MOPR'S   9/5/06   VP   BOA   MTG   MINS

 

Notes:  Mtg started 7pm;  8:02 recess, then to Exec Ses per MMW re POSSIBLE litigation.  Printed Agenda is Standard.  On-going is the tradition of stage people refusing to use their expensive mics or to simply speak up even when requested.  New Initials are  JS = Jeff Schaub & NAN = Neighbors Assisting Neighbors.  

 

Re Sec 14 & 15 below:  ref on Docs 2/2/99 Mayor DA memo to Landers which includes 3/99 Landers Memo to Mayor DA re Cmty Enchantmt Program - windshield survey, whereby the interior condition of structures will not be initially included.   Debbie Kazinski of NAN, http://www.ceegr.org/champions_2004/neighbors.shtml, gave a presentation & answered ques's at VP's 10/6/03 BOA/PBH.  Unfortunately, those MOPR Mins are in the "To Finish" file.  

 

Present:   RH,  DLC,  JKB,  MW,  JW,  EM,  Ed Walker,  MP,  MMW,  SD.  Excused:  DA, he's working.

 

Also Present - City staff & such:  Roxanne,  Pam,  LtM,  JM,  DC,  JS,  P&Z Chairman Dixie Nicolas, Ofcr Chad Louis.  

 

Audience:   About 18, including TB.


9/5/06 BOA - Sec  1 of  15

 

JW:  Call this mtg to order for 9/5/06.  I have several Speaker Request cards.  & uh the 1st one I have is Mr Nicolas, but he says only if, if needed, so I'll - unless he wants something addressed now.  The next one is Mark Elhoffer.  MrME:  Yes, this has to do with the prop on 329 JeffersonI guess that'll be brought up separately or I can talk right now.  JW:  Whatever, uno 'cause it, it's not on the agenda but if - the ald could bring it out if they want to 'cause it's uh tabled at this current time.  MrME:  Well, I'll go ahead & talk I guess. 

 

DLC:  _ _ (Mr Mayor?) I am gonna (ask that be added?) to the agenda. _ _ _ _ - MM:  Use the mic, please?  DLC:  (speaks no louder & does not use mic) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ald _ _ _ _ _ answer ques's at that time _ _ _ - JW:  That's fine but if - MrME:  Can I go - JW: _ - MrME:  Should I go ahead & talk _ - JW:  No, he - MrME:  have any ques's - JW:  I think Don would rather have u - if u'd wanna speak - at the time that it gets out on - MrME:  Please.  JW:  on the agenda if - it has to be removed 1st _ _ _ _ not on the agenda _ _ _ _ passes _ come back & u're welcome to speak _ _ _ _ _ _ _ nobody talks _ _ _ _ _. 

 

Stuart Elmore.  MrSE:  Uh I'm in the same position.  I'll wait till it's put on the agenda to speak about it (if it's possible?).  JW:  Micheleburdette Elmore.  MsMBEYeah, that's me.  I'm in the same position & I was under the understanding that it was gonna be discussed at this uh aldermanic mtg, so I'll wait.  JW:  Maureen Flynn.  MsMF:  I am also in the same situation.  JW:  I bet u guys all hope it gets on the agenda. (various mumblings)  Ms?:  I, I , yeah, we thought it was on the agenda.  JW:  Well it's tabled currently.  ?: Yeah. 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  2 of  15

 

JW:  Maureen Morris.  MM:  Yes, at the uh - can everybody hear me?  ?:  Yeah.  ?:  Yes.  MM:  At the last uh bd mtg/PBH, EM mentioned that the levee just erected was $60M.  I'd like to know WHEN it went from 50M to 60M.  ?: _ _ - JW:  I, I don't think it did.  MM:  EM specifically said, we just erected a $60M levee.  I have it on tape.  Are u saying it's NOT $60M?  

 

EM:  I don't know how much money it is.  I, I don't know.  The, the cost - it's not that.  It's calculated & the cost uh, uh the audit has not been prepared yet.  MM:  The audit's not been prepared yet - but u said $60M at the last mtg. I'm sure every - EM:  I, I - MM:  I'm sure there are other people besides me that heard it.  So now u're saying u DON'T KNOW what the cost is?!  EM:  I don't know the cost. It's _ _ - MM:  It's what?  EM:  It's an estimate.  Any, any figure that we would give u would be an estimated figure.  MM:  Ok, tku very much & we'd appreciate it if u would use your mics.  Tku.

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  3 of  15

 

JW:  RH, Do u have anything to add to the agenda?  RH:  Nothing, YH.  JW:  DLC.  DLC:  Yes, at the last mtg when we asked that _ _ table the - uh on the Jefferson prop - be tabled, uh actually the P&Z Mins be tabled from 8/8 until this mtg, so I'd like to make a motion that it be brought up in that particular venue this evening, P&Z Cmsn mtg mins.  JW:  Ok, I think we'll have to uh vote on it when we get a roll call _ _ _ & we'll make that the 1st _ _ biz so that we won't be bringing it out of being tabled _ _ _ _ - ?:  Hmm!  JW:  Any other items?   DLC:  No, sir. 

