MOPR'S  9/20/04  ST LOUIS CNTY, MO

BOUNDARY CMSN PBH/OPEN MTG MINUTES

 

PBH BC0411 - Valley Park's Annexation  Proposal - Peerless Park

 

 

Notes:  Held Monday, 7 - 9 pm, VP Hi School with a large projection screen set up.  See mtg hand-out, 9/20/04 St L Cnty Annex Fact Sheet on Docs Page which includes Unicom Arc's 9/9/04 Invoice to EM's attn for $20K;  2/23/05 MM letter to City VP regarding it;  & info re Unicom.  Ref updated MOPR's Initials & Abbrevs Page (which includes mtg codes), &  LEV 20050118-1, 13, 14, 17.

 

Hopefully time will permit transcription of the 2nd same PBH held Tu, 2/8/05, VP City Hall.  Per a very congenial Ms Courtney Irwin, St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn Exec Director, the Bdry Cmsn will approve or disapprove this annexation at their regular monthly mtg 3/22/05;  expecting a large crowd, as of 2/25 mtg place is being decided.   

 

St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn, 168 N. Meramec, Ste 140, Clayton, MO  63105, 314-863-3005;  11 total members including Chairman;  names & spellings of those below have been verified, but some Public Speakers' names may be best-spelled as heard. 

 

Cmsn Members Present:   Chairman Tom Hayek,  Christine Bredenkoetter,  Mary Schuman,  Betty Marver,  Bob Ford,  Johnnie Spears,  Ted Armstrong.

 

Noted as also present:  Bdry Cmsn Atty David Hamilton & Ms Irwin. 

 


 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  1 of  39

 

(Roll call - see above)  ?:...we have a quorum of 7 members.  MrH:  Wonderful.  Ladies & gentlemen, good evening.  My name is Tom Hayek (MrH).  I'm the Chairman of the St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn.  I'd like to welcome u to this PBH on a proposal by City VP to annex a certain area currently within uninc'd St L Cnty.  The reason we're here this evening is that the St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn whose several - whose members are in front of u, is charged with the responsibility under MO State Law & an ord passed by St L Cnty Gov't to review such proposals & make a determination whether to approve or disapprove that proposal & I'll talk about that process a little bit in a min. 

 

We are here under a proposal for an annexation, meaning City VP has proposed to annex a certain area which then will mean that the citizens within that area, the bizs will come under the uh local gov't jurisdiction of City VP.  We have up here a map which kind of lays out the area.  The northern bdry of the area proposed to be annexed is roughly along the Meramec River & the southern limits of VP.  U can see there how 141 & 44 uh transect thru the area, that intersection there. 

 

The St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn was uh created by the MO Legislature & this version of it in 1999 St L Cnty adopted an ord uh establishing the cmsn & its cmsnrs were then appointed by various gov't groups.  Some of the members are appointed by the Cnty Exec's office.  Some are appointed by mayors of municipalities within the St L Cnty of 20K citizens or more;  some by mayors of municipalities 10 to 20K & one of us by municipalities of less than 10K population & some are appointed by a joint cmte between the uh municipalities & the Cnty Exec's office.

 

The law which created the St L Cnty Bdry Cmsn was intended to do a couple of things.  1)  It was intended to provide a process so that when there are proposals to transfer jurisdiction or annexations such as we have tonight, that a thoughtful mechanism would be employed in, in uh the planning which goes into these.  In other words, do the bdrys make sense;  how will this uh annexation effect the taxes which the various gov'ts including St L Cnty rcv.  Uh we are charged with & expected to implement sound public planning policy. 

 

The other major uh premise & principle upon which we do our decision-making is we wanna maximize citizens' self-determination.  In other words, if u live in a certain area, we wanna maximize the ability for u to decide who is your local gov't-svc provider.  & I will talk about how u get to do that, frankly, as part of this annexation process.  The cmsn reviews these proposals.  City VP has submitted a formal proposal to the cmsn, uh mtg our rules & guidelines for what needs to be contained.  These proposals are on file at the cmsn offices in Clayton.  They're also on file with City VP for anyone who wants to look at all the details & maps.  Uh they contained uh like I said maps of the area, uh zoning - proposed zoning of the area, taxes that will be collected, things of that nature. 

 

We have reviewed this.  We have a PBH tonight in which the city will make a presentation, the Cnty will make a presentation & we will hear from u the citizens.  This will be my 2nd to last warning on this:  If u would like to address us tonight, u need to fill out a Speaker Card, a form in the back of the room.  Give it to Mr Hamilton or Ms Irwin here at the end of the table & then I'll call your names up at the end.  Well, we're gonna here from u, u're gonna hear from us;  u might as well know who we all are.  What I'm gonna do is ask each of the Cmsn members to introduce themselves & tell u who it was that appointed them to the cmsn so u can know sort of uh where we're coming from.  Starting down with Christine, if u would start, please. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  2 of  39

 

MsB:  Sure, my name is Christine Bredenkoetter.  I was appointed by cities of over 20K population & I happen to be a resident of the City of Florissant.  MsS:  My name is Mary Schuman, I live(d?) in University City & I was appointed by the Joint Cmte of the Cnty uh Exec & uh Municipal League municipalities.  MsM:  I'm Betty Marver from University City.  I was appointed by the Cnty Exec Office.  MrF:  My name is Bob Ford.  I live(d?) in uninc'd St L Cnty & I was appointed by the Cnty Exec.  MrH:  Again, my name is Tom Hayek.  I'm the Chairman.  I was uh appointed by the citizens of uh cities or mayors of the cities greater than 20K population & nominated by the Mayor of the City of Ferguson.  MrS:  My name is Johnnie Spears.  I live in uninc'd St L Cnty & I was appointed by the Cnty Exec.  MrA:  My name is Ted Armstrong.  I rep cities of less than 10K population. I live in Frontenac.  

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  3 of  39

 

MrH:   Alright, folks, what we have is a proposal by Manchester to annex this area.  It is what we call asking for annexation of an approved bdry change. ?:  This is for VP.  MrH:  Oh I'm sorry, it's Valley Park.  (he & others chuckle) I have to get my notes from this mtg.  ?:  There's a well-known conversion _ _ _ _ _ - MrH:  Alright, um we are asked to approve these proposals.  If we find that the proposal is in the best int of the municipality;  if it's in the best int of the area of uninc'd St L Cnty affected by the proposal, the same area;  & also if it is in the best int of the areas of St L Cnty immediately adjacent to that which is supposed to be annexed. 

 

There are 11 different factors we review in making this best uh int determination.  That includes, does the area make sense as far as how it is laid out, is it compact?  We look at how this will have an effect on the Cnty & the municipalities that go in & generate tax revenue.  We will look at the effect, the extraordinary effect on uh the taxes generated within St L Cnty uh by the change in population or change in local gov't svc.  A # of other items uh, uh but those are really probably the major ones.  There are 11 different ones but I don't want to go into all of them tonight, but we will review those uh down the road after the PBH tonight. 

 

Uh a decision will be reached by the Bdry Cmsn on this.  We must decide no later than 4/1/05 whether to approve or disapprove this proposal.  If we disapprove the proposal, that means it stops right there.  There will be no further votes;  there'll be nothing else going on with this specific proposal.  If we approve it, that doesn't mean automatically that this area will then come under the jurisdiction of VP.  What will happen after that time, a vote will be scheduled.  For the proposal to be approved, it will require a majority vote of the citizens WITHIN the area proposed to be annexed & a majority vote of the citizens of VP.  If one of those 2 do not come up with a majority vote, the proposition fails & there will be no annexation. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  4 of  39

 

Um the agenda for tonight - what we have is a presentation by City VP.  We'll then have ques's from the cmsnrs of those persons making the presentation for the city.  A rep of St L Cnty has the opportunity then to make a presentation, also for 15 mins, & the cmsn can then ask ques's of them.  After that, we will take the public cmt.  Anyone who has not provided a Speaker Card by the time I start the Public Cmt Sec, will not be allowed to speak tonight.  After that, we will adjourn. 

 

Um housekeeping items - we strongly encourage public cmt.  As I indicated this process is uh, is uh focused on uh maximizing citizen self-determination.  This is very important for us - to hear what u all have to say about it.  So, u can come & talk to us at this mtg tonight.  Alternatively, u may submit it to us in written cmt what your thoughts are.  If u don't wanna talk to us tonight, or if potentially a neighbor of yours uh couldn't make it tonight, they would like to inform the cmsn of their thoughts, for 21 days from tonight's mtg we will accept written public cmt on this proposal.  So u can either talk or write to us;  u can tell your neighbors to write to us.  Twenty-one days from today is the deadline for us to rcv those written cmts for them to be included as part of the official record. 

 

If u do speak tonight, u will give a 3-min, be given 3 mins to talk.  It is plenty of time to get your thoughts across to us. We've held a # of these & it works out pretty well.  I do recommend tho that u come up prepared to tell us what u want uh 'cause if u're not, then the 3 mins will go by rather quickly.  If u are rep'g a group such as a division, a subdiv, uh trustees, u will be given 5 mins to speak but we do ask that u uh be the person who is designated by the group uh to speak & not just someone who's part of the subdiv.  The public cmt portion that u will have, uh that we have tonight, it's not a ques & answer ses with the cmsn, but it is your chance to tell us the good & the bad of this proposal & we really, really wanna hear about it.  I think that addresses the uh major items, so w/o further ado, we could hear from City VP.  Again, u will be given 15 mins for your presentation.  Mr Ford, if u'd be so kind as in due time. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  5 of  39

 

DM:  Uh good evening;  I'm Dan Michel, Mayor of VP.  I'd like to welcome the cmsn & all the guests here in the aud tonight for taking time to attend this mtg.  Next, it's my pleasure to introduce our City Collector & Clerk, Marguerite Wilburn (MW), to present the VP portion.  Marguerite.  MW:  I think Mr Ford, did u have something u wanted to say 1st before I begin? 

 

MrFord:  Greetings to the Bdry Cmsn.  My, my name is Chuck Ford (VP Municipal Judge).  The local mayor sort of jumped the gun on me just a little bit.  I'm sort of represent the host here tonight.  I'm a 3rd generation VP resident;  my kids are 4th generation.  I've been on the School Bd, a member for 15 yrs.  I've lived in VP for the last 50 yrs.  This School Dist represents a symbolic of growth & symbolic, symbolic improvemt as VP has undergone in my lifetime.  We've always said we were poor, but we're proud out here.  We're still proud, but we're not necessarily POOR any more. 

 

This annexation proposal that the city is about to present to u, we believe, is a measured, reasonable response as a major step for VP to continue to improve its growth, its image, its reputation & its, & its uh, its uh existence.  We think it's critical & we believe that the criteria that your chairperson uh said that u were under, is gonna be met by what u'll hear uh in the next few mins.  & now if the city clerk will come on back up. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  6 of  39

 

MW:  Ladies & gentlemen of the Bdry Cmsn, I too want to welcome u to VP. It's my goal in the next 14 mins to give u an overview of our proposal & some sound reasons why it makes sense for VP, for St L Cnty & for the 50 residents living in what was formerly Peerles Pk.  Keep in mind, this area was once the City of Peerless Pk (PPk).  In the area, there are 50 residents & 27 housing units;  all but 3 are condo, multi-family complexes.  The dark area outlines the 526 acres in this propsal.  It all flows around the interchange of I-44 & the rebuilt Hwy 141.  Please note that the proposed area to be annexed is following adjacent to VP.  There are no other municipalities involved so it makes a lot of sense;  it should become a part of VP. 

 

The important point we want to make is that this area is VP's front door.  At one time in the far distant past, no one cared.  Today, the residents of the new VP want greater appeal.  Cmtys work hard to make their front door speak to what the cmty represents.  This area does not represent what VP is today.  A major part of our concern for our future, is that the widening of Hwy 141 literally destroyed what we did have of a downtown.  We lost critical bizs that made a cmty tick & sadly, we are landlocked & have no areas to restore these or grow other bizs.  That's why this annexation is so very, very important to VP.  We have an exciting new cmty with a bright future.  A key to bringing it all together is to create a shining new front door that we can all be proud of & giving us the chance to bring in new bizs.  This plan will do just that.

