quite a while. I've asked him repeatedly & I'm tryin' not to get in a contest with him - where I have 16 & 17-yr old kids vandalizing my home. We finally have had to call the police. I just want you to be aware & have it on record that it is an issue. We have called the police a couple times. Each time they come, they happen to be shut down at the time. So we'll just continue calling the police; but to let uno, I did try to resolve this in a neighborly way, but it hasn't - it's just apparently a joke _ _. So tku. DM: Tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 4 of 29
(Wara?) Colvins here to speak. MsC: It's pretty much everything he said. DM: Ok. MsC: That's ok.
DM: Julie Wibbenmeyer. MsW: I just have one other thing to add about the parking on Valparaiso; um the corner has been issue. I think that the one thing that has not been brought up is how many cars are being parked at the homes. Some of them always have 3, 4, 5, 6 cars, & they're, but they're not parking them in the driveway. The driveways are empty & then that's what is causing a lot of the congestion & parking on that street. There's also um one home that has a boat trailer sticking out of the dri uh garage, the drive; the garage cannot close.
Um there's also been a van in front of that house that has been sitting there for at least 1.5 wks; it runs about 1.5 to 2 wks & does not move & it leaks anti-freeze on the concrete. DM: Is this in the street or on the driveway? MsW: It's on the street & it is on the south side of the street. & I think that's the other issue that I wanted to bring up on that corner is that a lot of those homeowners have multiple vehicles; not just one or 2; we're talkin' about 4 or 5. DM: Tku. MsW: Tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 5 of 29
DM: Next is MM. MM: My name is Maureen Morris. My only rental property was #8 Arnold Dr until it was taken from me by the city & the COE, wrongfully I believe. Um please make an accurate synopsis of my cmts part of the city's journal. Addressing the Bd last 4/19, I specifically asked, not once but 3 times, whether it was proper & ethical for the city atty, EM, to prepare legal docs on behalf of my tenants after he had condemned me, the landowner. On 5/17, I asked how & when you would correct your erroneous mins which stated that I had asked IF he was representing my tenants. Instead of simply amending the city's mins as you had 2 other sets of city mins at that same mtg, you voted for restrictions on Freedom of Speech.
Now the city's 5/17 BOA mins state, quote, Ms Morris addressed the Bd pertaining to #8 Arnold Dr & requested that her cmts be made a part of the journal. The city clerk stated that anything that Ms Morris wanted made part of the journal, that she would need to give it to the city clerk in writing & it would be attached to the mins. DA moved that the city clerk continue to prepare the mins in the fashion that had been done in the past. He also stated that the guidelines that the city clerk had stated regarding citizens wanting the record to reflect their cmts, should be prepared in writing & given to the city clerk as attachmt to the mins. Alderman, Alderwoman Thorson, Karen, uh 2nd'd the motion & it carried unanimously, end quote.
Again, the city's mins are erroneous & I'm requesting that they & also the 4/19 mins be amended & approved. The 5/17 mins should also reflect the end of that segmt of the mtg where it had said that since I never requested that my cmts be made a part of city's journal WORD-FOR-WORD, an accurate synok, sy, synopsis would be done & I would not need to provide a written doc of my cmts. So I would like to know if & when you will simply amend & approve both sets of those mins.
DM: What's the Bd's, the Bd's pleasure on amending the mins er would you be satisfied to just show tonight that you asked if it was appropriate for EM to prepare docs for your tenants? MM: I'd like the 4/19 mins uno to simply be corrected & the 5/17. DM: Is there a motion from the Bd to alter the mins - to amend them I should say? Alter _ _. Hearing none, any other cmts?
MM: Yes, I would like to hear the Bd's & EM's cmts on your redev intentions & plans for the AL area once the levee is complete. Tku. DM: I'll just speak briefly. Right now as I understand from the COE, that area's a det basin in case - oh, if & when, I shouldn't say if - but when it, when enough water comes down 141 & the other areas around Sacred Heart Church & the school, has to be detained while the river's up, flow over to that area, be retained & then when the water goes - the river goes down, then the gate'll be opened up & allow the water to flow out into the river.
MM: So you're saying the entire AL area - which is about 5, 6 commercial acres - is going to be a levee det pond? DM: Area - EM: _ - DM: inside the levee - What did you say? EM: Some, some of it is. DM: Some of it is, but I'm not sure if everything's been - EM: Balance is in (a hud?). MM: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. EM: _ - DM: SOME OF IT will be for the levee itself & some for the det basin. MM: For the levee itself - there will be no commercial redev at AL? DM: Not at this time I'm not aware of any, but I don't know what's going to happen in the future.
DA: YH, May I speak too? DM: DA. DA: Um to my knowledge, there is no current plan to redev any of Arnold's Grove for um commercial. However, the Bd & um, um in 2001 I believe, passed a Resolution that no dev would occur WITHOUT the consent of the um, uh property owners. & I believe that Resolution still stands. So there - for my part, there is no plans to redev there. DM: Ok, tku, DA.
MM: But you condemned most of the property owners & took their land (voice trembling with resentment).
6/7/04 BOA - Section 6 of 29
DM: Moving on, we got Bd mins from mtg mins from 5/17/04 - what's the Bd's - I'm sorry - I had another sheet here from DC. You have - wanna speak at this time? Apologize, got it right here, apologize. DC: I'd like to speak when it comes up on the Bill # 1776, for a phased plan resid, residential dev at that time on _ Forest Ave; & that bill comes up every P&Z. DM: Tku, DC, tku for reminding me; how inconsiderate of me.
Bd mtg mins from 5/17/04; what's the Bd's pleasure? JW?: Move approval. DM: Is there a 2nd? ?: 2nd. DA?: 2nd, YH. DM: Any q/c? Hearing none, all in favor, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries. Are there any licenses & permits tonight, MW? (no response heard)
Under cmte reports, LEG Cmte, KT, do you care to act on this mins? KT: Yes, I would like to have the approval, please. I would make a motion to approve. DM: Is there a 2nd? ?: 2nd. DM: Got a motion & a 2nd; any q/c? All in favor of the motion, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed)
P&Z Cmsn mtg mins - what's the Bd's pleasure? ?: Move approval. DM: Is there a 2nd? ?: 2nd. DM: Any q/c? All in favor of the motion, say aye - (voice vote - none heard opposed)
6/7/04 BOA - Section 7 of 29
Section 6, business mtg, ords & resolutions - we have Bill # 1766 - was is properly posted, MW? MW: Yes. DM: Please read it in caption form. MW: Bill # 1766, proposed ord 1629, an ord approving a Preliminary a Dev Plan for a Phased Planned Residential Dev for 903 Forest Ave submitted by Kim E Gardner for Enchanted Forest Condominiums, LLC, identified as P&Z Petition #P-2003-04. DM: What's the Bd's pleasure? DA: Move approval. DM: Is there a 2nd? JKB: 2nd it. DM: Got a motion & a 2nd. I'll allow DC to speak, then we'll _ _ _ -
DC: Speaking as a member of the P&Z Cmsn, back uh 2 mos ago, we uh recommended denial of this & as the P&Z Pet # P200304, uh that's denial - I don't know how you could use that pet # to approve this, this bill if it's never been approved by the P&Z. You overruled the P&Z, so there should be some other thing on this. Uh that's just one of their cmts.
Uh out of Section 2, Section 2, Item 2, Final Dev Plan - down at the bottom, it says Final Dev Plan to the Cmty Dev Dir - we do not have a Cmty Dev Dir. So who is going to uh submit uh the Preliminary Dev Plan? Who are you gonna submit that to? The City Eng, is he gonna do this or _? DM: EM says if he's the Chairman of the P&Z Cmsn which we're gonna go to Mr Weis, our eng. DC: So this will be to the City Eng who is the Chairman to the P&Z? DM: Well, he's a member of the P&Z Cmsn _ _ _ _ -
DC: So he's gonna be this - but also this has to be - come back to the P&Z? DM: Right. DC: You, you don't have that in there that it has to come before the P&Z. The Final Dev Plan to the Cmty Dev Dir & no P&Z & I think you should add in there, & the P&Z for its review & consideration. EM: Our, our ords do require that _ _ _ - DC: But it should be in there; I mean we should have that.
