MOPR'S   8/21/06   VP   PBH / BOA   MTG   MINS

 

Notes:  Proceedings started at 7pm; VP tax-levy PBH 7:10 till 7:23;  9:02 a brief recess, then Exec Ses re POSSIBLE litigation.     

 

AGENDA:  Standard + BILL 1854, an ord regulating the levy & establishing the rate of annual taxes to be collected for the yr 2006 in City VP.  BILL 1855, an ord for the purpose of auth'g the acquisition of real estate by condemnation & aprop thereof, describing the real estate subject to the aprop & condemnation, naming the owners thereof;  setting forth the general purpose or nature to be made of said real prop & declaring it to be necessary & for the general benefit of City VP, at large declaring that funds may be advanced for the acquisition of r.e. & that condemnation shall be in full force & effect from & after date of passage.  BILL 1856, an ord affirming the levy & providing for the collection of a lateral sewer repair fee to provide for certain lateral sewer repair costs incurred by owners of City residences. 

 

Present:   RH,  DLC,  DA,  JKB,  MW,  JW,  EM,  Ed Walker,  MP,  MMW,  SD. 

 

Also Present:  City staff & such:  P&Z Chairman Dixie Nicolas;  Roxanne, TW, Pam, DC, Jeff Schaub, JM, LtM, Ofcr Chad Lewis & 11 PBW employees.   

Audience:   Guesstimate 30.


8/21/06 BOA - Sec  1 of  21

 

JW:  Just before the mtg starts, last wk we introduced all the ladies in the ofc & tonight, we're lucky we got the uh street dept, city workers, JM here to introduce 'em & sort of like to see who's doin' all this good work around town & uh Jim, could u do the introductions?  Wanna come out & perhaps u'd like to shake their hands & tell 'em, everybody how the great job u're doin', they're doin'?  & uh - ?: _ - JW:  if anybody's - JM?:  (I bet he can?) - JW:  hungry there's some sandwiches in the back, so just help yourself.  Go ahead, Jim. 

 

JM:  1st of all, I'd like to thank all the employees for taking time out of their evening schedule to come in, that, that did come in.  Uh I'll introduce ya & uh come up & shake the mayor's hand - JW:  _ they come - JM:  uh startin' with Jeff Brust, um Skilled Crew Leader, appreciate all the hard work.  (aud applauds & this continues, with Kevin Ward, Skilled Crew Leader (not present);  Latham Reese, Jr, Skilled Mechanic;  Mike Yost, Skilled Op.  Skilled laborers:  Ted Leuthauser;  Gil Denormandie (not present);   Ken Fowler;  Matt Riskowski;  Joe Jenkins;  Kevin Johnson;  Dan Fowler (not present);  Gerald Martin, Sanitation Crew Leader (not present);  Matt Bowen, Skilled Sanitation Laborer;  Alex Wilburn, Skilled Sanitation Laborer. 

 

JM:  The last employee on the list, uh I don't believe he's here neither, DS, uh he's the custodian & general all-around take-care-of-things guys here at city hall. (applause) JW: Ok, they've got one.  I got one.  The last one is uh JM, PBW Director. (applause)  JM:  I'd just like to say that uh, a lotta days these guys feel like their work goes unnoticed & there's a lotta times when we're frustrated & aggravated but everybody does appreciate the work that all of us do &, & including me appreciating the work that u guys do.  Uh tks for all the effort. (applause)

 

JM:  MP, Can u come around to the front of the podium, please. AP:  Oh Lord, _ - AP: Oh my God - AP: _ _ - (applause)  AP:  U leave my buddy alone.  MP: (seems puzzled) I don't know - no wonder there's 2 police here tonight.  JW:  MW_ _ today's his - today's your last check _ _ _ (aud laughs)  Mike was one of the many bizs who donated to the uh honorary VDays.  If anybody else is out in the aud that did, u will be rcv'g one of these honorary placques.  I just wanted to thank MP - AP:  Well, It's about time _ - JW: _ - (applause) AP:  Yeah, Mikie! (aud laughs)  ?: _ _ -

 

JW:  Jeff Schaub, Could u come fwd?  ?: _ - ?:  I have _ _ - (applause)  JW:  Mr Schaub uh makes some people mad, but he does a good job &, & uh the city ofc'ls are all rcv'g a little uh identification & something - appreciate 'em _ _ - ?: _ - (applause)  AP: _ -  JW:  I think DA might be arresting people now, so.  ?:  There u go.  DA:  I'll try not to _ _.  Tku, Mayor. (applause)   JW: _ - AP: _ -  JW:  Should've got this by yourself _ (aud laughs) _ knew u needed the exercise.  Aud:  Ooo!  (aud laughs) - MP?:  Tku.  (recognition of ald continues) 

 

8/21/06 PBH - Sec  2  of  21

 

JW:  We have a PBH tonight, setting the uh VP tax rate.  EM, Would u like to explain what is on the bd there. (Most aud members cannot see figures on the easel facing the BOA.  Except for 2 indecipherable lines of #'s scrunched on the bottom, I noted his exhibit:  Budgeted Prop Tax 2006, R.E. LEVY $384K, Budgeted PP Levee $100K, Target $484K.   A.V. 2006 Adjusted, Res 55,791,640,  Comm 9,045,510, Pers Prop 16,609,060.  Res @ .54 = 301,274.85,  comm @ .88 = 79,600.48,  Pers. Prop 94,671.64;  total  475,546.97 (8453.03).

 

EM:  Why tku, Mr Mayor, council members & uh - AP?: _ - EM: members of the aud.  Um every yr we have to set a uh prop tax ad valorem levy rate.  Uh it has to be cert'd by the uh St of MO & uh given to the Dir of Revenue of StLCnty in order to send out the tax bills by 9/1.  In our budget that was p&a'd in uh June, or effective June of this yr, uh the City VP enacted uh a budget that had a goal or target of $484K that would be achieved thru the levy of ad valorem prop taxes including real personal uh prop. 

 

& our new adjusted values which will vary on the values as given in the public notice (someone chuckles) simply because the Bd of Adjustmt met after that date & uh has, has made adjusted taxes. 

 

Uh we show a total res ad valorem of 55.79M;  uh total comm uh ad valorem of 9M & personal prop $16.6M.  Uh rates last yr were 57 /100 for res real prop;  uh 64 /100 for uh comm & 57  for personal prop.  Using our ceiling levels &, & doing a reduction to res personal, we came up with the following:  Um if, if we had took uh a res tax rate 3 lower than the existing rate, 54, that would produce revenues of $301,274.   Comm rate at the tax rate ceiling of 88, would produce $79,600;  personal prop taxes at a frozen level of  57, would produce $94,674.  Those would add up to $475K or miss our target, our budgeted target, by about $8,400.  Each penny raised in the res prop taxes, produces approx 55 more $.  Therefore, if u would go from 54 to 55, u would miss the target by approx $3K.  If u would go from 54 to 56, u would exceed the target by about $2500. 

 

Um I wanted to go over just real briefly, some of the reasons why the comm rate at 9M was sug'd for a ceiling rate rather than at the lower level of 64 - &, & I think the more DRAMATIC um reason that, that speaks of this sug is uh one biz in town, um &, & this is - I'm not going to say it's, it's, it's, it's not the norm but by the same token, I think it's a trend - uh the Reichhold Industries plant in town in uh the yr 2003, paid a total of $58K in real prop taxes cnty-wide, next to everybody that ass'd real prop taxes.  In the yr 2005, that went down in half, from $58K to $29K & that was a result of StLCnty's decrease in the total ass'd valuation from $1.3M in 2004 to the current uh level of $900K, which is uh about 40% decrease in value. 

 

Bear in mind, we just erected a $60M levee.  Uh it doesn't make much sense to me, but when the ass'd value goes down, obviously assessmts go down & tax revenues go down.  So that's why our comm prop tax rate seems to be on the decline in some respects & every time u don't exceed or, or go up to...(exchange tapes!)...EM: ...way we calculated this way. 

 

JW:  Is there any ques's from the aud?  Open it up to the Bd for any ques's for EM?  ?: _ -  ?: _ open - AP:  I have one.  I would just like to make a request that that info that he just gave out is going to be impossible for me to retain & to take any sense of later on.  & I was just wondering if he would put it on paper & pass it out. 

 

?: _  - EM:  It is on paper.  There's a PBH;  it was published in the newspaper.  AP:  Ok, what - EM: & these figures are almost identical.  It's just that they are adjusted a few hundred K $'s due, due to tax computance {sic}.  AP:  Ok.  EM:  &, & I'll be happy to make copies of the - AP: Great.  EM:  PBH Hrg - AP:  Alright.   EM:  Notice for u.  AP:  Tku very much.  EM:  Sure.  ?: _ - JW:  & we'll have uh Roxanne make some copies of what we got, set out on the table before u go home, too - if that'd help somebody out.  MMW. 

8/21/06 PBH - Sec   3 of  21

 

MMW:  So if I understand correctly, what u're saying is that thus, the decreased overall value of the comm prop, if we did nothing with the tax break for the comm would force the residents to bear a bigger burden on THEIR tax bills, so what we're lookin' to do is basically recoup the money that we're losin' on comm & give the residents actually a little bit of a tax break since many of these bizs uh put a lot of wear & tear on our infrastructure & we don't get a lot of tax back from - EM:  No, comm - MMW:  them otherwise.  EM:  I mean look at the ratio;  it's almost a 6 to 1 res value to comm value.  It's a 6 to 1 ration.  If u look at it in $ & , every penny for the comm generates about, what, $675 in added taxes;  every penny in res increase, it's about $5500 (by best by real?), about 6 times.  ?:_ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  Is that it, MMW?  ?: _ - ?: _ - ?: _ - MMW:  For now, yes.  JW:  MP.

 

MP:  Couple things - Does that comm rating (tend to be for?) bizs that are going in on Dougherty Ferry?  AP:  I can't hear.  AP:  Speak up!  ?: _ - EM:  It can come - they wouldn't be ass'd as of the 1st of the year.  I, I mean, we're, we're PASSING a rate for prop that was in existence on 1/1/06.  MP:  Right.  EM:  Ok?  ?: _ _ - EM:  So, so the answer is no.  MP:  & that prop - the bldg that's - EM:  At least I'm assuming.  Now that's UN - UNLESS, unless on 1/1/06, that prop may have been partially ass'd.  Uno, I don't - I don't know what, what the uh status of their const was on, on that majic date.  I suspect tho that they'd just barely broken ground _ _ _ - MP:  Right, but maybe 1107 (1/1/07) is gonna be a good one.  EM:  Oh, 1107, sure!  It should be included on uh - I would say both sides of, of Dougherty Ferry - ?:  (Absolutely?).  

 

MP:  Ok & the next thing, there's some bizs in town that manufacture goods that the city doesn't see nothin' from.  We talked about the, the comm people usin' the streets & tearing up the streets & I understand that.  Is there any way that we can visit, visit that & see what we can do?  EM:  Yes, I, at, at a later date, I'm going to suggest that the Bd modify its biz license fee &, & rather than on SOME bizs' storage for instance, uh have a - an either/or of a 35/sq ft uh biz license fee OR a 1/10th of 1% of the gross receipts, uh whichever is less.  Uh I'm gonna suggest that we modify that, throw out the gross receipts because gross receipts (from Brett?) were less than $100K which produces a minimum biz license tax of uh (someone sneezes) ($100?). 