 

What are the benefits of the proposed annexation plan?  As uno & we are reminded of everyday, this area is currently a hodge-podge of dev.  It's not planned well;  it's unsightly;  it's an embarrasmt to VP;  it should also be an embarrassmt to the Cnty.  Candidly, much of the area creates or continues to create a negative image of our cmty despite the fact that this is a NEW VP.  In stark contrast to the image of our cmty, there is a new VP;  new homes, new bizs, upscale cmtys are springing up.  We are transitioning to a younger urban population.  To paraphrase a recent TV commercial, this is not your father's VP.

 

Simply stated, this annexation will 1st, enhance VP overall & 2nd, financially HELP St L Cnty;  3rd, it will be of substantial benefit to the residents & the bizs now in the area.  Let me explain.  Let's look at the benefits to VP, St L Cnty & the residents of the area.  First, the benefits to VP.  I've said this several times but it bears repeating because it's crucial to us.  Annexation will allow our cmty to create a new cmty front door seen by hundreds of thousands of motorists driving past us on the interstate every day.  Because this area will have a major economic impact on VP's future, the city will make it a TOP priority which means it will get a lot of our attn right now to clean up what's there & in the future, instead of being ignored or allowed to grow haphazardly, which has been the case in the past, it will continue to be a high priority for planning & dev. 

 

It's an outstanding area for dev because of its location, location, location & the revenue & renewed commercial interests in VP that this area will generate, will provide us the revenue to create a new downtown for our cmty which we lost when Hwy 141 was improved.  Right now, VP's growth potential is limited because we're land-locked.  This area offers the potential for new & exciting commercial dev that will allow us to recoup the bizs we lost to Hwy 141 const, & most importantly, will allow us to regulate growth at our cmty's front door, an important elemt for any cmty.  With new economic growth, we'll be able to equalize the economic disparity that exists now with our neighbors.  & new sources of income means we'll be able to provide more & a better level of svc for our residents which will benefit everyone's quality of life. 

 

Our projections are that our cmty could see a general revenue increase of over a quarter of a $M annually, of which at least 28% will go right back into the area to provide svcs for the residents & the bizs.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  7 of  39

 

Now let's look at the benefits to the area to be annexed.  We'll continue contracting svc with the Cnty Police Dept but we will be able to add add'l officers to our patrol force.  By having a dedicated police force that patrols ONLY City VP area, residents & bizs will see enhanced police protection.  The area will have our city's growing parks & recreation svcs available to them.  & for the commercial bizs in the annexation area that continue to have storm water plight, we will conduct a comprehensive study to determine the best solution to remedy the problem. 

 

For the 50 residents in the condo units, we'll take over their pkg lot & immediately upgrade them.  We'll take over their street maint & put the pkg lots & streets on our regular maint schedule.  We'll take over the electrical street-lighting costs they are now paying.  They will get 2 yrs of free trash collections.  They'll get free smell (!) removal & the use of the VP Municipal Library system.  As we encourage new growth in the area, the area's residents & bizs will benefit from the larger tax base of the entire cmty which relates to improved svcs for them.  & for all these enhanced svcs & support, the residents in the annexed area will only be paying 21 cents a day more in taxes.  That's $6.37/month;  the cost of one Subway sandwich & a soft drink.  That's a reasonable cost by any standards. 

 

Now let's look at the benefits to St L Cnty.  Most importantly, the annexation is revenue-neutral for the Cnty.  Actual tax loss annually would be $36,796, but that is more than offset by the increased fees VP will pay to the Cnty for expanded police svcs.  However, an important consideration for the Cnty is that new economic dev to be fostered in this area will ultimately mean more tax revenues for both our city AND the Cnty.  So one could argue that eventually, the Cnty will see MORE revenue from the area than it's rcv'g now.  On top of that, the Cnty actually saves money because VP will now be providing these svcs which the Cnty will NOT have to provide. 

 

Let me conclude by highlighting a few of the many reasons why this cmsn should say YES to our annexation proposal.  The area is adjacent to VP.  There are no other cmtys wanting to annex it.   We are not gerrymandering the area to make it fit some crazy criteria & our city can easily & effectively provide it with quality municipal svcs.  The annexation will substantially enhance the lives of the current 50 residents of the area & isn't that what gov't is all about!  

 

The annexation will bring order to what is currently commercial chaos in the area.  St L Cnty will NOT be hurt financially.  In the long term because of the potential for economic dev in the area, all the residents of VP will see long term benefits as new tax revenues are generated.  & because we are land-locked, we'll see for the 1st time some potential for serious new commercial dev which has its own long term benefits to our residents & those now living in the PPk area. 

 

& for us, most importantly, it will let us create a positive front door to our cmty which has unfortunately had a negative image for too many yrs.  An image by the way, that's only sustained as people drive thru on I-44 & they see the VP exit sign, then they see the mishmash at that interchange & bingo, that's the VP image of yester-year reinforced.  Having control over this area should help us change that negative image.  We are in truth a new VP.  We have great schools as a result of Millions in new spending for new facilities auth'd by our voters.  We have new upscale subdivs with homes selling at prices never thought of before in VP. 

 

New bizs continue to come to VP & with the new levee being built to stop the historic flooding, people feel comfortable living here, investing here & being proud to call VP their home.  It wasn't always that way.  I hope that this presentation has made our central point, allowing VP to annex the former PPk area is a win, win for everyone, our cmty, St L Cnty & especially the residents & bizs in a currently uninc'd area.  Tku for your attn & can we answer any ques's right now?

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  8 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku, ma'am, yes, I believe u can.  Mr Armstrong, would u be kind enough to start us off?  MrA:  Um I only have a couple of ques's.  Um in your Plan of Intent, Sec1, the 3rd parag, it says in deference to the former residents of PPk who sought this inc, VP omitted 5 properties.  Um will u, somebody please point those out to me on this, on the, on the drawing that u had?  ?:  _ get back to the approval _ planning...(exchange tapes)

 

...MrA:...It says they're along VP Rd, all in the Wards Acres Subdiv.  If u could help me identify them, I'd appreciate it.  ?:  Here.  ?:  Logical corner, I'm -  MrA:  May I suggest that u want your list back.  This might help u.  EM:  This is gonna help.  Aud Person:  U want the other map? 

 

EM: (no mic & barely audible) Yeah I do. It, it's almost impossible to tell them _ _ there we go. VP Rd is this road right here.  This is St L Cnty Buder Park.   MrA: This is Buder Pk & they're on the south side of the _ _ _?  EM:  Uh it's on, on the south side of 44 & east of the proposed annexation area.  There are residences here, here & here that are (open & were never part of?) Peerless down here.  There are single-family residences over here that were never part of PPk that were also flooded _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ there are some (commitmts?) _ _ -

 

MrA:  Ok um the uh one of the tests - I think u probably heard our chairman mention this - is uh whether the proposal results in what we, what we would call logical bdrys.  & I'll be honest with u, it's tough for me to see that there are any logical bdrys to what u've proposed here.  Um I mean for example, it looks as if the Meramec River is very definitely a logical bdry between VP &, &, & Fenton &, & uh greater St L Cnty.  Similarly, it uh, u could also make an argumt that 141 & 44 are - would be logical bdrys.  But what u've got there leaves me a little cold in that respect & maybe u could explain to me, how that would satisfy the logical bdry test. 

 

EM:  Well, I guess we go back to 1935 when PPk was inc'd & it remained that way until 1999.  I don't know if your argumt is, is that that city had no logical bdrys or not.  Um again, we certainly parallel _ the bdrys of PPk other than - which (most or those?) people (can clearly?) - uh gave St L Cnty a mandate & they didn't want to be inc'd any longer. 

 

Uh altho there is a subdiv somewhere if u go down, it's Valley Subdiv uh in the area, (someone coughs) huge tracks & they would not - the subdiv that that _ - MrA:  Excuse me - point that out to me.  Point out Allen_ - EM:  Well, Allenced Alley's is almost the entire area up here in the Allen Subdiv.  Wards Woods -

 

Brave Audience Person:  We can't hear u.  EM:  Wards Woods had several of these homes.  ?: _ _ - EM:  Allen Subdiv had several of these homes - ?: (barely audible)  Is that gonna be a problem?  - (someone sets up a mic)  EM:  But, but these aren't subdivs with subdiv assn's assessmts;  I don't know why, but this, this area uh it's primarily a commercial area - other than uh 3 single-family residences which (I don't have?). 

 

MrA:  Describe to me if u will, the, the - what is going on 'n, 'n  what u call the PPk properties which is the uh south of the river 'n the uh west edge of this proposed annexation area.  What's included in that?  EM:  Uh it - on, on the very southernmost bdry - MrA:  I'm sorry, excuse me;  north of 44, south of the Meramec River, correct?  There - EM:  In, in here u said. MrA:  Yes. 

 

EM:  Uh these are large tract areas of, of commercial, a sand & gravel mining op in this area, uh a very large demolition landfill, a compost factory uh & some, some uh (pause) - ?:  Industrial - EM:   industrial & commercial uses.  ?:   _ _ _ - MrA:  Where is - point out the land position. 

 

EM:  I believe the landfill would be in this area right here.  Uh no, I take that back. THIS is the landfill.  EM?: _ _ _ _ - MrA:  Um I believe that that's all I have. ?:  (Tommy or Johnnie?).  ?:  I have my  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fax it - EM?:  Fax this?  MrA?:  Tku.  ?: _ -  ?:  Go 1st _ _ _ -

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  9  of  39

 

MrH:  There was a cmt made about a levee.  & I guess what I'd like to know is where's the levee going up & what area is it designed to protect?  & I guess then maybe the follow-on is, is that gonna be changing whether the area's protecting it is gonna be designated as no longer being floodplain status to - in other words, is the levee gonna protect an area so that it's now developal when - developable when it's not currently?  EM:  Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I'm Eric Martin, the city atty, by the way.  MrH:  Sure!  ?:  Tku, sir. 

 

EM:  Uh the, the levee is a 3.1 mile long levee uh built up to the hundred-yr uh flood event.  Uh & the US Army COE is the uh general contractor;  the city's the local sponsor.  Just generally, it, it starts uh to the west of, of town & parallels the river & then goes around the lower downtown avenue part of town & back up to the RR tracks.  3.1 miles thata way.  Uh the area's primarily residential as u can see by the subdiv (crackpots?) &, & larger industrial areas. 

 

Um the area uh since 1982 when the city became a participant of uh, uh FEMA (Ref:  LEV 20050118-17) & established the, the trans-rates maps, has not seen any significant dev that _ _ _ -  MrH:  So the levee's not affecting the proposed annexation area?  EM:  Not at all! 

 

MrH:  Ok.  I guess my next ques as far as the area, I'll agree with Mr Armstrong, if the argumt is is that we're trying to create the front door to VP, it seems like the intersec of 44 & 141 is the front door.  So I'm still not understanding - I mean it's all uninc'd St L Cnty now.  PPk ceased to exist;  it's, it's gone;  it's not there any more.  So if, if the, if the, the guide is that we wanna create the front door to VP, I'm still not following how that area south of 44 uh is, is necessary to include in your - or why it was included & I'm still havin' a hard time with that. 

 

EM:  Residents.  MrH:  Oh, ok.  EM:  U have to have residents in the area u've approached for annexation.  Um I, I believe there's actually one resident uh in, in the area where we & they live in some storage uh on-site mgr for, for storage units.  Virtually ALL the residential area is in the high part - MrH:  Ok.  EM:  all on the south side (of this?). 