 

JW:  DA uh asked to be excused.  He's working tonight;  (workin' under?)cover.  JKB.  JKB:  Just one thing - uh it'd be coming under bldg cmsnr _ _ _ _ - JW:  Ok, when Jeff comes up _ _ _ _.  Ald Walker.  EWalker:  Not at this time, YH.  JW:  MP.  MP:  Nothing, YH.  JW:  MMW.  MMW:  Uh yeah, I had uh a couple of things for exec ses due to uh possible litigation & um I also had a quick one for the bldg, bldg cmsn about that _ _ _ _ _ _ talk about _ _ _ _ _about that house that _ _ _ _ _ _ - JW:  Ok, under his report, we'll take care of that & we'll have exec - short exec ses.  SD.  SD:  Not at this time, YH.   (Roll call - see above.  Pledge Allegiance)

 

JW:  Is there a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?  DLC?:  So moved.  MMW:  2nd.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried.  We have the bd mtg mins, wbp?  SD:  Move approval.  EWalker:  2nd.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried. 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  4 of  15

 

DLC, At this time, would u like to make a motion to bring it back to the table - off the table?  DLC:  I'd like to make a motion to bring it off the table - the P&Z Cmte Cmsn Mtg Mins of 8/8.  JW:  Is there a 2nd?  ?:  2nd _ _.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed)  Motion carried. Go ahead, DLC.

 

DLC:  Yes, the uh mins of 8/8 mtg of the P&Z Cmsn - we _ _ _ - I would just like to make a motion to approve the mins of the P&Z Cmte of 8/8.  SD:  (his cell phone rings)  Sorry about that.  JW:  There's a motion to approve the uh mins of P&Z.  Is there a 2nd?  ?: _ - JKB:  I'll 2nd it.  JW:  Is there any discussion?  MMW:  I'll, I'll take the 1st time around, YH.  JW:  MMW.  MMW:  Uh yeah, I, I DON'T believe that we should approve the mins if that would include um allowing this uh non-conforming use with respect to the house up there on Jefferson.  _ _ _ get some - a little discussion on that _ _ _ _ _.  People might be (movin' in?) later on.  JW?:  Is there any -

 

DLC:  I just have one ques.  U've got a P&Z Cmsn.  They approved the non-conforming use of this prop.  Is there a reason why we should not approve their mins?  Mr Mayor or MMW - MMW:  Ok, well, I, I, I disagree with that.  I believe that um this is uh a new group that's still kind of feeling their way & becoming accustomed to the whole P&Z Cmte work (_someone like coughs_) cmte chairman & the mayor of VP voted against such an, an issue, um I believe that they were a little bit confused & taken by surprise by the fact there is(n't?) a lot (of?) defend - uh a lot of info for them to try to digest, given to 'em right on the spot without ample time to really look at it & to understand exactly what it was. 

 

& I've actually spoken now with a couple of members of P&Z - ?: _ _ - MMW:  who really uh feel that they should have voted the other way;  given the 2nd opp to do so, would have.  So I don't believe it really passed uh mustard at the P&Z Cmte & if WE (did or get?) everything from P&Z Cmte they (voted or vote it?) down um another non-conforming use which the bd overruled which means the other WAY (at one point in time or it won't go any time?).  So it does happen from time to time that, that, that these things happen.  I think that we have to do is use our best judgment & do what's fair for EVERYbody.  & that's what my goal is here too is to avoid problems down the road such as the last time that we dealt with a non-conforming use.  & um I, I believe that it IS a non-conforming use.  It was never designed to be that way & regardless of what has happened in the past, um we have to do what's right for everybody now.  I think that not allowing it is the right thing to do.

 

DLC:  Mr Mayor, That is a piece of prop that has 2 houses (sitting?) next to each other.  Why they built it that way, I don't know.  U'd have to ask the people who built it back in 1983.  & this has been occupied by 2 families ever since.  It's only been one family in front, one in the back & there's also a - as u look at the structure - I hope u have - u've got a 2-story bldg in the front;  there's a small - u've got a single-story bldg in the back & there's no way u can make a single-family out of it.  U've got separate everything up there.  U've got separate kitchens & everything.  This is only designed for - as a duplex far as I'm concerned (& he tells?) Mr Whitteaker, I said (to me?) it's a duplex & u've got 2 different houses, the same prop, uh there's only - they got everything separate. 