 

Uh & rather than - if u've got 3 acres for a storage lot for instance, that would be uh more like $4K in biz license fees, at 35 a foot.  So, so I think that MIGHT answer your ques.  For some of these co's that have big WOTS {sic} of there that do soley mfg'g or do solely storage, whatever, uh I think that would answer your ques other than, o-obviously, the BIG revenue-generating plans on biz license fees are those who have SALES, sales sort of biz.  I'll give u an example, Tri-Star uh as somebody who has a lot of gross receipts.  They generate um a considerable amt of uh biz license fee.  MP:  Oh, they pay their own biz license?  EM:  Yes, they do! 

 

MP:  Ok, then u, u have concrete co's that sell concrete, that haul concrete outta here & their, their co is based somewhere else.  EM:  Right, they, they, under our ords, generate NO gross receipts for their products.  So what I'm sug'g is they have - lemme give u an example, maybe 10 acres - & I'm not quite sure it was that much land, he bought 6 acres - but 6 acres & if we somehow develop 35 /sq ft on a biz lic fee which is a flat fee, then that does a couple things.  We don't have to take people's words any more on producing as accurate a biz lic fee, gross receipts records;  ok, because WE KNOW how many sq ft is out there.  We, we know that thru our own internal records, how many sq ft are all around or used by that biz & then we can do a flat fee levy & then we'll freeze _ _ _. 

 

MP:  My only thing is that I'm always a person that likes to have taxes lowered & I understand with uno the res, but I think 88 , that's darn near DOUBLE what it was.  EM:  &, & again, it, it only goes to everyone, that is people that own comm r.e.  It does not go to the bizs itselves, altho in accordiance some of it's obviously passed on.  MP:  Tku.  JW:  Any other ques's (for counsel?)?  DLC. 

 

DLC:  Yes, on the uh (wkday wens?) Reichhold being - value going down, is that normal that these props would be doing that?  Or - EM:  No, I, I, I found it, I found (chuckling)  it that - very extraordinary of a 40% reduction in theirs - um just - &, &, & I'm REALLY saying a phone nail {sic} research - I did see uh a pretty high level of, uh assessmts or appeals & some variance in taxes over the last 2 yrs.  U would expect that with the controversy over the drive-by res uh r.e., what, about 3 yrs ago.  & there was reassessmts made on that, but that only applied to res prop, not comm.  So yes, I WAS surprised to, to see a co like Reichhold -

 

DLC:  Yeah, but the reason I'm asking is u're talking about a uno a large increase - in like 37.5% - EM:  It is.  DLC: on the uh on the tax & that to me seems high, but then if the value is going down, u're coming in with the same # of $ at the end.  EM:  Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.  DLC:  It doesn't make sense but looking at it on paper - ?:  Hu-Hum.  DLC:  Alright.  DA:  YH, I have no ques's at this time, but I will have a cmt at the time the ord is read tonight.  JW:  Tku, DA.  Any other q/c from the bd?  (AP wants to speak)  JW:  I already closed it to the aud participation.  I'm sorry.  Close it, close of hrg at 7:23. 

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec   4 of  21

 

I have some Speaker Request Cards & the person I have is Elaine Willingham.  Please come to the mic & introduce yourself.  MsW:  My name is Elaine Willingham & I'm the co-owner of Tearoom In The Valley.  & um I'm, I'm here tonight just to ask a ques.  Uh I delivered a Pet for a Variance to city hall on 8/1.  Um & there, there IS a hrg set for us for some issues concerning our CUP that we feel the Pet for a Variance would eliminate the need to put the city to the expense of that hrg & I haven't gotten an answer or any reply at all about my Variance Pet.  So that's why I'm here.

 

JW:  EM, Could u give her an update on her variance?  EM:  MsW, Your, your Application for a Variance was rcv'd, referred to uh bldg cmsnr who referred it to me to review it & frankly, we - it's incomplete.  It's - a letter is being prepared & being transmitted to u to the effect that there's deficiencies in the application itself & upon rcv'g that, the city will go ahead & process that accordingly.  Um point tho, it has nothing to do with the other _ _ _ _ _ _.  As u pointed out, but u have uh a hrg SET on uh this coming Wed.

 

& I'm not sure if u understand - I know u're, u're rep'd by counsel but a decision will not be made at that time on ANYthing.  That's simply an agent of this bd & the city.  The bd has hired a 3rd party, neutral if u will, ta listen to the facts from both sides & then make conclusions & then those conclusions in turn will be fwd'd to this bd for THEIR final uh decision.  This bd is the final arbiter over ANY decisions relating to your prop.

 

MsW:  Well, I understand what u're saying, EM, but I would think that (Speaker Timer beeps rapidly for few secs)  if this judge is um, as um said, to be a - what was it u called him?  EM:  Point a neutral.  MsW:  a neutral, ok.  I would also argue that the Bd of Adjustmt is a neutral entity as well that is far more connected to the, the city than this judge that was just hired.  Um & I also know that u've never had one of these hrgs before.  Quite honestly, I don't really feel this um matter warrants going before there, but um if the ald or the P&Z or anyone would just allow us continuance on the Wed night hrg until after whatever corrections um are, are needed on my Variance Pet & that can move fwd & then see if this hrg is really necessary. 

 

JW:  EM, Which - any cmts?  Or - EM:  Well, I, I mean my, my own sug would be that, that we go can ahead & rcv it & we, we continued the other place as uno at, at your request.  Uh again, if the bd wants to defer once the, the hrg's complete, to, to any other proceedings or do what they want - again, it's in this BOA's hands, the final issue of whether or not she's seeking it to, to basically shift the, the issue to a, a 3rd party or whether to trust 'em;  & I don't believe it's probably legal, her property, but it's NOT here to pass ord for her.  Uh I would sug we go on & proceed as this bd's directed me to.  

 

JW:  Any other q/c from the bd about this issue?  MsW:  Well, I understand that that's your advice to them but I guess it's their decision.  So, Mayor, will u all discuss it then?  Can u discuss it this evening?  JW:  Well, that's why I've tried to open up this bd to see if there's anybody that was wantin' to uno maybe uh go in that direction. MsW:  This is the - & just so u all know - this is the 2nd time that I've applied for a variance about an issue that stemmed from letters from the bldg cmsnr or EM or the 2 of them - I don't know.  & this is the 2nd time that my pet wasn't given to the Bd of Adjustmt & um if there were things that were necessary, um I'm at the Tearoom all day long;  I could be called.  But I have it right here & I answered all the ques's that it required & so I, I can't really foresee or understand what I neglected to put in it. 

 

JW:  Under the Mayor's Report, I'll bring up the Tearoom & uh let the bd openly discuss to see if they wanna continue the direction that they're, they're heading or if they've got other ideas.  There is other Speakers, I believe behind u that are talking similar I believe to what u're after.  MsW:  Tku very much.  JW:  U betcha, tku.  MsW: Tku. 

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec   5 of  21

 

JW:  Rene DuBosch.  MsD:  I have nothing at this time, tku.  JW:  Oh, ok.  Mr Ken Curtis, Mayor Curtis.  MKC:  Well, no, that's alright. (people chuckle)  Uh I just want to say that uh I think this is a tremendous idea having refreshmts, food & drinks at all the city council mtgs that u've initiated tonight.  That's a wonderful idea. (people chuckle)  JW:  We don't do it every mtg.  (people laugh)  We might start it tho. 

 

MrC:  Uh I wanted to say that I'm personally acquainted with the uh owners of the Tearoom.  Uh they were assoc'd with Stages in Kirkwood where my late wife & I were patrons regularly.  & uh I know that they are sincere.  I know that they are honest about trying to comply with whatever directives they're given.  Um I would sug that uh the Tearoom ought to uh have permission to continue to op. 

 

Now 1st of all, there was no bldg cmsnr at the time to - at the time of their original application for a license.  There was no bldg cmsnr in the city to offer any kind of uh guidance on proper procedure.  & I believe it's encumbent on the part of the city to furnish this guidance but uh circumstances made it difficult or impossible to do so.  Um 2nd, there was a neighbor who made, what in my opinion were, unwarranted complaints about the oppositon & used up an inordinate amt of the bldg cmsnr's time in checking alleged violations.  A neighbor of the Tearoom has shared my opinion that uh com-complaints were unwarranted. 

 

The ques of residency in the bldg is no longer a factor. At the time of the application for a biz license, there was an intent for one of the people, one of the co-owners, to live on the premise, but 2 things precluded that.  One was the excessive cost of the sprinkler system that would be required.  The other was a matter of romance!  The person who had planned to live there was uh asked by another person to uh, uh become his spouse & she accepted, so there's no uh reasons for her to even WANT to live there now. 

 

Um this is NOT really a uh biz of the usual description.  (Speaker Timer beeps rapidly for few secs)  It's a quasi-biz.  It ops on a ltd # of hrs during the day.  There is NO interference with commuter traffic in the morning & there is NO interference with commuter traffic in the evenings because their op is sandwiched in between those & doesn't interfer in any way with it.  If there's a fear that change in zoning of nearby props might result in uh an insert of comm activities in a res area - ?: Hu-hum.  MKC:  the, the fear is unfounded because this is not a, a spot zoning.  This is a CUP & so unless & until the city would choose to make a spot zoning uh situation out of it, the, the uh zoning ques is not an issue! 

 

As to appearance, a chain link fence that surrounds the water tower in close proximity to the Tearoom furnishes a far less res atmosphere than the Tearoom itself.  Now, it looks very nice - I wanna say that it looks very nice entering the city from the North.  It's, it's a great - has a great appearance, but it is not res in appearance.  I know that the owners wish to comply with conditions that the city recognized, er city requires & I believe that a mutual agreemt can & should be reached so that the Tearoom can continue to op without offending any reasonable person or persons.  The Tearoom is a credit to City VP & a great many people have indicated that belief.  I respectfully request that u do what's necessary to keep the op open.  Tku.  JW:  Tku, MrC.  (aud applauds)

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec  6  of  21  

 

JW:  I have a Speaker Request Card from Martha Rodriguez.  MsR:  Hi.  JW:  Hi.  MsR:  I'm Martha Rodriguez & I spoke here last time.  I want to say one thing that uh might give some insight into how u're perceived, the bd & perhaps even VP.  This is my 3rd time ever to come to this mtg.  The 1st time I was here, which was approx 2 yrs ago, there was a great big fisticuff right here & uh there were - when I left, I left as I was afraid I might catch a bullet, so uh I didn't come back ever again. (chuckle) & as I was leaving, there must've been 15, 20 police cars coming to this city hall. 

 

I um became int'd in coming back as a result of this ord which unfortunately, in my perception, is an embarrassmt to our cmty.  Um last time I was here, which was 8/2, that was my 2nd time only, LtM was asked uh how were things going in VP & he said things were kind of quiet. & I heard somebody cmt back there, kind of snickered & said well, that's because we all went out & (chuckle) bought guns.  & I was really surprised!  I'm sure I'm not the only one that heard it. & um so I spoke subsequent to that & I said since this ord seems to be so mean, which I think many, many people agree with, & harsh, & Donnybrook, every member of Donnybrook agreed that it was  (seated nearby & watching MsR, LtM keeps snapping noisy binder rings but never turns any pages)  harsh & unconscionable & (mean it tho?).  

