MOPR'S  8/15/05  VP  BOA/PBH's  MTG   MINS 


Notes:  7:34pm, start 1st PBH re tax levy which closed at 7:43 when 2nd PBH started re CDBG funds which closed at 7:46pm when BOA mtg started;  9:30 to Exec Ses re personnel.  Agenda:  BILL 1815, an ord amending & approving an amended dev plan for a PRD approved in Ord 1643 for Lauren Estates (f/k/a Villas at Misty Oak Forest).  BILL 1816, an ord regulating the levy & establishing the rate of annual taxes to be collected for the yr 2005 in City VP.  Resolution 8-15-05 authorizing City to employ PGAV Urban Consulting Svcs to prepare & solicit redev proposals for all or part of the area within 100-yr flood protection in City VP.  >  


Present:   RH, DLC, DA, JKB,  MW,  DM,  EM,  MP,  MMW,  SD + city staff & such. 
Not Present: SD excused - on biz trip.
Audience:  Rough guess 25 + Post Stringer/Reporter, Sterling Levy.



8/15/05 BOA/PBH - tax levy  -  Sec  1  of  28


DM:  Before the mtg we're gonna have a notice of - there is a PBH tonight on the assessed valuation for the r.e. tax, VP.  EM,  Did u wanna -  ?:  Oh, it's - DM:  give us a little bkgd it please.  EM:  Yes, sir, um last yr, the uh assessed valuation for res r.e. was 47,793K.  This yr it increased by some $7M;  um agricultural, it is really no significant increase or decrease;  comm however, decreased by almost a $M over last yr personal prop stayed almost the same. 


In order to budget, we're mandated by law now to uh break down our levies into the 3 subcategories, res, agricultural & comm.  What we did was take the amts budgeted by uh the, the budget ord & break those down into the uh the 3 categories for, for purposes of publication.


Um bear in mind that this is at 100%, discounting collection fees.  Typically, we would uh (_someone coughs_) about a 93 to 94% collection rate & we do pay a 1% collection fee to StLCnty.  When I looked at last yr's collection costs, um based on a s- on a PROJECTION of I think it was $214K.  We collected $209K & uh the same thing for comm I think it, it cost about $5K 'n, 'n costs to collection & the %age uh decrease. 


Uh when we get to the, the ord, uh what, what I did was propose a 6 % - uh 6 increase over last yr for comm only & that was to make up for the almost M$'s difference in assessed value from last yr to this yr;  left res the same.  The 6 difference for comm will produce a total uh of $5,400. 


DM:  Wopen up to Bd for any cmts.  DLC:  Yes, sir.  DM:  DLC.  DLC:  Uh I don't know where these #'s came from but on the res, the 55M, uh I come up with a tax rate of 57 on that, u come up $317K.  On the comm, my, my figures come out the same as the city's, but on the sheet that we've got here for the public notice, it's only showing $264K on the res at the - I'm at 317.  I'm, I'm losing $50K here some place.


EM:  Well, that, that was what was budgeted.  The, the amts on the column below - I'll, I'll tell u where the figures came from - the, the assessed values came from StLCnty & they came BEFORE the Bd of Equalization which just concluded - DLC:  Well, what I'm - EM:  2 wks ago.  DLC:  askin' tho, is where did the #'s come from?  U've got #'s of the amt of uh assessed value - EM:  From a, from your budget.  DLC:  & then they're - no, the budget shows $316 - 17K. 


EM:  Well, it should;  264 & 50 would be that figure.  DLC:  117 - a hundred & - EM:  264 & - DLC:  (3?)14.  EM:  264 - 50, would be 314 & then u add your 89 on that, be what, 4 - 411?  DLC:  It'd be 4 something but this, 'n our budget, it shows the uh r.e. taxes est'd at 317K.  EM:  Right.  DLC:  So what I was figurin' on, on the uh 57/100.  EM:  Ok, what's - DLC:  It's r.e. taxes down below shows 8K, so u're throwin' that 8K in there twice - EM:  Well, that, that - u have to - DLC:  Personal prop comes in at 89K -


EM:  But we have to throw in the 8 because the 8's your delinquents.  U've got - so u've got delinquent collections & u have r.e. - see your budget doesn't break it down.  Your budget doesn't break it down into comm, res & we have to - DLC:  Well, even if u put 'em - put the 2 of 'em together, u wouldn't - I _ _ go thru the #'s of 317 & that's all usin' 57 & u're talkin' about raisin' 6 on the comm which would, would increase it & it would still be below what the budget's (tellin' me?). 


EM:  Well, I mean, I, I - It IS for _-  DLC:  Personal - EM: _ _ - DLC: prop is 89K which is in the budget which is also in conjunction here on the sheet in front that we have.  EM:  I mean I came up with 314 here just _ - 315 - DLC:  Well, if u take the uh - EM:  Hamp- Hampton wrote this.  DLC:  if u take the assessed valuation & multiply that by 57, u're gonna come up to 317K, NOT 264K which our sheet shows!


EM:  No, no, no!  U can't do that.  U've gotta - u've gotta COMBINE it together, ok.  U've gotta say we've got - it - see your budget says we have, what 319?  DM:  317 - DLC:  That's got three seven- EM:  _17 ok, & if u ADD UP what we've DONE HERE, the 264 & the 50, comes out to right at 315 - 316, something like that.  Alright?   So that's - he's asking where the figures came from;  that's where - DLC:  What - EM:  they came from. 


DLC:  What I'm saying is the assessed value - when the r.e. - res & r.e. ALONE - EM:  Ok.  DLC:  this 57 will come up with $317K BY ITSELF!  EM:  OH!  I'M SORRY.  I, I'm sorry - DLC:  So u're - EM:  I, I gotcha.  What u're doin' is multiplying it out times the 55.  DLC:  Right - EM:  Yeah,  & - DLC:  & comin' up with 317 THERE which is already into the budget & u're not showin' the comm which is 50K - u're not showing that ANY place & the 89K for return of the prop IS showin' on these budget.  EM:  Right.  DLC:  & the COMM is not showin' in there. 


EM:  Right, it's not IN the budget.  That's a LUMP SUM - your, your 314 or 317, whatever u just did - u multiplied it out - DLC:  Right.  EM:  That's the way u budgeted it.  DLC:  Right.  EM:  Ok.   DLC:  But the - EM:  & u're sayin' - DLC:  But the uh 50K - EM:  50M?  DLC:  No, the uh comm (u went off on?) - EM:  Oh, ok.  DLC:  50K from comm's not in the BUDGET.  EM:  No, u, u didn't do that!  U didn't - u didn't factor that in.  DLC:  So why are we wanting to raise it if it's not in the budget?


EM:  Well, it IS in the budget (chuckling) because it was a COMBINED deal!  We're - we just have to SPLIT IT OUT for our taxes.  The, the 317 that u have in the budget reps comm & res.  DLC:  The 317 we have in the budget reps the res ALONE;  it DOES NOT INCLUDE COMM.  EM:  That's not right!  DM:  Think it includes it;  he just didn't label it that way.  DM?:  It used to be just one # but -  EM:  Yeah, it used to be just one #, Don.  DM:  (Like if or think if?) something slipped up in the budget - ?: _ - EM:  Un, UNLESS what u're doing is adding - u're multiplying the 55M times 57?  Is that - DLC:  Right.  EM:  Oh, ok, that comes out - DLC:  & come out with 317K!  EM:  Well, I - that's just a coincidence, but it's, it's - we SHOULD take about 92% of that figure.  92% of the 317 &, & that'll come up with - probably what u'll get for your res (robby?). 


DLC:  U gotta - MMW:  _ pay - DLC:  lose the - MMW:  Pay your - DLC:  _thousand on your - MMW: Pay for collections too - DLC:  comm.  U want your _ - MMW:  Is that what - DLC: _ _- MMW:  u're sayin'?  DLC: _ _ - EM:  Yeah, to pay - ?: _ - MMW:  U have to pay the collections out of that as well.  DLC:  U're still making - u're still leaving money there & u're also losing the uh comm;  it's not showing up any place, $50K!  EM:  Right, I, I guess - DLC:  & now u're wanting to RAISE the 50K by 6/100!


EM:  Here, here's MY point, ok, even tho u've had an increase in res r.e. - which u DID - I mean it was $8M increase, @ 57 that's going to be $40K.  See that took a $40K BUMP for RES!  U took a MINUS tho for comm!  So to make up that minus in comm, what u're doing is shifting it over to res & the res taxpayers are making up the difference.  OTHERWISE, if everything was the same, u'd lower your res taxpayers to get the same amt of money.  That's my point. 


DLC:  I think it's just uh - the situation here, asking for an increase on the comm is not necessary.  As a matter of fact, (uh if?) my #'s work out, u'd probably even talkin' about a REDUCTION for these res, WITHOUT the raise on the comm!  (If the?) figures come out to - EM:  &, &, & that's, uno, it's your prerogative (tho u're supposed?) to do that.  DLC:  No other ques's.


DM:  Any other, other wokman?  Anyone from the aud can to speak on the tax at this time?  Hrg none I close the hrg (gavel) at 7:43. 


8/15/05 BOA/PBH re CDBG $  -  Sec  2  of  28


Next is the PBH on the CDBG (he spells it out) money.  JB, u have the floor.  JB:  Um this yr we are scheduled to get $18K for the CDBG um thru StLCnty.  Uh right now, I have it slated in the application be thrown at the Forest Ave Rd Improvemt Project.  Uh as u all know, the, the funds can only be used to benefit the low-to-moderate income families.  It, it, it would be those areas where that is the predominant wage which is limited to the Forest Ave Corridor & all this lower end down here.  There are some other pockets but the majority of it's all right in here.  Um to get the application filed, that's where I've got it put. 


Now we can also use it to eliminate blight which I'm really not for that.  Um we can also use it for uh low-int forgiveable loans for home improvemt & that, that program is managed thru StLCnty.  ?:  So - JB?:  (those are good?) - JB:  So right now, I've got the application filled out to go into Forest Ave Rd Improvemt. 


JW:  YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  I guess he's lookin' for a directive or a motion to approve his suggestion?  JB:  Actually, JW, it's a required PBH so - DM:  Yeah, this is a PBH at this time _ _ _ finance - JW?:  He'll have to (motion?) do it then - DM:  When he gives his report, we have to make a (decision?).  JW:  Alright.  ?:  I won't mention (if u didn't?).  DM:  RH. 


RH:  Does it have to enter contract?  Dudn't - doesn't this (get?) - money go to a project that has to be under a contract (or something?)?  JB:  Uh the money HAS TO BE expended by 12/31 of next yr.  RH:  Right, (good?) this is about the only project that was really under - JB:  Right.  RH:  contract, right?  RH:  No fur- that's all.  DM:  Any other ald?  Anyone from the aud care to speak on the CDBG? (pause) MM:  Can - DM:  Hrg none - MM:  everybody make sure their mics are on & u speak into 'em?  (some tap their mics)  Close this uh portion of this PBH at 7:46 (gavel).  Tku, JB.  Wanna ck all the mics are on.  (they check 'em) ?:  That one's on.  MM:  Tku. 


8/15/05 BOA/PBH re CDBG $  -  Sec  3  of  28


DM:  Uh MW,  U take roll, please? (see above)  DM:  SD's excused 'cause he's on a biz trip. (Pledge)  RH,  Do u have anything to add to the agenda?   RH:  Uh yes I do, a tree down.  DM:  Trees, ok.  ?: _ _ - DM:  _ several down. ?:  Who did that?  DM:  DLC.  DLC:  Yeah, yes, the uh Brigole Ctr a/c - I'd like to know where we're at on that & the redev proposal, I'd like to bring that BACK out of cmte, back to the full bd.  & the last mtg, we requested an ord be drawn up for the uh Crises uh Intervention Team for the POL Dept.  There's not an ord in the pkt on that;  I wanna know where that's at.  That's all I have.


DM:  DA.  DA:  Uh yes, YH, I'd like to um discuss a tree in the paper alley on the 1K block of StL Ave & um Benton;  it's on the city - a paper city alley - if he would just wanna direct the uh PBW Dir to look at that - under a dead tree.  DM:  He called & said be a little bit late tonight, so when he comes up I'll - DA: _ _ - DM:  _ - DA:  Ok, the only other items - DM:  U say it's on city prop?  DA:  It is in the city paper alley between um Benton & StL Ave on the 1K block;  that definitely IS the city's tree.  DM:  I'll either talk to him after the mtg or tomorrow morning.


DA:  & the um Sec Item if I could, I request a, an Exec Ses at the end of the mtg for um personnel.  That would be all, tku.  DM:  JKB.  JKB:  I just have one thing on Pyramid - clean it up over there, trash.  DM:  Ok.  JW.  JW:  Not at this time, YH.  DM:  MP.  MP:  Just a couple things, YH, one, the McGhee prop on Frances & the other is the Resolution 8-15-05, I'd like to have that put back in - put with the uh PGAV's Contract so that the LEG Cmte can look into it. 