Also on Page uh 3, again, the Dir of Cmty Dev, that should be to the City Eng; not Cmty Dev Dir because that, that position & that uh area's already gone. So there gonna have to be uh - we should state in there, the uh (long pause) - also on Page 3, the landscape plan shall be subject to approval by the P&Z Cmsn & I think that should be & the uh City Eng. I'm gonna bore you to death - DM: Parag was that? DC: Huh? DM: What parag was that? DC: At the bottom of, at the bottom of Page 3 - ?: _ _ - DC: it says - ?: _ _ - DC: At Section 4 - DM?: Ok, I see it, alright. DC: P&Z Cmsn & also it says City Eng. DM: Tku. DC: Uh, Page 4, I, I'll bore you to death with this - also architectural elevations of the bldg shall be submitted to the Cmty Dev Dir & P&Z for their review & approval. This is all on the Final Dev Plan so - on Page 5, again with the at uh para, occasion prior to issuance of bldg permit, uh Parag 1 there at the last Dir of Cmty Dev, City Eng. #2 uh Dir of Cmty Dev & line, at the end of Line 2, & at the end of the parag again, City Eng.
#4, uh geotechnical (geotech)- is that required where he is going to test this ground uh for what Mr. Rucci uh put in there without a landfill permit, without any kind of permit, would(n't?) stop & he continued dumping in there, unapproved soil? Is this Geotech Report gonna require that he do some boring up there to see what's actually in there - if there is uh soil that can be used or not? We had a situation here on Hanna Rd uh some yrs ago where they dumped material in there. I think Mr Rucci was involved in that & when they did the borings & that, they found out that they couldn't build houses on it; that it was unsuitable fill & it's now a park for the Hanna - that subdiv on the uh west side of Hanna Rd across the street from the uh, uh city park, the uh, there on Hanna Rd.
I, I don't know whether this is, but I think this was brought up in the very beginning when we got our P&Z mtg that there was something about this fill in there that had to be thing & I think uh even TW was here at the time & he, he expressed concern about this fill in there. I mean there's been no - this was never approved by the City of VP because Mr Rucci just had somebody had all this fill & he started dumpin' it in there. & uh it was never approved by the City of VP & we had - we stopped the man at several times & he continued dumping in there.
& also at the end of that sentence there again, Dir of Cmty again by it's - uh City Eng. #5, again, at the first line, Dir of Cmty Dev, the City Eng. Page 6, #7, again, the Cmty Dev Dir should be the City Eng. DM: Dave, Do we just say every place the Cmty Dev Dir's spelled out, City Eng? DC: That's fine; that, that's fine & I'll, I'll go ahead, but everywhere we say Cmty Dev, we should have City Eng whether that's gonna be - whether you're gonna put in there TW or whatever there, just the City Eng is gonna approve this. I mean I uno that, that's the only way I see that this is actually gonna be.
#9, in the event a LOMR is obtained for less property - uh I don't know what LOMAR is. Can anybody tell me what that's an abbrevi - ?: Letter, Letter of Map Revision. DC: Ok, was approved for the - ok. Uh now we go down to Record Plat, uh Item 2, uh 1, 2, 3, on the 3rd line at the end, it says Plat Officer. Who is the Plat Officer? Is that the City Eng? EM: Uh Plat Officer - there's a Plat Officer with St L County & I, I'm not sure if that's who it's addressed to or not. Typically it would be whoever signs off on it for the City of VP. DC: Which would be City Eng? EM: Yeah. DC: Ok. So he, he does know that he is the Plat Officer as, as to whatever it is? Uh again, in the last, in that whole section, Section 6, Record of Plat, I guess it should be uh Plat Officer maybe uh parentheses City Eng or something that we know who the Plat Officer is on this whole thing.
On this one where I said about this geotech, I think this one thing, this is one thing the BOA, before they make an approval of this thing & all down, is to get some kind of uh what, what is put in that ground up there before uh this is in floodplain, which is put in there - if we don't - if somethin' starts in there & we have some kind of un uh some kind of material that's not suitable for bldg like was on Hanna Rd. I think that's all I have here. & then on Item J in that uh 14 on Page 8, uh Dir of Cmty Dev again, put that down as City Eng. Ok? DM: Tku, DC. DC: Tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 8 of 29
DM: Maker of the motion & 2nd agree to these amendmts that - DA: Yes, YH. DM: It's under (daughter?)? ?: Yes. EM: Then I'd go ahead & say they - what the motion is & that should be that. Uh it'd be a motion to amend all references to Cmty Dev Dir by deleting that term & inserting in-lieu, City Eng & to place in parentheses after Plat Officer, City Eng thruout the ord.
DM: Are there any q/c on the amendmt er on the ord as amended? DC: How about that geotech part of it? DM: Can we just say that if borings need to be uh performed before any work? DC: I think they should be with the City Eng uh there or whenever do something that if somebody _ _ in that front lot up there & see what it is. DM: Do you know if that's the way when they do a Geotech Report or - DC: I have no idea. I, I, I would think there's some kind of, if it's geotech, it's some kind of uno uh geology or something that goes in there, I would - DM: _ the maker of the motion agree that uh - DA: That's fine. DM: _ put a (not?) part of that report that they would be added - DA: That's fine. DM: make sure that - include that in there, even if it's not part of the subdiv - DC: Well, ok. TB: YH, That depends on who the COE denotes that it's a property? DC?: Yeah. DM: Right. Yes, that's correct.
MP: YH, ques on it - uh when he starts doin' Phase 1 & after Phase 1 is done, who's gonna have to fill it all the fact that Phase 2? Are they gonna use the entrance that they have on Forest or are they gonna have another entrance off of Forest? Is he gonna let 'em run across the blacktop, the dump truck or is he gonna go Forest - DM: I think we should ask Mr. Gardner. Would you care to step up here, please, & address the uh _ _ _ - State your name for the record & uh _ _ _ -
MrG: Uh good evening. My name is Kim Gardner & uh I'm uh the dev of the Enchanted Forest Condominiums & uh in answer to MP's ques re the 2nd Phase, the um, what I was proposing to do was to have a 2nd entrance that would be paved off of Forest Ave in order to avoid running the uh heavier trucks over the existing asphalt that would likely get torn up. If the city would agree with that, that would be my proposal is to pave a separate entrance, but it would be a temp entrance that would be removed after uh the Phase 2 area is filled in. I think that that would uh should satisfy the, the needs of the city & also will help prevent any major damage to the uh crushed & paving uh parking lot.
MP: (Flood?) damage that caused that. DM: I'd recommend that JM or the City Eng or what we need to video tape or take a few pictures of the area before & then we'll compare 'em afterwards. MrG: I, I believe that we had uh briefly discussed that &, & that would be appropriate is to take a look at the street before & after & make sure everything is uh in good shape.
MP: YH, I know we had talked about this in Ex Ses one night with Mr. Gardner & we talked about this other entrance & if you read in here, it says ONE entrance. It doesn't say nothing about no other entrances in there, soo at this time, I'm gonna vote no against this because we're gonna spend a couple hundred thousand $ to redo Forest Ave & who's to say it's gonna be rebuilt right? MrG: Well, the uh, the 2nd entrance, uno I can, I can go either way; I can uh repair the uh the asphalt for the one entrance. I think the uh the ord was referring to one entrance mostly being the perm entrance, but uh many const sites will have a, a temp uh entrance for const traffic & that's all I was referring to with the 2nd entrance. I thought it might be the entrance to, of both the residents of the dev & uh the city would be able to live with a uh temp paved entrance onto Forest Ave. It would be the same amt of truck traffic; it just would come & go at a different location.
MP: YH, I understand it, but when it says nothin' about that - so at this time, I'm votin' _ - DM: Would you like to make a motion to add that temp entrance to that? Or - MP: I wouldn't know how to word it to protect the street. DM: Any other issues at this time? MP: No, YH. DM: Any other q/c? DA: Yes, YH, I'd really like to make a motion to amend a section that calls for a 2nd temp uh entrance um for const & Forest Ave be replaced um back to the original condition or better than um prior than, prior to const. DM: _ saying include Phase 2 - const for Phase 2? DA: All for, for Phase 2, yes. DM: Is there a 2nd? JW?: 2nd it. DM: q/c on the amendmt?
MP: Yes, YH, we have of a member of P&Z out there; why don't we see about that? DM: DC, Do you have any opinions on the uh temp entrance so if we take pictures ahead of time to - & then verify it afterwards that it's the quality's the same or better after completion of Phase 2 that was prior to the const? DC: It's really up to you fellas. I'm just here to - I made the cmts & it's if you want a temp anysment uh to put that road in, fine; I mean _ _ - DM: _ MP asked for your input so I - that's why I asked. Didn't mean to put you on the spot. I just wanted to -
JW: YH, Just if I could ask Kim a ques. Hopefully, he'll have his project completed before I think the part that MP is rambly speaking of, is we're gonna have a new street within a few yrs & I'm hopin' that your project will be completed before this uno new street comes down thru there. MrG: Um most definitely. I am planning on a 2-yr window for total, begin-to-end, const. I believe that this entire project should be completed in 2 yrs. JW: Ok, tku. Is that Phase 1 & 2? MrG: Phase 1 & 2.