 

MrH:  So that area was pretty much included so that u could make an annexation proposal that would go to a vote?  EM:  Precisely, together with that we've been a city for um 65 yrs almost & (they or I?) have a sense of - cmty. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  10 of  39

 

MrH:  I have a ques also about the uh police svc.  & I guess I'm tryin' to - I didn't I guess understand it - VP will, will contract with St L - er currently contract with St L Cnty (for their provision of?) svcs, right?  (no answer heard) & if u annex this area, u will keep Cnty Police svcs in the area - 'cause they currently patrol, right?  EM:  Yes.  MrH:  There was (uno in the?) discussion about how there will be a police svc specific to this area that almost made it sound like - I mean is there gonna be a separate police dept established or is it just part of the contract says these officers will stay at this area period? 

 

EM:  Part of our contract is, is the provision of a specific # of ofcrs.  Uh currently, I believe we have 10.  Uh PPk, during its last yr of um, of uh being an inc'd entity, had a contract of, I believe it was some $64K.  We would anticipate at least that if not more.  That rep'd I believe one full-time ofcr um at least, um more than 8 hrs a day in that area.  But no, the ofcr would not be specifically dedicated to the annexed area.  It would be an ofcr at large with the VP unit of the St L Cnty PD.  These are dedicated ofcrs for City VP.  In other words, they're not (recruiting?) a pool into uninc'd St L Cnty by contract. 

 

MrH:  Ok.  &, & the, the proposal we have has a pretty specific # about the cost of the Cnty Police contract of 2004.  Did u solicit a bid from St L Cnty or ask them how much will u charge us to provide an ofcr in this area - I mean I guess I'm tryin' to figure out - where was this # obtained? 

 

EM:  Uh it, what is - the $64K figure was based on PPk's last yr of, of op & no, we, I don't believe we've added it up an inflationary factor.  It's, it's a 5-yr old figure.  ?:  It, it, uh -

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  11 of  39

 

MrH:  Um & if I'm understanding this proposal - I just wanna make sure I understand - u're projecting revenues, u're sayin' in 2004 or 2005 maybe (someone coughs) _ (4 or for?) _ _ (stated?) in existence, revenues of $265K roughly & expenditures of $70K roughly. 

 

EM:  The $70K expenditure was a June figure at the time of submission.  Since that time, we've entered into negotiations with the condo unit by taking over maint & doing some capital expenditures there as well as doing a storm water study.  U saw that in the presentation.  We did not update that but I will following the hearing;  once we get #'s on that, I'll supplemt that.  But the, the, that $70K capital expense would - it, it's , it's a, a low # & it's not plugged in.

 

MrH:  & the revenues that St L Cnty will lose because of this are $36K?  EM:  Uh I, I noticed according to the fli, the hand-out from St L Cnty, that Mr Collins has indicated that it's twice that.  Again, these were based on St L Cnty figures uh &, & they were based on the old PPk back in 1999 on the uh ba, basically, it's utility uh 5 or 6 (or so or yrs old?) (& counting or in the Cnty?) now.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  12 of  39

 

MrH:  I also note that the city, if they annex this area, will rely on St L Cnty for bldg code enforcemts, street lighting & P&Z;  that is listed as the provider after the annexation.  Are u gonna be charged for using those svcs?  EM:  We have a contract with St L Cnty uh for, for, yes, sir, we have.

 

MrH:  Let me ask this - is - does uh - I plead ignorance - Is VP point of sale or are they part of the -  EM:  (It stays in?) the city.  Uh, uh a portion of it uh is, is point of, of sales.  Um (pause) a portion on the map, uh that would be in the, in this upper portion of this annexed before or, or after 1995, could afford (to sweeten?) this area up.  &, & that's the - probably forms the greatest part of our commercial base, is in the area of Dougherty Ferry & Big Bend.

 

MrH:  Last ques - There has been cmt about how 141, to dev it, took out all these bizs & uh who was - the ques I mean - who was in favor or 141 being widened?  I mean did somebody push that?  Was that all from MODOT?  Was the city in favor of this?  Was it all St L Cnty?  EM: Well - MrH:  Who drove the bus?  EM:  Uh Hwy 141 is a state hwy & - MrH:  Sure.  EM:  it was the state hwy funds that - we - it commenced in uh 1986 or 1987 I think the bridge uh it, it, it has just recently been opened - what for 2 yrs I guess as a, a good hwy.  Uh -

 

MrH:  But I guess my ques is, did the city PUSH this issue?  Did they want 141 widened as an access point into the city?  EM:  Uh I, I think that the city saw benefits as well as detrimts & obviously uh the detrimts were wosing {sic} the, the commercial tax base.  We didn't want it but by the same token, uh I guess our pleas uh to the contrary, we're making trans - progress.  MrH: Tku. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  13 of  39

 

MrH:  Robert.  MrF:  Yes, uh again, under the bdry proposal that u're, u're proposing, uh the subdivs around that little jagged end of the - to the east or south of the border here under the Bottomless Creek, um did those subdivs - were they included in your map plan? 

 

EM:  Uhhhhh, maybe as a second - I mean they were not included as this annexation proposal in the map plan, no.  MrF:  Your original map plan that u submitted to the cmsn?  EM:  W, we had (to find or defined or the 5?) things, uh I believe the annexation proposal &, & this was our biggest bang, this area that u see in front of u. 

 

MrF:  So that area was included in your, in, in your map path, maybe not this page but it was _ - EM: (That's correct or as corrected?).  MrF:  Ok.  EM:  I, I, I believe that's right.  MrF:  Ok.  My - just so I understand u correctly - makin' those bdrys with the exception of that, those few homes, uh that way because that was the way PPk was?  EM:  Yes, sir. 

 

MrF:  Ok.  Um in the, in your presentation u indidcated that it was a win, win situation & that uh St L Cnty would, would not have to provide svcs to the area, but at the same time in your Plan of Intent it shows that St L Cnty IS providing svcs.  How does St L Cnty - I mean how, how do they save, save money in that aspect?

 

EM:  Well, particaly {sic}, in, in the field of law enforcemt, uh taking the $37K revenue loss from the St L Cnty, factoring in a minimum of 64 or $65K in NEW revenue to St L Cnty PD, that's CLEARLY um a revenue benefit just in police svcs.  Couple that with no more maint on city roadway, former city roadways, former PPk roadways, no more storm improvemt, no code enforcemt, planning svcs, on & on, that's a REVENUE GAIN for St L Cnty. 

 

MrF:  So u're not proposing, er VP's not proposing to take over those svcs perse?  They're, they're still gonna be contracted, but u're saying because St L Cnty isn't payin' it, u're payin' St L Cnty for those svcs, that's where they're, they're cuttin' back, their expenditures?  EM:  Absolutely - MrF:  Ok.  EM:  because St L Cnty rcvs revenue from City VP - MrF:  I understand that.  EM:  (on their or under?) (law or log?) (books?);  um they are simply a svc-provider at this point.

 

MrF:  Ok, uh on the police contract, u - how many police ofcrs do u expect to expand to cover the area uh contractually?  EM:  Uno, I, I don't wanna put words in the St L Cnty PD.  I'm, I'm, I'm not sure.  I, I, I know it would be a minimum of one &, & perhaps more in order to, to fill up shifts.  Uh I, I would assume there would be a minimum of one ofcr there.  We need it because it's a mile-sq area where a person might not feel good, so factor in the vacations & everything else, I uh wouldn't hesitate or be hesitant to uh address that (with them?). 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  14 of  39

 

MrF:  Ok.  Uh under the Plan of Intent uh your tax rates, the residents of the area or people with bizs & whatever's in the area - apparently there's not too many residents - uh the tax rate would go up to 8.186 or is that the total tax rate that'll go up, or are all these other - EM:  Yes. It's 57 cents per 100. 

 

MrF:  Ok.  Under your uh op'g costs, (per your or 3-yr?) history, it shows a fed grant that's keep it going down.  Are u - is that about to spin out or is that continuing on?   EM:  Uh - MrF: _ gonna last or what?

 

EM:  Fed grant?  MrF:  Yeah.  EM:  Uh that, that is a uh CDBG uh money that it is a continuing uh yearly uh allotmt that the city participates in but St L Cnty (barely audible) (didn't get it in the study?).  ?: Uh - EM:  It, it's only 20 some odd thousand dollars (in the red?).  MrF:  Well, 2 yrs ago it was 53K;  I just wondered - EM: Uh - MrF:  if it was - EM: _ _ - MrF:  gonna be spent down or - EM:  N-no, it's, it's expended on an annual basis.  What, what comes in is spent on, on _ _ _ _ -    

 

MrF:  & the expenditures u gave us for just short of 70K are like the top expended, but u don't have anything, an updated figure? U don't have _ - EM&/orMrF:  I, I will only get to see the open -

 

EM:  but we do need to uh firm-up what we're going to do in the condos as well as get some costs on a storm water study.  Up & down (People?) (Row or Road?) which is just uh the area where World-Wide biz is - (barely audible)  I understand that's in storm water (property or profit?).  We didn't realize that until we baulk (!) new bizs.  Uh in the past, (barely audible) we managed to put it into (a property?).  MrF?:  Ok.  MrF:  That's all I have, Mr Chairman. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  15 of  39

 

MrH:  Betty.  MsM:  I just wanted uh u to confirm, u're NOT dividing any (u-user?) neighborhood within the Allen, VP in the Allen area, um that border is so that u have inc'd the people that live there & it's not splitting uh any of the neighborhood.  EM:  Absolutely - MsM:  of residential area.  EM:  Absolutely not.  MsM:  & the Eagle Rock Condos are inc'd in (the grouping?) - EM:  Yes - MsM: to be annexed.  EM:  Yes, ma'am.  MsM:  Ok. 

 

MrH:  Mary.  MsS:  Exactly where are the Eagle Rock Condos?  EM:  Where, where the blue border is, there's a little square area & that's where there are 24 condo units & then, then this area that would be on the, the eastern border of the proposed annexed area.   MsS:  Is, is that also known as Ward Acres on the (board?) colored - or Wards Woods?  EM:  Uh we, it, it's, it was Ward Woods un, until obviously when a condo went in, it was a re-subdiv so the, the subdiv is now regorded {sic} (a pro?) subdiv unit. 

 

MsM:  So uno, if we mentioned a (different road?) uno asking why the lines were drawn uno down 141 to the east end, picking up PPk Plaza, as u mentioned, there was a resident down there but there - uno it didn't HAVE to go down there to pick up residents & the condos are further north on 141 - (across from there?).  Yeah, it didn't need to take that funny little strip down - EM:  U mean to, to the south down here?  MsM:  Yeah, all the way to the PPk Plaza on - EM:  Right - MsM: _ _ - EM:  Again it was, it was part of PPk.  MsM:  Oh.  EM:  One would assume that they, they were a part of a cmty for a good reason. 

 

MsM:  Um I did have another - it's aspect - I was kinda int'd in & it (said or set?) on the SW corner of um I-44 & 141;  there was a former TIF Dev that PPk apparently initiated  it or it (did?) - EM?: _ _ - MsM:  & then StL Cnty maintained it as a TIF Dev & if this would - if annexation went fwd, this would proceed then as a plan or be treated as a Planned Dev Commercial - with the TIF incentives, it would still stay in place?  Or it - EM: Um ac - MsM: (essence?) -

 

EM:  Actually we are, we are uh entertaining negotiations with redev for inc.  Um they, they have a rep here tonight.  Uh we are uh - we have not finalized anything but the substance is is that because there's new municipal taxes, this would actually enhance their dev uh because new revenues would go into the TIF that would not otherwise be there under StL Cnty. 

 

In other words, the city has an extra layer of sales tax;  a half-cent storm water & a half-cent capital improvemts that would be captured by the TIF.  The more money goes in, to the TIF, they can retire their notes uh earlier & develop it more.  Uh their dev is not NEARLY complete & I think they got 15-yrs, 15 to 18 yrs I believe left on the TIF.  MsM:  Tku. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  16 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku.  Christine.  MsB:  I pass.  MrH:  Alright.  Mr?: I have a ques.  I'm sorry.  MrH:  Sure, go ahead.  Mr?:  What is the - there's a vacancy right in the middle of VP on the west side.  What is that? 