DM:  What'd u say, u want it put in cmte or - MP:  The - this Resolution, yes, because we still - we have - had a mtg planned & with people bein' out of town, we couldn't have it.  DM:  Ok.  So u'd rather put it back in cmte, rather than vote on it tonight?  MP:  There was - nothin' was ever discussed.  There, there was motions made at the last uh mtg to have some changes done to it.  They weren't even done to this uh - to the proposal that's in there! 


EM?:  (That's what I told him?)- ?:  (Is that right?) - MMW?:  RH & DLC _ _ so I was wanting to bring it up.  EM:  Right & it's - that's his prerogative.  ?:  So I mean - MP?:  & it -  ?:  That's 'n agenda _ _ _ _ -


MP:  & another thing, YH, who auth'd this to come of the cmte from the START & put it in the pkt?  (big pause)  JW:  YH, Can we discuss this item when it comes up in the agenda?  DM:  Yeah.  I was tryin' to remember the exact sequence - think - I guess at the mtg we thought we would be holding the cmte mtg & I thought it was tabled till the following bd mtg but I guess it couldn't be tabled (by this?) cmte, so I guess we can discuss it tonight & vote to put it back in cmte or we'll have to - however the bd uh whatever the Bd's desire is.  MMW.


MMW:  Nothing at this time, YH.  DM:  Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended?  JW:  So moved.  MMW:  2nd.  DM:  q/c?  Hrg none, all in favor say - (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carries.  Got 2 Speaker Requests, 1st is from a James Vogel, would u care to step up here please

8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  4  of  28


MrV:   Hi, yeah, I would like to see u uh bring up an item which is a trash invoice that I just recently rcv'd.  Uh I've been living in - the entire time I've been living in City VP, I've never rcv'd any kind of a trash bill & suddenly I rcv'd an invoice which uh goes back for 5.5 yrs - AP:  _ - MrV:  for a sizeable SUM &, I, I talked to MMW & uh I've been, been to some (plentis?).  Uh basically, what I'm looking for is to uh get that uh the period or the amt reduced because I believe that that's kind of a, an, an excessive period, given the fact that I've never rcv'd a bill from the city (& previously?).  


DM:  Yes, I was - say I talked to Mr _ _ moved in 1998 & then uh some reason didn't get picked up on the rolls for sanitation pick up until recently;  all of a sudden we go back 5 - 5.5 yrs as u say.  So it does sound like a very large hit would be uh taking of his time of - while this was issued for the Bd so if the Bd has any recommendations to - 5.5 yrs is kind of excessive.


MP:   I have a ques, YH.  DM:  MP.  MP:  What happened?  (aud chuckles)  DM:  For what - for whatever reason, his name - say he was not added to the trash rolls & - MP:  Oh, ok.  DM:  until recently when I guess for whatever reason checked on him & found the name that was not getting billed, so.  MP:  Do I still have the floor?  DM:  Yes, u do.  MP:  Was that house not there 5.5 yrs ago with that adddress?  DM:  It's been there for 7 yrs.  I don't know why we - MP:  Ok.  DM:   have this.  MP:  Can we find out what happened?  & was the trash picked up for 5.5 yrs?  MrV:  Yeah, I guess it was.  MMW:  7 yrs.  ?:  7 yrs. 


MrV:   There - &, & appartently I'm not the only one.  ?:  _ - ?: _ - ?:  YH.  DM:  MP still has the floor unless he wants to  - MP:  That's it for right now, YH.  DM:  MMW.  MMW:  Yeah, I, I spoke with MrV as well & I spoke with uh with Roxanne & she indicated to me that the other, the other people had already come in &, & squared up with everything & what she had, what she had told me was that when u come in to sign an Occupancy Permit, u sign up also at that point for your trash removal svc.  & what she explained to me was that the 1st - she, she wanted to only go back 5 instead of the full 7 for which he had rcv'd svc & so I figured the best place to settle this as well & simple, is that was the info that I was given when I spoke to Roxanne about it - was that it, it had happened to 3 other individuals.  They were on the same street, but they weren't in the same area & the other 2 people have already uh basically, caught up on their omnibilat- arrangemts. (!)  


JW:  YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  How much did those 2 people pay?  DM:  I don't know but I just knew they were behind but I wasn't not sure what they were - MMW:  I believe - DM: _ _ - MMW:  it was a similar situation - EM:  They, they paid the full amt.  What they agreed to do is, is take, take it incriminal {sic} paymts so it's not the one that does (!) (& encrypt it?).   MMW:  Yeah, I, I still don't understand exactly how it happened either, but I'm not sure Roxanne was even here at that point in time. 


DA:  YH, I've got a ques.  On the invoice, surely the rose (!) would (know or no?) um late fees or charges other than strictly the trash svcs - DM:  Correct, I believe that's what it was - just the trash bill itself;  no add'l fees.  Is that correct?  MrV:  That's correct.  It actuallly goes back 5.5 yrs. 


DA:  Um not uh to sound mean but however, this svc indeed was rendered.  It wasn't like u were ripped off on anything.  Certainly the city made a mistake.  Um what I would suggest is that as the others have done, that it be paid but I would suggest that the city clerk wait, work out extremely liberal um paymt arrangemts over a course of a, a large period because really, it's not fair to the other residents that had to pay for their trash svc & that dept in itself, barely um runs into black when it does.  So I think to be fair & consistent, it would be the proper thing, however, I think that arrangemts should be made for this gentleman to ease the burden of um the overall uno mistake.  Um if the servants had, svc had not been rendered, then we'd have a different story but the fact was, your trash was picked up um regularly as any other resident.  So, tku, YH.


DM:  DA,  Do u care to make a motion to say - DA:  I'm - that - DM:  u want to - DA:  put that in a motion _ - DM:  let's say 12 to 18  months or some kind of plan that would not burden - DA:  um - MrV:  1st, how long were - was THEIR period that they had to pay for as compared to mine?  That would be my ques.   DA:  Um again, I could answer this, I mean most - MrV:  & that is _ - DA:  our residents have paid for trash since they've lived here, um uno their entire length of living here.  Um again, there was an error in faith but my motion would be to allow up to um 18 months um to um, um uno catch as a calendar update on it.  JKB?:  I'll 2nd it. 


MP?:   Ques.  JW:  Discussion, YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  Uh did, did that length of time - did uh u ever call the city hall or, or think, hey, I'm gettin' - not gettin' a trash bill?  Did u ever contact the city hall?  MrV:  I never really thought anything of it because some munis just have that included in their taxes.  So it never occurred to me that it could've been any kind of a, of a billing problem.  I didn't think that the city had made any kind of mistake whatsoever until I rcv'd the invoice.  JW:  I'll bet.  (he & others chuckle)  ?: _ _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  Ok, tku, YH.  ?:  I'll bet u he's _ _ _ -  DM:  MP, Did u ask for - MP:  Yes, YH, does that motion include that they're gonna look & see what the other 2 or 3 residents - how far they had to go back? 


DA:  My motion would be that any discovered delinquent um tash bills um delinquent by fault of the city um be included into this motion;  not just this individual, but - DM:  2nd agree?  JKB?:  Yes.  ?:  But I said did he wanna put up a separate motion.  (1 or 2 laugh) DM:  I guess - EM:   Put limited to the 5 -  DM:  I think 5 yrs is gonna (handle or end on?) this.   DA:  It would be on the invoice. MrV?:  It was actually 5.5 on the invoice.  DM:  Any other ques's, MP? 


MP:  In that motion, would the maker include to find out what's going on with the city that we can't generate trash bills?  DA:  If this motion passes, I'll make a 2nd motion.  DM:  MMW.  MMW:  Yeah, I, I, I was just a little bit conflicted as well 'cause I kind of had a  similar view as JW, as much as it - come down & sign the trash svc at the time u get your Occupancy Permit.  I'm sure  _ seems (that he?) might kinda know what's goin' on.  So, that's it.   DM:  Any other ques's?  JW?:  Heck no.  DM:  Hrg none, all in favor of the motion for 18 months, plus we'll check into the other potential billing problems, say - (ayes, none heard opposed) - Motion carries.


DA,  Did u have a - DA:  Yes - DM: _ - DA:   YH, I'd - DM: _- DA:  like to request that the mayor place in the PBW Cmte, the um billing practice, uh trash billing um practice or procedure.  DM:  Ok, I'll place it in by Exec Action.  ?: _ - ?: _  - ?: _ - ?:  _ trash -


DM:  _ talk to Mrs Ruppel uh Roxanne that is, _ _ _ work out a paymt _ _ _ 18 months break it up for the  5.5 yrs.  MrV:  For, for the 5.5 yrs vs 5?  DM:  Well, 5, well, didn't u say it's 5.5 on there or - MrV:  Yeah, I said it was 5.5 on there uh but everyone else has said 5 during the course of this.  DM:  Did they move in about the same time as u?  MrV:  Uhh, not sure. DM:  They say - MrV:  _ later _ - DM:  So u're - u said u get billed 6 mos more than the other residents & that would've been billed over the same monthly, the same period of time?   MrV:  Well, I don't know that uh - uno I don't know that they've lived there as long, as, as long as I have & know what the - I'm not sure who these other residents are that were mentioned previously that have paid for whatever the length of bill they may've had.  & so I can't, can't say as just to whether or not they've paid for 5 yrs or so, 5.5.  DM:  U said -- MrV:  In my case - DM:  u say 2 of your - MrV:  on MY invoices, it's 5 - 5.5 yrs.  


DM:  U say 2 of your neighbors had not been billed until recently for - MrV:  Uhh, I think they were billed - DM: long period?  MrV:   I, I talked to one of my neighbors & they had never rcv'd a bill & apparently one of my other neighbors who had already moved out, had never rcv'd a bill.  So they, they still moved in, never paid for trash & moved back out again.  DM:  So they never got a bill?  They just moved in & out u say?  MrV: Yeah. 


MW: (Just before u got?) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ save cmsn's fees (someone coughs) result in maximum -  DM?:  Is that what u think?  MW:  (jurisprudence at times?) _ _ _ _ _ their share of both & that's probably at this point, (don't have?) a bill  _ _ been paid when they move(d?).  & that's probably not a good excuse - DM:  Well, if he can tag when he moved, then they would've paid at - MW:  Oh, yeah because - DM:  at that time _ - MW:  the prop wouldn't close (properly or probably?).  ?: _ _ _ - MW:  (If?) they (pay or paid?) the full amt & their prop would not _ _ _.  So this thing gets ('em out?). 


DM:  Sounds like when _ _ _ somebody closes on their house, moves out, they would have to pay the entire amt - unless somebody here at the bd, er the bd would decide to send (heart?) & to make it 5 instead of 7 or whatever the #'s were.  So I guess we - we can check to see if the other 2 residents were, but it sounds like they would've had to pay the whole thing so they can check their #'s & if it's 5 yrs, then make it - guess we could make it comparable to(o?) - if the bd would agree to that. 


MrV:  5, 5 yrs is basic Statute of Limitations for an open-end contract.  So I was thinkin' that that would probably even affect a separate period & that was the period that the motion would ask for is 5 yrs.  So if u could adjust it to that, it'd be the 18 months, then I guess I would be ok with that. 


DM:  DA,  Does that sound - DA:  Yeah, maybe I, I will - I'll make the 2nd motion to amend my 1st motion.  I would - DM:  5 yrs, pay it - DA:  5 yrs - DM:  over 18 months, ok.  DA:  Yes.  DM:  So if u would work out a 5-yr paymt with the uh city (down here?), (appraise?) current then keep up from there.  MrV:  Ok & then, so that u're taking out - (up?) the uh 6 months off the pro- I'm, I'm guessing off of the earliest point of the bill which is basically where, where in 2000, it was $11/mo for trash pick-ups (at?) what it is, minus $66.  DM:  Right.  MrV:  Ok, alright.  DM:  Ok, tku MrV.  MrV:  Tku.  DM:  Next we have MM.


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   5 of  28


MM:  Yes, my name is MM.  My only rental prop was #8 Arnold Dr.  Um I just have a couple cmts tonight about the city's power of Eminent Domain.  & please make my cmts a part of the City's Journal.  Before this city EVER exercises its Eminent Domain power to AGAIN take people's properties & livelihoods, mandates must be in place, provide for maximum oversight, severe punishmt for abusers & awards to victims. 


First of all, an in-depth & truly independent audit of the city's finances, policies & procedures should be mandated & this audit is to cover the past 15 city & levee yrs.  Prove beyond reasonable doubt exactly what has been done with the M's of tax dollars (someone coughs) already paid to u (someone sort of coughs) before u take people's properties & livelihoods.  & this audit's results are to posted on the city's website & include a detailed listing of any & all prop-owner names, description of the subject prop, the exact purpose for which it was acquired, whether that purpose became reality & also any & all settlemt details.  In the past, I have doc'd these requests to the city & to the COE to no avail.  