 

Um it would behoove the panel to try & ameliorate some of their behavior - some of the behavior that uh that is going on regarding some of the people who have been kicked out of VP or chased out of VP, who run in fear.  So um - ?: _ _ - MsR:  I hope that (binder rings snap)  the bd will not tolerate any more cmts that were made - ?:  (I didn't think?) -  MsR: about going out & buying guns - ?:  (she did that that night?) - MsR:  as was stated last uh, last uh maybe it was 8/7. (binder rings snap)  

 

So uh again, uh I, I'm asking (Speaker Timer beeps rapidly for few secs) for uh amerlioration & some compassion & uh some um some other way to work with people who come here, some of which are legal & some of which are not, but all are kind of just kicked out any way.  Um children come over here without any, any control over whether they're here or not.  (binder rings snap)   In the paper, there was a high school boy who came here as a child, who now is no longer  (binder rings snap)  there at college & not able to play in school, in basketball in school. (binder rings snap)  So in essence or rather essentially, I'm just saying that uh I hope that VP  (binder rings snap)  can eventually change its image. Tku. (aud applauds)  JW:  Tku for your cmts.   

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec  7 of  21

 

(All ald answer JW that they have nothing now to add to tonight's agenda.  Roll Call - see above.  Pledge led by POB MMW)  JW:  Can I have a motion to adopt the Agenda?  DA:  So moved.  MMW:  2nd.  JW:  Any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  What's the bd's uh approval of the 8/7/06 mtg mins?  DLC:  Move approval of the 8/7 mtg.  EWalker:  2nd.  JW:  Any further discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  

 

JW:  Do we have any licenses & permits?  MW:  No.  ?:  _ - ?: _ _ - MW:  I guess I'm going to uh - JW:  Backup.  MW:  Well, I mean I'm just - (binder rings snap)  ?:  (Stop that?).  MW:  because I didn't get a referral _ _ MMW _ _ - MMW:  YH, Actually, I - can I add something to the Agenda?  ?: _ _ - (people chuckle)  JW:  I guess u can get a, get a motion & uh - ?: _ _ - JW:  to see if they want to, or make a motion.   MMW:  (chuckling)  I just need to uh make a motion that we have a brief Exec Ses following the bd mtg for possible litigation.  DA:  2nd.  JW:  All in favor of the amendmt for Exec Ses, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carries & we'll have Exec Ses.  ?: _ _ - 

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec   8  of  21

 

JW:  Under Ald Cmte Reports we have the uh VP P&Z Cmsn & uh I believe the chairman is out here tonight.  I, I will allow him to have any cmts - DNicolas:  Answer any ques's - JW:  before or during or whichever u'd uh like to do.  Do u want the bd to go around  & uh - DNicolas:  I'll answer any ques's I can.  JW: Ok, I don't know if there'll be any for u.  I tku for comin' & tryin' to help out.  I guess we need a motion to approve the P&Z mins.  MMW:  I'll move approval of the P&Z Mins um from 8/8/06.  I'd also like to ask that Item 6 in those mins be considered for EM to draw up um as an, as a ord or an additon to an existing ord - um the bldg design & material specs that - ?: _ - MMW:  P&Z has passed on to us including purpose, planning.  JW:  Ok, is - DLC:  I'll 2nd - JW:  there a 2nd?  DLC:  the motion.

 

JW:  Is there any discussion?  MP:  Yes, YH.  JW:  MP.  MP:  I don't buy it on a PBH, multi-family or single family.  JW:  Ok, go ahead.  MP:  In here it states about the house was used as a multi-family before.  Did the city ever skip permission or have an ord drawn up or can we have that done so they can use that as a multi-family?  JW:  EM, Do u have any cmts?  Or -

 

EM:  Um as far as I can tell, this was built in a uh an R1 Dist um which preceeded our, our current bldg or our current zoning ord.  It was passed in 86 or 87 uh &, & it maintained its R1 status.  Uh so the answer is no & there's no ord auth'g const of that prop.  At the time it was const'd I, I don't think there would've been an ord as a single residence simply _ _ (_someone coughs) &, & I can't cmt on whether or not it was a legal structure at that time. That was a long time ago.  But uh I, I would pause if I can, I would say PROBABLY it, it wasn't legal simply because it wasn't a single family res structure unless it was (NATTLED?) to be a single-family res structure _ _ _ _. 

 

MP:  One more thing - so in R1, u, u've not had multi-family?  EM:  Well, according to our bldg inspector, apparently it's mandated _ _ _.  MP:  Well, I'd like to make a - AP:  Uh excuse us, but - AP:  Excuse me - we, we had a Speaker Card filled out specifically to address your ques's & if it would be ok to - JW:  Well, I, I gonna - AP:  to discuss it - JW:  let u go. I wanna get the bd's cmts 1st before we do any voting - AP:  Tku.  JW:  l, I'll let u get in here.  AP:  Alright!  JW:  Promise u that!  Go ahead, MP. 

 

MP:  If, if we pass these mins, will that ok it as of a multi-family?  ?: It would be mandated.  EM:  U would - by, by passing these mins, I believe that the impact of that would be to approve the non-controlling {sic} use status of that prop _ _ _ _ _ - ?:  (What?) - EM:  &, & it would maintain that until such time as, as it was - would cease to be used for a period of 6 mos or what - whatever time period _ _ _ _ _ _ _ cease being able to (be used comm?) _ _ const.  MP?: (Aren't u gonna say anything?) - MMW:  YH, I withdraw my motion. 

 

JW:  Ok. Is there anyone else that wants to uh make the motion so we can continue discussion?  DLC:  I'll make a motion to putting the mins of the P&Z Cmsn as of uh 8/8.  JW:  Is there a 2nd?  JKB:  2nd.  JW: Ok, uh further discussion - DLC. Yes, (write?) that - JW:  DLC.  DLC:  down in TIF.  If u have a P&Z Cmsn that's supposed to be a subcmte of the BOA, gentlemen, u appointed these people;  u had best listen to them.  & if u don't want your P&Z Cmsn & u wanna have all the decisions made by the BOA, I think we need to change our ords of the city!  U've got a bd of P&Z & the bd voted 4 to 2 to approve this for this apartmt use!  This is a bldg, for 25 yrs, 23 yrs, has been a dual family res & now u're going to change that after 23 yrs!  I don't think it's right.  I think, gentlemen, what these P&Z, & in effect the mins, u should follow!  ?:  Hu-Hum.  JW:  Tku, DLC.  Any other further discussion?  MMW. 

 

MMW:  Yeah, I uno, in, in my mind, um this is another one of those cases of spot zoning.  1st of all, it was never zoned to be used as multi-family.  Um so if it had been used for that length of time, it was used illegally essentially & this is another case of potential spot zoning & this is something that I feel if u're gonna allow THEM to do this, u've gotta allow this for every single R1 lot in City VP;  otherwise, it's completely unfair & for THAT reason, I'm, I'm absolutely opposed to the idea.  & I'd also like to add that I know that uh the uh chairman of the P&Z Cmte & the mayor were the 2 nayes on this cmte.  It is a new cmte & I belive they're still finding their way with respect to some of these issues.  JW:  Tku, MMW.  ?: _ _ -

 

DA:  YH.  JW:  DA.  DA:  A quick um cmt - 1st um I certainly respect what the P&Z does have to offer;  however, as in the past, this bd DOES have a final say.  The uh P&Z is a rcmd'g body for the most part.  They do have some admin uh obligations but it is in our hands.  We are responsible for what happens in our cmty. 

 

Um so to change a decision the um P&Z does, it should be rare but it certainly is um something that um is proper at times.  Ok, as far as this um bldg having been a multi-family for quite some time, I think we said at several bd mtgs we were changing our direction that if something - just because something was wrong or illegal in the past for whatever reason, that's not necessarily or is not a reason to grandfather it.  So again, I think what we've got the solid ground to stand on is what are the um zoning um stipulations are, zoning for that prop & what does that zoning allow us to do.  & that's where I say, u oughta stand for it.  & um uno when prop changes hands, that seems to be the most likely time or the most reasonable time to make the adjustmts - I'm sure that easier than mid-stream when someone is in violation.  So just - if that helps um (pause) JW:  Tku, DA.  DA:  Tku. 

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec   9  of  21

 

JW:  Is there any other bd members that have any special cmts before I get the opp to - DLC:  _ (2nd?) _ _ - JW:  Sure.  DLC.  DLC:  In response to MMW's cmt, that is not spot zoning in that area.  & also, it's a situation - this house, & the houses that are butted together, is not designed for a single-family.  U have 2 separate kitchens.  U have separate entrances.  Everything is separate.  To change this into a one-family which is almost impossible & u're not gaining anything.  The other night when they had a PBH, P&Z, after having notified all the neighbors that this was going on, not one person came down here to oppose having this being a duplex or 2-family or whatever.  The residents in the area have been very happy with it over the yrs.  I don't see any reason why in the world that we have got to change it now.  Just because the law says we MIGHT be able to, we don't HAVE to.  Gentlemen, I don't think it's right to do this!  Tku.

 

MMW:  One more 2nd time?  JW:  Go ahead, then I wanna take a shot after all.  MMW:  (chuckling)  Uh yeah, if, if u look the - ?: _ - MMW:  the P&Z Book & what it rcmds, u CAN make adjustmts to - in the case of an R1 Zoning, there are no adjustmts that should ever be made to an R1 Zoning going down the, the book by P&Z um that Mr Nicolas has so happily provided to every member on the bd.  & so if u just look at what u're supposed to be doing along these lines, it's very clear that u're not supposed to be making exceptions like this for anybody.  & it's my understanding that initially, it was built AS a single-family but with a mother-in-law house attached there,  & there is a difference in my mind between a single family living there & occupying, & multi-family in that area.  & then the other thing is the neighbors that are there now might not be the neighbors later.  JW:  Is that it, MMW?  MMW:  Yes, sir. 

 

JW:  MP.  MP:  2nd time around since - JW:  Got it.  MP:  MMW withdrew his motion on the last one.  My only thing is if the city had given a permit for a uh multi-family back then, I understand that, but the city never gave it.  AP?:  Yes, they did. ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - ?: _ - DLC:  They gave him occupancy permits.  EM:  & the city originally gave a bldg permit to Mr Burdette.  MP:  Ok, but now it's changed ownerships.  That's, that's my only problem with it.  DLC:  We gave it real much.  Are u gonna take it away?  MP:  Tku, YH. 

 

DA:  YH.  JW:  DA.  DA:  _ again - JW:  This is your 2nd time _ - DA:  this, this conversation is, is, is longs {sic} in ques.  1st, it's a R1, which this is not permitted, & is, is that correct?  EM:  That's correct.  DA:  Ok _ - EM:  Unless it's a non-conforming use.  DA:  Which - EM:  meaning that it, it was something in existence before the code CAME into existence.  DA:  & is that the case in this particular - EM:  Well, it preceeded the 87 zoning code;  however, the zoning code prior to that, in, in the time period this was built, it was also an R1 altho the minimum lot size was different.  I believe the R1 in the old code was 7500 sq ft minimum lot size;  now it's 10K sq ft. 