 

EM:  Over the yrs, when VP annexed, that area was bypassed.  Mr?:  Why?  EM:  Well, part of the ownership is the Archdiocese of, of uh StL;  it's a cemetery.  Another portion is a pauper's cemetery.  Uumm I believe there's a (4-yr?) tract that has been kept aaaand there, there MAY be one to two single-family residences in it.  They've always contracted with City VP for sanitation &, & trash svcs.  It is indeed an uninc'd pocket. 

 

Mr?:  & it was not included in, in your map plan?  EM:  Uumm - Mr?:  Areas map plan?  EM:  It MAY have been included in, in our map plan but I, I cannot replat.  Mr?:  I realized it wouldn't have any bearing but my curiosity was killing me.  EM:  In, in other words - ?: _ _ - EM:  general use, it - the larger tract's what we need.  Mr?:  Yes, tku. 

 

MrH?:  Tku, Derrick.  ?: _ _ _ - Mr?:  All clear _ _ - Mr?:  That area right to the left that zig-zags in & out, is that - no, up, up right up above that, yeah, right there;  no, down a little - Ms?:  Down a little.  Mr?:  right opposite the other area u just pulled off - ?:  Within this area?  ?:  Uh yeah, a little closer there.  ?:  Alright.  ?:  Same thing I mean like with him, I'm seeing a - what is that? 

 

EM:  Uh that's just the, the municipal bdrys of, of VP.  Um - ?:  I mean what's in between the uh U-shaped area?  ?:  In this aerial?  ?:  Yeah, that (sample?) area that u pointed to before.  ?:  Up at Vance. (squeaky door noise)  ?:  It's uninc'd;  I know that.  ?:  Why bring poor bizs in? 

 

(EM sits again in front of me & chats with a man.  Barely audible.) 

EM:  They're in Chicago _.  ?:  Our whole plan - ?:  Hope not.  ?:  Ok.  ?:  I guess (they didn't even see that?).  ?: Well - EM:  They DIDN'T see selling that.  ?:  _ he says that because u can't get to him - ?:  (No?).  (squeaky door noise)  EM:  _ _ (got/get?) a divorce _    - ?:  _ maybe there'd be some resident that won't (charge to be gone & warn him?).   ?:  Well, I know that;  that's (where?) we can _ (REJIS?) _ _ _ _ _  -

 

(Also barely audible, others examining the aerial/map.)  ?:  (This 5?), this is an undev'd tract in there _ - ?:  Point to it.  ?:  (bkgd noises_) maybe it isn't even on this map.  ?:  I assumed - ?:  It's right here.  ?:  We talked about this. _ _ maybe this levee modifies those. (squeaky door noise)  ?:  _ those people in those houses - ?: _ _ _ - ?:  The (study?) details all of this.  Make your cmts after these people all speak.  ?:  I guess it's condos.

 

EM:  Hey!  I think there's condos (chuckling) over there.  I, I'M REALLY NOT sure!  It is uninc'd VP.  I, I mean uninc'd StL Cnty (which was VP's?) _ worst thing _ _ _ _ _.  EM?: Ok?   ?:  (Alright?).   

 

(Ref:  LEV 20050118-1, 13 & 14)

 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec  17 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku very much.  A last warning on this, folks, anyone who wants to speak to the cmsn, please fill out a Public Speakers' Form & give it to Mr Hamilton or Ms Irwin at the end of the table before we start the PBH portion which will be after StL Cnty's presentation - um we won't accept any more cards.  Mr Baker, if u would be so kind. 

 

MrBaker:  I'm Jim Baker.  I'm the Chief of Staff at the Cnty Exec (_ _bkgd noises_ _) speaking on behalf of the Cnty this evening.  Um we have a # of our Cnty ofc'ls in various depts that are with us tonight.  I  _ _ _ process of reducing them.  Uh I'm going to be low-tech tonight for a couple of reasons.  Uh from the standpoint of the cmsnrs, u probably know my slides & that as well as I do uh & I'm REALLY gonna focus on just a few issues this evening.

 

Uh I'd like to start out by saying that uh we in the Cnty are very proud of the, of the uh new VP that they've talked about this evening as well.  It's part of StL Cnty.  We work very closely with VP as u heard this evening, we're one of their major contract svc providers.  We provide police svc, we provide PBW svc & we're very familiar with their work &, & we're very happy about the way their city is, is performing.  But I will tell u however, that from our perspective, from StL Cnty's perspective, we really think that this annexation proposal is maybe perhaps the best illustration & was unintendedly least thought-thru about what the Bdry Cmsn is all about & what your mission is about. 

 

Uh certainly we understand & I, & in fact I would, I would say from VP's perspective, uh we wanna commend them on being very up front about the situation &, & what's motivating the annexation.  Uh they feel they've lost their commercial corridor under dev of 141.  Uh their proposal indicates they're looking at deficit balances, deficit budgets & they're looking for a way to remedy that for - to gain some add'l commercial, industrial land & to balance the budget.  & we understand that & certainly from VP's uh perspective, acquiring, annexating this industrial, commercial land which was a big part of PPk, uh gives them a better tax base, uh essentially since their tax rates are higher, it generates even more revenue than is now being generated in St L Cnty.  But from the city's perspective, this can really be (a financially unfix?) for the, for their financials, allotmts.  All of that we understand. 

 

The problem is none of that fits in with the purposes of an annexation in front of the Bdry Cmsn & for a lot of different reasons.  Again, if we start out from the basic premises on it, I'll get back to some of the bdry issues that we talked about because we've been thru those additions.  But if we start out with one of those, with, with  one of the fundamental premises here, from the standpoint of the annexed area, NOTHING really is going to change. 

 

Right now, they're getting svcs by the Cnty PD, by the Cnty PBW Dept & after the annexation, they'd get those same svcs.  Now what we heard tonight's a little bit different than the proposal.  In fact the biggest emphasis of this, as u look at the est of annual expenditures in the annexed area, VP is indicating that they plan to spend about $9K above & beyond Cnty contracts in this annexed area - $9K a yr.  & they say that's gonna cover street maint svcs, road maint, street lighting, snow removal, grass cuttering & etc, all within that $9K.  Well, what that tells us is there's not gonna be that many svcs going in.

 

They're also indicated in the Plan of Intent that there's no capital projects intended.  Now they, they may have made some adjustmts.  They talked about negotiating with some of the condo areas but basically, this is NOT - it is a status quo(te?) for publishing - we're gonna take over that area & we're gonna provide the same svcs that are being provided now, largely from the St L Cnty with about $9K of our own svcs added in. 

 

& what are the people in the annexed area to get in return?  Well, they get 57 cents per $100 assessed valuation higher property taxes.  Remember as we talked about before, yes, that's an $8 overall tax rate, but local gov't right now, they're paying 58.5 cents for local gov't, Cnty gov't;  they're gonna almost double that.  They're gonna add another 57 cents on to that for local gov't.  AND they're gonna increase the sales tax rate by 1%.  That doesn't appear to us to be a very good bargain for the people in the annexation area.  

 

Again, I will give VP a lot of credit.  They've made it very clear.  Why is this area there?  Why does it have such strange bdrys?  Because they have to garner into that industrial area, some residents in order to have a vote.  & YES, that is similar, except for the few that they've cut out from the few bdrys of PPk.  But we all remember, PPk was disinc'd & one of the practical problems was this was an area that was largely commercial, industrial with just a handful of citizens that were, were generating gov't in that area.  We kept the same types of practical problems in bringing things to a vote here.  The impact of those tax increases is gonna fall primarily on the bizs in those industrial, commercial areas & the people that would be voting would be the residents. 

 

By far, this is an area that's predominately industrial, commercial types of, of uses & not too dissimilar to what we talked about in Manchester's proposal.  What we really have in this, is grabbing a bite of the uninc'd cnty that includes almost exclusively industrial, commercial uses which generate higher tax revenues than the surrounding residential area. 

 

The ONLY part that is included is about 27 dwellings in this, in this annexation area.  So it's not balanced;  it is not compact.  It jumps over the Meramec River which by the way, EVERY other municipality which touches upon the Meramec River, uses the Meramec River as the bdry.  This will be the ONLY municipality that crosses the Meramec River.  So we see just a # of those instances & not making, NOT making sense from the standpoint of the annexed area & from this annex, from the standpoint of StL Cnty.

 

Now I'm not gonna belabor our revenue estimates are significantly different than theirs.  Overall not from the utility taxes, but we're also projecting revenues from fees & fines that are lost in the municipal court process because if the area's annexed, all of those would go into the VP Municipal Court instead of the Cnty Muncipal Court;  & so we're actually est'g closer to $170K in revenue lost  & we'll provide that all to u in writing.  The truth is, that's NOT really the core problem here.  Again, the core problem that we see is we've got a niche in here with no logical bdrys.  We've got an issue where we're capturing only commercial, primarily commercial & industrial land. 

 

& by the way, some of the - we're real thrilled too - I'm, I uh we worked with VP when they tried to do this, this process for the levee.  But if u notice, that levee is not protecting this area at all.  It's protecting north of the, of the Meramec River.  & in fact, arguably, because of those being improved levee on the north side of the river, the south side if anything, is gonna be disadvantaged & want a permanent levee.  & yet the purpose of this annexation (break?) - (someone coughs) - it's real biz?) - to draw that revenue across the river to benefit the, the residents on the north side. 

 

So given all those types of things, our premise is NOT that VP shouldn't look for ways to, to remedy their solution, but the way to do it is NOT to reach across the river to bring the revenue from uninc'd cnty to make, to solve the budget problems that they currently have.  & the remedy is NOT to draw in an area that doesn't have good sound bdrys & isn't well balanced in terms of the, the mixture of residents vs commercial  & vs industrial.  

 

Again, we, we've worked very closely with VP & we, we have a certain cmty int in them.  In this case tho, we see it very differently & because of that we would ask u NOT to put this on the ballot.  But this is the specific type of proposal that shouldn't be cited by a few residents of an area that's largely commercial & industrial.  & with that, I'm open to _ _ -

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section 18 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku, Mr Baker.  In fact, Christine, we'll start it out on your end.  MsB: This is for my education.  Um u're right.  St L Cnty, u're right, um bldg code enforcemt before & afters, uno & some are P&Z.  Um how will this different from the people in, in Peer - in Valley - when they're in VP?  Will they still go to the StL Cnty Courthouse or are they now going to go to City VP & City VP is then going to come to StL Cnty? 

 

MrBaker:  Well, it depends on the svcs.  U can talk - presumably if u're talking about municipal courts, they would go to a local municipal court in City VP.  Currently, we actually have uh satellite court svcs.  Uh we have north & south & west court svcs _ - 

 

MsB:  I'm sorry, it's not court svcs that I'm particularly interested in.  MrB:  Ok.  MsB:  It's P&Z, for example, right now they go to a remote unit of StL Cnty or what, uno a satellite - MrB:  One of the satellite centers as far as - or Clayton.  MsB:  Where is it gonna go now?  Or is it gonna go to City VP & then City VP will work with StL Cnty?  MrB:  Well frankly, we're not too clear on that to be honest with u.  U're right - in their, in their proposal here they indicate that P&Z will - would continue to be with StL Cnty - MsB:  But I had the impression - (they put?) contract svc;  so I as a citizen, one of these 50 people, would go to the VP City Hall (pause) - go.  