Secondly, this city has a history of keeping its citizens in the dark.  Check out the city's website in this yr 2005;  it is a disgrace.  The city's clandestine mtgs must be outlawed.  A prime example is the clandestine mtg between city, school & fire ofc'ls on 8/27/01 re the redev of AL.  The transcript is on MOPR.ORG.   Also, because gov't secrecy breeds corruption & victims, I am OPPOSED to Exec Ses's for land acq for any purpose.  The only reason that I see for devrs wanting their names kept secret as Mr Blandford of PGAV mentioned the other day - he mentioned that they wanted their names not to be publicized -  but I believe that the only reason is that they don't want the competition.  & I believe that there should be OODLES of competition with Eminent Domain threatening people's livelihoods & their properties.

Thirdly, the real estate appraisal institutions should be ashamed to stand behind city appraisers who grossly devalue properties for the cities who pay them.  The city atty stated in a levee mtg that the city's control comes over cost by getting the BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK ON LAND ACQUISITIONS! 

I believe that each appraisal should be presented in groups & detailed in public mtgs.  Let the people vote - DM:  (My caution?) to u, there's a 2-min warning - M:  Let the people - DM:  er 2-min LIMITS - MM:  Tku.  DM:  so if u'll wrap it up - MM:  Let the people - DM:  in a few seconds please.  MM:  How long did the gentleman before me speak? (3 bouncing gavel noises)  Let the people vote at the end of each mtg as to which appraisals they believe are TRUE Just Compensation.  I have many more cmts, but with the power outage & the storm clean-up, I was a bit rushed.  Tku. 

DM:  Do u have a copy of that we could enter into the journal?  MM:  I (chuckle) - the power went out again as soon as I was printing an extra copy.  DM:  Ok.  MM:  But u have the trans- u have the tape recording.  MW:  I'll have - can I say something?  Any time -  DM:  U have the floor.  MW:  Any time that anybody asks anything be made a part of the record - even if these gentlemen here - & it's as lengthy as what u just gave, I need a written copy - MM:  Ok.  MW:  or else I can't make - MM:  Can I put one in the mail to u tomorrow?  MW:  U can certainly do that.  MM:  Ok - MW:  That way - MM:  tku.  MW:  Ok.  DM:  Ok, tku for both for the (he stops) -

8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  6  of  28


Next we have the mins from the Bd mtg of 8/1/05 - wbp?  MMW?:  YH.  ?:  Move approval.  DM:  MMW.  MMW:  I have one quick change that I just happened to notice.  DM:  In the mins?  MMW:  Uh yeah.  DM:  Can we get a motion & then - MMW:  Oh, ok.  DM:  Motion for approval, then u make a motion for - ?: _ - DM:  DLC.  DLC:  _ move approval & let the ald finish.  DM:  Ok, MMW, u have a motion for a change - MMW:  Yeah, a motion for a change on the uh P2, 2nd to last column, it has uh MMW moved to go into Exec Ses due to land acq, 2nd Brust.  I believe it was (_someone coughs) (inverted?), wasn't it?  ?:  2nd it.  ?: _ - DM:  (With who?)?  MMW:  He made the 1st;  I 2nd'd it.  MMW:  Oh, ok.  DM:  So reverse that?  MW:  So we have just the reverse?  MMW:  Yes, I'm sure.  (So be it?).  DM:  Any other uh corrections or cmts?  All in favor of the motion to approve the mins as amended - (ayes, none heard opposed) - Motion carries.


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   7 of  28


Under Permits, we have approval of liquor licenses.  MW,  Did u need to - MW:  Um - DM:  give us a quick bkgd of this please.  MW:  Ok, um each yr, this is the time of yr that we renew all the liquor licenses.  Uh generally, I give a copy of this to a POL Lt. to see if he has any problems with any of these establishmts.  Um I know there may be one that uh I (don't?) know (if?) Mr Martin - we have a problem with one of the (older?) - maybe the managing ofcr but I'm not sure, that a managing ofcr have.  Is that in the back, their application back?  The biz u & I were talking about at (the mtg?). 


EM:  Oh, I shouldn'tve - shouldn't uh approve it then!  MW:  Ok.  EM:  That should be (LAW?)!  There's no application (for in there?).  MW:  Ok.  Well, no, I mean it'll be in here;  it's just that they were(n't?) (allowed to come in?) initially _ _ _ _ _preciate this.  They were (someone coughs) (under?) state approval.  If that one comes in, then I'll have a ques for u.  So yeah, I do, I just need - DM:  So approve the list & then if one particular - MW:  & if that one particular person - DM:  then we'll - MW:  then - DM:  (de?)nounce it.  MW:  we'll address it - DM:  Ok. (someone coughs)  MW:  (for?) correctness.  DM:  Do I have a motion to approve the liquor licenses - approval?  JW:  Move approval.  MMW?:  2nd. 


JW:  _ ques - ?:  Ques.  DM:  JW.  JW:  I guess Eric will probably have to answer the ques.  What is the max amt of permits we have in the city?  EM:  Uh it depends on what category.  If it's uh a restaurant with full liquor uh by the drink, there's an unlimited _ _ _ _ _ _.  If there's um a bar only, they're limited uh approved, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - MM:  Could the city atty PLEASE USE THE MICROPHONE?  JW:  The only reason the ques was asked it's just with all the new devs comin' into town & with the possibilities that I guess (they?) just didn't wanna LOCK anybody out that just wanna open up a new establishmt. 


DM:  MMW,  Did u have a ques?  MMW:  No, Mike might have.  DM:  MP this time.  MP:  Just one ques in line with JW's.  How many are allowed with the gas, gasoline stations?  EM:  Uh I think that's -  (pause) well, I, I'll, I'll get back to u. 


MP:  Ok.  (Rule out - finish then?)  Is the Mobil On-The-Run, that's the one at Big Bend & Dougherty Ferry that - what?  ?: _ _ _ _ - MP:  The one that's goin' on Vance Rd, does that region have liquor?  That's when I was wondering if there (needs?) - gonna be enough for them.  EM:  We, we haven't gotten an application for it, so I don't know.  I, I would ASSUME they would want to.  EM?:  Talk to MW _ ...(exchange tapes during which nothing was said)...


...DM:...Uh EM will check into that, see if any gasoline sta's are allowed.  Any other q/c on the approval of the liquor licenses?  DLC:  Yes, sir.  DM:  DLC.  DLC:  Uh send this, a copy of this was sent to the liquor (establishmt in MO?) - (claim?) (_people coughing)  deposit back on the POL Dept on this as to yae or nay on any of these or anything?  MW:  Uh I was wading thru all the ques's for an economic (equal value?).  ?: _ _ - MW:  I don't, I don't think he had (a ques?).  I'm not sure. 


DM:  Were there any negative cmts on any of these, Lt?  LtM:  Uh if there's one in ques or - MW:  Well that's - we're waitin' to see if this - if that comes (due?).  LtM:  If they('d all or don't?) come in & (someone coughs) (& apply or fight?) (this or us?), u can rent them a _ _ _.  ?: _ _ problem - LtM:   (There anything gained to it?).  MW:  Ok.  ?:   Drawings.  DM:  Ok.  Anyone else - any other ald?  Hrg none, all in favor of the motion to approve this, say (ayes, none heard opposed).  Motion carries. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  8 of  28


LtM, Did u get a chance to check the uh tailgate party request?  LtM:  Yes, I did.  DM:  For in or after your uh (items M?).  LtM:  Do u have any specific ques's?  DM:  But since the letter's here, I - er behind the other liquor, I just wanted to see - LtM?:  Uh - DM:  because the letter they claim that the liquor - LtM:  Liquor Control  - DM:  _ Liquor Control says it's ok as long as the city ok's it.  LtM:  Well, Liquor Control'll have to issue the special permit we'll have which will have some restrictions that they'll have to comply with.  Uh I'm - the POL Dept's prepared to enforce any restrictions that the state or the cnty or the city would put on 'em. 


As far as the actual PLAN, I don't really doubt it, so it'd be up to u.  DM:  Could we make it er would the city be allowed to put her on a temp basis, say after 2 parties it turns into a whatever, we can revoke it if - LtM:  Uh u could issue them a permit for 2 parties.   DM:  I mean if - say we just make it temp but after - LtM:  Liquor - DM:  maybe 2 - LtM:  Control - Liquor Control does it 2 different ways is my understanding.  Sometimes they issue it date by date & sometimes they can issue them (someone coughs) (one?) for all dages (!) so u could issue it date by date or u could issue it by - for all the (dages?).  Whether or not u can revoke it, that'll be up to them.  ?:  (Bummer?).  LtM:  Uh like - DM:  Since it's that close to a subdiv, I'm kind of leary about if there's a large # of people on pkg lot -


LtM:  Yeah, I really haven't seen any plan for where they're gonna put their pkg (in the ord?) - MMW:  That was - LtM:  It seemed like half way - MMW:  my ques.  LtM:  or designated areas or anything like that.  DM:  So I guess we - I guess the prudent thing to do'd be hold it over until they actually submit their plan 'cause we - I don't - it just says the dates here but doesn't really say exactly where they would be doing it - EM:  I'll, I, I - DM:  rather than calling a designated area.  EM:  U could go ahead &, & add stipulations.  I mean I, I think u WANT a designated area.  The city would WANT to designate an area - LtM:  U didn't - oh, u wanna TELL THEM where they can have it?  EM:  Right, &, & also keep it uh not only designated, but somehow controlled.


LtM:  Well, the Liquor Control will make them have it FENCED um with a controlled access. They'll have to designate how big the area is, who can come in & come out & about the times.  The one - the only area of concern that concerns me, the - uno it's a nice establishmt.  We don't really have any problems with them.  Uh generally, they coop with the POL.  Um so we don't, we don't have any problem with them but they do have limited pkg & even if they uh try to prepare for overflow pkg somewhere in a, in a distant place, sometimes people aren't always willing.  (I would that?) on their own & they look for pkg nearby & we have had some complaints about pkg in 'n adjoining uh dev - the, the condo's there. ?: _ _ - LtM:  Oh, who can enforce that?  The signs are there, so. 


DM:  Alright.  Sooo I guess - lookin' to see if we should wait until they - er should we - LtM:  U - DM:  say this is the designated area & tell them u're gonna have it as long as u stay here or - LtM:  Yeah, Liquor Control won't enter- entertain it to u.  DM:  & say they would require a fence?  Just like a 4' - LtM:  Right, some kind of barrier - a fence will - off area.  Typically on these temp things, it's temp fencing, const fencing or something like that.  DM:  MMW.


MMW:  Is there a way that we can get a, a, a quick list I guess of what Liquor Control's gonna require & pass them perhaps off to Tonya Biggs & see if she can formulate a little, little more uh cohesive PLAN & say uno u're gonna have to have the area fenced.  Where u gonna do this?  Where's the pkg gonna be?  Ask her a few very, kind of pointed ques's before we go approving this.  My, my other concern is the glass uh out in the pkg lot 'cause I've had some complaints from some people who do - jog & walk on the sidewalk - about a lot of broken glass & they're assuming it's uh Wings - it may not be but - LtM:  Liquor Control's gonna require them to designate an area, designate dates, times, anticipated attendance, let's say hrs rougherage.  I think that's it;  that's it & the only add'l thing, they're, they're not gonna ask 'em (_someone coughs_) (point?).  They're only concerened with the extra PRICE.  How many people are gonna be there, hrs of op, the exact dates & the exact designated area.  So u could put any other restrictions u wanted on there.  U could tell 'em uno no glass. 


DM:  Anything else, MMW er JW?  I just didn't wanna cut u off - MMW:  No, no, I'm, I'm done.  DM:  Ok.  JW:  YH, I was approached by the owner & uh she explained the same thing Scott was uh explaining about Liquor Control has pretty strict uh regimentation over how this works & uh I'll figure we ain't drinkin' on the pkg lot at all.  It's gonna be IN the designated area which I think is her - I call it the tent - but uno I'm not speaking - JW?:  Well (we could go or a wk ago?) -


LtM:  That's what they are requesting, is a special permit for a special designated area - whatever she designates.  JW:  Right, right - ?: _ - JW:  so it's not like u can just go out here & have this big blow-out - LtM:  No, it has to be - JW:  in the pkg lot!  LtM:  Right, it's gonna be roped off & designated.  She's gonna have a tent there & that's gonna be her designated area - DM:  It's that perm tent, right?  JW:  It's, it's built onto the side of the bldg.  I call it the tent;  it's not a tent - DM:  Isn't there drinking there already?  I don't know why - I don't understand what the - LtM:  She already has it in her garden.  JW:  I don't know (chuckle).  ?: _ _ -


JW:  I'm gonna move approval if she meets all the required restrictions & compliances with the city & it can be cancelled if there's a - DM:  & if it gets out of hand or - JW:  lot of problems with - DM: _ - JW:  with a lot of the neighborhood - DM:  That was my concern.  JW:  various - DM:  I said they have been neighbors to the city but if something happened where - JW:  That's what I - DM:  get a broken glass or somebody's celebrating too much _ -


JW:  I'm thinkin' it's not gonna be a big turnout but I might have to eat those words & there might be - parked up at YOUR house - (someone chuckles), walkin' down there  ?:  (Definitely?) high, who wouldn't be.  LtM:  Usually cooperates.  JW:  Yeah.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  JKB:  2nd.  DM:  q/c?  All in favor of the motion - (ayes - none heard opposed).  Ok, I guess (with?) the other list & she meets the criteria, see if they're celebratin' games up on the roof.  JW?:  (I'll run 2nd interference?).