DM: Any other q/c? TB: Yes, I'm sure he's applied for Phase 2 & uh I guess that was from a FEMA record. MrG: It would be from FEMA. I would be applying for what is referred to as a Conditional Letter of Map Revision & that uh LOMR is conditioned based upon the proper placemt of the fill. Uh I will be uh submitting that here shortly, but I'm wanting to get uh the Geotech Eng on-board as I go fwd with uh submitting that. The Geotech Eng that I'll have the side walls will be the one that will monitor the fill. Uh that fill will be placed in an eng'd manner, unlike what uh DC had referred to.
Uh there is some fill on the current Phase 1 portion that uh may be questionable. We're not sure exactly what's there. I'm right now looking at the same Geotech Permit had done the inspection during the 1st half of that filling operation since they have the records of what was done at that time. Um & if I might address the geotech issue, um I'm as concerned as DC had uh mentined that there is some ques about what's out there. I will be doing uh, uh bore holes on the site to ascertain what the material is & uh as part of that, they go every few feet, they take samples of the soil & they give me a full report. As part of the ord, I am required to submit a Geotech Report.
Uh I perceive that they likely need to uh put in piers & a structural slab for the uh the bldgs. However, since the bldgs will not have a basemt, I won't have to do excavation down &, & be removing that material in order to place a basemt in there. It'll just be a slab on grade so I could do that as a structural slab. One other option is to possibly remove that material & put in uh that uh uno a compacted granular material. That's another option that could be explored, but I, I don't really know what the thickness of the unconsolidated fill material might be. But that will all be uh investigated thru borings & a Geotech uh Report before uh, before design is even completed.
TB: & also, did these people approve where you're talkin' about these first 3 bldgs? MrG: The first 3 bldg has already rcv'd approval from FEMA thru a LOMR. TB: You said last wk also. MrG: Uh well, MSD has not been approved yet because I still haven't submitted the final plans. Um I will be coming fwd with that here shortly also. I, I hate to say I've been kind of holding things uh until I get the final approval & everything is all lined up & I'm ready to go fwd with a, a whole lot of different issues. As soon as I can get the approval, then I'll have all the submittals being sent in.
DM: Anything else, TB? TB: No, YH. DM: Still have the amendmt - are there any other q/c on the amendmt which will be the temp 2nd entrance for const, const Phase 2? All in favor of the motion for the amendmt of temp entrance, say aye - (opposition heard) (roll call vote: Yes: JKB, TB, JW, KT, MMW, DA. No: RH, MP.) MW: 6 yes & got 2 no.
DM: Any q/c on the main motion? MP: Are the streets there gonna be private or are you gonna throw in a little bit of soup? MrG: The streets will be uh private & will be required to be retained as private streets by the ord. ?: _ ok that we - EM: The city would not take a gated street. ?: Right. MP: Well, I had understand that we have had problems with the street in Ward 3 where it's - that street, wantin' somethin' done & it's a private street. What's gonna happen when the street's gonna be fixed?
EM: That's a total subdiv problem. & it's, it's just a little different than the Ward 3 problem because that's a subdiv surrounded by subidvs where the landowners gotta keep up, taking his responsibility up. This is, this is not an ingress & egress here; this is basically a private parking area & uh private - that, that's gated. MP: I see it said something about Section 410220 - what's that about? EM: Where you at? MP: Page 6, (right at the bottom?). EM: 410212? MP?: Hold on. EM: I donno. I donno. Don't have it! MP: Subsection D. ?: _ _ - (they search & mumble) EM?: Unless it's a blanket approval _ _.
JW: Need to ask Jim where he came up with that one! MrG: Well, actually uh, this is identical to the prior ord & I, I went thru it pretty thoroughly & I thought I had checked everything when I looked at it (last wk?). Maybe it could be amended to read a disclosure that works with the city code & not cite these particular bldgs as public at this time. ?: _ _ _ - JW: Approve to amend the net grade. MWorKT?: What page are you on? DA: 2nd. DM?: Bottom of page 6.
DM: EM direct (meaning?) in the last sentece of parag 5 or I guess sub-parag 5, top of page 6, break out the words section 410.220, section D; so it'll read, in accordance with the City of VP (long pause) - did we have a motion & a 2nd _ _ - MW: I didn't get the _ _ _ - DM: Yes, DA. MW: Oh, ok. DM: q/c? All in favor, say aye - (opposition heard) (roll call vote: Yes: KT, MMW, DA, JKB, RH, TB, JW. No: MP.) MW: 7 yes, 1 no...
(exchange tapes during which I noted that EM said that that's probably the best idea; MrG said that it had confused him too; JW moved amend that direction; DA 2nd; EM said that this would've been done by bldg cmsnr.)
...KT: May I ask who actually wrote this up? EM: This ord would've been done by a pro. KT: By a pro? Ok. DM?: _ be a prude. KT: Prior, prior to his - EM: Prior to his - KT: dismissal? EM: Whatever _ - (someone chuckles) KT: Whatever. DM: Prior to this _ _ _ _ - KT: Prior to it.
DM: _ _ Any other q/c? On the main motion of Bill # 1766, Ord 1629, with the amendmts, all in favor, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries. MrG: Tku. DM: What's the bd's - ?: First - DM: Right, 1st reading. What's the bd's pleasure on the 2nd reading? DA: Move approval of Bill 1776, on it's 2nd & final reading. JW: 2nd. DM: q/c? Hearing none, roll call vote, please, MW. (Yes: JKB, JW, KT, MMW, DA. No: RH, MP.) (TB's response was an indec 2-3 word cmt) MW: 6 yes, 2 no. DM: Motion car - oh, ord carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 9 of 29
Next we have Bill # 1767, was this properly posted? MW: Yes. DM: Please read it in caption form. MW: Bill # 1767, Proposed Ord 1630, An Ord adopting & enacting the Bldg, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Explosives & Property Maintenance Codes of St L County as amended as the Bldg, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Explosives & Property Maintenance Codes of the City of VP. DM: What's the bd's pleasure? JW?: Move approval. MW: Add this? MMW?: I'll 2nd that. DM: q/c?
JW: I have one, YH. I see some of these dates of adopted I have - Are any of these codes, whether it be the new 2003 code or is that up to the county to - we're basically adopting what they're gonna use. Am I correct? EM: What, what we're saying in here, it's as amended thru the date of the last amended toward ords & all the, all the ords over on the right are really (according?), initially adopted up to like even the land disturbance code the city had just, just adopted by a month ago (I think?). They periodically update it & then & approve our ord, we're (up'd?) - we are by operation of law opting to amend their amendmts.
JW: Which is a necessary item in order to contract? EM: That's correct. JW: Tku. MMW: Uh yes, would that mean then that uh St L County is gonna be responsible for enforcing anybody's property maint codes? EM: Yep. I do have copies of the property maint code & of the land disturbance permit & I'll give those to the city clerk & then (more than?) once they're - MMW: Yeah, they do _ _ - EM: _ _ -
DA: One quick ques, um why it's opting the new, these St L County codes, it's a safe um statemt to say that our codes will be as um, um like we're rigorous NOW with the new uh, with the new as they were in the past with our own codes? EM: Actually, I think to the, to the extent that there would be any conflict, this would prevail; the county codes would prevail. Um uno I, I looked at the Property Maint Standards &, & you can do the same; of course I don't think that they are as strict as our existing standards. Um they, they don't seem to me as intrusive, but um uno I'm, I'm certainly no auth with codes at this point. &, & I'll pass it down to you; if you want, you can take a look at it.
TB: EM, Is this pertaining to bring this up with the code then as bldg inspector would want us to use? ?: I think so. ?: Yeah. TB: Like in the last 3 yrs? _ we're 3 yrs behind in our bldg codes & _ _ _ - EM: Well, for BLDG CODES, yeah. Uh but, but it - I, I'm sorry, maybe I'm misunderstood the ques. TB: Maybe you did. EM: I thought it was Property Maint is what you _ - Build, bldg codes, this whole kit is completely - TB: updated? EM: Ah, absolutely. DA: That was the ques. EM: I, I'm so sorry. TB: That's ok because I thought we, we were kind of gettin' behind the 8-ball on some of this, weren't we? Uno we were like 4 yrs behind - EM: Yeah, now - TB: stuff for the month? EM: this brings us more, again, bldg codes than, than whatever month that St L County's at & they go by -
MMW: These would be the same ones that uh JEM had brought up uh the ones you - EM: Uno - MMW: as far as the most current; but so if you had copies of the Property Maint Code Book being endowed or being made available I guess. EM: No, that was BLDG. He had an iolta bold & I'm not so sure that county follows the Iolta Code, but he did & he followed the Boca & he let - I may be wrong, but it's just 2 different (soy sorts?). MMW: _ _ _book? EM: Sure.