 

MrB:  Yeah.  We typically, we do provide some contracted P&Z svcs but there's not usually a plethora of all P&Z.  In other words, we do studies for some cities & so on & so forth;  well, but that's not usually part of our contract stuff - active.  We certainly could work that out with VP but we're not clear on exactly how that's gonna happen.  MsB:  But so u really - so based on what u said, u don't really, u don't, u don't really know what that means - is when - MrBr:  Right, but - MsB: _ _ - MrB:  &, & to be honest with u, we're not sure exactly what that means - MsB:  Ok, so - MrB:  in that proposal but certainly, we would be willing to work with them on, on providing those svcs but it's not our (incussion?) that we have a specific uh, uh understanding of exactly how that would work. 

 

MsB:  & the same thing with bldg code enforcemt - I mean will they - uno I, I understand that - uno for example, St L Cnty does not require uh residents' expense, but does the City VP require residents' expense?  I mean city at least with these people if they were to be in VP - they would then have the protection of a, a residency permit which is NOT common to the rest of St L Cnty

 

MrB:  Uh I can't tell u off the top of my head whether VP has residency permits.  We do, by contract, provide some of those svcs in municipalities even tho in the Cnty, generally in the uninc'd cnty, we don't require those ourself, but we do contract with some municipalities. 

 

The way those svcs work is a little bit different & this is one of the reasons that we do it.  Typically what we do, is rather than charge a fee for VP & surrounding municipalities, we collect their ordinance-generated fees coming directly to us & offset the svcs.  So since we do have residential inspectors & code inspectors that do that because they wanna have a look at the occupancy permit program, we simply collect the fee that they charge & we do the inspections.  So that can be done in, in a variety of different ways & people can access thru the municipality.  In some cases they may access directly to those (replacemts along the seshement?).  But I don't honestly know off the top of my head whether it's - a VP permit has to be paid - not that it's (permissible?).

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 19 of  39

 

MsB:  & (if &/or in?) (this instance?), this isn't a property, what will residents _ (for 20 some yrs)?  There is - this isn't a Property Preservation Dist by St L Cnty?  MrB:  No, not, not part of it but thru the _ _y. 

 

MsB:  & the residential, TODAY, could it easily, BY the town, will stay part of the town - be easily REZONED to make this whole area commercial?  I mean does that _ -

 

MrB:  Well, I think regardless of whether u're in VP or u're with St L Cnty, u're going to go thru - u have to go thru some kind of, of process to rezone it & with the existing residences, it would be very unlikely that would happen.  But if there's current lands as residences, classified as residential & somebody came in & made a proposal to rezone it, they would go thru a process.  Whether they go thru it with the Cnty or they go thru it with VP, it would be, it would be the similar process but under different supervision, in general, the atty & what the (plan in position?) is involved & so on & so forth. 

 

That's one of the reasons why I say that we're not really clear on what they're talking about in terms of, of St L Cnty uh P&Z because typically we would not have the Cnty Planning Cmsn making decisions in the municipality, involved in - MsB:  Alright. 

 

MrB: Ok.  So uh we could provide the staff support for that, but typically, most municipalities have their own P&Z type of board &, & whether we would staff it for them or not, most of them would not want us to, to defer that to, to our P&Z Cmsn 'cause it's appointed diffferently & has representation thruout the Cnty instead of just in the municipality.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  20 of  39

 

MsB:  U report police protection, so I, I understand that they've contracted with u &, & they're proposing to contract u in the future & u might not.  This is why they sent this to u?  (Until court ordered??) but what - isn't that the municipality that's over-spoke?  At some point in the future, there was another municipality that HAD (fees-aba-urbaces or fee based svcs?) - they could either contacted - contract with THAT city OR if effect, start their own police dept for _ -

 

MrB:  Well, what would be the nearest uh - MsB?:  Fenton.  MrB?:  Fenton.  EM:  Twin Oaks.  MrB:  Yeah, but  then, but I'm - ?:  Manchester - MrB:  talkin' about that has their own dept - EM :  Oh, ok.  ?:  Manchester - MrB?:  Manchester.  MsB?:  Manchester?  - ?:  & Eureka - ?:  Eureka's to the west.  MsB:  I'm so - u're a doll _ - ?:  headquarters -  MrB:  I mean Fenton's nearby, but we contract with Fenton too so - MsB:  Right.  MrB:  So _ _ to say, probably Manchester.  DM?:  Ballwin has _ _ _ - MrB?:  Ballwin _ - MsB:  Oh, so that - ok, there is - MrB:  Yep.  MsB:  Ok, oh, Ballwin, alright ok.  Tku.  EM?: (loud whisper) No, no.   MsB:  I'm just curious. 

 

MrB:  &, & the police figures again - it was (robbed?) - they don't come from us.  Uh the 58K figure that's in here is er 59K, is uh from the PPk contract for some 5 yrs ago.  Uh certainly, that # is probably uh pretty much outdated. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Section  21 of  39

 

MrH:  Mary.  MsS:  Ok, um after what VP has gone thru - over the yrs it's flooded.  I know it's, uno its very blighted & work needs to be done on a, a levee, but I noticed a (low bridge?) so I'm concerned about your cmt that it could be creating _ _ disadvantages to the area on the south. 

 

MrB:  Well, when I, when I say that, I mean I, I was first of all, (chuckling) not suggesting that I'm not an expert in that area.  It is, it is routinely argued &, & we've seen this in areas where, where St L Cnty is (with that?) levee dev.  For instance out in CV where the argumt is made, the levee on one side of the river creates greater risks on the opposite side of the river & then contacted St Charles.  Uh all I'm saying is that CLEARLY this annexed area did NOT BENEFIT by that levee dev.  Uh I have no reason to believe that they're going to be disadvantaged, but they clearly didn't benefit by the levee going up on, on the proposal, going up on the other side of the river. 

 

MsS:  _ I need, I need to follow up to that, but a sentence I was getting at was that I just assumed that St L, St L Cnty wouldn't have a very strong interest in the fingerpointing 'cause  I, I - isn't there a major transfer, trash transfer sta in this area?  MrB:  There, there is.  MsS:  There are?  I uno I - u could maybe fill me in (at the few funerals?) then on the trash transfer sta if u would.

 

MrB:  Well, yes, there is one & certainly, floodway, flood protection is important to that.  Uh there's nothing that we have that indicates that that's at RISK in this case.  HOWEVER, part of, of the plans in many of those areas - because they often are in low-lying areas because they tend to be industrial areas, so on & so forth, have plans to - in order to remove any material during periods of high water, on a temp basis those types of facilities usually aren't in op - at this same area, that is NOT uncommon to have high water & some degree of flooding along the low-lying areas & therefore your use of those areas has to be scrutinized real carefully. 

 

& that was, that was also one of the issues that, that I think this is, how they post it there, _ materials that - it probably would've been ours as one of the (purses?) of PPk 'cause they didn't have much in the way of floodplain reg & they're now under uh some - a much more heightened degree as they became part of St L Cnty.  &, & VP has indicated that they would've paid attn (pending?) that too, so I'm not tryin' to uh suggest anything otherwise.  I think uh regardless of whether this will be VP or St L Cnty, uh there would be a heightened level of regs than there was under, under VP jurisdiction. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 22 of  39

 

MsS:  Are u done?  ?: _ - MsS:  Would there be any change in the future of the land that we see here?  What are the (_bkgd noises_ _ _ _) that u see in terms of growth if VP uh annexes this area - brief here.  In other words, is there a difference of opinion on, on this usage? 

 

MrB:  I, I can't speak for VP on that particular issue.  I know it was one of the things that, that we're now underway doing uh which doesn't impede, impact.  We have a uh a study under way of this 141 corridor adjacent to some of those trash transfer sta's because there's been a concern of traffic impacted within the surrounding roads.  & from that study itself, uh it's about a $98K study which just for purposes of, of border mgmt, that's more than the proposed budget for the entire annexation area that, that VP pledges. 

 

Uh we don't know what recommendations may come back from the study - obviously, from, with their proposals to make some modifications & generally speaking, the Cnty would intend to go fwd with those modifications.  Whether that impacts VP's ability to svc the area, I can't say because at this point we don't know what recommendations might be coming out, but they're clearly NOT among the budgeted items.  But they couldn't be because we don't know what they are yet!...(exchange tapes)

 

...MsS:...part of the uninc'd area, um that was not about them.  There was derelict cars & I, I was curious, what is the (township on 40??) & why wouldn't that um be a problem along Vance?  MrB:  Well, I, I can't tell u;  I, I can't really cmt on the particular slide.  Uh but I can tell u this, in terms of - & I don't care what area we're in - there are always areas where u have to be very concerned about keeping up the property.  & it is not uncommon for that to be a heightened level in some of the low-lying areas because most, as they, they become more difficult to access, uh they also uh tend to be overgrown & so on & so forth. 

 

Now, we have that altho as, as, as was mentioned earlier, this isn't a Conservation Area - uh our Neighborhood Preservation Unit IS available thruout the area.  There's a big difference between our uh conser, Housing Conservation Areas is people in a particular group, in a particular area, that basically decided to put upon themselves an occupancy permit & a higher scrutiny of them than there would be elsewhere.  

 

We actually, that unit, serves thruout the uninc'd Cnty but they just don't have occupancy permit jurisdiction unless they're in a Housing Conservation Dist.  So uno again, I can't cmt about that particular slide.  I don't know where it is or what the particular problem is, uh but, we, we would - it would be our jurisdiction to address those types of issues.

 

& the other thing that we ALL deal with in this particular area is many of the land uses, the hodge-podge type zoning that's been criticized here, uh we probably wouldn't take much issue with that.  Uh this was the City PPk for about 50 yrs & we probably would also say that some of the hodge-podge didn't fit the zoning. 

 

Whenever anybody takes over that, must fear the last fight.  As in VP, many of those uses are grandfathered in.  So over time, u would hope to make that a lot better in terms of the zoning-responsible uses but it's not something that happens overnight uh & it certainly, whether it's in the jurisidction of VP or the jurisdiction of St L Cnty, as u look to, to avoid that type of material (in this process?).  There's a tarp meant for it too.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 23 of  39

 

MrH:  Robert.  MrF:  Uh the areas that's uh proposed, kind of PPk area, is that mostly floodplain or - MrB:  Well, I, I don't know that it - Do uno if it's mostly?  I - (others interject)  ?:  Mostly, yes.  ?:  Ok.  MrF:  Does St L Cnty have certain regs uh as far as what can go into a floodplain, consider - ?: Yeah - ?:  (Not at all?).  MrF: different from VP, do uno?  MrB:  Uh I don't - do uno if there's - probably Glenn (Powers, StL Cnty Planning Dir)  would be the best - Glenn:  Well, when, when uh Pk uh, uh disinc'd, we were obligated under State Law to take the zoning of it back.  So that's - we have to uh preserve the, the land-use rights of 'em in place & time.  2 Brave Aud Members:  We can't hear u.  ?: _ _ - ?:  Sorry.

 

Glenn?:   Uh in terms of the uh the floodplain, I - your ques again was regarding floodplain.  ?: Right.  ?:  Right.  ?:  We, we have a, a floodplain (overlanked?) area.  So if a piece of property is in the 100-yr floodplain, uh u can do uh what the, what the others don't involve.  ?:  Right.  ?:  For instance, there's floodplain (ductor?) or floodplain commercial.  However, uh in order to do those, uh what are otherwise permitted uses in that zoning dist, u'd have to raise the property out of it & reclaim it from the floodplain. 

 

So if u take the example of the trash transfer sta when that was const'd, that was const'd on a land that was built out of the, out of the 100-yr floodplain for the most part.  Uh both were not under conditions that were in effect uh uno when PPk was (in fear?) - ?:  (of flooding as u had in?) VP.  ?:  (physically feared?). 