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   9 of  28


TW,  Sorry I missed - JW?:  I don't want somebody to - DM:  u earlier.  ?:  have to (prove or approve?) this.  DM:  Did u wanna -  EM:  It's not as (complicated?) _ _ - DM:  give your portion at this time - the various (he stops) - EM?:  _ _ (& that means we're gonna have to ask them to change that law?).  JW?:  But the city's gotta pay for that.  EM?:  (That's?) (a or up?) (FRONT?)!  JW?:  (City?)?  EM?:  (They're gonna do it on) (the feds or the fence or defense?).


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   10 of   28


TW:  I just - really at this time, be happy to entertain any ques's but I don't uh have anything specific at this time.  JW:  Have a couple _ _ - DM:  JW. 


JW:  Just for uh clarification, I seen the mins of a mtg about the uh sidewalk goin' over the levee & I just wanted to have an update from u on that situation.  TW:  Well those - all those mins are very recent & uh as of today, uh any action requiremts were set on the COE to, to uh send the contractor.  So THAT's pretty kind info then because that (means?) just how - JW:  So we can - TW: _ _ _ - JW:  the project's proceeding as - TW:  Yeah, well, weather permitting.  JW:  Right. 

TW:  & everything's 'n outlined in those mins as far as what shifting & little bit of moving & there was some widening of the walk that was done. 


JW:  It's gonna - when the bridge is gonna - ?:  all _ - JW:  come?  TW:  Uh it's still on order.  Uh StL Cnty was the one that had their approve - the shop drawings 'cause it's in their ROW & they took quite a long time to do that.  & the contractor didn't wanna order the bridge till the shock rocks were approved!  So therefore, that did put that behind but I'd say that it's probably another 6 wks before the bridge will be in - as far as in StLouis. 


JW:  I know it's probably too late to change if it isn't, but was that bridge palced far enough away from the current roadway bridge that if they ever widen that, that it wouldn't have to wipe out that - TW:  Well, then, then it was laid-out kind of a mtg before I was involved - JW: Oh, ok.  TW:  but uh pre-PHWeis but uh it was all approved by StL Cnty every step of the way & I've got -


JW:  Widenemethits (!).  TW:  Yeah, it's their road!  So the answer is uh - JW:  Ok.  TW:  I don't know if  they're figurin' - JW:  Talk about - TW:  about (wanting or widening?) - JW:  (wanna?) get - TW:  the Vance Rd - JW:  gas.  TW:  but -  JWorMMW?:  They're not gonna get it.  MMW:  Can't do anything (about or without?) a flood gate there.  TW:  Right, that's - MMW:  Uno _ _ (JW chuckles) - TW:  that's quite a restriction 'cause we kind of looked at that, some - for some other reasons but (he stops) - JW?:  (Among - without u?)?  Tku.   DM:  Anyone else have ques's for TW?  Tku appreciate it.  TW:  Tku.


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   11 of  28


DM:  Have levee mtg uh notes here like a few contractor - DC says u not have (!) anything in addition to this but if there were ques's he'd be happy to entertain 'em.  No ques's, then we'll press on. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   12 of  28


?:  Caption DM:  Under Ords & Resolutions, we have BILL # 1815 - was this properly posted, MW?  MW:  Yes it was.  DM:  Please read it in caption form.  MW:  BILL #1815, Pord 1671, (ref Notes above).  DM:  wbp?  ?:  I'll move approve it.  DA:  2nd.  DM:  Been informed the devrs here, the atty, if they wish to speak or just wait & see what - if anyone has ques's on it. 


DLC:  I still have the pleasure & I have (_someone coughing_)  the last mtg - that is the pkg!  (pause)  Somebody better answer it.  Devr:  Yes, sir.  DM:  Step up to the podium please.  DLC:  I'm not tryin' to put u on the spot but on these - Devr:  Yes, sir.  DLC:  on the 2nd P it's talking about pkg.  Uh it says each unit shall contain 2 off-st pkg spaces with no pkg permitted on the street.  So if a man & wife - wouldn't have each have a car & where's everybody else gonna park?  Drvr:  Well sir, there's a 2-car gar with every unit & uh most of the driveways can accommodate uh - well, ALL of the driveways can account, can accommodate 2 cars & some can accommodate as many as 4 cars, so


DLC:  Ok, so actually u're looking - this is kind of a misprint shall we say?  It's, it's listing 2 pkg spaces per unit.  Actually, u're talking 2 - Devr:   EXT-  DLC:  possibly 4.  Devr:  Yes sir, 2 -  DLC:  2 interior, 2 - Devr:   Yes sir.  DLC:  2 gar - Devr:  Yes sir, a MINIMUM of 2;  some of the driveways can handle up to 4.  DLC:  Oh, ok - Devr:  So there'll be NO on-st pkg, sir. 


DLC:  Is there some - I guess we can just let it go (before or be - for?) the bid,  just so long as there's an understanding.  I wasn't thinking about wanna uno - what I'm - I'm thinkin' about somebody wantin' to buy it & uno, if a man & wife moved in & (they have their or the other?) kids go (by or buy?) & then & nobody can park any place but other than the driveway - all they do is drivin' around!  ?: _ _ -


Devr:  Yes sir, I understand.  DLC:  U have released a harging (!) up there tho - Devr:  Yes sir.  DLC:  if one of 'em get into a situation where there's no pkg, (d.s. marry??) & where there isn't - have ('em quit) - that's all driveway-inis (chuckling).


MMW:  YH.  DM:  MMW.  MMW:  Along the same lines, what, what if there's to be a social gathering up there of some kind where u would have more than 4 cars?  Devr:  Well all of the uh, all the of our potential buyers would uno - they purchase the prop subject to our, our restrictions & obviously the ords of City VP.  So they'll be - it'll be disclosed to them up front;  there will be no on-st pkg.  & it's been my experience - I've built over 100 of these units over the past 5 yrs & they're generally uno - I'd say 50% of them will just be uno uh summer homes for folks that, that spend about half their time uno in other places in the country, so pkg's never been an issue for me before. 


?:  (Yeah?) right!  AP?:  (Humph?) - DM:  MP.  MP:  One quick ques - Is that gonna be a private st or - Devr:  Yes sir.  MP:  So it's gonna be a gated cmty?  Devr:  It will not be gated, um at least I don't plan on putting a gate on it.  Of course the, the residents uh - I'll be the trustee until we get down to - until I sell the last couple of units & then uno the residents would have uh the option to uno I guess request that of the city but it's not planned to be a gated cmty at this point in time.  MP:  Tku, YH.  DM:  Anyone else have ques's?  Ok, tku sir.  Devr:  Tku, sir. 


DLC?:  Do u have a motion on it?  MW:  Yes.  AP?:  (Humph?) - DM:  Any other q/c on the uh ord, Pord?  Hrg none, all in favor of the ord, say - (ayes - none heard opposed)  Is there a motion for a 2nd reading  tonight?  JW?:  Move for a 2nd reading.  MMW:  2nd.  DM:  All in favor, say - ?:  (Approve?) the reading.  - (ayes, none heard opposed)  DM:  MW, read it in caption form please.  MW:  BILL # 1815, POrd 1671, (ref Notes above)  DM: wbp?  DA?:  Move approval.  MMW:  2nd.  DM:  q/c?  Hrg none, roll call (all present, yes) - MW:  7 yes.  DM:  Tku.  Devr:  Tku very much.  DM:  Motion carries becomes an ord, tku. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   13 of  28


Next we have BILL # 1816 - was this properly posted, MW?  MW:  Yes it was.  DM:  Please read it in caption form.  MW:  BILL# 1816, Pord uh 1672, (ref Notes above).  DM:  wbp? JW:  Move approval.  MMW:  2nd.  DM:  q/c?  DLC:  Yes sir.  DM:  DLC. 


DLC:  As I said before, the #'s don't add up & I encourage u to not approve increasing the comm by another 7 on 100.  I think straight across the bd, 57 would be sufficient.  We're actually talking about a total increase of assessed valuation of $7M & I think if we keep our tax rate where it's at or maybe even LOWER, I think we can run our budget very well with it.  I do not see any need for raising comm 7 more.  What about the biz in VP - (without it being?) an add'l  7 on their personal prop er r.e.


DM:  I recall plenty of things that we had to take out of the budget this yr because we, we're not flush with money, we're not bankrupt but we're certainly not - your (splitting?) streets & repairin' sewers.  Just playing devil's advocate, I'm not necessarily - DLC:  YH, those #'s I - DM:  pushing - DLC:  came - DM:  for that.  DLC:  up with, the 317K we got in the budget comes out of the res r.e. & no mention in the budget of the 50K that we anticipated getting from the comm.  So u just cannot see the need or a reason to increase the comm by another 7/100.  DM:  Ok.  MMW, Did u ask for the floor? 


MMW:  Uh like we were talking before, I believe that if u do the, do the math again & u will realize that u're only taking 92% of that res # because u have to pay the collector as well as pay the collector on your uh comm rate.  Um I believe this adjustmt needs to be done so that we fall in budget because we projected a certain amt, 317, & I believe that these adjustmts were - the adjustmt could be made so that we would remain in balance. 


JW:  YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  Correct me if I'm uh wrong, but doesn't our city auditor, Mr Croghan, gives us these uh #'s?  EM:  Copy of ('em both?).  DM:  That's (why or the way?) he (does it or doesn't?)?  EM:  No, the, these come from the uh StL Cnty & then we, we have to give those to the State Auditor's ofc.  & the State Auditor's ofc determines on whether or not the city ROLLS BACK it's, it's current assessed - us {sic & not U.S.} tax levies, depending on assessed value. 


IF u have the same or greater assessed value, u - due to reassessmt, u can't uh profit basically, simply because of reassessmt - normally, gettin' more money from assessed values if there's new const;  otherwise u'd have to ROLL back your, your taxes.  &, & we have a tax rate ceiling of, I, I believe it's 62 for res & I THINK this yr was 88 for uh comm which was - went UP from 81  to 88.  It, it took us 7% er 7 increase UP because we had a decrease in, in the assessed valuation, so the, the constitutional formula ALLOWS u to tax more to make up for that difference.  So u could tax up to 88 by LAW for comm, res up to 60 - I think it's 66.  So I mean does that sound like it's (people coughing_) the - & it's all - this is, the, the State Auditor certifies that, that it's _ _when it comes time. 


JW:  & I guess what - do uno what the uh school dist tax is per 100 & the fire dist?  EM:  They, they rolled back this yr.  I think it's like 498.  Does that sound - MMW?:  (I know?) yeah.  EM:  feasible?!  ?:  Fine with me!  EM:  I, I, I think they're below 5 this yr.  Uh was it $1.19 fer fire?  MW:  I don't remember & I'm not sure but that sounds about right.  


EM:  I think that's right &, & I thing maya {sic} pulled that.  See both the school dist & the fire dist, as, as uno, they're different assessed values & THEY INCREASED!  Uh, uh the, the school dist had a, a fairly DRAMATIC increase.  I don't know why we DECREASED in comm (at or in?) this (time or town?).  It's, it's like 15%  IF u took your comm & I've got NO explanation whatsoever.


MP:  YH.  DM:  MP.  MP:  Could I make a motion to amend BILL 1816?  DM:  Know {sic} that motion be?  MP:  To keep everything at 57 across the bd - not (to spend?).   DLC:  I'll 2nd that.  DM:  The uh motion's made to amend - I guess all the #'s to 57.  Any q/c?  DA: Yes YH.  DM:  DA.


DA:  Um I attended to this.  It's been assn mtg um earlier um, uh ended last wk & this issue was discussed & the bizmen assn, they discussed several options that the city consider & one of the requests for it - I felt there was some uh validity to some of their um suggestions but at the same time um certainly encourage them to come fwd to this bd & share those ideas with this bd.  Um which tonight would've been the night to do that um & I, I see uno no um, um no one here to speak on that.  & some of the things they suggested, uno raise their biz licenses & those items. 


We're talkin' about $5K um increase total for the biz base we have here.  Um so again, that to me, is not a substantial amt of money.  Um one thing to keep in mind that the amt of tax that these bizs are um payin' is based upon their assessmts.  They have the right just as any um resident would have if they think their assessmt is too high, to go then & ask that they be lowered.  & I would have to imagine if we could or would research it, there have been bizs that have had their - have appealed their assessmts, thus relieving themselves of um some taxes.  So they'll still have that right um to do that.  & again, I - if I thought this was gonna be detrimental to the bizs in VP I think that I would support keeping it at the 57;  however, I, I CANNOT & if we look at what City VP has now, if we were just bubbling over with money, then I would say we're being greedy.  But the fact that we COULD charge 84  to our residents & to our bizs, I think proves that we are willing & have been working with um uno our bizs for quite some time & we'll probably continue to do that.  Tku.