KT: Uh we were supposed to put this bldg code into LEG & um the good JEM was on uh another _ - DM?: on separate maint - KT: Yeah, & we did not - we were unable to bring the our codes up to uh the same standards as uh the state & the county wanted. So is this, does this cover everything explained to um have a LEG mtg on those codes? EM: No, I, I think this covers it all. I think once you adopt County Bldg Codes, you're as uh as, as up-to-date as - KT: Oh, good. EM: as could be reasonably expected by - KT: Ok, tku.
MP: YH, These new insurance co wanna step upgrade our codes to in that (corridor?) you were talkin' about? DM: I think for homeowners' insurance this is more key to _ rather than the insurance co - talkin' about the city's insurance? MP: No, I'm not. DM: I wasn't aware of talkin' about this, but truthfully, if it helps out the homeowners' insurance - EM, Do uno - EM: Yes, it is. DM: if the city's insurance would get involved with this?
EM: We're, we're, well not our home ins, but the, it's the overall ISO rating. DM: Oh, ok, that's right; it's the ISO rating. EM: yeah, but those are very much conditional upon a whole host of things. The bldg code & enforcemt are the top - way, way up there. They, they help in ratings & as uno, the better rating you have, the lower your municipality's individual homeowners' ins rates are. So this is a positive thing for them. MM: Could the city atty please use his microphone? (tape usually "hears" better than audience members can)
DM: Any other q/c? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) What's the bd's pleasure for 2nd reading of Bill # 1767? JW: Move approval. DM: All in favor? (gavel bang - ayes) We should just to read it. ?: _ almost _ _ _ - DM: _ _. Ok, motion carries. If it's - read it in caption form, please, MW. MW: Ok, that, that motion should be read tonight to - MW&DM: read the 2nd reading. MW: So it was JW moved to do that & _ - DM: MP _ _ - MW: Ok. Now we're actually reading - DM: Read it again for us. (someone chuckles) MW: Uh, Bill # 1767, Proposed Ord 1630, (reads same as above, adding "MO" at end) DM: What's the bd's pleasure on the 2nd reading? JW: Move approval. ?: 2nd it. DM: q/c?
RH: I have just one, YH. Say in the future if we would ever decide to go back to our uh, havin' our own uh Bldg Cmsnr, would we be under uh the code we're voting on? - is what I'm tryin' to say DM: I believe it'd be(these code, but with all _ - EM: Yeah, I mean in the past - RH: Uno, I, I just - EM: In the past if we would've kept up with it, this would've been our code anyway. RH: That's all I have, YH. DM: Alright, tku. Any other q/c? (roll call vote) MW: 8 yes. DM: The motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 10 of 29
Bill # 1768, was it properly posted, MW? MW: Yes. DM: Please read it in caption form, please. MW: Bill # 1768, Proposed Ord 1631, An ord authorizing a contractural agreemt with the County of StL, MO for the provision of code enforcemt svcs. DM: What's the bd's pleasure? EM: Mr Mayor, it's open for discussion. After I prepared the ord & before this mtg, I got a call from StL County.
I'd sent all these for their review & they indicated that specifically for the land disturbance & for improvisions, a separate contract was needed - which I prepared & it's, it's very similar in form to the one that's already attached - that we would need 2 separate contracts; one for uh services uh from bldg to property maint & then the other one for just the land disturbance code.
& I've prepared that & I can certainly add it to their contract if necessary & we, we just need to amend the ord to say that the mayor of the City of VP is hereby auth'd to enter into 2 agreemts with the County of StL pursuant to agreemts attached hereto. DM: Read the 2nd - EM: No, we don't have to do one. This does not have to be read necessarily. DM: Because it's part of this? EM: That includes both. DM: Ok. So it'll be one ord but just amended the quickest way? EM: Right. JW: Move approval of Bill 1768 with the amended land disturbance.
TB: 2nd with discussion. Uh yes, this land disturbance was up pertaining to if you're digging a foundation or movin' dirt in or - EM: Rating mainly. Uh I think it coulde, could even be construed to - RH?: Water bills - that's why we put it in there. People would clear their land 1st & then cut the sinkhole in & then gut it, then it's light work. TB: More important about a sinkhole _ takin' down a tree with a tore off limb from a tree, uno a tree died, like in front of (George?) _ _ come to city hall - RH: No, this is for clearing.
DM: Any other q/c? All in favor, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries. What's the bd's pleasure on a 2nd reading of Bill # 1768? DA: Move to read Bill 1768 twice this evening. DM: 2nd? ?: 2nd. DM: q/c? All in favor of the motion for the 2nd reading, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) (MW reads same as above) DM: What's the bd's pleasure? ?: Move approval. ?: 2nd. JW: Ques, YH. Maybe it's in there, I just overlooked it. What is the price for the contract? Is it less than $50,000 a yr we was payin' the previous employee?
EM: Um, it, it is a service generated uh contract so that there SHOULD NOT BE a - un, unless we use them extensively for enforcemt services, a negative impact at all. So, yeah, it would be cheaper. The, the way it works is we've adopted their fees & so the, the consumer would pay their fees to the city which in return, would be remitted as our fees to the St L County. Other than enforcemt services, enforcemt services are uh done on an hourly basis so if we have a complaint & have to bring a bldg enforcer out, he charges us a, a set fee withholding his services & we would hope to recoup that in court or, or whatever means we can.
JW: Would that mean there would have to be a problem then before an individual would be out looking for a code violation like paint comin' off a house? EM: I think it's, I think it is tailored in that direction. It's not an active enforcemt but it's a, it's an enforcemt that can be brought on by a written or telephonic complaint thru the city. JW: So the city could make it whichever direction they would like to see it basically? EM: That's correct. JW: If they really wanna tighten the reins up, just make a call & you're (pause) - EM: Absolutely. JW: Tku.
DM: Believe that the codes enforcemt is $43/hr if we do use their services? EM: I believe that's correct. DM: & the other fees like before, same pass-way thru so for another 3 yrs, other than the time for the people in the office to call the county & schedule inspection like they did before _. Any other q/c? Roll call vote, please, MW. (so done) MW: 8 yes. DM: Motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 11 of 29
Bill # 1769, was this properly posted, MW? MW: Yes. DM: Please, read it in caption form. MW: Bill # 1769, Proposed Ord 1632, A new ord repealing Articles 1 & 3 of Chapter 130 pertaining to personnel policy & adopting a personnel manual setting forth the personnel policies & practices of the City of VP, MO. DM: What's the bd's pleasure? KT: Approve. MMW: 2nd. DM: q/c?
TB: YH, Uh can I uh EM, Did you, did you take this after uh you say your manual (eradiate?) practice? Uno - EM: I did. It, it's drawn mainly off the city's present manual. TB: Ok. Then there shouldn't be any surprises with this manual? EM: No, I &, & what I did, I attached the 4 pages I think - 2, 3, 4 words which the the bd had requested changes be made. I, I take it back; it's 3, 3 pages uh & I made those changes per, per the LEG Cmte mins. DM: Anything else, TB? TB: No, YH. DM: MMW.
MMW: Um yes. So this is, again, this is gonna be uh redundant sort of thru this, so which will be besides that, what changes need to be made which I'm sure there are quite a few that I've seen um that it won't get caught without making these changes as - EM: Absolutely, (now?) - MMW: we go & it should be fortunate we get this in to get our insurance, correct?
MP: YH, When we had a mtg, a LEG mtg back in May, we were supposed to send them a rough draft, to the insurance co - DM: Yes. MP: _ _ _ - MW: Yes, I believe - MP: Well, I saw the letter in the back. MW: I was tryin' to put a letter up here that said they had a copy of it or that they were awaiting a copy of it, but I'm sure that - DM: 'cause your letter said we had to pass this. It sounds like your letter - MW: Yeah, I, I - DM: we're under the _ - MW: think that she got one.
EM: Well, I, I hand-delivered one _ _. MW: Last Thurs - EM: _ _ - MW: I was out of town when that happened, but I - DM: Remember we got a letter from 'em asking that we pass this & then we can make changes as MMW pointed out - go thru it & update it, then, then something, amend, go thru & make, hopefully, amend this all in one swoop instead of making it 2 or 3 cuts, say.