 

MrF:  Do uno if - does St L Cnty differ from VP in that, in that aspect?   Glenn?:  Uh I believe VP is a, uh, a member of uh FEMA & uh I, I think they probably knew it would require filling & reclaiming, I would guess.  ?:  _ _ _ _ _ _ -

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 24 of  39

 

MrF:  Mr Baker, u, in your presentation u made some indication that uh City VP was facing deficit spending, a deficit.  Um & I guess I'm tryin' to figure out where that came from.  Maybe I'm just not seein' it because I see their - MrB:  Said a deficit - MrF:  op'g in - MrB:  fund balance.  MrF:  01, 02, 03.  In 01, they op'd in excess of 65;  it goes down to 5802 & then it jumps to 203K in 03.  MrB:  I was - MrF: It seems to me that the city's op'g - MrB: I was - MrF:  at an excess.  MrB:  No, I was, I was referrring to their fund balance their deficit fund balance which is on the - MrF:  Ok. 

 

EM:  Mr Chairman - MrB?:  He was sayin' - EM:  that's an error.  MrB?:  that's an error.  EM:  Uh, it, it, it should be a positive of one ninety-one, two ninety-two.   MrF:  Ok.  EM:  at the bottom, u, u just take 203, less the 12.  MrF:  Right, so in effect the city's op'g at a surplus of  - EM:  About 10 - MrF: almost - EM:  %.  MrF:  $200K.  EM:  Yes, sir, 10% - MrF: Ok.  EM:  of them totaled (to be honest with u?). 

 

MrF:  So I guess I'm, I'm tryin' to unders - uno the city seems to be op - City VP seems to be op'g at an excess of about $200K & altho we haven't seen the figures yet, it's my understanding for the past several yrs that the Cnty itself is op'g at a deficit & is going into its fund reserves. 

 

MrB:  The Cnty has op'd in the last couple of yrs - it has spent more than it's brought in on an annual basis in fact.  &/but at the time that we started that, we've put about $50M in, in the surplus position.  So & that's why I say uh from my perspective, (is that if?) somebody could (deal some magic-sized?) things, uh one of the key elemts is what your fund balance is as opposed to what your current yr is because the expectation is that revenues WILL change from yr to yr & so u may see uh surpluses or deficits in terms of annual revenue.  But the really important thing is where, where is your financial wherewithal for the long term.  

 

MrF:  Well, I just wanna make sure that the perceptions _ - MrB:  & I apologize - MrF:  people lookin' at this - MrB:  I, I - MrB:  I, I just took the figures as what they said in their report & then uh, uh they were showing uh the deficit fund balance.  MrF:  Ok.  So for a city that's making money, 200 & somethin' $K a yr 'n plus about 10% over their expenditures - ?: (bkgd) That's right.  MrF:  that's - it doesn't take as much of a, of uh, an appearance of a, of a grab to help them balance their budget then.  Fair to say that? 

 

MrB:  Fair to say that (they do?) in terms of uh, in terms of balancing their budget.  I think that's right but their figures are, are here are, are uh, uh (an or in?) error that, in terms (of or if?) they're really positive instead of negative, then it's uh, then its not remedating {sic} their fund, their current balance;  that's correct.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 25 of  39

 

MrF:  & I guess maybe this is a sensitive flaw in the, in the statute, but - well, lemme ask this - Do uno who was it - uno there's been the discussion of 141 when it got expanded &, & went up, uno it ripped out a lot of these bizs & so I'm tryin' to - & maybe there isn't a one er an entity that pushed it, but do u have any idea - was this an expansion prompted by the city?  Was it prompted by the Cnty or was it a State thing? 

 

MrB:  I don't think it would probably be fair to uh lay that on anybody.  It's a State Hwy as was indicated & I think & I would tell u very candidly uh - was it generally something that the Cnty thought was needed in terms of transportation, yes, I think that's true.  I think u would've seen a # of municipalities support it & maybe some other municipalities not support it.  So I think uh realistically that would be a difficult one to lay at anybody's uh, uh seat, feet uh one way or the other.  

 

MrF:  Ok.  Then u'll just - if City VP uno, has this happened to their downtown dist which it did, or their biz dist, & they are, for their reasons, unhappy with how the entrance to the city is now, what, what's there, & that area's not under their control, I guess what is their option to try & control how the entrance - uno that, that exit off of 44 & 141, the big sign says VP - how do they control that area then, how it looks?  'cause they're unhappy with the way the zoning's going on & the bizs going up & the way it looks.  I mean they're kinda stuck with, we can't do anything about it so we'll, we'll add this area in there with these citizens & maybe we'll get some control.

 

MrB:  Well, I, I would - the ques that I would put back to u is that that's not an unusual situation & why would that be (hound handled to?) St L Cnty different than it would be any other neighbor?  If u were sitting in your city & u were, & u weren't  happy with something that was happening in an adjacent city because people were entering thru THAT, u'd sit down & talk to them & try to &, & try to work that out. 

 

Uh so uno, the, the notion of saying the solution to that is to take some of the territory from the neighboring jurisdiction, uh is kind of an odd one to me.  MrF:  Have there been any discussions between VP & the Cnty about this area?  MrB:  Not to my knowledge.  MrF:  Ok.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 26 of  39

 

MrH:  Johnnie!  MrS:  No ques's, Mr Chairman.  Mr?:  Mr Baker, um do uno where the 50 people live? MrB:  Not  - Mr?:  Was it 50?   MrB:  specifically.  I think as was illustrated there, most of 'em are around that uh probably just to the, I guess it's the south & east of, of the intersec of 141 &, & uh, uh 44. 

 

Mr?:  Are u - I don't wanna put words in your mouth - are u suggesting that that portion of this annex-proposal area was included in order to have some people to vote?  MrB:  Well, I think that's a practical limitation & probably, it may very well go back to the original uh - I wasn't around in 33 when PPk was created, but in order to inc a city, u also have to have residents to vote.  Uh so it may even be a hold-over back from that period of time. 

 

So u, u essentially can't have it at that, at either an inc or an annexation with only commercial land because there has to be some residents to vote.  That may be the reason it was originally part of PPk & that may have carried over here.  But certainly, I think that it is clear that, that those bdry lines - some place had to, had to inc some residents in order for, for an annexation vote to occur. 

 

& the point that I would make is that there's no magic.  Uno PPk exists no more & so the, the, the logic or not logic, the bdrys need(ed?) to be correct TODAY;  whether they were illogical for PPk is really irrelevant.  There, there are choices today in terms of where those bdry lines are drawn, both in terms of how much residents u include & where they are, & in this case we don't believe that that may prove to be logical. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 27 of  39

 

Mr?:  The last thing I wanted to ask u is, uh we've talked a lot about the financial impact on uh on the Cnty in this particular proposal & uh to some extent on VP.  Um one of the things that the, the planning of an intent, VP's uh Plan of Intent says that um, generally, much of the entire annexation area is ripe for redev.  Uh I think that u're all probably agree that this IS an area for the next 15, 10 to 15, 20 yrs, some, some long period of time, is going to be uh radically different in the future.  Can u give me some idea of what the - how, if u were thinking about that, which entity would benefit - which would um which, what - between the Cnty & VP, which entity would benefit from that future dev? 

 

MrB:  I think - Mr?:  _ given - Excuse me, given the situation that we have NOW where St L Cnty is essentially providing most of the svcs within that proposed annexed area.  MrB:  Yeah, I, I think in, in fairness, I think both entities would benefit from, from dev.  Uh as we talked about a little bit earlier, this is a fun-plagued (surely meant flood) area which, which has some constraints on dev that, that aren't the case in, in other areas so u're not gonna have ALL of the variables & ALL of the options that u might have in another area. 

 

Uh the Cnty is the svc provider.  We ALSO, regardless of whether it's inc'd or uninc'd, uh that biz revenue with those jobs has significant benefits across the bd to us in, in terms of dev'g in, in an area.  & certainly they have an advantage to, to VP & I will tell u, I think it has an, an advantage to be workin' on it cooperatively, regardless.  If, if VP doesn't annex this area, they have an int &, & obviously want a good dev base nearby them as well as in their city as well. 

 

So I, I really think from that standpoint, whether u, whether this uh particular area is annexed or not, both the Cnty & VP have a strong int in seeing it used for its highest & best use possible.  & uh uno again, uh uno u, we could, we could sit here & argue over versus, uno &, & resources versus -  I don't know how all that comes out, but this is certainly the area that we're very cognizant of as well.  That's one of the reasons why we continued the, the TIF dev & why uh VP's not (_ _ _bkgd noises_ _ _).  ?:  Tku, Mr Baker.  That's all.

 

Mr?:  & u've indicated that - I just wanna make sure I understand - uh when PPk, to be certified, whatever they call it, um & St L Cnty took over those bizs, those bizs were grandfathered under the PPk - MrB:  Yeah, the existing - ?:  planning.  MrB:  The existing uses would be grandfathered under, uh under what they were at PPk & uh regardless of whether they, whether they fit exactly with what the Cnty zoning requires - Mr?:  But then it was (rolled?) right on over to VP & gettin' in their face.  So in essence, until that biz shuts down it can't change? 

 

MrB:  No, it had &, & we're probably gettin' to - uno it, it's always a, a, it's always a danger to get too absolute, but yes.  It's a general proposition.  U have - if u, if u have an existing use that's been going, going on & the jurisdiction changes, the jurisdiction is not allowed, without some, with, without some unusual circumstances, of saying, hey, sorry, u're gonna have to shut down because we don't allow that.  ?:  Tku. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 28 of  39

 

MrH:  Christine.  MsB:  We have a ques about um surpluses.  Um first of all I'm gonna cmt that VP has a nice surplus;  I wish both of us could have that.  But WHAT WAS the surplus in St L Cnty, say that we - like 2001 (just as we?) speak now;  before I went thru the back route?  General - MrB:  The surplus in 2001, off the top of my head I can't tell u, but it was uh, it was several $M. 

 

Again, u're talking about where's the magnitute however - MsB:  Right, _ - MrB:  because uh because our several $M uh is a lot less than, than $100K sometimes for municipalities.  MsB:  & how much has that been gone down?  Where DO the surpluses in St L Cnty stand?  MrB:  Right now we're uh we would be about uh $20M, something of that nature.  MsB:  Ok.  Do u have any idea where it started?  Has it drawn down some?  MrB:  Oh, sure.  Uh we probably a few yrs ago had about $47M in the Cnty.  MsB:  Ok so u've gone down approx $27M. 

 

& then uh & the next ques is that u said talking about u would uh (_ _bkgd noises _) other areas in St L Cnty where they're front door to the area that's similar to VP.  & I'm sitting here right with my brains, I think where else I can see this hodge, podge-modge from a major intersec.  

 

MrB:  I'm, I'm sorry I don't recall saying that.  I said this is, this is also a ft door to St L Cnty.  MsB:  Front - when u said that - MrB:  I didn't say - MsB:  _ _serious statemt.  MrB:  I didn't say that there were other areas - uh, I'm sorry, I don't remember saying that at all.  MsB:  Alright, tku.  MrB:  Tku.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 29 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku. alright, folks, we now go into the Public uh Speaker portion.  No more forms?   ?: _ _ - MrH:  Folks, the way this is gonna work is I will call up the person who's gonna be speaking & I will also call the name of the person who's next in line to be on-deck batter if u will.  U'll be given 3 mins.  I'll hold up a 3 fingers when u're done & uh please conclude your cmts at that time.  First speaker is uh Derrick Stanley, from the Genesis Group & after Mr Stanley, will be Dan Wilberg. 

 

MrDS:  Good evening.  My name is Derrick Stanford.  I am Pres of the Genesis Group & I'm here tonight to file this testimony on behalf of Fred Weber.  Uh Fred Weber, last yr, dev'd a 3-way-corner of transfer sta's in the VP area er in the PPk area.  The transfer sta uh svcs the SW portion of St L Cnty.  I think these facilities are greatly misunderstood.  They are a necessity as were your ground disposal locations on this side of the river.  Uh it's physically not feasible to transport waste vehicles & p/u waste & defer it for 3 or 4 hrs.  They have to be able to pick a relay point so that they can efficiently move waste out of the neighborhoods to more distant disposal settings.