DM:  Any other q/c?  Hrg none, all in favor of the motion to make all the rates 57  instead of the proposed #'s, say - (some of each)  Roll call - (Yes:  DLC, MP.  No:  DA, JKB, RH, JW, MMW.)

(at 1st, MP said no, then yes & apologized twice)  MW:  Looks like uh 2 yes's & _ _ _ if I'da known!  DM:  Motion to amend uh fails. 


Back to the main motion - are there any q/c?  Hrg none, all in favor of the motion, say - (some of each)  Roll call (Yes:  DA, JKB, RH, JW, MMW.  No:  DLC, MP.)  MW:  5 yes, 2 no.  DM:  Motion for a 2nd reading tonight?  MMW:  So moved.  DA:  2nd.  DM:  All in favor, say - (MP heard opposed)  DM:  Roll call -  (Yes:  DLC, MP.  No:  DA, JKB, RH, JW, MMW.)  MW:  5 yes, 2 no.  DM:  Motion carries. 


MW, Could u please read it in caption form?  MW:  BILL# 1816, Pord 1672, (ref Notes above).  DM:  wbp? JW:  Move approval.  MMW:  2nd.  DM:  Any q/c?  Hrg none, roll call -  (Yes:  DA, JKB, RH, DLC, JW, MMW.  No:  MP.)  MW:  6 yes, 1 no.  MP:  I'm not changing the mins for - in NO way?).  ?:  Guess (again or they can?).  DM:  The motion carries. 


JW:  Russ didn't even.  MP?:   _ (strange noises) _  - ?:  & that wasn't even _ - DM:  DLC didn't (& so?) _ _ decision's made so we reflected it _ _ _ _ _ (pause) 'cause this is just - is this part of PKS - (just?) submit the approval or just to avoid the (futuristic?) - EM?:  Exactly, automatically withdrawn.  


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec   14 of  28


DM:  Ok, last mtg we placed this in cmte so if somebody - maybe DLC'll (commit?) - ?:  Son of a bit!  (JW? chuckles)  DM:  DLC wanted to discuss it tonight so if there's a motion to bring it out of cmte, otherwise it'll stay in LEG.  DLC:  The motion's made out of cmte.  Let's discuss it this evening.  DM:  Is there - ?:  2nd.  DM:  a 2nd?  MP:  QUES!  MW:  Who, who 2nd that?  Was that not - ?:  (whisper) (I'm not going?) _ _ _.


DM:  MP.  MP:  Who auth'd this to come out & be put in the pkt?  DM:  I guess I'll take credit for it.  MP:  So what's the use of us havin' any cmtes if, if u're just gonna do this?  DM:  Well, the bd's voting to bring it out of cmte, so it's - if the bd votes that, then that's the bd's pleasure;  if not, then if the bd voted NOT - if this fails, then we'll leave it in cmte for the next bd mtg here - until the bd decides to bring it back.


MMW:  YH.  DM:  Bd has the uh I guess option to bring it outta cmte - if they worried about waiting too long & devrs then maybe think we're not int'd or we just - some people wanted to see what int there is in our town to be dev'd.  MMW.  ?:  Tku.


MMW:  Um I mean I'm not even sure it should've been placed in LEG in the 1st place.  I don't think there's gonna be any legislated.  There's not gonna be an ord that's wrong about (ink pick would?!) uno perhaps if it was gonna be in ANY cmte at ALL, um ECG Cmte might want to take a look at it - ?:  Today?  MP:  for what it's worth. 


DA:  YH, on the um argumt of bringing it out of cmte, I 1st wanna say that there are a LOT of residents of MY ward that, both for & against, have put their LIVES on hold & are waiting for some type of answer whether it be for or against.  I think he deserves that the city move as quickly either approving or disapproving A PLAN & the 1st step will be to do this, to move this fwd.  So um at, at this point I think it is a right thing to do, to at least SEE exactly WHAT um may be out there so that we can as quickly as possible, make a decision yes or no & THEN decide what we're gonna do with our own lives.  Tku. 


MP:  YH, a 2nd time around.  DM:  MP.  MP:  It's not that I'm against redev but I am FOR redev in City VP.  But I'm goin' back to treatin' everybody FAIRLY uno.  Who is gonna go thru there & word this, this PLAN to send out for proposals?  & word it right?  Like uno I'll give u one, one instance - 1st P, it says the levee would provides 500-yr flood protection altho the levee itself is only CERTIFIED to the hundred-yr level.  When did our levee get certified & if it did, where's the papers? 


DM:  That is not certified at this time.  MP:  So why does it SAY certified?!  Why does it SAY 500-yr in there?!  & then u, u wanna talk about more, how much more do u wanna pay PGAV to work on the SAME contract?!  DM:  Well the motion - MP:  Here's another - ok, the motion is to bring it out - that's fine.  Then I'll bring all this up then.  DM:  Any other ques's on the motion to bring it outta cmte back to the bd buckle?  All in favor of the motion to bring it outta cmte, say - (ayes - none heard opposed)  Ok, MP, u have the floor. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  15 of  28


MP:  Ok.  There is a few ques's like the hundred-yr levee, yr level - they've said it's certified.  Who says it's certified?  PGAV?  & if so, do the people not KNOW that it's certified?  Everybody else thinks it's not certified.  So why wouldn't 500-yr be in there? 


DM:  I do not know.  It's a good ques's to ask PGAV 'cause if we put something in here, as u said it's wrong then they (he stops) - MMW?:  _ right now _ _ _ _ this was your (property?).  MP:  That, that's fine.  I don't - & if, if u read the mins of the last mtg, DLC made a motion to remove all TIF - ?:  (again we voted?) -  MP:  THAT'S NOT removed. 


U had promised the people at a school mtg to put a resolution with this that it - whatever devr didn't have 98% or more - u wouldn't use E.D.  THAT'S NOT in here.  & u all just wanna just throw this out like this!  ?:  & we'll -


DM:  If we send this out - 'course I would not uh wanna see these something says certified at this time since it isn't, but we're - my thoughts were to get it out so that all potential devrs then & look at this, they'll do it & then anybody int'd would submit a proposal to the city so that the P&Z can look at it & other citizens look at it & then come to the (for once or who wants?) - gone thru P&Z, well, we'll come back to the bd if there's been a - something there that's favorable to the city, throw it out;  we could amend it, add whatever we feel like, if things should be modified or there & then once we do that, then go to see if the devr would be willing to go fwd with the modified version. 


I said I doubt if somebody would submit on the 1st time exactly what the city would want.  That's part of what the give & take of negotiations would be about.  But if the bd's not ready at this time 'cause u bring up 2 valid points here about when the levee - hundred-yr or 500-yr discussion here.  There's potentially other things in there too that the city could be - I guess possibly liable for if we try to advertise one thing it's - & it's - that's even longer.  Something that's uh that's not there.


MP:  But & then another thing, if we, if we leave this the way it is & send it out & then whatever devrs come in & they, they do their presentation, then all of a sudden we start takin' this, this, this & this, is it fair to that devr? 


DM:  So if we send out this way & then tell 'em, oh, by the way we don't want TIF - is that what u're saying?  MP:  Well, according to - DM:  Or whatever the item would be we dont' want - MP:  Well, according to the mins of the last mtg, TIF is already OUT of there! 


Ok, maybe u don't - u go, u go back to PGAV's contract, there's $7K to do this.  How many $7K are we gonna pay 'em to do the same contract?  'cause if u looked in that - in the bills, there's already a - I think it's $7,250 bill from them?  Where's the bill & what's the breakdown of what they do already?  ?:  It's already in your pkt.  MP:  It's not in there.


MW:  (Once we're or Ones were?) decided _ _ _ _ - ?:  (How do uno we haven't had a mtg?)?  DM:  We'll have Mrs uh Laufer follow it up;  get a copy to u.  Well, all the ald, not just u.  EM.


EM:  If quik uh - MP is correct, it, it should say uh undertook the const of a new flood control levee which provides 100-yr flood protection with 3' of freeboard period.  Uh &, & everybody's right, obviously it's not certified because it's not;  been officially completed & as-builts haven't been submitted to, to FEMA yet.  That's what is should say, it's _ - 


DA:  Then I would make the motion to amend it to that effect.  MMW:  2nd.  ?:  YH.  MW:  _ wanted to make the main heading - EM:  Bottom P1.  DM?:  One of 'em said - EM:  Bottom parag.  ?:  Is this the one (_someone coughs_) _ _ _ - ?:  Gotcha.  ?:  (That's what u got?)_ _ _ - MMW?:  I'm not gonna (lie?) - DM:  So there's been a motion to amend, take out the 500-yr level & u can add in 3' of freeboard.  Any q/c on the motion to amend?  JKB:  YH.  DM:  JKB. 


JKB:  Has it been certified as a 100-yr flood levee yet?  DM:  Not to my knowledge.  JKB:  Then how have I always did anything (!) till it's certified.   EM:  Well, is - it's, it's a 100-yr levee - it's designed (woven or to open?).  He knows we're - JKB:  So it's not certified?  EM:  No, but we're not saying it's certified in, in _ _ -


JKB:  So (if?) it was certified our tax - I mean our insurance would drop?  EM:  That's correct.  AP:  Amen.  EM:  What we're saying in there, it's, it's - ?: _ _ - EM:  provides a hundred-yr flood protection with 3' of freeboard. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  16 of  28


DM:  So is - DA, is that part of your motion?  Took out certified - DA:  Yes, yes it is.  DM:  So say designed to a hundred-yr level what with FEMA's working on this as I told u that up - er the COE is supposed to be working with FEMA to get - ?: _ _ - DM:  this certified to get the flood insurance lowered.  In the meanwhile, we're talking about it being designed to a hundred-yr level so we can get something on the way here but hopeful devrs coming in.  JKB,  Do u have anything else?  JKB:  No, YH.  DM:  Ok, any other cmts from the - DA:  Yes, YH.  DM:  DA. 


DA:  THIS proposal that we're um to vote on this evening, does NOTHING but ask the - uno a GROUP of devrs, not just one devr, if there's int um 'n redevelop it.  Um then City VP at that point, we can do ANYTHING they desire within the scope of this or do NOTHING.  What's important to understand is that there a lot of the people here, including myself, who have lived in VP for a long time & have lived thru the uno the, the floods that have come fwd & the um, um mix of um commercialism here within the valley & we've done that uno willingly. 


What this plan also ALLOWS tho is for uno really the people to make THEIR decision because this plan was approved by the city.  The plan that follows from this, the individual devrs must show the majority of prop they believe um uno, um under contract before the city could do this.  So in essence, those residents WILL get to decide this matter um on whether this happens or does not.  The bd is just saying it would like to know what is available & what options we have out there.  Tku.


MP:  YH.  DM:  MP.  MP:  I, I guess I'd like DA to clarify what he's (sayin' or seein'?).  I must be readin' a different paper than he's readin'.  If this passes, this is a proposal to have 'em send that, THEIR plan on what they would like to do.  It's NOT a maybe, I might like to, I wish I could;  THAT's what they wanna do.  MMW:  Who?  Who to send back what (project?)? 


MP:  WHOever it goes out to.  I, I'm just tyrin' to get it to be treated fairly.  If u don't want it, u don't wanna be treated fairly, then vote for it!  But the people have a right to be treated fairly.  AP:  Ah-AMEN!  MP:  Uno u, u - that's why I think this should still be in LEG to discuss it WORD FOR WORD, ITEM BY ITEM!  DM:  MMW.


MMW:  I, I, I'm with DA.  I think it's critical that we begin to move fwd on this.  We're, we're looking to get MANY, hopefully (chuckle) as many as we can, plans on what to do with 'em, what to look at.  We don't even KNOW what's - what we can say, oh we wanna do this, we wanna do that, we wanna do that, but this is being realistic.  We need to, to, to get some real plans from real devrs - we know what can ACTUALLY be done & what can WORK down here & that's really I think all we're lookin' to do is take this 1st step & say, hey, let's see what's out there.  & I think that in order to, to, to get as much as we can, we need to cast a very WIDE net;  we should keep things very GENERAL & I agree with your, your catch there on the levee thing but I think  we shoulda read - ?:  In (his or this?) mtg?  MMW:  this over.  I shoulda caught that!  I've already read it over a couple times & didn't catch that. 


MP:  They've only had it 3 months now.  (a couple aud chuckles)  DLC:  Call for a vote on the motion.  JW:  Have a mtg so - EM:  All of u could.  JW:  we can vote.  DLC:  The motion's just for the - amend the radios (!) 1st P (about?) - DM:  All in favor of the motion to amend from the 500-yr level & certified to 3' of freeberg, freeboard, say aye. (ayes)  That did sound - all opposed (none heard) - Motion carries.  ?: _ _ - DM:  Back to the main motion, any further discussion?  DLC:  Yes, sir.  DM:  DLC.