 

DA:  May - the process for allowing a conditional use would be um do an ord of the BOA, is that correct?  EM:  Umm, actually, it's an application from the P&Z Cmsn with wide review of the ald's (discretion or description?).  So actually, P&Z Cmsn would draft the CUP   DA:  Has that been done at any time that we know of?  EM:  No, there's no application that we made for a cond'l use uh, but I, I, I'm not even sure if that would be applicable.  I'd have to think about that.  I just - I don't have - don't have enough facts.  Typically, cond'l use is for traffic generation sorta biz, uh more, more for a biz than a res _ -

 

DA:  But getting back then to the problem, we've got a, a proposed or a potential multi-family dwelling placed in an R1 Dist with no legal cond'l use having been granted, is that correct?  EM:  I, I think, I think basically, it started this way.  The back house was in existence.  Mr Burdette was the bldg cmsnr at the time, delegated those rights of bldg cmsnr uh review to a 3rd party, Don Smith, & then it was issued - a, a, a new bldg permit was issued for the FRONT part, which was built, but basically the 2-story with column, the part that fronts on Jefferson, that, that was built with a, a like-sort of wall as a free-standing part of the bldg, but there's an, an entrance into each unit, common entrance _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

 

&, & my understanding, it was occupied in the back half by uh Mr & Mrs Burdette & in the FRONT past {sic} by uh Mr & Mrs Helton (& all?)  _ _ _ subsequent _ _ _ _ _ _So (they?) (nullified or notified?) or something like that & then (the Alver's?) moved out across - ?:  _ 94 _ - EM:  94.  They moved (down or out?) across the street & then Mrs Burdette rented the prop.  I think it kind of made any sense - ?  the back half - EM:  the back half.  ?: _ - EM?:  front _ - ?: _ _ -  ?: _ _ - ?: _ -

 

DA:  Uh I could certainly understand why the P&Z had a split decision on this.  It's really not clear in my mind at this particular moment whether this person is correct or not where we are just being quite frankly honest.  Um I, I'd like to hear more cmts from the bd. 

 

8/21/06 BOA - Sec   10  of  21

 

JW:  DA, It's - It was noted I'm on the P&Z.  The chairman's out here & uh (mine lies in the voting no was second??).  I, I believe the house has 2 common doors, 2 doors that u can access between these 2 houses & to me, that's just askin' for problems on down the road.  I think that uh havin' 2 houses, 2 separate houses with 2 common doors that u can share, I see over-crowdin' happenin' real easy in that house & I want somebody to show me a multi-family house that's bordering that, that house or show me one that's

close to there where it's multi-family! 

 

AP:  We can do that.  ?:  Do u have a ques?  DLC:  The house next door used to be multi-family. It used to be a family upstairs & a family downstairs.  ?: _ - DLC:  That's one - JW:  Oh, I think - DLC:  (The other one or I remember when?) - JW:  _ - DLC:  they tore it down - JW: _ - DLC:  that's the one they tore down & rebuilt.  JW:  I'm gonna allow the gentleman to come up, Mr (pause) - (AP states his name) -

 

MrE:  Mark Elhoffer.  (owner) The prop is 329 Jefferson & we met at the P&Z Cmte - because this issue came up as to whether or not this would be grandfathered-in, um & it was a lengthy mtg to say the least & a lot of issues were addressed.  As a matter of fact, I have hand-outs & if there's ANY hesitation whatsoever, I would not object to a delay until the following uh can be done, #1, u can have a chance to review my hand-outs.  But more importantly, I would like to just address a couple points that were made.  There's only one door.  There was a fire door installed.  We, we complied with all the requests of that night as far as installing fire walls & everything else.  Uh - JW:  That was fire (marshall?) - fire dept _ fire _ _ -  MrE:  Yes, because they felt it was a duplex (chuckle) & it had been used as a duplex. 

 

Uh it's, it's - if I could just take about 5 mins of time to explain this & hand this out - would that be ok?  It has pictures of the house.  It's a - it's not a mother-in-law unit.  It's a COMPLETELY separate STAND- ALONE house.  It has a wall with a door.  Now there's 2 doors because we have one locked & so u can't go - JW:  But they changed the wall - MrE:  in the other unit.  JW:  to a house & a house inside there.  MrE:  U cannot because the other door will be locked.  ?:  But that's  _ -

 

JW:  Well, but u COULD.  MrE:  Uh NO, when the other door's locked.  JW:  (Oh?).  MrE:  The, the tenant on the 1st - & that's the way it's always been - the tenant cannot get into the other because it's locked.  So it's not - there's not - JW:  But IF U COULD open it up & access it - MrE:  It's not 2 separate - JW:  if they wanted to - MrE:  entrances, only one entrance with - JW:  I'm saying if - MrE:  2 separate - JW:  2 families live together, me & my sister lived in this house, or ANY place - ?: _ - JW:  u could open up the door &, & access & have all your family members live within uh this bldg. 

 

MrE: I think, I think, in general, that's - it's a common area that u can get thru - JW:  Right.  MrE:  IF U have - JW:  Well, that's all I - MrE:  both doors - JW:  needed to hear.  MrE:  unlocked.  JW:  That's my only point.   MrE:  I mean if u cut a hole in a wall, u could do that too (chuckle), but we're not talkin' about that.  We have - JW:  Don't have to - MrE:  pictures - JW:  it's already there.  MrE:  Well, to, to be honest - &, & I wanna, I, I wanna also find out - it is NOT a variance we're asking.  We're asking it to simply be grandfathered-in.  It's not something that other people will be able to mimick because WE have special circumstances - are very UNIQUE.  Finally, this IS a very uh, uh diffferent, unique house that can't really be used for anything else & to hold that it's only going to be a single uh family, is really not going to do any services as far as prop values are concerned.  Uh it's going to be in VP's best interest to zone - er not zone this, but actually to allow us to be grandfathered-in. 

 

Um YH, could I at least be able to pass these out so people can see what we're talkin' about?  & it also includes an exhibit - JW:  U can but I doubt they're gonna have enough time to - MrE:  That's why - JW:  & they might wanna hold it over till the next _  - MrE:  &, & I'm not going to - JW:  mtg.  MrE:  uno to be quite frank, as I understand that this is an awful lot to digest & I don't want to - ?: _ - MrE:  WE ARE going to comply with EVERY SINGLE detail - JW:  (Seems?) like all the materials - MrE:  u guys (get thru?).  JW:  that P&Z HAS made their rcmd so - MrE:  & I understand - JW:  _ (doubt?) - MrE:  BOA - JW:  (now would be?) - MrE:  have the - JW:  (amend?) it or not.  MrE:  right to ratify, absolutely.  But uh -

 

MW?:  _ most the time it's gotta be - MrE:  but, but there are - DLC?: _ _ - MrE:  certain things if I could (he starts distributing his pkts to BOA) - ?:  (Perhaps?) the bd (should stop?) listening.  ?:  That's what Eric would want.  MrE:  but there's pictures of the house & we even - ?: _ _- MrE:  put together a video of this house - ?: _ _ - ?:  (chuckling) & these were built here too.  ?:  The people that were (objecting or ejected?) _ _-  (MrE? chuckles)  - RH:  YH, Can I just ask one ques?  Who is he?!

 

MrE:  I am - JW:  He's the uh - MrE:  the owner of the house.  ?:  Penalize (whom?) - ?:  _ _ - MrE:  that we purchased - ?:  _ (against?) _ - MrE:  the house - JW?:  Yeah - ?: _ that why he's finally doing -  JW:  Yeah.  EM?:  Sure.  JW:  He's not gonna live there, but he owns (the house?).  MrE:  We purchased the house in, in Feb - RH?:  U have a nice (wall?). (gavel noise?)  MrE: & the purchase - ?: _ - MrE:  according to the ords - JW:  Here, u can have mine. I - MrE:  is not - JW: _ _ - MrE:  It may seem like an opportune time but purchase does not uh diminish or cut off any sort of grandfathering pursuant to the ords & that's specifically spelled out in, in the ords.  But I - ?: _ _ table _ _ -

 

MrE:  Otherwise, I would be glad to actually put forth a presentation right NOW, OR - ?: _ - MrE:  we could talk & set up a specific time where there is add'l time available next ald mtg, whichever u'd like.  JW:  I'm gonna leave that up to the bd, if they wanna discuss it at a, at a further mtg, they can or if they wanna vote on it tonight, that's gonna be their - MrE:  Yes. MW?: _ I can complete - JW:  their choice - ?: _ - JW:  so I guess I'm lookin' from directive from the bd on how they'd like to proceed with this tonight. 

 

DLC:  Make a motion to table it till the next bd mtg.  ?:  2nd that. (pause)  JW:  All in favor of the motion to table to the next bd mtg, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  MrE:  Tku.  JW:  We'll get it the next bd mtg & good luck.  MrE:  Time will (chuckle) - it's, it's done.  Alright, tku.  JW:  & I take it that will table ALL the, the mins of P&Z.  ?:  Yes.  JW:  Tku.  I believe we have no other ald cmte reports. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  11 of  21

 

Ord & Resolutions - Was BILL # 1854 properly posted?  MW: Yes.  JW:  Would u read the caption?  MW:  Yes, BILL # 1854, Pord 1711, an ord regulating the levy & establishing the rate of annual taxes to be collected for the yr 2006 in City VP, MO.  JW:  wbp?  MMW:  Did we actually come up with the final tax rate that u're gonna be looking -  EM:  That, that's what u'd be doing now.  JW:  It's at the bottom of - I believe the bottom of the city _ - EM:  Under uh Sec 1, I put in the rates that, that the city staff is proposing, 54, 88 & 57, Sec 1 of Sec _ _ - JW:  We need to get a motion where we can discuss the old sow pit.  MMW:  I'll, I'll move approval of, of BILL # 1854.  MP:  I'll 2nd that with a ques.  JW: MP.

 

MP:  Again, I've always been one that wasn't - likes lower taxes & I understand the comm rate goin' up, but it - if - I'm happy to see the res going down to 54, that's 3;  & the comm was at 64.  I'd like to amend it to put the comm at 67, so we're gonna raise it.  It was 64 last yr (for the month?).  Is that what it was?  I think so. EM:  I, I believe that's correct.  ?:  Uh -  MP:  To, to make it 67 &, & leave the res at 54, which is lowering it 3

 

JW:  _ - MMW:  _ doesn't matter because - JW:  We're - MMW:  of the way U - JW:  already into - MMW:  can spend it _ - JW:  8,453 $ bill deficit by doin' - if u take that down - did u say 66 or 68 or - MP:  67, it's raising it.  JW:  67 - EM: _ _ _ _ it & u, u'd almost double the deficits in the fund.  Fees would go up to about 21K. That'd be good.  MMW?:  Well, I...(exchange tapes)...

 

DLC:  I would like to see it reduced, but I don't think uh with these #'s on the bd, I don't think we can jump down to 67, but I can compromise & go maybe 70, 77, 78, in that nbhd where u're only getting down like 10 on the 100 which I think we can live with.  DA:  YH.  JW:  DA.

 

DA:  Yes sir tku.  Um 1st, I, I certainly like to reduce taxes.  I hate to increase taxes.  However, I'm absolutely certain that most of the VP (has an outstanding?) value as a res cmty, as well as it is a comm uh cmty.  I think we've got a very bright future - ?: _ _ - DA:  in terms of what we have been doing uh in - ?: _ - DA:  in the meantime, a levee um & uno our professional staff here at city hall. 

 

One thing I can absolutely be certain of that the residents of VP, the everyday residents, have been waiting for a long time for this cmty to dev.  Um to help uno ease this burden of the tax we've been paying for a long time, this is a very small step in reducing that for them.  We've got a long - uno a lot of work ahead of us um & uno currently with the lack of area available to dev on comm ground at this particular time, I think this is our best step & our best attempt um for this yr.  That could change at some point in time.  But the goal of this bd is, as it is with any bd, is to reduce the amt of taxes um & the burden of taxes on their everyday residents um for the cmty itself.  This is why I can't support this.  Tku.    