MP: Because on that letter that they sent back, it says we went over the final draft of the Revised City of VP _ _ (manual?). I've never known it to be a final draft. EM: They, they wouldn't have had the final draft. What they would've had was the draft I gave them before changes were made per the LEG Cmte mins.
MP: Ok. What I'm sayin' that they're sayin' is the final draft. We didn't even have a min to get these 15 pages that night & there's 70-something pages. DM: Why take at least one more mtg to go thru it then? But also insurance co is urging us to get something in place to get started & then hopefully get all the, the updates in it as quickly as possible - getting something in place now is in the uh insurance co's recommendation.
MP: Is there a way that we could re, reword this ord that says this is a preliminary copy, we (redone or were done?)? EM: Then it has no force & effect. If you wanna have an ord with course & effect, you have to adopt one & you can make the changes after the fact. MP: &, & it'd say that there'd be changes coming? DM: Well, just like some of the earlier ords we passed tonight that referred back to sections earlier in the Ord Book & we're always, it's always at the bd's I guess availability or liberty to go ahead & change something, saying in there that there's an override by a uh 5-person vote on an ord - if we change the parking which has been discussed tonight or adding stop signs or paving the streets.
MP: I, I understand what you're saying, YH, but I never looked into that, but we're doing this which is in the (act?) & I would just like to see that, that we (move?) these changes (filming?) rather than uno just saying that this is more or less - it's not sayin' it's final, but there's always a chance that it's gonna be final.
EM: No one, no one ever said this was final other than - I, I don't know why the ins co would do that - put it in (physical?). I think you're watering down the message, given his ins co, in saying that you're adopting something, but stay tuned for future changes. I mean as a matter of course, you always change appointmt manuals, &, & here in particular, you know you're going change it. So I, I, I don't know that we need to put that in & it, & it may do not what we intended to do & that is, have an ins carrier, we're having to do all _ _ _. MP: Tku, YH. DM: Any other q/c?
MMW: Would it be, would it be prudent to go ahead &, & approve this & at the same time, send it back to LEG for corrections & give everybody a chance to look it over, make the adjustmts there & then - EM: I, I'd be happy to - MMW: begin the updating process right away because I, I can tell in between testings 'cause I know I do as well. But I also see the deadline is fast-approaching & the way that we go back & forth, ups & we didn't do nothing; so get something in place. Um we might end up _ -
DM: By Ex Order, I'll go ahead & place this back into - we'll pass it tonight - but for anything that - MMW: _ pass - DM: go ahead - if there's any concerns over whether or not - MMW: get back on it right away - DM: Hopefully it will pass, but either way, it'll be in LEG Cmte for further updates & looking for - go ahead & review it for any other changes in it & if the bd sees - MMW: Tku. DM: appropriate.
Any other q/c? All in favor of the motion, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries. What's the bd's pleasure for a 2nd reading? DA: Move to read Bill 1769 for a 2nd reading this evening. KT: 2nd. DM: Please read it in caption form please. MW: _ _ - DM: Oh I'm sorry, yes, we should've - all in favor of the motion, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) MW: _ _ _ - DM: _ _ -
MW: Ok. Bill # 1769 (reads same as above) DM: What's the bd's pleasure? JW: Move approval. KT: 2nd. MW: Ok, got _ _ - DM: Got JW made the motion & TB 2nd'd it. Any q/c on the 2nd reading? Hearing none, roll call vote please. MW: (so done) 8 yes. DM: Motion carries...
6/7/04 BOA - TOPICS/INFO ONLY - Section 12 of 29
Bill # 1770 re naming 2 lakes, actually det ponds, at the Lakes at Big Bend Subdiv, Upper & Lower Lakes Estates; none heard opposed to a doing resolution in lieu of an ord & notifying Cape Albeon residents. > Bill #1771, POrd 1633, an ord amending Schedule 2 of Title 3 of code of ords by adding a new location pertaining to stop signs; 2nd reading done, motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 13 of 29
...DM: Bill 1772, Was it properly posted? MW: Yes it was. DM: Please read it in caption form. MW: Bill # 1772, Proposed Ord # 1634, an ord approving a Proposal & Plan of Intent for the annexation of an unincorporated area being a portion of the disincorporated City of Peerless Park & approving the submittal of such Proposal & Plan of Intent to the StL County Boundary Cmsn. DM: What's the bd's pleasure? ?: Move approval. DA: Approval of Bill 1772. DM: Ok, motion & a 2nd; any q/c? Hearing none, all in favor, say aye (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries.
Is there a motion for a 2nd reading? DA: Move approval of the 2nd reading this evening of Bill 1772. MMW&KT?: 2nd. DM: Motion & 2nd; any q/c? All in favor of a 2nd reading, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) MW, Please read it in caption form. MW: (reads same as above) DM: What's the bd's pleasure? ?: Move approval. ?: Beruit. (KT? chuckles) DM: Any q/c? Hearing none, roll call vote please. MW: (so done) 8 yes. DM: Motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 14 of 29
Dept Reports - Only thing I have tonight for the Mayor's Report's under the CDBG Grants from the county - see a letter for $20,000 from Kiefer Board to (help?) the data as (we?) passing on to Mr. Weis for the event they have it under contract by 12/31/04. We're gonna make sure we keep the money & get some plans together & get some PBW mtg. DA said it'd be good for - better get something in place - probably continuation of the water as a sense we have trouble or _ _ _ the best. I believe that's what we discussed _ - DA: That wasn't in the mtg. DM: Yes it was. DA: Huuh. DM: Yes I did.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 15 of 29
DA: & I did have one item, YH, under mayor. DM: DA. DA: Yes, before the mtg, you had a moment of silence for um, uh Pres Ronald Reagan - again, I'm gonna make the request, but before I say it, I'm gonna explain why I'm doin' it. Um I was born in 1961 & my, my entire um youth um until I was fully grown, we were under a constant threat & a real threat of um under the erupting guns Soviet Union um...
6/7/04 BOA - TOPICS/INFO ONLY - Section 16 of 29
> Citing Pres Bush's declaration of Friday as a Nat'l Day of Mourning Pres Reagan & a rare opportunity, DA's motion passes to shut down VP City Hall on Fri > too many cats running loose probably from 606 Leonard garage > city trash: employees' safety, injuries, insurance, malfunctioning '80-something 2nd truck, pick-up requiremts & costs > Crescent Valley storm water project & budgets > sponsoring Casey Williamson Walk > (exchange tapes) > Vance & Hanna sidewalk missing a big chunk >
> 2 trash transfer stations to be nearby & side-by-side since Onyx Landfill on Vance was to close, but with Onyx' life likely to be extended by StL County Council, concern is that VP will be the Greater StL County Dump. MMW motions to letter County Council. DA rcv'd phone call from group wanting support to oppose extending Onyx' life; there was an accident with a death, in maybe 3/04; county approved 2 transfer stations based on 2 landfills closing within the next 2 yrs; let's make 'em live up to their word.
JM rcv'd a 2nd letter from Onyx Landfill today re the accident & fatality, encouraging drivers to obey speed limits & landfill laws which were included in the letter; wording was to obey the laws or Onyx will kick you out of their landfill. VP uses Onyx. Trash transfer has already lettered VP asking for a contract; as DM recalls, it's about $5.00/ton cheaper. Per JM, $7.50 vs $33.50 should be looked into. DM will place in PBW.
Per Lt Mowery, the Onyx driver that killed that lady was charged with manslaughter; & altho LtM lives nearby, when an officer is not in the area, he has seen those trucks drive too fast outta there & like KT, has seen them run a stop sign. KT requests police vigilance. LtM has talked to Capt Corliss about it. MMW motions to put into PBW, the option of moving to Weber & reevaluating recycling. Corrugated cardbd is most demanded recyclable & biggest single money item. DM did place trash issue in PBW & will add recycling if DA will cover both. DA calls PBW mtg for Th, 6:30, to include both issues. Per JW, Geo Behnen told him, DM & DA that he'd give VP a considerable break & maybe even a percentage over. JW knows Behnen would be competitive & has a brand new facility too.