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  17 of  28


DLC:  Uh in the last bd mtg, I submitted a motion to remove the TIF from the proposal.  I'd like to make a motion today to put it BACK in the proposal.  There's about uh 5 different programs that the devrs can use & one of 'em IS a TIF.  I think look, see what he's got, see what that does & maybe that might be the best, who knows!  By the time we get it back from the devrs, we don't know which way we're going to go so let's leave all the tools out there for them to work with.  Then perhaps we can move (this thing or the same?).  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  MMW:  2nd.  MP:  QUES.  DM:  MP.  


MP:  Has the school or fire dist been brought into any of this discussion about any of this?   DM:  I did talk to uh Laura Kinder today & she said that the school's position is that they're opposed to TIF.  I did explain I guess kind of along the lines what DLC said, is that depends - I guess, we don't have any idea of what somebody's gonna OFFER to us that we might say in exchange for a TIF on one particular area, they might build a new city hall or maybe - I don't know - something to add to the school or &/or the school & the city. 


There is a large area down here in the lower part of town that is NOT covered by the TIF (earling?) so that might be the area that they would seek out.  So I think by taking out TIF at this time, we would not be giving the wrong signals.  So even tho the school's opposed to it, they - if there's something we could try to work in concert I guess with the school & fire dept to get this to be benefit - beneficial for all 3 such as we felt with Valcour Printing yrs ago.  When they were gonna move out of town, we got them to move up on the hill.  It used to be a roller skating rink, plus they brought another biz in so I think that worked out pretty well.  So until we see some hard facts of what we're being offered I guess it's hard to just talk in thousands of possibilities right now - what if this & what if that, so.  EM has something (_some noise_) (in his life?) we -


EM:  & I've also spoken with the uh pres of the school bd.  Ah as uno, a TIF really has several components.  It captures um not only prop tax, but it also captures enhanced sales tax & u can have one component without the other.   Uh & what, what I talked to about uh the, the possibility of simply sales tax ta, to uh, the, the pres of the school bd & he applauded that effort of course uh the, the school gets NO funds from - derived from sales taxes.  Um school is totally prop-tax based with city enhancemts (uh or of?) uh - EM?: _ _ _ - EM:  That's a, a, a, another possiblity that that TIF MIGHT be there because sales tax, by FAR & away, is, is the biggest uh income stream in a uh a TIF;  well, well over a (bucket of chances?). 


MP:  YH.  DM:  U still have the floor.  MP:  While we're talkin' on it, in that Chapter 353, does that not take EVERYTHING & gives it BACK TO THE DEVR & the city & fire dist & the schools get nothing?  EM:  Nnnno!  MP?:  (Uh could u?) -


EM:  A 353 - all these are NEGOTIATED - a 3 foot of - 353 does is, put it in, in a, a NOT FOR PROFIT 3rd party;  it's tax exempt.  & as part of the process - &, & the perfect example is the one that the mayor just indicated - was Valcour Printing.  & in the Valcour Printing, it was done as a 353 which is tax abatemts over a 20-yr period, but they do & it moves. 


They, they pay the fire dist, school dist, city & library dist what we would have otherwise gotten had there NOT been a uh, a 353 designation TOGETHER with a, a %age increase every 5 yrs, reflecting what the assessed value increase is.  So ah ALL these are, are subject to NEGOTIATION as far as (someone coughs) a %age - ?: _ _ - EM:  of taxes, paybacks & anything else - DM?:  even on the trash pick up.  MW:  I'll be darn if they eat that.  MP?:  Ok.  Do I still have the floor?  DM:  Yes u do.  


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  18 of  28  


MP:  & now the E.D., are u gonna add in there the 98% that u told the people at the mtg?  DM:  I think the uh large - forget how it says in the language about not using it as a broad scale - uh will not be used within the proposal area for large res land assemblages.  In other words we're not just gonna go in & buy a whole 4 blocks thru E.D. but if - I think the # 20 sticks in my mind - say 18 out of 20 have agreed to sell & the other 2 are - especially if they're not the best - I guess something a little bit more (over?) um scale I guess - & then we would - it might be prudent to go ahead & use E.D. if there's just 2 remaining if it's deemed the best.  But I don't know if really 98 or - is a really fair # - if it's - comes in at 96.5, we could bring it down a %age - MP?:  _ - DM:  rather than using a specific # if we're gonna use it - not use it on a large scale, I think it's the best way at this time.  _ _ -


DLC?:  Mr Mayor, There's still a motion on the floor in regards to the TIF.  Let's finish that before we get in the E.D.  DM:  All in favor of the motin to add TIF back into the proposal, say - (some each).  Roll call - (Yes:  DA, RH, DLC, JW, MMW.   No:  JKB, MP.)  MW:  5 yes, 2 no's.  DM:  Ok, MP, u have the floor for E.D.


MP:  So what u're sayin', u don't wanna put the 98% like u told the people?...(exchange tapes)...

DM:...I guess without fully thinking thru it here with all these #'s, so if u wanna say I was mistaken or call me a liar, u're at - it's up to u.  MP:  Well, I'm not gonna call u neither.  I'm just trying - DM:  Ok.  MP:  to get this worked this out so we can get on with this.  MMW?:  __ _ - MP:  That's true.   MMW?:  (Axe or no it?).   DM:  I hope u don't think it's a massacre tryin' to get this where - AP?:  Some of 'em - DM:  people can - AP?:  said in the school.  DM:  submit things to the city.  1st time I guess tryin' to come up - if we knew right now where that crystal ball would go with specific #'s, it'd be quite easy to know who's gonna come in with what & make it whatever % on all the different things & - ?:  _ _ - DM:  exactly what the - ?: _ _ - DM:  Bd would - tax rate would be & (pause) -


JW:  YH.  DM:  MP,  Do u have anythng else before - MP:  Not right now - DM: I (turn back now?)?   MP:  tku, YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  Just for correction - I'm not tryin' to help the mayor out or anything but uh - (people mumble & chuckle) - he's, he's left u on thin -  DM:  See, see who be - tks, Jeff.   JW:  (laughing w/others) _.  ?: _ - DM:  I may be - go down with the sinking ship - JW:  I don't think the liability is on the mayor's shoulders.  He can say uh he'd allow 50% & I believe it's, it's not - it's the Bd's choice & uno u coulda told everybody it had to be - ?:  Yeah.  JW:  100% & then uno the Bd would - 2 AP's:  He did!   JW:  have to make the recommendation.  AP:  Oh, they did(n't?) -  AP:  Yeah, he did.  DM:  (2 light bouncing gavels)  Order please.  AP:  Humph.  JW:  Uno it's not, it's not a bearing issue - sent u folder on it.  


DA:  YH, on a pointed - ?: _ - DA:  thing _ - DM:  DA.  DA:  Yes, on the E.D., passage of this resolution does not give a blanket order for E.D.  Again, just as with the levee, E.D. has to be brought up on a case-by-case basis - DM:  Tku.  DA:  to this Bd & the Bd must review at that time um whether it is proper or not.  & again I hope we get the type of devrs that will NOT NEED to do that because everybody should be paid EQUALLY for what their prop is worth;  & again, the Bd individually will have to make that decision - AP:  & we'll help 'em.   DA:  & hopefully - AP:  Yeah.  DA:  that does not have to happen. Tku. 


DM:  Any other q/c?  DLC:  Yes sir.  Is there a motion on the floor in regards to it?  DM:  Yes there is.  DLC:  & it - is - MMW?:  Is there?  DLC:  the motion still good?  MW:  I, I think the last one I have - DM:  What was - yeah, go ahead _.  MW:  Well, 1st - uno I don't think I did one originally because I have, I have that DA moved to amend the hundred-yr uh flood protection.  I had that motion & then - DLC:  There's no motion - MW:  I have - DLC:  on the E.D. then?  MW:  Right.  DM:  I guess it was just to bring it outta cmte so I - MW:  Right.  DM:  I apologize.  I was - DLC:  YH,  I'd like - MP:  YH, I got a couple more ques's.  DLC:  While I still have the floor I'd like to be able to - like to leave the proposal the way it is, the way it states about the E.D. & let's do it the way it's written & uh I think that's probably the best bet.  That's what we did with the levee & that's what we're gonna have to, have to do to have any uh dev down here. 


AldorAP?:  Ask for public input.  DM:  So is your motion to be to accept the resolution with the only change being the uh 500-yr protection cmt?  The hundred-yr - ?: _ _ - DM:  we'll change that thru the motion (aud mumblings) so that - since the TIF is in it - DLC:  So u're takin' - (aud mumblings)  DM: _ _ - DLC:  (out?) again.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  MMW:  2nd.  AP:  I know it.  MP:  QUES.  DM:  MP. 


MP:  So DLC is just wantin' to pass it just the way it is other than the couple little changes in there?  & that's including the 5 - the $7K uh price from PGAV?  DM:  Yes he is.  MP:  Ok, well then I got a couple more ques's.  If u get back in there a little bit where it says that uh this, whoever the devr could possibly be, they're gonna put up with an est'd amt of $50K to pay for whatever?  How much has the city paid already for all this for our atty fees to meet with the different devrs & back & forth with PGAV & (pause) -


EM:  This atty hasn't met whichever devrs but um I, I believe - MP:  WAIT, u just said u didn't even know devrs, did I hear u?   EM:  U said different devrs.  MP:  Alright, WITH (a or the?) DEVR - I'll rephrase that!  EM:  Tku, umm I, I - MP:  DID U OR DID U NOT?  EM:  Yes!  MP:  Ok.  EM:  I would say - AP?:  How many have u met?  EM:  Less than a thousand - so far.  MP:  Less than a thousand?!  EM?:  (Right?).  ?:  I don't believe that.


MP:  Ok.  Does that include the 3 hrs u charged to the city for the mtg, that school mtg?  EM:  Probably, it was $270.  MP:  & the 3 hrs that u meet with the devr?  EM:  I didn't meet with the devr for 3 hrs (& up to?) for about uh - MP:  2.7 to be exact.  EM:  I don't think that's _.  Uh I met with PGAV!  doing something for - WHATEVER -  I, I don't know - whatever my bill I've sent.  MP:  So u don't know how u do your own billing!  I won't pick on one;  I'm gonna pick on everybody now.  ?:  U (can?) - ?: _ -


?:  NO, I - ?: _ - ?:  I JUST - ?: _ - ?:  I JUST DIDN'T WANT A TIF!  ?:  _ point - MP?:  NOW that we're -  EM:  _ amt spent.  MP:    U're lyin' to the people!   AP: (Right?).  MP:  2.7 hrs!  mtg with Sansone, 4/28.  EM:  Ok.  MP:  Ok, so u only got a K$ in there, what about all of the uh back & forth with uh PGAV?  EM:  Well anyway, we're, we're at 6 hrs &, & that's uh - MP:  Ok.  EM:  540 hou- uh $540.  ?:  U're right.  ?: Ok.  MP:  I think that should be (raised or erased?) - if that's the case.  (8-sec silence)


DM:  MMW, U have the floor.  MMW:  Yeah, I think that that's sort of like an ernest money deposit if I'm not mistaken.  I think that when we go to work thru the final uh PLAN if there even IS one that we do accept in the end.  I believe that our intentions are to recover much of the cost for PGAV ah as - EM:  Typ-  MMW:  well as the -


EM:  Typically what's done, if, if, IF this thing goes & follows the normal course, bonds are issued & when u, when u do - when u set the bond u have a Cost Divisions Acct &, & it's the Cost of Issuance Acct as well as stuff that's recaptured;  go back &, &, & acct for it & if, if it's recaptured out of that particular (uh point?).  MMW:  So if we don't really move fwd, then we - EM:  U, u eat it (at that pass?).  MMW:  Ok, so it's important that we (know or don't?)EM:  That's right. 


MP:  YH,  Do I still have the floor?  DM:  Anyone else before we - DLC:  I have a, a cmt - of something - I'm new - we're bringin' it.  DM:  Anyone else 1st time around er before DLC & then MP.  Ok, DLC u have the floor.


DLC:  Uh the MO Municipal League is havin' their - havin' a mtg next month;  I'm planning on going.  I hope some of the other ald are planning on going.  Uh they're gonna cover these 5 different issues of financing these devsUh I've looked thru the state statutues, uh to me it's like reading Greek!  Hopefully going to the mtg, maybe they'll make it a little bit clearer & we've got an understanding better.  When we do get proposals back from these devrs, perhaps I'll understand more what they're talking about 'n how the plans - who this works.  So I intend to go & I hope some of the other ald go too & get the info which is available.  Tku. (aud mumblings)


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  19 of  28


DM:  MP.  MP:  Um on that last P in this proposal, are u changing the date?  'cause it says uh - MMW?:  What is it Sept?   MP:  Proposals must be rcv'd in the ofc no later than 9/2/05 at 3pm.  So PGAV is gonna be able to get this all - DM:  Yeah, it should be worded - MP:  reworded & redone & - DLC?:  We oughta change the date.  DM:  It should be 9/30.  MMW:  Make a motion to change - AP:  That's not enough.  MMW:  the acceptance date er the last date of acceptance for proposals from 9/2 to 9/30.  DM:  Is there a 2nd?  DA:  2nd.  DM:  All in favor - DLC:  I have a ques before we move.  DM:  DLC. 