 

JW:  Tku, DA.  MMW.  MMW:  Yeah, I think the bottom line in my mind is that uh the ass'd value has dropped by 40 or 50%, so by raising the tax rate 35, 37%, they're still paying the same amt of taxes that they were yrs ago.  & in my mind, that's uh essentially NO raise in the taxes.  So they're gonna have a, uh, a static tax rate for the past yrs based on the decrease in the value of their prop.  & if their prop's going down 40 or 50%, I don't see any problem at all with raisin' it up by 35, 37%, up to 88

 

JW:  Tku, MMW.  Anybody else 1st time around on the amendmt?  EM:   I, I would just like, like to say that, that a trax rate of 67 for comm would produce $60,604, compared to an 88 rate of $79,600 which is a $19K difference.  So we add 19 to 84, that's - u're missing your target by $27,500. 

 

JW?:  (So how do u?) - EM:  U will have a built-in deficit then (well, uno u can spend?) _tions _ _ - EMorJW: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - JW:  Anybody else 1st time around? (silence)  Anybody else (wants to speak?)  (silence)  Ok. (chuckle)  I say we vote on the amendmt then to - MP:  Well, I'll have a 2nd time around, YH.  JW:  Oh, u wanna 2nd time?  MP:  Yeah.  JW:  I thought I asked - go ahead - MP:  No, no, I - Ok, I, I understand where the deficit is coming from, but I, I'm just thinkin' about the uno the wonderful price of fuel everybody's been gettin' hit with, hittin' hard with this yr.  I mean - granted, uno I have some comm prop - how many other comm props have actually went down, other than just the one? 

 

EM:  Uno - I - MP:  Was it across the bd.  I'm sorry.  EM:  I, I don't think it's across the bd.  Um I think it's the exception rather than the rule.  Altho, I would say this, I think as a TREND, comm has not increased as much as res has _.  I mean the, the figures are what they are!  To produce the kind of money u're targeting, I don't know how else u would do it, AND do a res decrease.  EVEN IF u kept a res INcrease - wait, even if u did it - a, a res static level at 57, u'e still talking about an 88 comm to generate the kind of money u guys targeted, uh in your budget.  

 

JW:  Eric, I have a ques for u.  I know Reichhold over the past several yrs, (done?) many hi-$ improvemts because they come thru the city to get permits.  How can somebody spend a million & dollars on their plant & their prop value go down?  ?:  Yeah.  ?:  Yeah.  EM:  IT MAY BE that they argued - we weren't there, we weren't privy to it - at least their pers propIn other words, it's -uh  JW:  It's something that they could haul off - EM:  That's correct - JW:  & take their taxes _ - EM:  That's right, & their pers prop MAY have increased;  I don't know.  I didn't research that.  ?: _ _  -

 

DA:  YH, on - ?: _ _ - DA:  my 2nd time around - MP?:  I would hope that (_someone chuckles_ _)  - RH:  Yeah, I wanna explain to 'em about the gas!  MP:  Well, everybody's payin' hi $ for gas  RH&MMW:  Yeah, including the residents!   MP:  I SAID everybody.  I didn't just pick on just certain people.  RH:  It's a write-off!  MP:  For who?  ?:  (Them?) - JW:  _ u guys direct your ques's to the chair?  AP?: _ _ -  JW: Go ahead.  MP:  Well, I would change then my amendmt & change it to 77 instead of 67.  I mean that's uh roughly -   

 

JW:  We're gonna have to vote on your 1st amendmt before u make another one. (they  laugh)  All in favor of the amendmt, say (ayes & nayes) Roll call.   MW:  & that was 67 _  - JW:  _ what he said the 1st time.  _ gettin' ready to _ - ?: _ - MW:  (Roll call:  Yes:  JKB, MP.  No:  DA, RH, DLC, Walker, MMW, SD.) - JW:  Ok, we're, we're back to the original motion.   MP:  I'd like your (amendmt?) to put it at 77 for comm & leave res at_ _ _ _ _ _ - JW:  Is there a 2nd?  DLC?:  I'll 2nd that one. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  12 of  21

 

JW:  I hope there's a little discussion on this.  I don't want EM to come up with that # - EM:  I've got it, um the new figure at 77 for comm will be $69,650.42 which would produce some $10K, actually, $9,050 LESS  than at 88, so what u'd be doing is adding - let's call it 10 - to the deficit of 84, so u're looking at 18K_ _ _ dollars _ _ _ _ generate -

  

JW:  MMW.  MMW:  I've already designed the budget.  We set our target #'s.  We passed it.  Um & again I, I just find it difficult to believe that the (his, this?) ass'd value can drop that much & they still - by passin' the 88, original motion, they're still not be paying more than they did yrs ago.  I just don't have a problem with that. 

 

DA:  YH.  JW:  DA.  DA:  Again, I regret that u (would like the?) public cmts, but I think it's important;  this is an important matter.  Um uno, 1st, I think that this um - the thought of maint'g or keeping our revenue at the same level is kind of a bad way to be thinkin'.  & the reason I say that, this city does a very good job op'g within its means of the money we collect;  however, at the end of the yr we do not have a lg bankroll with the money um just hanging around waiting to be spent. & at the same time, I believe there's many um items that we still would like to offer to our residents that, op'g uno status quo will never get us there.  Um the cost of fuel, absolutely I understand that, however, the cost of fuel to op the city equipmt also inflates at the same um rate.  Um & lookin' at our immed future, again, I see no um real major revenue sources coming fwd.  We DO have some dev coming in;  however, major $ dev is still quite some time away.  &, & I would still like to have more & better for my constituents.  Tku.

 

DLC:  I think maybe I'm lookin' at it with rose-colored glasses, but I think the city's got things coming in, bizs coming in & I think dropping this down to 77 is only talking about an $18K - ?: _ - DLC:  uh deficit on this.  When u're talking about 8K big ones _ somebody dropping $10K income, which u're talking about 88 down to 77.  & I think the city can absorb $10K SOME place to, to handle this.  I cannot - u've gotta be fair to the citizens & also to the comm people in VP.  & I think that jumpin' up their tax rate by 37.5% is entirely too much & jumpin' it up to 77 is a great deal, right, & I don't think goin' to 88 is, is necessary.  I feel we can absorb this (other?) $10K very well in our budget. _ _

 

EM:  Mr Mayor, If I may, I, I - maybe this is helpful & maybe it's not.  But we, we talked about Reichhold in our example;  it was originally ass'd 3 yrs ago at $1.2M, so it was app'd at $1.2M {sic}.  Comm is ass'd at one-thrid, so it was ass'd at $400K for tax purposes. So u said your multiplier 3 yrs ago would've been 64 at $400K - about 24, $2500 a yr.  

 

um NOW, they are ass'd _ _ _ _ APP'D at, instead of 1.2M, they're app'd at 900K, so their assessmt at one-thrid is $300K.  So if u look at our multipliers, last yr 300K at 60 - well, let's look at it THIS yr - 300K at 88/100 would produce $2,6(50?) (someone coughs), ok. 300K at 77 would produce $2,310.  So we have a difference between 77 & 88, 11/100 on $330 per the $300K ass'd value. 

 

I don't know if that helps anybody or not.  MMW:  Did - do we - EM:  Let the public think so.  MMW:  (chuckle)  Well, I think I -

EM:  I, I guess the point was I, I, I, I didn't - I don't know if, if u think that's significant or not & it's really less than a (9?)% difference (together?) with the TIF - ?: _ - EM:  altho it's more than that, (actually or I think?) it's wise _ _ _ _  -

 

JW:  My outlook is on it - AP?: _ - JW:  is the residents should come 1st.  _ everybody's gonna drop that.  It looks like we're all trying to hold - to drop it for the residents & as they should;  they deserve that.  & as far as the comm, I see a lotta people eatin' a lotta dirt & dust down here that is caused by the comm & the heavy truck _ their _ _.  & MP is right;  they - there's concrete co's don't pay taxes in here.  Unfortunately, I think that there's a lotta people in town not, not payin' their fair share, but we'll have to settle that on down the road.  But uh I think somehow comm's gonna have to absorb the reduction that we're trying to treat the res people to.  It's nice to sit here & go back & forth 'n cuttin' it.  I wanna see what u guys are gonna do when it's payday & the city workers need $18K for to make payroll & we don't have it towards the end of the physical yr & if we go back & then say, well, we, we guessed that this new dev was gonna produce this & we don't have the money.  That's just what I wanna remind everybody to be thinkin' about.  MMW.

 

MMW:  Uh I agree with u 100% & that's exactly what we did when we set forth the budget.  But I think kind of what EM was trying to parlay in his last uh his last - with his last #'s was that I believe this is gonna have a minimal impact on the smaller bizs, the ones that are ass'd less value.  U're not gonna see a tremendous hit on it where it's gonna, gonna hit is the bigger co's that have more space &, &, &, &, & are worth more, woth more money than the smaller bizs.  AP?: _ - MMW:  So I don't think it's gonna have a huge impact on the small bizs as much as it's gonna affect the larger biz entities. 

 

MP:  2nd time around.  JW:  About your 8th time, but go ahead.  MP:  Not on the amended one;  this is my 2nd time.  Uh comm rate just went up.  Last yr it was 64.  2 or 3 yrs ago it was 57 if I'm correct.  & uh with the 77, that's only a $10K deficit.  What are we gonna tell the uh employees _ the 8K _ _ we (don't?) give 'em the res when we can't write their check _we _ scratch away the 10K for comm?  JW:  Find 8 'n factor 'n (find or fund?) 18. 

 

EM:  Uh, uh the reason that the rate was the same for res & comm 3 yrs ago was because we had to have a unified tax rate.  Now the LAW is is that StLCnty muni's have to have a uh separate rate for ea res, comm, agricultural rates.  So all 3 rates, COULD BE the same if u WANTED to.  _ _ _ _ _ res HAD to have the same rate 3 yrs ago & _ _ _ -  MP:  Right, I understand what u're saying.  I thought u said 3 yrs ago _ _.  EM: _ _ _ - MP:  Sorry.  EM:  I, I understood _ _ _ - MP:  Right.  Tku, YH.  EM:  Uh, uh, uh it was probably 6 to 4 yrs ago - ?:  _ (was about 6?) _ - EM:  ('cause we been takin' it out?). 

 

JW:  Anybody want their 2nd time around on this amendmt?  All in favor of the amendmt to 77 - is that correct, MP?  MP:  Yes, YH.  JW:  Comm - say aye (ayes & nayes)  Roll call vote, please.  MW:  SD.  SD:  Aye. (people chuckle)  I meant - I mean no, I'm not for 77. (people laugh)  MW: _ - ?: _ - JW:  Then say no.  MW:  No, ok.  SD:  I'm FOR keeping it at 88.  MW:  (Yes:  MP, DLC, JKB.  No:  MMW, Walker, Helton, DA.) 3 yes & _ _ _.  JW:  Motion carried.  ?:  Failed.  ?:  No, it failed.  ?:  It failed.  EM:  Motion failed.  JW:  Right, did - the amendmt failed;  now, back to the original motion. 

 

MMW:  I make the motion to approve the ord as written, uh comm rate at 88 & res at (54?)JW:  Is there a 2nd?  ?:  2nd.  DA:  2nd but I do believe there's already a motion - MW:  Yeah, I think there was.  _ _ _ original motion _ _ - JW:  All in favor of the original motion, say (ayes & nayes)  Roll call.  MW:  (Yes:  DA, RH, Walker, MMW, SD.  No:  JKB, DLC, MP.)  5 yes _ _.  JW:  Motion carried.  EM?:  1st reading.  JW:  1st reading.  Is there a motion to have this ord read a 2nd time?  MMW:  So moved.  ?:  2nd.  JW:  Discussion?  MP.