 

& there's no reason they shouldn't uh do this _ it's been (really tight?) for the last 12 yrs.  & what u're doing, u're trying to go back & change the rules back in 83, which was (probably in effect for?) _ _ & tell 'em they can't do it.  That's fine & dandy if somebody's (gonna plan it?) back 23 yrs ago!  But we're lookin' at a situation that's been in existence for about 25 yrs - as it is, we (counted?).  Legally - I do believe EM will agree with me here - legally, (giving a?) non-conforming use 'cause it does qualify (under non?) conforming use & I see no reason why we should NOT approve the mins of the P&Z Cmsn.  They told us to do this, which in my opinion is right, to let 2 families live there & that's the way it should be.  It should be used as a duplex.  It's not designed for a single family.  If it was, then somebody usin' the basemt or something like that, fine & dandy.  (I would?) go along with it, givin' it back to single-family, but this is 2 different homes on one piece of prop.

 

MMW:  YH.  JW:  2nd time around, MMW.  MMW:  It WAS designed as a mother-in-law's house & single-family dwelling.  That's the way it was designed & that's the way it was used originally.  & what happened that was - um turned out to be a non-conforming use that wasn't noticed or identified by the bd, doesn't make it right that that went on for that long in the past. & it's probably due to uno some sort of clerical errors or errors with the changing of the bldg cmsnr & things along those lines, that this didn't get noticed & picked up & was allowed to go on for um - or apparently allowed for - to go on for as long as it has.  & the, the bottom-line is that it's R1 zoning area.  R1 Zoning is very specific as to what it means in City VP.  & the only way in my mind that u could do that is if it - u're actually gonna change the zoning of one - of that one single lot, uh which would be spot-zoning here & that's been a tremendous problem for us in the past.  & I say we just stay the course & keep it as an R1 Zoning & not allow non-conforming use. 

 

DLC:  Mr Mayor, Can we get the city atty to advise us on this?  EM:  Sure.  Um I, I'll - best I can give u for guidance is the section that's applicable is 405480 & it says a non-conformity shall not be deemed to have existed on the date of the zoning code.   & the date of the zoning code was uh 1988 I believe or any of the amendmt thereto became effective unless:  1)  it was in the continous basent {sic} & it's  fullest extent on such date;  2)  if such non-conformity IS a use, such use has not been abandoned as hereafter defined.  & it says in cases of doubt, specific ques's raised, whether the use exists, shall be a ques of fact to be decided by the BOA ever (noted or noticed or know as?) PBH & receipt of Report of Rcmd for planning (intention?). 

 

Um if I'm not mistaken, it, it seems to me that the evidence was that in 1983, it, it was built, uh it was occupied by uh the Burdette family uh in the mid 90's I believe uh it ceased to be used by the children & they moved out, & at that point & I guess for the last 10 or so yrs, I, I believe it's been leased (thru?) _ _ _ _ _ _ - DLC:  about 12 yrs it's been rented out.  It's just (not in P&Z as a?) single-family home!  JW:  Is that it, DLC?  DLC:  That's all I have to say unless u wanna hear from me the people involved in this _ _ -

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  5 of  15

 

JW:  _ _let the ald go 1st - RH.  RH:  Well, this is probably one for the bldg cmsnr 'cause I really don't know, but uh how many people can occupy this unit if (they're burdened or it burned?) by it the way it is?  & my other ques is why isn't it being divided off?  (If?) it was brought up -  the door that joined both sections - & I'm not a rocket scientist, but a door isn't normally 36" wide.  I don't know why u couldn't frame it up & block it off.  That's my other point. That, that is a sticker with some of them.  (Can?) somebody answer that for me _ _ _ _ _? 

 

JS:  Not going back up & actually measuring each one of the bedrooms, I couldn't tell u exactly how many people could be in there, but that can be easily done.  Um that doorway, the uh fire dept actually told 'em that they could put a firewall in between 2 residences.  A true firewall actually doesn't have doors in it so uh they_ _ _ - ?:  They threw in some more of that firedoor - MsMBE?: _ _ _ that was our choice.  They _ _ _ - JS:  So they chose to (put 2?) - ?:  (regular or rated?) doors. 

 

MrME?:  We, we'd be glad to (form?) them out _ _.  I, I'll do it tomorrow.  I'll wall it up.  That's not an issue.  I'll do it.  ?:  Hu-hum.  JS:  That's the uh - it could be changed over to a single-family with that doorway.  So in my opinion on it, that kitchen could be taken out very easily & that doorway could be opened up & made into a single-family residence.  Um it, it would take some time & effort to do that but it, it could switch it back to a single-family _ _ - 

 

DLC?:  It's not a matter of switchin' it back to single-family _ _ _ _ _ _ - MMW:  It seems to me like they're making (an addition without having it conform?) _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ firewalls & firedoors & all this other stuff _ _ _ - ?:  When I was there, _ _ _fire dept - ?:  _ _ _ _they thought it was a duplex - ?: _ _ _ _ _ _ -

 

JW:  This is gettin' - Jeff has the floor!  MrME?:  I'm sorry. JW:  (Need to?) talk to - sharin' the _ - JS:  At, at the time that uh there was no bldg cmsnr, the fire dept was doing the uh the inspections but they don't have exactly the same kind of zoning codes as what we do.  & uh to them, it could've been a duplex as far as THAT was concerned.  That's, that's why we needed u to put the fire doors or a firewall going in to be there at that time.  So um - JW:  RH, Did that answer your ques? 