DLC:  It'd have to be an adequate amt of time;  u're only talking a little over a month.  I think they was talking before of 60 to 90 days & I think instead of - best extend that a little bit longer & that gives 'em an ofc time to get the proposals together.  I think _  - ?: _ _ - DLC:  _  (worries?) is rushin' it too much.  I would - ?:  (Strike that motion?) - DLC:  recommend the possibility of Oct or Nov before we get the proposals back.  AldorAP?:  Most people _ _ _ - DLC:  Could the maker of the motion _ _ _ .


MMW:  Ok, _ that's - MP?:  It's (against an issue?) now.   EM:  Well, before, it was - before it wanted - I mean this draft u're looking at is 4/3, 8/1 - MMW?:  8/1.  EM:  & they have to 9/2, turn on a date.  Maybe 45 days does sound a little more reasonable than(the duringe {sic}.  MMW:  Yeah, I think 60 days sounds more reasonable.  So stick with - change uh - amend my motion to 60 days from the date the letter goes out.  DA:  2nd agrees.  DM:  Any q/c?  All in favor of the motion to amend, say - (ayes - none heard opposed). 


Back to the main motion.  DA:  YH, on the 1st time around on the main motion, earlier on one of the amendmts, I had mentioned that THIS proposal bein' passed, mandates that the devr that is - has been chosen by the city, before they are chosen, must demo that they've got the overwhelming majority of the props um legally um contracted or, or legally obtained which again, if the residents don't wanna sign & don't wanna do it, it CAN'T happen.  However, if the majority of residents exercise THEIR RIGHT 'n their decision & sign on with a devr um chosen by the city, then this can move fwd;  if not, it's still in the hands of the residents.  But again, it's um - ?:  Shi_.   DA:  what we're doing is, GIVING every individual prop owner the right to exercise THEIR uno their right to choose on this number.  The city is just givin' a, a tool to bring in options.  Tku.


MP:  YH,  Could I speak on that (_someone coughing_)?  DM:  MP.  MP:  DA was talkin' about the city is gonna chose the devr that shows that they have the majority of the prop in the city to make them as the proposed devr.  THAT has been my complaint from Day 1!  HOW has that co - & I won't man - name names - been the ONLY ONE ALLOWED in to offer the people?  & I think it's fine that they're able to do what they want with their land.  It's THEIR land, they need to do what they want, but they need it to be - they need to have the right to CHOOSE - NOT JUST ONE SET PERSON that's come into this town.  & what has been goin' on is WRONG!  AP:  RIGHT!


MP:  Uno my thing is let 'em be treated equally so they have 5 or 6 contracts to look at.  AP:  RIGHT!  MP:  NOT JUST ONE!  & if that's the case, then why send this out of the co can already show how many props they have bought up?


DM:  I believe Mr Blandford said at the last mtg that when (this sidedecker?) told that time, say Company X comes along & beats out Sansone - since everybody knows that's them - AP:  Yeah.  DM:  & says ok, Sansone, u've assembled 30, 50, however many pieces of prop - AP:  95!  DM:  u've got dev - I'm just talking hypothetically here, tku.  ?: _ _ - DM:  & they uh - so they said ok, we'll negotiate that # for u.  (Some or So I'm?) lookin' at - we'll pay u what u paid plus 5% or whatever the fee would be. 


I'm not a r.e. agent to know, but somehow they can negotiate that the other co would win or maybe it would be a joint effort.  It wouldn't have to be necessarily one devr for the whole area.  It could be one's gonna do one part & another do another part & could even be a 3rd 'n something or a reduction of those 2.  AP:  People down here - DM:  So it wouldn't have to be -    just one for the whole thing. 


MP:  YH,  Do I still have the floor?  DM:  Yes u do.  MP:  Ok, like u said, if another co comes in with a plan that is unbelieveably good & the plan from this other co isn't as good as the 1st one, so they turn around & buy these options from the people & give 'em 15, 20% more, why shouldn't the people reap that benefit?  AP:  He ain't lyin'!  Another AP:  Right.  Another AP:  Who says they won't?  MP:  Not if Sansone sells your contract to somebody.  & it's not a contract, it's an option to sell er to buy.  


JW:  YH.  ?:  (Hear him?) 1st time.  ?:  (Open or Hopin/?).  DM:  JW, 1st time around.  JW:  Uno I've sat & listened to this a long time & uh I've had many phone calls from uh people who live ALL OVER the town & the majority of 'em I'VE talked to is it's FOR THE OPP TO sell & uh I understand my fellow ald's concerned about 1 co havin' a, an edge or somethin' but I believe if the city proceeds with this PLAN & gives the opp to every devr in the U.S. if uno they wanna get in here - AP:  Contracts are already signed!  JW:  got a free shot.  The city hasn't signed a contract with anybody.  AP:  NO, but the people have signed contracts.  AP:  Maybe he hasn't.  Previous AP:  If u wanna make it fair (3 firm gavels), start from scratch.  ?:  That, that's - DM:  JW has the floor, tku.


JW:  Uno if, if uh (aud mumblings) they come up & uno wanna give 'em a - real estates comes down here & wanna buy houses, that's NOT the city's biz.  & uno if Sansone comes down & buys everybody, well, more power to him.  Or if I had the money, I could go down, well, that's, that'd be my biz.  So I - I hope the city's not in the biz of managing everybody's individual properties!


JKB?:  What have u got to say to _ - AP:  Why not (if?) say if u don't want (a lot?)?  JW:  But I think that uh uno, let's go proceed with the plan, see what comes back;  if it's nothin', 50% of the people are gonna be happy, 50%'s gonna be mad.  So we've got money invested;  we HAVE to proceed & it's not BINDING us to ANYTHING that ANYBODY brings back to us!  We can say no to ANYTHING.  I'm finished.  DM:  I agree with u _ _ _ _ _.  MMW. 


MMW:  There's, there's a - any, any of these opitons that, that the residents have signed also have a time limit on them.  Who knows HOW LONG it's actually gonna take to get a plan in motion.  By the time we actually get a plan in motion, it, it could be well past that point & then they might get more money for their prop;  they might get less.  It's - I'm not sure uno but I think that until we take this 1st step & look at, look at options for the people, I mean it's just - we're goin' no where, so.  AP?:  _ _ _ - AP:  No kiddin'.  AP: _ _ - AP: _ _ -


DM:  All in favor of the motion to send this out, approve the resolution that is, say - (only MP heard opposed)  Roll call vote - (Yes:  DA, JKB, RH, DLC, JW)  MP:  No & for the record I'd like u to say, the reason I'm voting no is I think that this should be reworded to accommodate every - not just one side, tku.  (aud applauds)  (voting cont'd - Yes:  MMW.)  MW:  6 yes, 1 no.  DM:  The motion carries.  AP?:  _ & then write a proposal.  MW?:  Read resolution.  (ald & aud mumblings)  DM:  Ok, go after this. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  20 of  28


(indec mumblings continue thruout this sec)  EM:  DLC,  If u addressed it uh if u wanted - to know why we didn't have an ord for the - AP:  Now u're apologizing.  EM:  CIT Team, uh that ord will approve a contract or request approval of a contract to StLCnty & uh Joyce Kelly didn't get it to either Scott nor myself until - I, I got it uh Fri mor- Fri evening I think - so it's ju- I just didn't have, have time to look at the contract - DLC:  We're not _ _ _ realize - will u have it the next mtg tho?  EM:  Yeah.  DLC:  I just wanted to know where it _ we'll have it but I didn't see it.  EM:  That's what happened.  DLC:  Ok then.  EM:  We didn't - ?:  (Just?) like  - EM:  get it in time.  ?:  _ on the mtg?  DLC:  Right, well tku.  DM:  Tku, EM. 


Moving on to Mayor's Report - RH,  Did u wanna bring up the trees now or when - RH:  I can do it under - DM:  JM's Report?  Ok.  I'll let JB discuss the uh a/c in the Brignole Ctr when he brings it up - ?: _ _ - DM:  things that had missing.  MP. 


MP:  Could I just ask one thing to JB was sayin' - just concrete or asphalt street that's over at that uh condo on Vance Rd?  DM:  The new condo?  MP:  The new condo.  DM:  Ask evening.  (!)   MP:  Uh I just wanna know, is that gonna be the - a concrete or asphalt like (emploink is it?)?  AP?: _ _ - MP:  If u remember at the Summer Tree Condos down there, we had that problem about the asphalt & concrete all breaking up?  & is that gonna be a dedicated street to the city or is that gonna be a private street because with some of the fuel trucks that are be - turning in & out of the Mobil there, will that asphalt withstand some of them loads in them trucks?  So I, I just would like to know.


JB:  I spent about 3 hrs researchin' that the other day.  There were no references in any - ?: _ _  - JB:  of the P&Z Cmsn mins therein.  There's no reference in an ord whether that was gonna be a public or a private street.  I am assume - going under the assumption, it's gonna be private therefore.  It's built to spec inspet {sic} they've none- 10" of asphalt.  Will it withstand the trucks?  Probably not.  AP:  Where's that mic?  (tho JB is loud & clear)  JB:  Um I can't find OUR specs as to how - whether we preferred concrete or asphalt for one another.  My, my suggestion would be um if u don't want it asphalt, that they ask, if ask us to accept it, don't accept it.  AP:  _ a big (monst ?) year, he was (gone or goin'?)  MP:  Tku, YH. 


AP:  'cause he ain't gonna sit & listen when u don't hear nobody. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  21 of  28


DM:  Guess as long as u're up here, brief us on him uh Brignole a/c please.  JB:  Uh a/c at the Brignole Ctr, we have bought 2 self-contained units.  Um we placed 1 on the east end, east face of the bldg, 1 on the west face of the bldg.  Um they were both up & running Fri afternoon, however, the 1 on the east face of the bldg has um a coolant leak in it somewhere & will not maintain a constant temp.  Um I was here till 6:00 Fri evening with, with the guy um lookin' for the leak.  He recharged it, let it run, it ran out over the wkend.  I called him today, um his wife had a baby so he's not gonna be able to get to that 1 till Wed but the, the 1 on the west face is running & it's maintaining a cool temp.


MP:  YH, May I ask him a ques?  DM:  Go ahead, MP.  MP:  When they both were workin', were they doin' a better - a good enough job in that place?  JB:  Yes.  MP:  Tku.  DM:  Well sun - soon as the coolant leak is fixed, we're ready to open it up to the public again, right?  JB:  I would say we could open it now.  Um - DM:  Even with the 1 - unless it gets to 102 or something - JB:  Yeah, it - DM:  _ _ - JB:  if it gets to 102, I don't think the biggest unit in the world out there is gonna keep that sucker cool, but - DM:  Even with the cooling er a lot of the insulation in the ceiling - JB:  He bet that will help.  I mean since we had the new units installed, we haven't had the 100 days.  ?: __ - ?: _ - ?: _ -


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  22 of  28


DM:  DLC, U had something about - was that the redev of the prop or, or what did u - DLC:  No, that was eager railing (!) -  I _ - DM:  Ok, tku _ - ?: _ _ - DM:  _ _ _ -  MP:  YH.  DM:  MP.  MP:   I had uh _ - DM?:  McGhee prop?   MP:  prop, yes sir.  DM:  Ok, what's happening with that please. 


JB:  Um once again Mr McGhee has been fwd'd to the ct system!  (one or more AP's chuckle)  MP:  YH.  DM:  U still have the floor.  MP:  What can be done?  EM:  I, I think that Mr McGhee's a perfect candidate for this ct that we have coming up, the, the ord, we'll get that at next, the next go-around.  Um - MP?:  (Generally?) - EM:  I, I just think it's, it's tailor-made for in, individuals 'n - MWorAP?:  (I didn't?) - EM:  certain instances like u're {sic} facing to them.  MWorAP?:  (I, I mean?) -


MP:  (Think I or that guy?) would choose (when or where?) we live normal on his - EM?:  RIGHT.  MP:  estate - EM:  &, & obviously Mr McGhee doesn't want to uh cause any bidding.  Now that's a shame.  MP:  Well - EM:  & I think - my, my understanding is I'm frankly, I was in talking with attys, but Mr McGhee was here & (as he pretended not to say anything, not at all?) from the way I understand it & he was apologetic & said that he was going to hire someone - if I'm not mistaken - I, I think, I think that he (granted it?) - EM?:  _ _ _ _ (someone coughs) _ _ - MP:  YH,  Could I - ?:  There's still this ord. 


MP:  Is that just to fix the house up?  JB:  NO, it was to clean up the outside.  MP:  The, the pile of dirt & the junk?  JB:  That was the clean-up, yeah.  DM:  So everything?  MP:  So we're on hold more or less for another month?  I'll tell these people well, another month maybe;  then it went maybe not.  I'm not - MPorJB:  Oh, now - MP:  to u, I'm just (pause) - JB:  It's - that's where - that's where we are now. 