 

MP:  Can u tell me where u're gonna find $8K so easy?  JW:  Yeah, I'll problably be uh cuttin' salt back which we don't _ have the winters that we've been havin'.  So if it doesn't snow, there'd be probably 26K or 60K in the budget.  So that's where I'm gonna shoot for & hope there's no snow.  AP:  I hope there is.  JW:  I do too but he said pick a spot.  ?:  _ _ _ -

 

JW:  Any other discussion?  ?:  On reading this ord?  ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  _ _ vote on the amendmt _ - ?:  _ _ - MW:  No, I _ _ _ - JW:  All in favor of reading it twice, say (ayes & nayes)  Roll call vote.  MW:  (Yes:  DA, RH, Walker, MMW, SD.  No:  JKB, DLC, MP.) 5 yes, 3 no.  JW:  Can I ask _ read the ord _ _ _ - MW:   BILL # 1854, Pord 1711 (see above).  JW:  wbp?  DA:  Motion to approve.  MMW:  2nd.  JW:  Any discussion?  DA:  Yes, YH.  JW:  DA.

 

DA:  Yes, uno I, I regret that we do have to raise taxes at times;  however, I believe the method that we've chosen to do so makes the best sense for our residents & well-deserved break for our residents. Tku.  JW:  Any other discussion?  Roll call vote, please.  MW:  (Yes:  SD, MMW, Walker, RH, DA.  No:  MP, DLC, JKB.) 5 yes, 3 no.  JW:  Motion carried. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  13 of  21

 

The rest of 'em - was BILL # 1855 properly posted?  MW:  Yes.  JW:  Read that caption _ _ _ - MW:  BILL # 1855, Pord 1712, an ord for the purpose of auth'g the acquisition of real estate by condemnation & aprop thereof, describing the r.e. subject to the aprop & condemnation, naming the owners thereof;  setting forth the general purpose or nature to be made of said real prop & declaring it to be necessary for the general benefit of City VP, MO, at large declaring that funds may be advanced for the acquisition of r.e. & that condemnation shall be in full force & effect from & after the date of passage.

 

DLC:  Move approval of 1855, Ord # 1712.  JKB:  2nd it.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)   Now, a motion carried!  (1 or 2 chuckle)  JW:  Is there a uh motion for a 2nd reading?  MMW:  So moved.  Walker?  2nd.  JW:  Any discussion?  All in favor for a 2nd reading, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  U have the floor. 

 

MW:  BILL # 1855, Pord 1712, (same as above).  JW:  wbp?  DLC:  Move approval of BILL # 1855 on the 2nd & final reading.  MMW:  2nd.  JW:  Further discussion?  DA:  Just one quick cmt.  JW:  DA.  DA:  Altho this um passage of this LEG will, will not lead to most likely a lot of revenues for the cmty, it's still a very nice project & our cmty must see good in this for all this time & I commend all those who put this together.  JW:  Tku, DA. Roll call vote, please.  MW:  (Roll call)  8 yes.  JW:  Ord 1712, hope that's right, passed. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  14 of  21

 

BILL # 1856 properly posted?  MW:  Yes.  JW:  Read it in caption.  MW:  BILL #1856, Pord 1713, an ord affirming the levy & providing for the collection of a lateral sewer repair fee to provide for certain lateral sewer repair costs incurred by owners of City residences.  ?: _ _ _ _ - JW:  wbp?  DA:  YH, I make the motion to approve BILL 1856, Pord 1713 & to read it on a 2nd reading.  JW:  Tku.  MMW:  2nd.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried. 

 

EM, Is, is that legal to have a 2nd reading included in the motion of the original reading.  EM:  We probably should keep it separate.  Do the 1st _ - DA:  YH, I make the motion to read the Bill on its 2nd reading.  ?:  2nd.  JW:  Is there any further discussion?  All in favor of the 2nd reading, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  Now, _ caption _ -

 

MW:  (2nd reading - see above)  JW:  wbp?  DLC:  Move approval of BILL # 1856, Ord 1713 on its 2nd & final reading.  DA:  2nd. ? _ - JW:  There's a couple 2nds _ _ ok _ _ _ _ - roll call vote, please, unless there's any other discussion.  MW: (roll call)  8 yes.  JW:  Ord #1713 passed.

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  15 of  21

 

Under the Mayor's Report, we'll have some Tearoom info & I'd like to thank DA for contacting - I guess this is the right place - Siles Corner Market for the food in the back of the room tonight back there;  everybody's welcome to.  I don't have any other items & uh there's no bd members brought anything under my report  (someone chuckles) so I'll go straight to the - open the floor with the Tearoom for the BOA to uh discuss their wishes & desires, & let it go the course that it's in or (pause) - DA:  YH, I'd make the motion to allow the process to proceed as previously directed by the bd.  MMW:  I'll 2nd it.  JW:  Is there any discussion on that motion?  DA:  Yes, YH, my reasons for wanting to do that would be because, again, with a neutral party, I believe whatever info we CAN GET, um I believe would be helpful in making the proper decision.

 

JW:  Any other discussion?  MP:  _ _, YH.  JW: MP.  MP:  I don't know if this (the right path?).  What are they missing for the variance to their (request here?)?   EM:  Um a lot of the lines were not filled out & it just simply referred to some other doc.  Um I guess that's Issue One.  Issue 2 is, legally, I don't think u can have a variance with the initial retainer - simple as that.   ?:  Not unless _ - EM:  CUP requires someone to LIVE there & I don't believe (it's made?) subject to interpretation or MISinterpretation by a bldg code cmsnr who was - they played on space &, & the city didn't like it - was one, one reason for the variance that _ _ _ was auth'd.  The 2nd reason is is that due to some sort of hardship as a result of the configuration of the premises, & it excludes ec hardship, the parties _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ & _ _ _ gladly mail ('em or in?) the applications (the next wk?).   

 

I think there's maybe 2 remedies available.  One would be that the bd wouldn't adopt - uh well, I don't _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.  Let's assume that the hrg ofcr says that I find there's cause to prevent the CUP, here's the reasons why;  but this bd doesn't have to adopt this.  U guys can transfer (_someone coughs) mtgs, exhibits, together with these findings & conclusions, & either adopt those or not as u see fit. 

 

2nd is the procedure that I think we can go after, the bd, would be that it was come to the P&Z Cmsn & ask for a NEW CUP, alright, which is sorty {sic} a fact of amending _ _(CUP?) _ _ so it, it would be pretty much starting the process all over again.  & that P&Z Cmsn can do a couple things, it can say yea, nay, &, 'n ANY course, this bd has the right to review that.  They were advised that 60 days ago or so & as of this date, no once has ever rcv'd anything, other than this variance application.

 

MP: YH,  _ _ _ -  JW:  Sure, go ahead.  MP:  My only thing is uno we had this multi-family issue earlier & we held it over.  I just got this thing in the pkt.  What's the difference if we held hers over?  My only thing - I mean we gave it to 'em to let 'em run a biz out of it.  How do u take it away?  The prop wasn't sold.  That's, that's my only stickler about this one. 

 

EM:  I guess the answer to me is u gave that to 'em subject to conditions & evidently, the bldg cmsnr has cause to believe they didn't follow his direction & uh they're not securing under our ords.  MP:  _ _ _ _ - EM:  I believe that that was done, but it's not that type of a (sign?).  MP:  Right, I understand that.  EM:  After a period of time, which, it's scheduled this Wednesday.  MP?: _ _ _ _ _ - EM: _ _ _ _23rd.  MP:  Tku. 

 

EM:  &, & that's not a published hrg by the way, that's, that's a hrg _ _ _ _ _ anybody's welcome to it;  it's _ _ _ _ _ _ - MP:  Where's it at?  EM:  Here.  MP:  What time?  EM:  7:00.  MP:  Ok.  JW:  Tku, hardhead.  Elaine calls me with a lot of ques's I can't always answer for her, & one of 'em was, what happens if she doesn't show up & she gets the (homph?) of the (citic?);  it comes to the bd, correct?  I mean if they didn't - what happens if they don't go to their - to their hrg? 

 

EM:  Well, yeah, it - all decision-making comes to the bd.  This was simply deferred to a, a, a hrg ofcr in order to gather evidence & present to u all & gather evidence in a legal fashion.  JW:  So if they don't show up, it just gets noted that she wasn't there - 'cause she asked me if u come & shut her biz down one of these days & I said I don't know.  I said - EM:  I think - JW:  I don't know & - EM:  the way it would work would be, if this bd found uh if cause exists & she continued _ _ revoke her license, then her license would be revoked.

 

JW:  But it wouldn't be an automatic if she didn't show up - unless the bd _ - ?: _ show up _ - EM:  I wouldn't - ?: _ _ - JW: It wouldn't be - EM:  I wouldn't advise it.  She's got a lawyer & uh she, she does what she needs to do    JW:  That's fine!  I'm was tryin' to get some of the ques's that she asked me & I'm not a lawyer & I don't know 100% of all the rules & regs.  I don't - EM:  I would just advise everybody on the bd that they are biz people; they, they also rep employees & those ques's will be to, to be before a PBH, u have to bring a lawyer.  JW:  Openly! 

 

MMW:  Yeah, I just wanted to say, uno kinda cmt on the, the cmts we just had about now we're lookin' at multi-family thing too, & we're looking at this, & we're looking at that & uno I just see trouble down the line if we continue to grant special priviledges ta certain individuals.  & the other - I guess kinda cmt is - whether - no matter what the charge or hrg ofc'r may find, it still is up ta us - on what actually happens _ _ _ - JW?:  _ _ _ -

 

DA:  Don't, don't misunderstand, YH, that 1st the CUP, the priviledge to grant that does come from this bd & I believe there are times that it's proper & uno the term cond'l use, that's the important key words here.  There are conditions & again we need to determine whether or not there'll be a (method of conditions?) in this case or not & if those conditions were not met, if other conditions need to be set, there's a process for that to go thru.  So again, I don't think we need to hear this hrg uh this evening.  I think (it's been fact?)-gathering info to direct both parties on which way to take it from here.  Tku.  JW:  Tku, DA. 

 

RH: YH, briefly.  JW:  RH.  RH:  The part I don't understand is (onsonrow??) - she agreed to these terms because she got it approved in P&Z & now I'm guessin' doesn't wanna live up to their agreemts.  Is that basically what we're sayin' here?

JW:  EM.  EM:  Uh she, she applied &, & when she applied, she rep'd that certain conditions would exist in the _ _ _ _ _& then P&Z Cmsn granted her the rights to op a biz subject to those conditions & I think u, u're right.   _ _ _ _ _ -

 

RH:  I know I'm right.  I was there.  I was on the cmsn. I was the only one that voted no, but my point is uno it's always like we're the bad guys.  SHE AGREED to this is my point!  & now she doesn't wanna confirm with her agreemt!   That's all I've got.  JW:  Tku, RH.  Any other c/q?  All in favor of uh DA's motion to continue as directed, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  Tku.  & uh I have no more ques's for the bd.  I know I see -

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  16 of  21

 

MP:  Can I ask one more thing?  _ _ we have a mtg _ _ _ _set for  _ _ _ _ _ _ Monday _ _ _ _mtg?  JW:  I'm gonna leave that up to the bd's uh decision whether to have it the following Tues or, or have one mtg that

 

month as we did (illegal or it legal?) 4th of July _ _ _.  wbp?  DLC:  Mr Mayor, We have - we tabled some biz over to the next mtg & I would like to have that mtg on 9/5 which means the day after Labor Day _ _ _ _ - JW: _ - DLC:  _ _ asap?  JW:  That's fine.  Is that in form of a motion?  DLC:  Yes sir.  JW:  Ok.  Is there a 2nd?  ?:  2nd.  JW:  All in favor of the motion to have it on Tues, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion will be on Tuesday. 