 

Uh we've enjoyed our relationship with City VP.  They've been uh they've been good to work with.  We, we do provide their uh waste disposal svcs as Fred Weber does for ALL other municipalities within St L Cnty, who collect their own waste.  Uh nevertheless, uh Fred Weber is OPPOSED to the annexation.  Uh the waste transfer issue is a difficult one in St L Cnty.  At this point we do not have a cnty-wide plan on solid waste.  Uh it is likely to be upon the verge of issuing (a disposal or this proposal?) thru here.  It is a uh (_ _ squeaky door noises_ _), a very, (quiet?) sta uh that uh seems to be best handled, at least at the Cnty level if not a regional level.  That's all I have to say.  MrH:  Ok, tku, sir.  MrDS:  Tku.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 29 of 

 

MrH: Next up is Dan Wilburn & after Milbert, Mr Wilburn will be Robert Walls (BW).  MrDW:  Yeah, I'm here to read a letter from the co that I uh work for.  Uh & I'm rep'g Mr Vance who couldn't be here tonight.  'My name is Walter Vance.  I'm the VP of Administration for MW Petroleum.  One of our stores is the Phillips 66 Gas Sta that's being restored, located in PPk.  MW Petro's main ofcs are located at 6760 SW Ave in St L.  We have owned & op'd at PPk locations for over 40 yrs.  I will be unable to attend the PBH tonight but I would like to inform the Bdry Cmsn that we are IN FAVOR of the proposed annexation of PPk. 

 

We feel the smaller cmty would better serve our biz.  Our request for this svc will be faster & more personal.  We are also impressed with VP.  It has 9 dedicated St L Cnty ofcrs of their own & a  Lt.  I'm sure that this would improve response time in case of emerg or to our biz & also have our location regularly & daily patrolled.  We employ VP residents at this location & we feel that a lot of our customer base comes from residents & bizs - ?: (uhoh?) - MrDW:  in the VP area & we are - consider ourselves a VP Cmty already.  As a note, our mailing address is within the VP postal zip code & our customers are already referred to our location as VP.  Sincerely, MW Petroleum Co.'

 

I'd like to make this a record.  ?: _ _ _ _ - ?:  _ (let 'em?) in & then u (park there?).  ?:  _ _ - ?:  Where is that again?  MrDW:  It's sits on the, it would be the SE corner of 141 & 44.  ?:  Tku.  MrH;  Next up is Robert Walls & after Mr Waaalllls will be Steven L Kling, Jr. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 30 of  39

 

BW (regular mopr abbrev):  Good evening, my name is Robert Walls.  I've been a uh biz owner & property owner in VP for more than 20 yrs & also I'm Chairman of the Bd er uh of the VPBA.  Um I'd like to read a letter uh that is approved by the members & Bd of the VPBA. 

 

'On behalf of the members of the Bd of VP's Biz Assn, I want to inform the members of the Bdry Cmsn that my org has been fully briefed by City VP pertaining to its annexation proposal.  PPk forms the southern entry into City VP & creates the first impression that our customers see when they enter this area.  We feel the PPk area could certainly be visually improved & orderly dev'd & we could alter an area that it can & should occur.  We believe City VP is well equipped to improve the area & we're certain to enhance our biz practice & image.  Therefore we SUPPORT this annexation report.  Tku very much.  MrH:  Tku, sir.  Just give that to Mr Hamilton & (make that letter?).  ?: _ _ _ _ - ?:  Together & intact.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 31 of  39

 

MrH:  Next up is Steven L Kling, Jr & after Mr Kling will be Charles Wilken.  MrSK:  Good evening.  My name is Steve Kling.  For the record I'm an atty & I have a reputable practice in the area of real estate & of land use.  & I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of  St L Composting & Wholesale Landscaping, the 2 bizs in the area.  St L Composting sits on 26 acres of property at 39 Old Elam Ave & Wholesale Landscaping sits on, now sits on 4 acres of property at 102-106 S Elam. 

 

I think these bizs uh represent the # of bizs in the area in the fact that they are unique.  These are unique bizs in the area.  St L Composting is a composting facility.  It uh actually - its got - processes 1/3 of the compost of the yard waste of St L Cnty.  Wholesale Landscaping is in the (low 5's?).  It's in the wholesale landscaping biz uh final effects, other landscaping products & fencing. 

 

These are unique bizs that uh need special attn & special svcs.  These are not bizs u typically find in small municipalities.  Uh they're generally uses are that uh quite frankly are not desirable in urban areas.  In fact I would almost suggest that BUT FOR the revenue issue, that these bizs would not be (eagerly or equally?) sought to be in a small municipal area.  Um these svcs are necessary however.  St L Composting provides svcs to MANY public entities & civic orgs.  Uh Wholesale Landscaping is a desirable biz as well. 

 

Um quite frankly my clients are very happy with St L Cnty & the way that uh St L Cnty has administered their properties since the takeover.  Uh St L Cnty provides comprehensive svcs like how the HIGHLY experienced P&Z Dept & many other svcs that are beneficial to these unique bizs out here & they're well versed in these bizs.  Add upon that & my point is that we're concerned about it.  My clients are -expressed they're concerned about increased taxes in public municipalities. 

 

Uh they are concerned about things like public cmt - constant complaints from a very small # of people about their ops.  In my practice I've seen this a lot.  Sometimes u have a couple of bizs that aren't the norm, aren't the uno the brick facade, that 1 or 2 residents will come up & constantly complain to the city & cause these bizs an enormous amt of problems for, for a very insignificant issue.  Uh the Cnty has been very good in dealing with that. 

 

I think we can look (at or to?) PPk as I mentioned before, that that whole episode show u, shows u how politics (enter or & they're?) in small city areas & dominating uh land usage;  & that's not, I think what's this area is all about.  This is an important area.  Uh it shouldn't be subject to Condemnation & redev as we see in small municipal areas where they could die.  Uh we ask that u DENY the annexation request.  Tku  MrH:  Tku, sir. Watkins.  ?:  Yeah, tku.  ?:  Tku.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 32 of  39

 

MrH:  Next up is Charles Wilken (RW - regular mopr abbrev).  After Chief Wilken will be Dennis Behven, I believe it's w-i-l-k-e-n.  MrDB:  Yes, sir.  RW:  Ladies & Gentlemen of the Cmsn, I'm the Fire Chief of VP Fire petition, VP Fire Protection Dist which is one of svc providers for the current PPk area.  Uh VP Fire Prot Dist has been fully aware of the city's intent to annex this proposed area, the old PPk (& offered _ review?) of the VP Fire Prot Dist 'cause WE'LL be the ones to determine the svcs if the city would be annexed as if their own cmty. 

 

It feels that the provisions of this municipal svc by City VP should enhance there & promote more bizs & develop the advanced tax base in the future which will aid the Fire Dist in the long-run.  Currently we uh - there has not been any growth over in that area in many, many yrs except for the uh Fred Weber site which is a very, very nice structure in the cmty.  We upgraded them over there in the last uno 6, 8 months over there & it's really enhanced that area very well & we thank St L Cnty for playing part in that role.  Um & I - in, in the long-run, VP Fire Prot Dist won't stop at the TIF areas which currently we do for City VP.  & if this proposal is put to the voters & annexed into City VP, maybe in the future we'd see more bizs coming in & more structures being built & enhance our tax base for the Fire Dist.  Tku.  MrH:  Tku, sir. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 33 of  39

 

Next up is Gail Behven I believe b-e-h-v-e-n from the Peerless Landfill & Resource.  Anyone here from Peerless Landfill & Resource Recovery?    Oh, sorry.  & the next speaker then will be Kim Gardner.

 

MsDG:  Good evening.  My name is (Dale/Dail Glenyon?) & my husband who works in our (_ _ squeaky door noise _ _) (well as?) biz owners in this um hearing here.  We believe that both VP & St L Cnty are capable of governing this area previously known as PPk.  But because (of or our?) biz concerns, concerned his (health or help?) with waste mgmt of input tonight on the annexation issues should realistically surrounded themselves on evaluation of which is better equipped to regulate waste mgmt. 

 

Historically, they each have their own (cmty or committed?) responsibility to solids, solid waste mgmt to local gov't.  These responsibilities vary considerably from municipality to municipality & they result in differences in population, gov't philosophy, access to the private sector, svcs & existing resources in different areas. 

 

There (hasn't been the?) growing recognition of the importance of integrated solid waste mgmt that strategically involves inc'g waste mgmt innovation, waste reduction, recycling & reuse.  Our nation & especially our Metropolitan St L area, has noticed a great need for some changes that will represent improvemts for our industry as a whole.  Increasing demands to address the integrated solid waste mgmt issues will result in significant financial cost on local gov't.  The ability to implement new waste planning, efficient & co-active reduction, recycling & uh reuse will ensure necessary industry improvemts that must be considered when making decisions of any annexation opportunities in the St L area. 

 

All of this cannot be considered complete without realizing the potential negative impact & possible benefits to this area's already established & strong bizs.  We must consider available funds for such ventures.  Such has already been discussed with the current traffic study where our future & our biz is at stake if there are decisions that are made without complete & intricate & expensive planning processes implemented.  Peerless understands, our biz understands that any biz must be sensitive to the local area that houses our biz.  Handling the cmty's waste removal makes it even, even more essential that we take expert care in showing respect to the cmty that does house us. 

 

For that reason, we have extended to VP an invitation to enter into a host agreemt that will - MrH: _ _ - MsDB:  3 mins?  MrH:  If u have a letter & u wanna drop it off, we'll - MsDG:  I do. I do want to say tho just to, to end it, that we do OPPOSE the annex because of biz & waste mgmt issues. Tku.  MrH:  U wanna give it to Mr Hamilton there at the end.  Tku.  Next up then is Kim Gardner.  ?: _ _ - ?: _ -

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 34 of  39

 

MrKG:  My name is Kim Gardner & I'm a homeowner in the area of the proposed annexation & I'm here to speak in FAVOR of the annexation.  One of the things that I'd like for the Bdry Cmsn to keep in mind as they go thru their decision process is that the fact that this was a former inc'd area & we can't take that out of the uh consideration of the decision.  Being part of uh of PPk, it was a local cmty & it was the decision of the property owners at that time to be inc'd.  However, the decision to be disinc'd was NOT necessarily a planned decision. 

 

Whether or not u may be aware, let me remind u that at that time there were 27 residents & thru a late-nite petition, 18 residents did sign to disinc the city.  This was not a planned decision & I don't believe it was necessarily the right decision for that area.  What, what resulted is that the homeowners, the landowners, the bizs, even tho the bizs may not be able to vote, they did have a voice in gov't & they lost that voice & then that local gov't.

 

As a result, St L Cnty was in a unique situation to basically have land brought back into the Cnty which is - I, I don't know that this is like very many other situations.  Therefore, having this land taken back out of the Cnty again into an inc'd area wouldn't {sic} be no net loss for the Cnty.  It is correct that this is a very haphazardly dev'd area.  So I'm not cmt'g on whether PPk was the best gov't available;  it was a local gov't that provided uh, a local voice.

 

There's a lot of discussion about a logical bdry area & u have to keep in mind the uh fact that PPk was not necessarily a logical bdry, but placing it back into an inc'd area is a logical decision & it should be done irrespective of the bdry.  However, if u look at what the bdry, how it lies, u will see that typography has a lot to do with the decison to include some of those areas to the south & uh most of the areas that are not included are areas that u don't see from 141.  A lot of areas that u DO see from 141 - which further enhance the value that VP needs that central entrance area that is being controlled. 

 

& we also need to uh confirm that uh there is no split 'n paved place, so usually when u look at it, haphazard bdrys, it's uh has to do with neighborhoods being split, this is not the case.  & any ref to the fact that (the deer magazine?) had the bdry is irrelevant to the situation.  I don't think that should be considered in your decision. 