> MMW's motion passes for EM to prepare ord, no parking north side Valparaiso, but they must verify fire-hydrant side as that should be the no parking side. MMW explains continuous parking problems in his subdiv despite existing ords.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 17 of 29
...DM: Ok, next we have the concealed handguns. MMW: Yeah, we were considering at one point, um allowing the private shop owners & restaurant owners to um not allow handguns on their premises as well as here in city hall perhaps. & I was just wondering what the _ _ _ & it was in LEG _ - DM: I understand twice it went thru LEG & was voted down. I guess if you wanna - if you'd like, I'll place it back in LEG Comte per you. We did get a letter from the bank a while back asking me that we pass this & felt that it would give _ _ -
MMW: Well, I've seen a sign - DM: close enough one. Yeah, they do have the sign there & the police dept has a sign downstairs but I think if the city passed an ord, that would make it a little bit more solid. MMW: I wonder if these shop owners know that their signs are meaningless (chuckle).
?: _ _ - JW: _ side of the street you walk on. DM: It's a state law. I think by the state law, they can post that sign every - alert people coming in, but I think the city just gives it a little bit more (pause) - MMW: So if - DM: not that support, but - MMW: you could write a ticket then in there & it could be dealt with - LtMowery: It's kind of a cumbersome procedure to follow with that. We're not - EM: Actually you can't write a ticket. It's you're a trespasser &, & so they would have to ask you to leave & if you didn't leave, that's the problem. Uh if you don't leave - ?: Then it's the big gun. (there's laughter) EM: They would have to charge you with probably a city ord or a trespassing rather than our alder board would tend to say that you violated the, the city code of the City of VP.
MMW: _ _ - EM: (It's run by?) state statute that says - MMW: Yeah, I, I'd like - DM: Does it give - it plays more a - I guess action there or more, so the more enforcemt capability if we, the city, pass something - MMW: Is it a better tool? DM: It's a better tool I guess. LtM: I don't think we're gonna run into a problem very often & uh - DM: But if say one time it happens, wouldn't it be better to have this on the books? LtM: The state law, like EM explained, really is not very strict in itself & I mean if you'd feel more comfortable, go ahead & have him go ahead with it.
MMW: I remember when we were looking at this state law, they, they left it up to the individual uh cities & municipalities to uno to either allow or disallow. I don't think we need concealed weapons in this room or in the court room or in any other room in fact. (people chuckle) I mean if you wanna come thru with 'em, that's fine but not when we - DM: Well, I'll go ahead & place it in LEG Cmte - MMW: Ok. tku. DM: we'll discuss it there, then we'll see what happens _ - ?: So busy! MP?: I'll be out of town every day. DM?: We'll call you _ _. (someone chuckles)
6/7/04 BOA - Section 18 of 29
DM: KT, you had RR junk at Valley Material. KT: Yes, uh I, I was calling Valley Material re Valley Days & uh the owner was quite upset that uh a short time ago the RR co dumped a whole carload of um iron & junk right next to Valley Materials' property. & he stated that when he wants work, he'll pick up tin cans that somebody will leave on the sidewalk & yet right where the RR - uno why does the RR have the right to leave the trash piled there? & I told him that I would look into it.
JW: Tell him to call Helton. KT: Well, I uno uh - I just happened to be talking to him &, & so I am wondering if Jim or if the city can get a hold - ?: secular road (rights?) - KT: of the RR man. DM: That'd be like citin' the landowner. (someone chuckles) KT: I suppose this'll be a LEG problem, but (laugh) - EM: It would usually - when, when we write to the yardmaster of the _ _ _ pretty, pretty _ _ -
RH: There is a process. I'm not tryin' to - uno I work for 'em so I don't really wanna get involved. But there is a process; they just pick this up, then there's another truck that'll come in & it, it should be gone in a couple wks because I picked up all the RR scrap off the RR personally, myself, but these are contractors & uh they're like in Cuba, movin' this way is what I'm tryin' to say. The reason why they dump it is they come up in dump trucks & then haul it away in dump trucks. Uno it is a process. KT: Ok. RH: (Writing or riding?) chooses -
DM: There's only 2 ways - ?: _ _ - RH: I would - ?: _ _ - DM: 2 wks in summer? - ?: _ - RH: Yeah, I worked with Conrad because I was working with him - KT: _ - RH: & I had to jump back & catch up on dad's - JW: _ _ - RH: I'm sayin', but I'm - ?: _ _ - DM: Well, you give 'em 2 wks, he _ _ - KT: So can I - DM: _ _ - RH: I'll mention it to him. KT: Can I swallow this uh person & tell them that we are taking care of it or that we will be taking care? RH: Yeah. KT: Ok, um.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 19 of 29
DM: Landscaping on Marshall & 144. KT: Land - uh yes, I was also asked about the uh think uh or I was thanked for the uh taking care of the terrible ditch & water problem there uh but at the same time they asked me whether they, we were gonna landscape like on the north side of, of Marshall Rd where there's some landscaping there uh on the corner of Marshall & 141. DM: Is this northeast near Valley Elevator?
KT: Wait, I don't know whether that & I said well I have to check into it & make sure that they're easily done with it before we talk about landscaping & uh that, that I would ask the uh ald if they would allow me to - whether put this in my uh 2004 budget. JKB: YH, Doesn't that belong to the county? DM: State's money - either county or state. KT: It belongs to - DM: gov't center.
KT: I'm sorry, it does, it does belong to the state. But it's - if we say that we're going to maintain that & Valley Elevator is going way out & starting to PAINT their bldgs & I would like to continue uh working with them if they're going to work with us. So I'm, I'm asking you guys - it isn't gonna cost that much. It's I mean we're maintaining trees on Hwy 141 that we have planted - uh it's the only way they would allow us to plant trees - so if we plant some shrubs right there, it can't be that hard to take care of & manage & it would help cover up some fencing along that area at the same time.
DM: Then it could be good because that's what people see; a lot of things people see first coming into town - KT: Right. DM: from 44 directions - KT: Right. DM: from the county.
MP: Do we have any left-over tulip bulbs? (howling-like laughter erupts) KT: Yes we do. MP: Ok. KT: (chuckle) Yes we do. I have, I have all of last yr's - DM: Want some more salt to put in the wound there? KT: tulip bulbs (someone like yawns/moans loudly) in my garage drying out to plant next Fall. ?: You _ _ do that. KT: I do not throw them away! MP: Well, I just asked! We could use 'em. KT: Tku! I was already asked that, but - MP: Tku.
KT: Tku. But anyhow, I'm taking care of your problem. MP: Oh, are the county gonna finish city problems? KT: No, your ward problem. MP: That's ward, that's Ward 3? ?: It's not Ward _. KT: Uh ok, any other - there's one, one more thing uh it was pertaining to Valparaiso...
6/7/04 BOA - TOPICS/INFO ONLY - Section 20 of 29
> vehicles parked on Valparaiso for 2 to 3 continuous wks > motion passes for KT to convey add'l info for a potential ord prohibiting parking directly in the streets & within 8' of mailboxes & driveways on 5 Highland Village Townhouse Assn streets: Highland Vlg, Rutherglen, Glenbar, Ingerness & Carnaghie > Valparaiso & a nuisance clause > People on (& perhaps near) Fernridge will be 2-day notified of a LEG mtg re one-side-only parking there > likewise notifying Valparaiso people.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 21 of 29
Uh one last time on her (marriage & brought me?) a letter that uh from the Internat'l Inst of Municipal Clerks, I'd like to congratulate MW is now a Certified Municipal Clerk designations. Certainly appreciate your diligence in getting that (cmsn?) being a - I forget what the title was for your work for a city clerk _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 different _ _. MW: I think that 100 hrs was _ _ _ certification. DM: Certification for _ -
RH: MW, Didn't Russ promise you a raise _ _ _ _? (people crack up) MW: Oh, yes. ?: If only he was still here. ?: 1st one he would be. DM: She's got a new name I think. JKB?: She got that worked out, salary. JW: Look how many yrs it took her to get that. (more laughter) DM: But when it seems like _ _ _ _ _ _ - with that, I'll allow MW to _ _ _ _.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 22 of 29
MW: Ok, this is - uh the only thing I have this evening is for um, once a yr our insurance broker gets our bids for our current health insurance & dental ins & also bids for A (recorder falls over) (humpin'?).
& this yr, the total increase to continue on with our plans from where they are, we're gonna health & dental, it's 4%. & that's really an excellent amt after seeing how a lot of the other ones are 18, 22, 24%. Um I need permission - well, let me rephrase that, the employees & myself respectfully request that you allow me to sign this contracts for BOTH of our plans, Blue Cross & Blue Shield & our dental plan because they need to be signed by 6/11 & returned to our broker.