 

& I see a biz owner that's sittin' here about a liquor license & I'm gonna let Scott - I believe yours was approved & MW has it, typed it up;  it's not signed by myself.  There was no problems with - is it still called Cheers?  ?: _ _ - JW:  _ get a wrong name - ?: _ _ _ - LtM:  No problem.  JW:  Oh, ok, there's some that is so I wanted to make sure yours wasn't so u'll be getting yours.  & tks for uh sorry I made u sit thru all this.

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  17 of  21

 

Clerk's Report.  MW:  Ok, the only thing I have tonight is that now when the mayor presented all the new badges  _ _ _ _ that nice little case, uh the mayor also had me look into the possibility of uh getting uh picture identification cards to go with those - ?: _ - MW:  _ pkt, those little pocket things & so I did find - JW:  Don't be trying to arrest somebody because the badge don't mean nothin'.  (they chuckle)  MW:  I, I did find a co that's on uh Clayton Rd.  I can - I'll either mail it to u all or u can see me after the mtg.  I'll give u the name & phone #;  they're there Mon thru Sat.  U can go down & get your picture made & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (just right on the top?). 

 

JW:  That goes for the uh retired policemen too who also got the badge.  I think uh ES (Ed Sidwell) might've got one _ _ _ _ - MW:  I have his signature too - JW:  So u'll have to go to Clayton too - RH:  Is that gonna be good for voting?  MW:  Pardon me?  Is it good for voting?  ?: _ _ - MW:  _ _ be able to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ?:  _ _ _ - MW:  I think  _ _ _ _ - ?: _ _ _ - ?: _ _ _ -  (they chuckle)

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  18 of  21

 

JW:  Park Coordr.  Pam, Did u have anything?  Pam:  Uh yeah, 1st of all I wanna thank _ for the uh the wonderful job that the PBW Dept did on painting the uh the fence at the Brignole Park.  If u haven't seen it yet, drive by.  I look fwd to uh them doing that to uh Leonard Park also as u & I had discussed.  JW:  Better not let the bd know _ (Pam & they chuckle_) _ _ _ - They didn't like that paintin' job, fut they did a good job.  Pam:  So I uh - hats off to them.  I do appreciate that.  Um I'm probably gonna turn uh - well, Op Clean Stream is this Sat of course, uno at Greentree Park.  Breakfast is at the Lion's Club at 7, right?  So everybody that's going to help, come on down for that.  _ it's really a good org & we appreciate the Lion's Club for their hospitality & generosity of serving breakfast to all those hard workers that day. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  19 of  21

 

& uh probably I'll turn it over to Tom because he probably has some updates on uh some of the Mer Greenway things that we have _ _ _ (bd?) _ _ mins, & we have a mtg set for 9/19 also for that.  TW?: _ - (TW used the city's new video system with a huge screen in the back of the room, Roxanne handled the computer, & while his 3 drawings on one screen were difficult to decipher, the $-figure screen was worse, but the system sure beat the easel used for the tax-levy PBH.) 

 

JW:  Tom, I'm gonna bring u under PBW.  It's next anyway, so why don't u start with your slide show.  TW:  Sure. Roxanne - JW:  Might kill some of the lights back there.  TW:  will help me.  She gave me a wicka stick.  JW:  We're puttin' her salary on your bill _ _ _  - TW:  I _ (_they start laughing_) _ (I asked u to steer?) away from that.  I guess uh I'll, I'll be very brief - JW:  U better get back there with your pointer.  TW:  A quick update tho on - RH: _ _ lights _ - JW: _ _  - TW:  on -  JW: _ _ - TW:  on the GRG uh - ?: _ -

 

TW:  GRG which is the Great Rivers Greenway.  (_they did?) approve on our contract.  It would be reimbursed thru uh the city.  In other words, we'll be still working for the city but the GRG will be reimbursing u for a portions of our eng'g agreemt.  They asked for a few provisions.  The one that is most notable, they wanted us to get uh aerial survey bids from several co's.  Well, from a previous GRG uh uh liason, we had already been auth'd to proceed with the area survey but we used a co that's in the area, Sanborne, & they're all very much in the same price range.  So we've already proceeded with that area survey.  So I'm simply gonna call them tomorrow & let 'em know that we've already proceeded with that portion AT their direction.  So anyway, we'll make any necessary amendmts to our eng'g agreemt to satisfy them this wk, but we're gonna proceed. 

 

JW:  Is that dollar amt like $80K?  TW:  That's correct.  That's for aerial survey & that, that includes a lotta things in there.  Um SO - which is good news by the way, they will be reimbursing.  What we've got is just - I wanna just show an overall Levee Master Plan & for ref, this is 141, which would have a blow-up of this area here which is this square.  & we have a blow-up of this area here that we're calling the uno the Field Complex 'n this area the trail head.  T

 

The Levee Master Plan will be encompassed by, essentially, from the RR tracks over to the eastern end of town that actually will meet up with the Kirkwood Trail on the very eastern side.  In the middle is this area here which is our proposed Field Complex which incorporates the baseball fields that already exist.  We all felt - I think uh staff & some folks on the levee & the mayor & some of the bd members felt that to keep those fields intact would be useful.  There also has been expressed, a concern about add'l soccer fields in the area.  Um Pam had indicated she can get those fields rented, uh probably double-booked.  Uh so uh probably being a more popular sport & on the rise, we felt a, uh the need for increasing the soccer field uh capabilities. 

 

So again, the trail head over here we feel is gonna be an important feature uh for GRG as well as the proximity of 141 for people using the trail which is being shown along the River Rd.  & the plan is to try to utilize uh as much of the trail & the road together.  That won't really flush out until uh we get the survey & see how the design & what kind of ROW we have before we can determine where we can put the trail to coexist with the road.  Um there's probably gonna be some places where we'll have to expand the road um a little bit &/or the trail. 

 

Now there also is a requiremt that because the MO Dept of Conservation had funded a boat ramp approx in this area here, that we needed - need to & SHALL provide 2-way vehicular traffic to that boat ramp area.  & then since we have these fields, proposed fields going in, needing access in various places to the fields, this sec of the road would need to be a 2-way road & possibly in conjunction with the trail.  If we can't fit the trail & the road together in this area, we would potentially move the road into this area here to be svc'g the pkg lot & the trail may stand alone in that area. 

 

Again, that's something that we didn't survey & the fire - in other words, the road COULD potentially either go along the toe of the levee to svc the pkg area or it could come along this edge of this proposed hardwood mitigation area that exists in here.  & I think in a previous pkt, u probably rcv'd a full-size copy of this.  JW:  Last mtg.  TW:  Yeah, yes sir.  So this is just a kind of a rehashing for the residents to see uh what the city is planning for the future for that area as con- in conjunction with the levee recreation component.  So a lot of these costs will be eligible we've determined & I guess, Eric, u can nod your head yes or no, but I believe that's true. 

 

EM:  Sure.  TW:  They're eligible - it doesn't mean we have funding at this time.  EM:  I think the important thing is, is that the cost of this would be borne if approved by the COE on a 50/50 basis.  TW:  Good.  EM:  The city's 50% would come from our participation with GRG together with any grants that may be eligible from the DNR & we understand there ARE some grants. 

 

TW:  Yes, &, as far as how (low or level?) the field & the grading for the field, that's probably not something that GRG is real int'd in.  But we're trying to do this so that we can do some shared costing on the road & the trail & the access from Kena.  Uh so those discussions are on-going.  The 1st step really is to get the eng'g done, conceptual eng'g which is kind of what we have here.  I would ask the bd that if u could - whether tonight or at, at the very next mtg - at least in concept, uh approve what we have started here.  Is, is there anyone who's had time to look at that plan to see if u have any major ojbections of the road we're heading down or is there uh - as far as - & I'm just talking about conceptual GENERA {sic}.  

 

Uno we're talking about a playground area here, pkg here, pkg here, with the hardwood mitigation around the perimeter here & then we're going to try to fit 7 soccer fileds in.  Now the grading plans in that step may not allow us to do some of these things.  It all depends on what we can actually fit.  uh & then of course the trail head certainly is going to be eligible for being reimbursed by GRG.  The trail head would be a pretty expensive item with kiosks & pkg & picinic tables & maybe a gazebo, a place for residents in the area to utilize, access to the trail.  Um so, is, is there - how would u like uh, Mr Mayor, is there anything that we need?  Uh are we headed down the right path or -

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  20 of  21

 

JW:  Well, I believe at the last mtg - I don't think u was here 'cause u only come on payday  (loud laughter) - AP?:  Payday - JW:  but an ord - TW:  Tks for noticin'.  JW:  An ord was passed for the expansion of Mer Landing Park aka River Park in City VP, MO, (think it's or the city's?) protected & uh there was no negative cmts at that point in time - TW:  Ok.  JW:  with your plan & I'm sure that this will - uh _ go back & look again -

 

TW:  Right.  Well & I think the reason why the mayor asked me to put this up on video was to show off their, your video thing, but I am also - ?: _ - TW:  to show the residents what the plans are, & what some other things are going to feed off of the levee & this, I think is a pretty positive thing.  It's a piece of prop that can be utilized for recreation. 

 

Now keep in mind, it's not gonna be levee-protected, so we have to look at things that periodically - just like in a lotta parks that are down on the river bottoms, there's a strong chance these fields will get flooded every so often, so u have to look at that.  As far as lighting is concerned, if the bd wants to direct us to put lighting in down there or try to rehook up the lights, we've gonna have to do some things to elevate the transformers, to elevate anything above & out of the floodplain.  So -

 

JW:  I, I wanna see P2 with the #'s that u got.  That's what everybody really wants to see.  TW:  Ok, Roxanne, if u could go to the smry sheet.  Again, this is where we're at right now.  The trail head area, again, that, that's probably gonna be 100% eligible for any GRG money.  Uh the boat ramp - JW:  Hey, Tom, What's them #'s?  We're gettin' blind.  MM:  Really.  TW:  Uh this total down here is about 1.5M.  JW:  Ok. 

 

TW:  Now again, much of this, to the trail installation - the road improvemts from Kena to Marshall, u might have a hard time convincing GRG of that, but I, as uno in all the mtgs, uh mayor, Line 11 road improvemts with, with adjacent trail - uh where - road improvemts with adjacent trail - (Roxanne has trouble w/the computer/video)  JW: _ (_ _people laugh_ _) - ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - ?: _ - ?: _ -  TW:  Don't distort it.  Roxanne, Go back down to the slide - I think - Roxanne:  Wait a min.  I'm on smry...(exchange tapes)...