 

The uh, the thought that this will not change the, in this situation & be status quo, I think it's uh - it's NOT correct because it's the voice in gov't that's important to the people in the area.  Uh bizs did not have a voice when this was disinc'd, even tho they don't have a voice in going into an annexed area, there's no difference.  So we're, we're dealing with a net, uh zero decision about a situation here. 

 

Uh with respect to the levee, I, I think we - I know we can't say that (it'd do anything?) for this levee because this has been uh highly studied & it wouldn't be (an annulled or in on all?) things (or an?) issue anyway.  But I think we need to look at the value that uh St L Cnty's - has performance in this area over the last 5 yrs that's uh netted basically one major decison for the area & that's the trash transfer sta.  & I think that u have a pretty good idea of the uh opinions on that & the traffic study that's being - going thru.  So in summary, I'd like to say that we're going to have the uh same position that we used to have, except it will be a better gov't with VP. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 35 of  39

 

MrH:  Tku, sir.  Last 2 & Mr Powers, u're 1st.  MrCP:  Hello, I'm Glenn Powers.  I'm the uh Director of Planning for St L Cnty.   I'm - what I wanna do is just uh read into the record a letter that was given to the staff earlier uh from Skip Mange, he is the 3rd Dist, Cnty Council Person;  he is the Cnty Council Rep for this area. 

 

'Ladies & Gentlemen, Because of a scheduled out-of-town trip, it is not possible for me to appear personally before the Bdry Cmsn at this PBH on the annexation proposal of City VP.  Tku for allowing this letter to be read into the public record.  I'm very strongly OPPOSED to this annexation for too many reasons - complete list in this letter. 

 

However, the primary reasons are as follows:  1) This is an ill-advised attempt by City VP to annex an area that is overwhelmingly light industrial & commercial, over 95%, that will greatly increase their revenue while adding very little to their expenses.  This is clearly a land-tax-base grab that benefits only City VP & actually has a negative effect on the areas to be annexed & the remaining portions of uninc'd St L Cnty. 

 

2) The city has gerrymandered the bdry in order to take in as much tax base as possible along with as few residents as possible in order to gain voters.  Even then they have purposely left out those adjoining voters who have expressed opposition to the annexation.  The light industrial & commercial property owners that make up over 95% of the area have no vote in this matter if approved by the Bdry Cmsn.  They're almost unanimously OPPOSED to this proposal. 

 

3)  Taxes will be raised dramatically on all property owners, especially on the light industrial & commercial property owners who have no vote on this issue.  These are net new taxes that benefit ONLY City VP. 

 

4)  The city has indicated that they will not spend any more money on capital improvemts in the annexed area versus the Cnty currently has a major study costing in excess of $100K on the way by the Hwy Dept for ingress & egress improvemts to the area to the west of Hwy 141 & north of I-44.  The ultimate improvemts will cost Millions of $ that City VP has no means of funding. 

 

5) The statemt that no uninc'd pocket will be left as a result of this annexation is not (graph view?).  There IS an area to the west that includes St L Cnty Lone Elk Pk & Simpson Sand & Gravel that is ONLY accessible along the North Outer Rd of I-44 thru the proposed annexation area.  Chapter 72 of the RSMo states that the Bdry Cmsn shall approve an annexation proposal ONLY if it finds that the bdry change does 3 things.  1st, it must be in the best int of the, from the annexing city.  2nd, it must be in the best int of the area that is being annexed.  3rd, it must be in the best int of the area of the Cnty next to the area.  Clearly, this annexation request does not meet the latter two. 

 

The act of taking revenue-producing property away from the Cnty & moving it into the city while at the same time adding new taxes without added svcs, is not in the best int of the area being annexed or the adjoining area, being the Cnty.  The cmsn must act as the voters rep'g the light industrial & commercial property owners who make up over 95% of the proposed annexation area.  I strongly encourage u to recognize that this proposal is not in the best int of both property owners or the adjoining areas of St L Cnty & vote NO on this proposal.  Sincerely, Skip Mange.'

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 36 of  39

 

MrH:  Alright, uh _ _ - MrP:  Tku.  MrH:  & uh I apologize, there were several forms here on the other side of the table which we didn't have, so we'll call up those speakers.  The 1st is Bonnie Morris & after Ms Morris will be Daniel Adams. 

 

MsM:  Hello, I'm Bonnie Morris & I'm a resident of VP & Cmty Librarian & um while the citizens of the proposed annexation area, will still be able to use the St L Cnty Library, as another benefit of the annexation, residents will be able to use the VP Cmty Library which is conveniently located in the VP City Hall.  The VP Library is a small-town cmsn.  The library is a member of a Municipal Library Consortium of similar size. 

 

The consortium consists of 9 independent cmty libraries.  They are Brentwood, Ferguson, Kirkwood, Maplewood, Richmond Hts, Rock Hill, University City & VP & Webster Groves.  A valid library card _ - excuse me, I'm a little nervous (chuckle).  A valid library card from any member library can be used in any other MLC (Municipal Library Consortium) library.  It is something _ to the citizens of VP, a collection of over 600K volumes.  As an added svc, the library has a Mon thru Fri delivery svc to ensure inter-library volumes that come from the MLC libraries arrrive in a timely manner at our library.  MLC libraries also _ _ _ _ _ reciprocal borrowing with the St Louis Public Library, the St Louis area Cnty Library & the St Charles City/Cnty Library.  VP residents may get (3 or free?) library cards to order materials at any of these libraries & as u can see, for a small library, we have a lot to offer.  MrH:  Tku. 

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 37 of  39

 

Next up is Daniel Adams & after Mr Adams will be Mike Pennise, p-e-n-n-i-s-e.   DA:  Tku, Mr Cmsnr, um my name is Daniel Adams.  I'm an ald from City VP.  Um I'm here tonight, I'm supposed to speak on behalf of VP & not to um be argumentative, but there have been several things stated tonight that I need to clarify. 

 

1st, um VP will absolutely maintain the P&Z function of that area.  We have our own P&Z Cmsm.  There are members here this evening.  We will however, contract for basically what your uh Bldg Cmsnr & Code Enforcemt Ofcr would do as a part of their function.  So we do um, we (pay?) to manage (all or our own?) P&Z. 

 

2ndly, um there's a concern about the river bein' the barrier against terrorism.  Um I-44, by um, by, by a great deal, presents a larger barrier as a bdry um than the Meramec River does.  Um there are many cmtys, Eureka, the City of Fenton which is our neighbor, they are split BY I-44 um which does indeed create barriers tho I, I really cannot support the logic of that as a, a reason to um deny this. 

 

Um there was concern about a levee & rightfully so.  Um but to understand our, our levee was eng'd by the COE & there was an Impact Study that was done on what it would do for the surrounding areas, um PPk in itself & there was talk about it be, bein' a floodplain.  The majority of the developable part of former PPk now, has long since been removed from the floodplain & the same could be said that the, the impact of their dev & raising out of floodplain WOULD have negatively affected VP.  Um however, it is good that they are out of floodplain.  It makes it developable which is good for everybody. 

 

Um & the biggest concern is that right now everybody assumes that if - every - VP - the gentleman from Onyx um Corp um altho (he?) corrected, he perferred {sic} to his biz as bein' in VP.  Two other speakers who opposed it was a transfer sta & a um compost um devr & I couldn't understand that.  Um they have their own biz, they got biz flowing.  It will be grandfathered.  However, those are not the type of things that u would normally WANT in your cmty.  Um I have on numerous times heard stated on the radio that there are odors, there's an odor goin' thru VP.  Now, it wasn't VP!  They've blown thru the area.  That's a natural part of what their biz is.  We accept that.  We have to bear the name of having that.  We should also have to bear benefits of that barrier. 

 

Um & earlier, u asked someone if they had been to the residents, but they know - we're adults here.  I've been to those residences.  Both of those people of those residences um & they are - uno they, they want to be a part of gov't & our - now they're not.  They're one little isolated uh cmty amongst a uh a dev, a larger dev.  Um there was some int in running for public ofc.  They CAN have a say-so if they're a part of VP.  Um another um St L bizs, speaking of those - we have a bizmen's assn, a biz group here.  MrH: That's 3.  DA:  Tku.  MrH:  Alright, tku.

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 38 of  39

 

Next up is Mike Pennise (VP Ald).  Am I pronouncing that right, sir?.  MP?: _ - MrH:  You're speaking on behalf of Jennifer Vanelli?   MP:  Yes, sir.  MrH:  & after that we'll - well, will be EM &/or the Mayor of VP. 

 

MP:  Now, Mr Chairman & Bdry Cmsn, I'm reading this letter on behalf of Mrs Jena Peeper Allen who resides at 837 Crescent Ridge with her husband & 2 children.  'We purchased our home in one of the newer subdivs in VP off of Crescent Ave in 1/04 at a sales price of 200K.  The newer homes located by their, behind our home just recently sold for a price of 250 to $300K.  These homes were built by the McBride Co & were very much in demand.  Lots were sold prior to the subdiv even beginning const. 

 

As u can see, really, as u can see, people really do like the area & really want to live here.  VP is one of the best kept secrets in West Cnty.  Once people live here, they never want to leave.  & prior to this home, we also lived in VP & upgraded to this newer & bigger home.  The reason for this is because we like the VP area & all the svcs provided to us.  It is a small cmty that really cares for its residents & really made major improvemts over the past few yrs.  The city hall & its employees really care for the residents & give them svcs quickly.  What I like is that when I call city hall with a problem...(exchange tapes)...

 

9/20/04 Bdry Cmsn PBH - Sec 39 of  39

 

...MrH:...Mike or Mr Martin can pick or choose.  Now how 'bout we just give him one a minute.   EM:  _ Mr. Chair, I, I can't let some, some uh innuendos go unanswered by Mr Baker, particularly uh re the VP Levee Project.   It's a $50M levee project.  The fed gov't is paying $38M;  the city, our small city is paying $12M for this project.  It's been going on in the funding stage & now the const stage since 1989;  it'll be done this coming Spring. 

 

I PROMISE U, EVERY regulatory agency that has ANY jurisdiction over this levee project has given City VP a permit, including DNR, Fish & Wildlife, uh the Fed EPA.  There is no wise, in, induced way of this.  Uh the COE has to certify that with FEMA before a uh discharge permit EVER, ever uh was issued in this, in this project.  & it's totally irresponsible I, I believe for Mr Baker to bring that up. 

 

Uh 2nd of all, as Mr Adams ably indicated, P&Z svcs are provided by City VP.  I think the response to that, it was, it was thought that the question wanted to know about uh, uh regs, zoning regs for a code & things like that.  &, & indeed, we HAVE contracted the St L Cnty Dept for our P&Z Code Enforcemt, however, the VP Planning Cmsn does, has & will continue to uh, uh zone the area in conjunction with the uh VP BOA & we do have an eng uh, uh that is a consultant in, in that. 

 

Uh the $98K Corridor Study according to the St L Cnty website, starts right here at the corner of Vance Rd & Hwy 141.  Uh the city has never been asked to participate in this study even tho it starts here in City VP.  Vance Rd & 141 are two main thoroughfares in this city.  Uh that's participation in St L Cnty;  uh that's really not participation in St L Cnty decision-making.  Um we could certainly  have & like to & have some impact on our, on our traffic study that, that goes right within our city.

 

Finally, VP wants this area of Peerless Park for the potential for new dev.  It's not a ques of what we're going to take out;  it's a ques of what we're going to see for the cmty at large as a whole.  In the past 5 yrs I haven't seen much dev occur over there & I'm gonna commit to this cmsn that VP wants to reverse that trend.  VP wants to see that area developed in an orderly fashion.  That's why our Plan of Intent has been submitted to this body.  We need this area to replace our commercial area.  Uh tku very much. 

 

MrH:  Yeah.  Walter, again we'll accept further cmts from both the Cnty & the municipality for the storm water study.  I believe that concludes the public-speaking portion & concludes our mtg.  Tku for coming, ladies & gentlemen.  This mtg is adjourned.