?: Think we'll approve that? 2?: 2nd it. DM: q/c? JW: You got one, YH. Normally, this comes up after the budget. I don't know how you can sign something when you don't have the money budgeted. & 4%, what does that bring the total up to? I mean we're sayin' yeah, let's go ahead & do somethin' when we're not sure what our checkbook can write. MW: May I say something _ _ - JW: 'cause it all changes - MW: Ok. JW: every yr; everybody gets older, their raise moves up. (a metal clank noise is heard)
MW: JW, Uh all - JW: I, I was talkin' to the mayor. MW: I know. JW: When I'm done, you can, you can talk. ?: That's rudily - (another clank noise) MW: (laughing) He's - ?: Wow (chuckle). MW: (laughing) He, he gave me permission, I thought! JW: & even called me to crawl to. MW: but uh here's, here's how it goes.
When we got these raise, all dept heads were given the amt of how much it would be. Every dept head submitted a budget to the mayor with that increase in them. Now, if we choose not to go with the current companies that we have, he can submit us to other companies, BUT the flip-side to that is every employee has to go thru medical on your right; & what that means is if we have any employees that have any sort of medical problems, they will deny us coverage or give us those 18 to 24% increases when you go to another co. So that's why we're trying to do what we're tryin' to do really, 'cause it could possibly save you money because if you switch companies-
DM: We're not letting it lapse to save a lot of money. MW: EXACTLY because if you go the other way & if you didn't do it this way last yr, JW, can you admit it that we did it in June? & I don't even know who made the motion, but I could get the mins; it was approved that we did it the same way last yr that we're doing right now because you didn't approve the budget until - what was it, July, Aug?
JW: Well, you remember when Ald RC was here, he was uh always against the city payin' - we was payin' 100% of ALL your uh premiums. There's very few who, companies, cities, anything, that's payin' 100%! MW: Well, I just got a survey back & then (our left or Arleft??) makes me do it. & I can show 'em to you but we won't get into that tonight! All I'm askin' is for permission to get this in to Terra. JW: But is it a binding, is it a bind - could we back out after a month if we ever - if we do a budget - MW: I don't think so; I think if you sign that contract it's for a yr.
DM: We could ask EM if we could pass part of the premiums on to the employees if we say we just can't afford that. I should think that the Finance Cmte could decide if we can't afford - JW: Well, that's what I'm sayin'. I mean I'm not sayin' that's GONNA happen. DM?: We're still - DM: The insurance company's still gonna get their money, but 95% for the city & 5 if we vote it that way - JW: Right, I wouldn't want to promise the employees that that's gonna stay that way forever because - DM: Might start to be some matching by the employees. ?: _ _ - JW: The Golden Spoons runs out once in a while!
DA: YH, if I may? 1st, we, we certainly need to keep our employees in the status of having health ins & uh I believe that the fact that we're experiencing a 4% increase, most likely means that our, our incident rate um is down which means we seem to be madly again our, our health insurance pretty well. I think that's a consideration that needs to be um kept in mind. Now, if you've got an abusive uno, an abusive um uno pool of employees that are not managing their health well, then I think that's when you may wanna consider the increase & their participation or their amt of participation. In this case, I think probably 4%, probably is the base for the inflation that, that the ins co has experienced. So again, I know, again that, that I'm not sayin' this is binding, but in my opinion, I think as long as we continue to manage our health & our health care ins costs, it may be a uh, a service we can continue to prove to provide as we have been. So I would certainly uh be in favor of continuing this. Tku.
TB: YH, Uh you said there was some equation to figure out the $ amt that Marguerite (someone coughs). MW: Well, I mean it - that depends, Tom. We are rated by age & sex, so uno 4% for me may not be the same as 4% for Jeff Brust. DM: But is there a total? TB: that 4% across the bd, it could be - DM: Is there a total what all the employees - TB: broken down in hours?
MW: Uh what do we have, Jim? I mean I'd have to go add up Jim's & mine together to see what it was, but it's, it's 4% of whatever we paid from last yr. JM: I don't even remember - TB: I guess - JM: without (prancin'?) budget. I don't remember what I did last (someone coughing) -
TB: Didn't happen to come by the, before the finance over at uno 10 (year or new?) ways? MW: Right. TB: So - MW: & you submitted it - TB: would it put you out - MW: to the mayor - TB: put you out - MW: & he, I guess knew we were gonna send it - TB: JW - DM: _ - TB: is saying about uno if you say what (form or forum?), well that'll do to save you 4% (someone coughing) _ %. MW: I guess that's what he's saying, yeah; is that you all would say we're not gonna put in 4%; we're gonna pass it on to you - TB: Yeah, we're not sayin' that that's carved in stone - MW: Right. TB: but it is a debt when they're minding it. ?: (bkgd) _ she's gonna have to meet you. ?: _ _ -
Pam: MW, If I can give you an example, uh the Parks with one of our employees @ 4% was estimated about $1000. MW: That was for the yr I think is what she's saying. Pam: EVERY YR - 2004 & 2005.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 23 of 29
JW: I just don't see how you can vote & approve somethin' when you - none of the ald have anything in front of 'em, a copy. We have to listen to the Parks Dir tell us 4%, what it is on one employee. How would you sit here & write a blank check tonight when you don't know - the city clerk didn't even give you all the - uh a copy of it, the total #'s, she's just sayin' gimme 4%. & that's not really true because we don't know what the 4% is of each individual employee from the whole list - who cost the most & the obvious, who's less. & she's not givin' us any #'s, she's just saying let's approve 4%.
MW: Careful! You're treading on discrimination when you start talking about people's ages - JKB?: Umhum. MW: & the cost of their insurance; so I warn you. JW: I'm not - MW: That's their age - (sounds like someone is tearing something up) bein' discriminate - I'm tellin' you - MW: Right _. JW: won't give me accurate #'s. MW: That's where it's goin' - JW: You're just - MW: thru to you (chuckle). JW: sayin' 4%.
TB: Can't you just total the whole thing up? MW: That's right, it's - TB: & look at what it was & - MW: That's what it is! TB: & what it's gonna cost & - MW: It's 4%. JW: Well, can't _ _s bring it tonight? TB?: He could have his own mins here, you could - ?: Oh, no! KT: No. EM?: They're gonna see that anyway! KT: Eric grins. TB: anything you delay - JW?: Eric could. KT: Go to - ?: That's all they got this yr. DM: Somebody's gotta do it to you. KT: Eric'll go to Europe.
RH?: _ _ - JW: Uno when you come ask for money - RH?: votes & say - MW: Well, I can tell you maybe what mine was - RH? Yes we do & let's vote on it - MW: & Jim's - ?: & then you got - MW: I don't know. Have you got a copy of yours, Jim, that you can give him? I mean I, I would suggest if you wanna - we need to get it passed & then if I guess you wanna pass the 4% on to the employees, then that's what I guess you need to do. But they, we have to turn these in by 6/11 & it was given to me like the day after we had our last bd mtg & I didn't think that you all wanted to call a Special Mtg for just that.
JW: Is it in this packet? DM: The letter's not in here & it should've - MW: No, no, no. That's what - well I - the mayor & I discussed this & he tried - DM: You should've put the letter in I guess. MW: We were tryin' to do what would be the easiest way to do this.
JM: Does anybody have a copy of the current budget that, YH, that we can - MW: I can go back & get mine. JM: We could look at a copy of - you should have every yr in the budget, by her 4% increase on that #. It wouldn't break it down employee but it'll give us a - MMW?: Keep it broken down by _ _. DM: Well, I think just a grand total of say it's - JW: (a grand?) - DM: say it's $88,000 period, then we'd know 4% of 88,000 in items.
JW: Nice joke (chuckling), DM: I didn't have the budget. (JW laughing) MW: Is that what, is that what the mayor wants me to do or have you, you got it right there in Europe or not & uno in one pass? EM: That didn't sound right that you're _ _ -
JW: The word Russ said you worked for the bd, not for dry(wall?). MW: I understand that. EM: Marguerite, which, which binder? Do we have health under each separate - ?: how many (money?) do you really need help _ - MW: Uh look under - you've got health ins under forms; uh you've got health ins under administration; you have health ins under the mayor's office & then health ins under State of Corrections; you have Sanitation Dept.
I can go back probably & just pull the bills & tell you what 4% is probably on...(exchange tapes while MW goes to get info & DM says we'll take a 3 min break)
6/7/04 BOA - Section 24 of 29
...DM: We're back in session. ?: Tku for _ - ?: Ok. Jim, with the increase, pays 6561. MW: Right. JW: That is the increase! DM: 6,500, no that's with the 4% increase, it goes up to 6561, right? DM?: No, no. MW: Well, the 6,000 - JW: No, no - MW: That is the increase. JW: that's just the increase! DM: That IS the increase! MW: I'm sorry. DM: That's what I asked you at 1st & you said, no. MW: I'm sorry; I misunderstood what you're -
DM: Well, THAT IS the 4% increase - MW: THAT'S the 4% increase - DM: of 65, ok. DA: $6500? MW: Yes. DM: So the increase itself is $6561 - MW: Yes.