EM:  Well, I, I imagine the reproll {sic} will be if, if u all pass the ord at this next mtg, we'll count it - the 1st mtg in Sept - MM:  Could the city atty PLEASE USE THE MICROPHONE?  (as usual, he totally ignores & simply continues)  EM:  hopefully, we'll know who, who will (handle that?).   MP?:  Tku.


JW:  YH.  DM:  JW.  JW:  YH,  Did I miss - might be a ques u might have to research but do uno how many uh cases we have in the ct system?  'cause I never hear anything come out of the mtg ever (_someone coughs_)  (the polls?) come out of our ct - ?:  I've - JW:  system.   I know we've asked to talk to the judge & I believe he said it's his, his ct & he'll do it his way.  He really didn't care how the city fathers felt, I don't believe in my opinion. 


MW:  Well, I think he might want to be in that _ _ _ _ _ _ - JW:  I just wondered how many we have in the ct system.  JB:  Well, McGhee's my 1st one since I've returned.  Um I have another one um gettin' ready to head that way - not just u - for Pyramid. 


MP?:  Maybe I shouldn't go bring that up.  JB:  They're - ?:  They admit only one.  EM:  There's several pending the docs - see for the next (ferry?) out of (town?) - ?:  Do that to him.   DM:  I wanna see the mins.  EM:  I, I can, I can clean 'em out & I will give u an update.   JW:  I'd like to have that in the next mtg in a pkt with a list of uh the results or pend- what's pending & what the result in, indicates. 


DM:  Were u gonna say 915 Pyramid's gonna go into er apparently move in the same direction as this - this mtg, ok.  ?:  Any where.  DM:  Anything else for JB as long as we have him here?  (pause)  Ok, tku, JB. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  23 of  28


Moving on to the Clerk's Report.  MW:  I only have, I have 1 item - um I know that back a month or so ago, MP had uh requested from the people up here to give a donation & I do have 1 donation.  I don't have any more so I didn't know if I should go ahead & wrap it up with the one I have or people were still going to donate.  So that's the only report I have tho.  DM:  So u say as part of (united's?) deadline here _ - MW:  Good Friday would be a wonderful deadline.  DM:  Alright -


MP:  _ need uh $50 each.  DM:  So please get your $50 in by Fri or else wait until Christmas time - donate something else.  ?: _ _ - MW:  Explorer.  MP:  Explorer's what _ - DM:  They work at the VDays I think _ MW:  Oh, Mike!  DM:  (total?) it was asked about donating to the (cts?) for the work they did down there but the post-resident of Italy would, would be (the best thing?) (?)


DM:  Do u have that bumper (desc?) off the post?  ?:  I don't remember what happened _  - MW:  I, I've got it - DLC?:  (She calls?)  _ - MW:  on my desk.  Uh I know it's a skilled post of united funds on the Bd that they - (lot of mumblings)  DM:  Well she just - bring it er call MW if u wanna get the exact info on that.  


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  24 o  28


Ok, Park Coordr's Report - uh Pam - Pam:  Mike covered the a/c & uh basically that.  DM:  Ok, PBW Coordr's Report - JM.  ?: _ _ _ - ?: _ _ _ - MW?: _ _ _ _ _ ?   DM?:  No, I think by one's that's compiled.  I'm not sure & I don't blame u _ _ _ _  -  As JM comin' up, I've been reminded next month's 1st mtg is uh the 1st Mon rather's a - is Labor Day, so move the labordence (!) to Tu which is the 6th.  ?:  Sept.  DM:  So next mtg be 9/6, the 1st mtg Sept.  Go ahead, JM.


JM:  Alright, I got 2 notes um that one of 'em DA brought up uh something about a tree on Benton.  DA:  Yes um there's a tree on the um 1K block in the alley between um Benton St & StL Ave, behind the biz there.  It's in the - it's a paper alley, it's not a comlete alley but the tree's dead;  it's very large.  Uh so I can just ty- I can - u need to take a look at that.  DM:  U think we're - is it an area the crew could work on?  Sometimes it - DA:  I think so. DM:  takes special equipmt. 


DA:  Yeah, I think so but um they would have to look at that & see.  DM:  JM,  Could u take a look & if u think it's dangerous at all let me know & then we'll - JM:  1st thing I want 'em to do is look at it & - DM: Yeah, why don't u take a look, see before we hit - make the - er _  - DA:  The biz - DM:  ofc.  DA:  owner of that - the large warehouse on the corner of um, uh 1K um & St, StL Ave & 10th St, is the one that brought it to my attn & asked that we take a look at that but it's definitely in the city um paper alley, so we can really take a look at it.  Tku.


JM:  Ok & I, I have that RH had something about trees.  RH:  Yeah, the Epperson's called me this evening.  A tree broke or snapped off uh by their house.  They claim it's on city ROW which I think we've been with this issue before there.  I think it is what I'm tryin' to say that it's a long issue but it turned to (graft?) _.  But it's on the back side of Ann Ave.  It's between Epperson & Mossback & it's just a small - the top kind of snapped out & they claim it's on city ROW is what I'm tryin' to say, but it checked out on the (_someone coughs_) if it is - I mean it's - I drove by & looked at it.  I could go & sell them 39 tree limbs (of all kinds?) IF it's on city -


JM:  Uno I, I'll, I'll go by & take a look at it.  The last time we did work in there as general cutting, they threw a fit that we were cuttin' their trees but uno - RH:  U got - JM:  It could - RH:  beechin' out.  JM:  be our - yeah.  (MW chuckles)  Um with that um the only report that I have is uh with the storm that came thru Sat uh I had a couple discussions with the mayor & it's real difficult to, to uh determine how to go about cleanin' this up. 


So we prepared a little statemt that it - all the employees, the ofc staff is telling the residents as they call in & this is based on my conversation with the mayor - uno the city is tryin' to pick up the limbs that are fell out of the trees & so we're, we're tryin' to tell everybody the same thing.  If u have limbs that fell out of a tree, that are - or a small tree that fell that's between 8 & 10" in diameter that fell on your prop, u can place 'em at the curb with the butt of the limbs facing the st or stacked in an orderly manner or bundled & we will pick them up.  However, if u have a large tree or some type of an ins claim for a tree that fell, um these issues should be arranged to take care of yourself. 


So we're probably gonna be workin' within the next 2 wks cleanin' up tree limbs & things that people are um draggin' out to the curb & we're tryin' to take everything we can, however, we can't take large trees &, & things like that.  Uno hopefully we don't get people who are tree trimmers, draggin' their trees from another cmty in here & uh we are using good judgemt & uh we could uno we'll continue fwd with that unless the, the Bd would direct us otherwise. 


DM:  JW.  JW:  Uh yes, YH, I'd just like ta - I owe u one - I thank the mayor & Jim & the crew 'cause uh they came thru the area by me & they cleaned up a lot of stuff & uh - DM:   I thought they - JW:  I think - DM:  did a good job too, right - JW:  I think they - DM:  on top of it Saturday - JW:  in a time-efficient manner & uh I, I know all the residents appreciate it.  So I tku - DM:  I was drivin' around town - JW:  for how u did that - DM:  & saw a lot of the work they'd done, so appreciate - JW:  tell everybody tku.  DM:  Pass that on - JM:  I'll pass that on to the crew.  DM:  crew that we appreciate what u - AP:  Ask the ald - DM:  & the whole crew did.  AP: for a (gap?) _ - DM:  gettin' right on it.  Another AP?:  even the yards are much better _ -  


JM:  Uh now that u brought that up, there is not a time frame.   When will we be (like or light?)?   Um we are covering the whole town.  We can't cover yours & everybody else's in 1 day.  We will be thru the whole town probably more than once.  AP:  I didn't play it, chief. (aud cracks up)  Another AP:  Get her up front.  We know what u said.  JM:  Tku. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  25 of  28


DM:  I just wanna tku too, JM.  Last wk there was concern about the sidewalk goin' up & down the levee over there & understand from the city eng & others that your work in pulling the people together that suggested at the top of uh redirecting the sidewalk a little bit.  It's gonna make it easier to put the approach up there - JW?:  That was Johnnie Beard.  DM:  to keep it wired. 


So I tku for the hard work on that plus all the other things u've been juggling here & keep thing going on Forest Rd so I know it's quite a load & just uh want u to know I uh hope they that the Bd & the town appreciate all the work u're putting in - JW:  (Thanks?) to Eric _ - DM:  for 'em.  JM:  Tku.  EM:  Dudn't _  -  JM:  We're real close to bein' done with Forest Ave - EM:  With half of it. - JM:  with this stage of it.  DM?:  Great.   DMorJM:  Tku.  EM:  Thanks for honkin' at me. (JW chuckles)


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  26 of  28


DM:  POL Cmdr uh Lt, do u have anything for us?  ?:  Nothing against.  (someone laughs)  LtM:  My report's in retere, in the uh - ?:  Coffee pot - LtM:  pkt so unless someone has - ?:  Gimme your backlog - LtM:  any ques's _.  DM:  Ques's for the Lt?  ?:  either update on it, right?  ?:  Right.   DM:  I guess u did a good job on your report.  LtM?:  Ok.  DM:  Tku.  AP:  He's not helping in that little column. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  27 of  28


DM:  Next we have the bills - wbp?  AP:  They'll be a bitch to pay.  DA:  Move to pay the bills.  JKB:  2nd.  MP:  QUES.  DM:  MP.  AP:  I can grab that microphone -  MP:  I'm just gonna bring up one thing.  AP:  But not (the 4 we had in mind or before we have mine?) & I ain't gonna pay  _ way.  MP:  On that uh - AP?:  Shhhh.  MP:  school mtg, was the city atty invited or WHO invited the city atty for that?  He didn't speak a WORD up there!  DM:  Care to respond to that?


EM:  Well, I, I - DM:  I mean since u ARE THE ATTY, u need to - MP:  I, I know I just asked u - EM:  I (chuckling)  I thought it was important that I be there.  I think, think I - ?:  _ - EM:  help the mayor - DM:  Sit - help set up ahead of time so I guess he talked to me about working but I'm new to this uh fre-developmt situation.  EM:  Did glamours as I authored u to _ - AP:  Your speaker turned off.  MM:  We can't hear u.  EM?:   taped off & uh that's - I was mistaken - AP?:  Humph. EM?:  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ more for the polulous.


MP:  I - ok, so - EM?:  U called down here.  MP:  u allowed EM to come is what I'm asking.  DM:  Yes.  MP:  Ok, tku!  (AP chuckles)  JW:  (That's up the?) journal.   ?:  (We need to get a copy?).  DM:  Any other q/c?  ?:  Would u rather have (5 of?)  -  DM:  All in favor of the motion to pay the bills, say (only MP heard opposed)  Roll call vote - (Yes:  DA, JKB, RH, DLC, JW, MMW.   No:  MP.)  MW:  I have 6 yes, er yes, 1 no. 


8/15/05 BOA  -  Sec  28 of  28


DM:  Is there a (5 gavels?) motion for Exec Ses?  DA?:  So moved.  DM:  For -  MMW?:  Is that - DM:  personnel.  DLC:  I have - JW:  John - DLC:  a ques on crsp, YH.  JKB?:  (doubt it?).  JW:  John's (mad?).  MWorAP?:  (At the pump?).  DM?:  (I wouldn't tell or I'll wait until?) Maush. (!)  ?:   (I guess?) his promotion.  MW:  Ok, I'll just - DM:  Start that recover & now we have to apologize for the mtg. 


We'll step back to JB, then we'll get to your ques.  JB:  Um just lookin' for some direction on the grant money.  Am I proceeding in the right direction?  JW:  Move to use the grant money on Forest.  ?:  (at the mtg?) -  DM:  2nd?   ?:  2nd.  ?:  I _ -  MW:  Was that 2nd by MMW?  MMW?:  Yeah.  DM:  All in favor - (ayes - none heard opposed)  DM:  Ok, tku, appreciate u brang it up.  Crsp, DLC.


DLC:  Yes, there's a letter in there in regards to the uh PARK GRANT MONEY.  Are we (spending or sending or extending?) - EM?: _ _ -  DLC:  that?  It went over to - JW?:  (Think we'll get to that?)  DLC:  get info on this & (probably?) submit - ?:  _ better spend it on (Kena?) - DLC:  request for grants or we gonna ignore it or what? 


DM:  I haven't actually uno see her - I'll have to talk to Pam - ?: _ - DM:  tomorrow & see if she can attend;  if not - ?:  (What acct is she out of?) - DM:  we'll see if - who else we can have to go rep the city then in this matter.  AP?:  (Ask for the State Dept?) - DM:  (per u?).  AP?:   (Poll the aud?) - AP?:  (Put it down as) _ _ _ -


DM:  Is there a motion for Exec Ses?  DA:  So moved.  JW:  2nd.  DM:  For personnel matter.  MW:  Who 2nd?  JW:  2nd it.  DM:  JW.  Roll call vote  - MW:  7 yes.  MP:  Smoke break, YH?  DM:  Do it in 2 mins?  MP?:  3.  DM:  I'll get some water while u're there boy.  ?:  Oh!  Recess.  DM:  3-min recess.   (end taping 8/15/05 BOA)