 

TW:  Ok. JW: _ - Roxanne?: _ - TW:  the uh road 1 area is uno kind of a 2-way road between the boat ramp & uh Kena & that's 656K.  Now, we've been lobbying - I'll use the word - AP:  VP _ - TW:  to - took the GRG to basically say, look, we are going to have to coexist - the trail & the 2-way road because we have to have access, #1 for a park, our new park, proposed park;  & # 2 to our existing boat ramp.  So that is a cont'd lobbying effort.  (aud mumbling)

 

TW:  Um & I felt pretty strongly that they, they need to be able to potentially coexist & uh it's been stated fully (in a rock?). (aud continues mumbling)  Now we keep getting blank stares because they only like to pay for trails & that's - their biz is trails.  But my contention to them has been & continues to be u can't have a trail if u don't have the road to get to the boat ramp, & if u don't give us some money for the road, then we can't allow u to tear away our boat ramp area & potential future annex this park.  So that's been our stance & we will continue that stance.  (aud still mumbling)

 

JW:  Tom, Eric's got a little input on some of your cmts too - would u like to - EM:  I, I guess is the point is, is that if the COE buys off on this whole thing irrespective of what's paid for by GRG, uh I think, I think the combination figures were, what, about 1.9, Tom, maybe 2  with the road included in it?   TW:  &, & it's - EM:  &, & that's real tentative.  TW:  _ _.

 

EM:  So, so just as, just as a general picture, if the COE says this is what we want because it includes a recreation component together with mitigation areas which we have to do now, um the COE will pay for IT.  The COE will pay $1M on this &, & they'll pay the contractor _ _- TW:  Right.  EM: _ _ _. 

 

The other M $ would be made up by a # of ways:  1)  It's all cost television money so it's TIF!  Got plenty of money in the TIF, (mainly or remaining?) to pay one - TW: _ - EM:  source.  The 2nd source is GRG.  So anything that GRG pays, then TIF would make up the difference up to _ _ _ _  -

 

TW:  &, & I think it's our understanding uno I mean - uno I think for later on, I think the mayor might've told that we were gonna supposedly get about a M $ from GRG for this.  Is that what u remember?  JW:  That's, that's the #'s I've heard.  TW:  That's the #'s that were thrown - JW:  There's no - TW:  around a little - JW:  there's no guarantee - TW:  Exactly!  JW:  uh when I get the check, I'll let uno.  TW:  Well, & as we go thru the things in, within the time table, I, I've gotta guess it's a good time to wrap up & to tell u what we're workin' on right now.

 

Our next step is to take these #'s & the new survey that we have for the area survey, the  total graphic survey, & dev, #1, the grading plan that can be a bid along with uh some, some uh a uh fill-containmt plan, along with um the bottomland hardwoods planting that the COE has requested. Could u go to the back, please, Roxanne? 

 

JW:  _ _ _ be a completion date possibly on this if everything goes perfect.  TW:  According to the GRG & our schedule, we're hoping to have the preliminary design & property & everything, costs, finalized uh by next Spring.  JW:  When could it be built by?  TW:  Well, if, if everything goes well, there's a chance um late Summer that we might be able to start movin' some dirt.  JW:  Tks. 

 

DA:  YH, If I could, just while we're just - JW:  _ DA:  I, I've reviewed the uh plans that were in the pkt - ?: _ _ - DA:  last mtg & 1 request I think if, if it would work out, I would like to see the um access road to that site, AT the toe of the levee um leading to the um boat ramp. Again, I think because uno the river will flood at times, I believe that road will stand up better.  Um & the money will be better spent by puttin' it uno in a more protected area if possible. 

 

TW:  Could I talk to u about that later?  DA:  U sure can.  I'll  - ?: _ - JW:  (laughing)  U must not like that thingee.  DA:  I, I (hate?) that.  TW:  No, I - it's not that I dislike it.  I  (stops abaruptly ) - DC:  Mayor, Could I make a cmt?  TW:  We may have to tho.  We may have to.  JW:  It's gonna - DC:  Can I make a cmt?  JW:  _ _ _ _ expense.  (someone chuckles) 

 

DC:  When u're talkin' about puttin' a trail along River Dr or usin' that, why can't we use the 1st elevation on the river side of the levee uh for the trail?  That trail would be outta water if u can make it come thru, up Kena, up onto that elevation & go along uh between Kena & Pharoah.  TW:  Is that - is that - u're talkin' about elevatin' the trail up to the top of the levee? 

 

DC:  Not to the top;  to the 2nd elevation on the river side.  See we have the top of the levee & then we have another HUGE area that's flat up there, like a 2nd levee, & puttin' a trail on that rather than have it all the way down along River Dr.  That way, u would eliminate usin' uh River Dr all the way up to uh, uh the Frisco, the Frisco Crossing.  TW:  Well, right now, there's nothing set in stone.  This is all conceptual stuff.  All we were trying to do is say, hey - DC:  Do we have to have that trail with blacktop or can it just be gravel?  TW:  The GRG folks have been pretty emphatic about having an asphalt trail. ?: _ _ _ - ?: _ _ _ _ -

 

JW:  Tks, Tom, unless there's any other ques's from the bd - unless u got something else, I didn't wanna be cuttin' u off.  ?: _ _ - TW:  I'm good, unless u want another opinion, any ques.  (DC & others talk indec in the bkgd)  JW:  ES got a ques?  ES:  Yeah, will this be done with the possibility of a 500 little uh yr levee being const'd over to this one?  TW:  That's my hesitation with the const of the River Rd being relocated to either the 3rd slope or to the next pier if we are able to get any funding to go to 500-yr, as many of the comm devrs have requested.  MW?: _ _  TW:  We're not saying we won't get it in my lifetime, but if u're - if that happens, then we may have to relocate the trail &/or the road & that probably wouldn't be  _ - DA:  I think he's got (waxy or Roxie?) down - road down by the river. (they laugh as aud & others mumble)  TW:  That was one of my reasons.  MW?: _ _ - TW:  There's another reason but -

 

JW:  Mayor (Ken) Curtis.  MKC:  Uh is there a provision for on-line skating & bike path?  Pam:  It's gonna be a bike path.  Yeah, u'll be able to - MKC:  But not on-line skating?  Pam:  Are u talkin' about like skatebds or are u just talkin' about - MKC:  No, on-line skating.  TW:  He's talkin' about in-line skating.  ?: _ -  ?:  We're not - ?: _ _ - ?:  Roller - ?: _ - TW:  is very popular.  Pam:  Yeah.  ?:  Rollerblading.  ?: _ - Pam:  It's like roller-blading.  TW:  &, & there WILL be probably a center-line stripe, & then the width of the trail will be 8' & then probably try to get 10'.  MKC:  Tku.  Pam:  Spejit, uno what?  Have u been down at Greentree Park?  MKC:  Yeah.  Pam:  Yeah, the striping & that & the signage & that will be pretty similar to that.  MKC:  Tku.  JW:  Tku, any other ques's for uh Tom?  ?: _ _ _ _ - JW:  Tku, Tom.  ?: _ _ -  TW:  _ preview of things to come. 

 

8/21/06  BOA - Sec  21 of  21

 

JW:  PBW - Jim, Do u have anything?  JM:  Just a couple things, YH.  (_ _ _ _ _ everybody mumbling _ _ _ _ _)  Uh not unless the mayor requires me to.  Uh just a couple items um to let the bd know what we've been doing - uh while I was on vacation, the mayor asked uh Cmty Dev Dir to attend a mtg with FEMA re the storm that we had on 7/19.  Um I met back with them & Jeff again a little over a wk ago.  Since then, I've been preparin' some doc'n for them for reimbursemt. (_ people mumbling _ _)  Not a lotta labor that we could be reimbursemt {sic} for 'cause we had a very minimal overtime.  However, there seems like there's a pretty good sum of reimbursemt that we will get for the use of our equipmt for the time that we spent cleanin' up the debris.  Um I've been talkin' to the mayor about that & uh the needed-paperwork's about filled out -

 

JW:  Go ahead, Jim, give 'em the #.  JM:  Uh no, I don't wanna get Mike excited.  He'll, he'll wanna bring somethin' up up.  (they chuckle)  JW:  I think it was about 10K bucks, but - JM:  Yeah, about, uno if, if my #'s are right, we're lookin' at about a $10K reimbursemt for the use of our equipmt.  AP?:  Yeah, _ _ - MP:  We're halfway there. ?: _ - DLC:  It went down to 77.  (a couple chuckle)  JM:  So uh there's been some time detailed in doin' that, but uh I, I think that that's gonna work out good for us.  Appreciate the help _ _ - JW:  The bd needs to know Jim's been fully uh doin' all that work, gruntin' work & everything, so he deserves the credit on gettin' the $10K back _ _ _. (applause) 

 

JM:  & the other thing that I've been working on is uh the sewer lateral program.  The mayor asked me to start working on that & I gave him some rough draft of that.  & I'm hopin' to meet with him & EM uh next wk to review that & um at some sort - some time when we get that where we're needed to be, the mayor would present that somehow to the bd, but uno we have been busy workin' on it & I'll continue to work on that.  That's all I have unless the bd has any, any ques's. 

 

RH:  Is that your $9K that u were gonna make up for this review _ _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  I never tell all (JM laughs)  -  I never tell all - ?: _  - JW:  my secrets, RH.  ?:  Well, we know that. (they laugh)  JM:  Tku. JW:  Tks, tks, Jim.  ?:  I think we're all, all immune to any of this. 

 

JW:  Scott, Do u have any items that are - u're gonna be in exec ses I know that.  LtM:  I'll be in exec ses for some of that stuff, otherwise my report's in the pkt.  JW: Any other uh ques's for Scott.  DLC?:  _ this time. 

 

JW:  Is the Stealth Cam gonna be out around town or has it been out?  LtM:  It's been out & around.  JW:  Because I didn't know; I just looked in the report & I didn't know if they probably put it in a Stealth Cam Report or not.  LtM:  Uh maybe not.  Right now, uh - JW:  So Chad might've let Twin Oaks use that thing _ -- LtM:  Yeahhh, Ofcr Droke has got it right now.  JW:  So uh I think we need to get that back on VP & do some more Stealth work around VP.  Tks. 

 

Bdlg Cmsnr - Jeff Schaub:  Just been uh checking out the, the whole area, doing uh violations.  JW:  I think u been writin' a lotta violations.  Tell the truth.  Jeff Schaub:  Yes, I have.  JW:  Ok.  MP:  Is that another secret?  JW:  Ok, u're, u're gettin' here tomorrow.  (they & others laugh)  ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  If u give him one, don't blame me.  JSchaub:  No! 

 

JW:  Any ques's for Jeff?  ?:  _ know where u're going to - DLC:  I've got one cmt for Jeff.  I asked u about that hole in the road;  it was fixed today.  _ _ _ _ _ - JSchaub?:  They're _ _, ok.  JW:  That's the wrong guy for a hole in the road.  U gotta call Jim.  DLC:  No, this, this is that flat (footed or flooded?).  JW:  (chuckle)  Oh, ok, tks.  ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  Oh, I understand.  ?: _ _ - DLC?:   Well, keep laughin' (then?).  

 

JW:  Is there any motion to pay the bills?  AP?: _ _ - DA:  Motion to pay the bills.  JKB:  2nd it.  ?:  _that was not tonight.  JW:  Any discussion?  All in favor, (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried to pay the bills.  Is there a moiton to go in exec ses with a - ?:   _ motion - JW:  5-min break or 10-min break?  ?:  Yeah.  ?:  Yeah.  JW?:  I wanna get a piece of that sandwich - ?: _ - MW: _ - ?: _ - ?: 2nd.  MW:  2nd by Mr _ _- ?&?:  2nd.  JW:  Roll call, roll call, roll call. (everybody mumbling)  MW:  8 yes. 

(end taping 8/21/06 BOA)