EM: Which is 10% of about $134,000. ! ?: Yeah.
KT: Per employee? DA?: It's a non - ?: _ - DM: For a whole city - MW?: Dannys - DM: for a whole yr, the increase - MW?: was $1000. ! DM: would be - MW?: Huh? Pam: Mine did. DM: $6561 -
MW?: Danny's went up $1000. Pam: Parks - JW: Does the motion - Pam: needs to be - JW: have that in there - Pam: $1000 is the whole thing (chuckling) he gave me. JW: it won't exceed $6541? DM: I don't think it has it yet - Pam: He gave me the - DM: but we need to put that in. Pam: (same?) as he had last yr _ - ?: That much? DM: Who made the motion?
MW: I had that he moved to approve of signing of the contracts.
KT?: Percentage to you? Pam: That she gave me; I want it back. DM: I'm open to suggestions here. DA: I mean we're, we're fairly certain that that's the, the amt. EM: Just put do not exceed 7000. DA: Not, not to exceed $7000, that's your opinion? EM: It is.
DM: 2nd agree? TB: We got a 2nd; I'm sorry I don't hear it. MW: Ok. (someone coughs) JW: So what will be the new total then? MM: Tku. JW: 144 + 6400? DM: Roughly 157; I guess 144, is that the whole paperwork? A hundred & -
MW: One of 'em was like seven thoussaannn - I can check & get that again. DM: TOTAL - MW: I have a total of BOTH of 'em (pause) - JW: Once you took 4% of - MW: You want me to just bring the bills in a way you can see it? One was 7000; one was like 6800 _ _ _- ?: _ _ -
EM: &, & if you have your telephone bid on it. - JW?: (barely audible) Let's see it. EM: It came out to 144,000 (& 900?) - MW: Umhum. ?: Right. EM?: Is it worth more than a hundred & (someone coughing again) (fifty?) thousand - (female talking in bkgd) DM: It's about 104 - it's roughly 150,000 with everything.
?: How many employees - ?: How many employees (does it come?) (someone still coughing) MW: How many men you got, Jim? I got upstairs, 1, 2 - JM: 15 total, countin' me & the Dan Fowler. MW: I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 upstairs - oh, you're countin' me in? DM: So 15 - MW: I've got 5 & whatever you got. DM: 15 with your whole crew including Danny, right? Plus your 5, so that's 20? MW: 20.
DA: Also understand, you probably have 1 less now because we've contracted, we eliminated a position um by voting StL County. MW: That's true. DA: So it's gonna actually probably be a net uno - DM?: Probably be by the state.
MW: Ok & I've got your motion & you said 10, not to exceed 7000? TB?: (barely audible) _ _ _ not the motion you got. (sounds like MW is changing the official tape again) DM: Any other q/c? TB?: (barely audible) _ _ _ look at what you got. (Same alderman?)? DM: All in favor of the motion for the uh sign the new contract with the 4% increase, say aye - TB?: (barely audible) Danny, who'd you put - (ayes are heard) DM: All opposed? TB?: that motion? (none heard opposed) DM: Motion carries.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 25 of 29
Have any bills? MW: No, I don't think I had to bring up anything else. I think - DM: You don't wanna - MW: that's it. DM: bill talkin' about the increase? MW: I think that's it! (bd & aud laugh) DM: Your extra money for your - MW: I think - DM: bein' a municipal clerk - MW: that's it for the evening. DM: or your special parking spot in - MW: Yeah!
RH?: Marguerite, have you gotta go when we get the examinings? (laughter continues) MW: No, I think she definitely (scribes?) -
6/7/04 BOA - Section 26 of 29
DM: MRS KETTLER, we have the Parks mins mtg from last mo. Did you wanna dress over - Pam: Just uh those were uh - DM: Have they got your raise? Pam: returned to you because there were some things that were uh wrong; the name of Don Cage & there was another issue that we lost. DM: So the mins are just resubmitted - Pam: basically a mistake. DM: & correct you think? Ok, is there a motion to accept the Parks mins? RH: I'll move. JKB: 2nd it. DM: q/c? All in favor, say aye - (ayes - none heard opposed) Motion carries. Pam: Tku. DM: Tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 27 of 29
JM, you got anything additional? You were already up here on - (someone laughs) JM: One me small thing, YH. DM: They want me to swallow it I guess. ?: _ _ - JM: They had a request in to the last bd mtg was in the packet or we've already addressed except for the 600 block of Leonard off-road parking that I was asked to get a call as best to bet for that.
There's 2 - roughly $2000 in material + labor. Uh if the bd approves this & when we can (just or best?) schedule it - right now I think kind of shut down the Fund 17 money, I would need authn to spend that money &, & do a little bit of work that (failed to do us in town?) _ _ -
DM: You say labor, you - 2 people per day or wk? _ _ - JM: I'm gonna say we're gonna use about 6 guys for 2 days. ?: 12 man-hrs per day. DA: Do we have the money in this yr's budget to do that? JM: I would say no in the Street Dept. It's, it's in Fund 17 item normally. What I've been doin' up until the time that the bd ix'd & they quit using Fund 17 I think put in the labor in the Street Dept because that's built into my budget for materials in the Fund 17 public house split & the (difference to you?) .
DA: I guess the ques I have, do you think you're gonna - with Valley Days comin' up very shortly, do you think you will have time to schedule this before 7/1 which would be the end of the fiscal, FY? JM: 'Fraid so for way things went tonight I'm gonna say no (chuckle). DA: Then what I would say is that we can hold it until we approve the budget - DM: The next fiscal _ - DA: would be the wisest thing to do. DM: Ok. Put some money in for it, then we'll hopefully - Tku. JM: That is the only thing I had, YH. DM: Alright, tku.
6/7/04 BOA - Section 28 of 29
JW: YH, Just for info purposes, did we ever lift the bd's wishes that we said we wasn't gonna spend any money on private property? Like that project there is, would that be on private property? EM: That's city property. JKB: City property. JW: City property? DM: It's the ROW of the street I think that says it's city property that's - (left at that)
JW: So we - ?: _ _ - JW: _ _ _ _ (uneffected?) - we're not gonna spend any money on it - on private property? We - it - wasn't that what the bd passed? & made a motion & passed that we wasn't gonna spend any funds on private property?
DM: Well, we're still talkin' about that in Crescent Valley. JW: I know; that's why I said we talked about it tonight, but - DM: But if we're puttin' the money in for it, I guess - ?: we're spending a lot - ?: Well - ?: _ _ -
EM: The law says - ?: We got our (chuden?). EM: you can't spend money on private property for private purposes, ok. Crescent is a different animal in as much as the city has const esmts in order - we have a legal right to do it.
& the issue is, is it a private purpose or is it a public purpose. (a loud snap noise) If it's a private purpose, you can't do it. If it has BOTH public & private purposes, you can do it. If it's a, a whole republic purpose, certainly.
JW: Ok, so I guess maybe the bd might wanna reconsider that motion that they passed, now that you explained private, public - uno 'cause I'm talkin' about Weis & some of the storm water projects that we need to complete down HERE that are gonna have to - uh some esmts to be obtained from private individuals, so that wouldn't stop that project, but not since you've answered -
EM: Well, I, if we get an esmt - DM: But it's for - EM: If we get an esmt, then that becomes the public esmt: that's the pull. DM: So you're sayin' it's not for private - storm water down here is not - it's for a public use so I guess that's - EM: Sure - EMorDM? You wanna mix it? EM?: Probably.
DA: This - is this stoppin' TW from uno working on some items right now - the confusion here on this? DM: I think he - JW: No, I - DM: started any - JW: don't think so. I mean - DM: He's completed work on Crescent Valley. JW: try & cut it off - DM: He worked in general. JW: before something like that would come up. DM: Right, & so it doesn't prevent something - ?: (He?) (write or right?). DM: that he (rights or writes?). JW: Yeah, esmts..
6/7/04 BOA - Section 29 of 29
DM: Lt Mowery, anything for us tonight? LtM: I'll just pick it up at the next mtg _ _ _ - (people laugh) DM: Alright. Put you on 1st; make sure you don't get called & talk to the end of the show like. ?: Ok, (Sam?). DM: Anything else for anybody to bring up or is there a motion to adjourn? JKB: I'll make a motion to adjourn. DM: 2nd? ?: 2nd it. (people still laughing) DM: All in favor - (ayes - none heard opposed) Mtg adjourned.