 

RH:  Uh well, I just uh - like uno - how - uno (my ruling supports?) - he said he had to measure the bedrooms.  Uh is each unit 2 bedrooms or _ - JW?:  OH, I don't know!  I've never been in the house.  JS:  It, it, it does have separate bathroom facilities, separate bath, bathrooms & uh bedrooms in each section _ - RH:  ea unit - JS:  & it's got a - RH:  is 2 bedrooms _ -  JS:  full kitchen in each, in each one of the 2, so.  ?: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - RH:  The reason I asked, my concern is cars, the # of cars, uno just things like this.  JS:  Do has - it does have a garage &, & 2 separate driveways also.  RH: Tku, YH.  JW:  Any other ald?  MP.

 

MP:  Yes, YH, just a couple of ques's.  Has that been on the tax records as 2 class or 2 units?  JW: I don't know that ques.  ?: _ _ - ?:  YH, He calls in & complains (that or so?) I don't call him.  (That affects your local?) - StLCnty recognizes (that?).  

 

MP:  & one more - has the city billed for 2 trashes at one residence?  ?: _ _ - JW:   I believe they have.  MP:  Tku.  JW:  I don't know about _ _ _ _ _ _ _ one, one _ _ _ _ _ - MP:  Well, I'll ask Jeff.  What about the water?  JS?:  I'm not sure _ _ _- MrME?:  The water is - was one line uh that - uh it's one line, not 2 that came in.  MP:  Tku, YH.  JW:  Do any other ald have any ques's (barrin' out?) some of the uh aud participation?   (couple people chuckle) 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  6 of  15

 

I can let Maureen talk again _ _ _ _ _.  How about Maureen Flynn?  _ - MsMF:  I'd appreciate it if  - MrME: _ go in order if that's ok. JW:  Oh, so I can scratch u off too _ _ _ _ - Go ahead, sir, u (pause) - MrME:  I'll hopefully make this brief.  I did spend a lot of time with the P&Z Cmsn, Cmte uh for about an hour & it was - there was a lot of info passed back & forth.  AP:  Can't hear u. 

 

MrME: (speaks louder) One particular point was made that this is just simply a mother-in-law's suite.  & this kitchen in this 2-story, it's 1.5 times the size of the kitchen in the original unit.  To call it a mother-in-law suite is just totally wrong.  It has a - there are pictures contained in the enclosed - uh exhibits that we had previously provided.  U can see the double sinks, dishwasher, refrig.  It's actually bigger than our own house but it's not a mother-in-law suite. 

 

Uno we live by these ords.  These ords were put in place by VP specifically FOR situations that would arise as of this particular situation.  Here we go with an ord that says what a non-conforming use is.  We have shown this.  We've shown this to the planning cmte.  We've shown that it qualified in every way.  They originally thought it was abandonmt.  We addressed that issue.  We've gotten statemts from the neighbors & they said, no, no, 2 - uh only one family has been living in it.  Yes, they're related but they lived in 2 separate units.  Your own ords specifically uh spell out what uh the definition of the word family is.  A family is one or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together.  Yes, that's correct.  Occupy - however, it must occupy a SINGLE housekeeping unit with single kitchen facilities!  This is definitely a separate housekeeping unit & definitely separate kitchen facilities.  There, by definition of your own ords u guys have put into place, 2 separate families lived in that house until 1983. 

 

Uh it was brought up last time that we were here that this was a, a non-legal use.  & in - as far as that hurdle is concerned, uno we have a bldg permit from 1983 that was issued by VP!  It was for the 19 - it was for the 329 Jefferson FRONT & it said front on it.  Uno this was issued by VP.  This a muni endorsemt that it was a legal use.  The bldg inspector at the time LIVED THERE!  He actually built this house.  Um surely we're not saying that he was living illegally.  I know that's not the case.  It was a muni endorsemt.  It was a legal use. 

 

There was uh a valid occupancy permit issued in 2004;  uh again, muni endorsemt & again, the Statute 405.650.  I'm living by the law.  I wanna - I'll die by law & in turn, this is what I do for a living.  & it specifically shows what is needed to conform here & in this case, it says no occupany law shall be issued for any Change in Use unless such change is in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.  They issued the occupancy permit.  It was in confomity with that chapter!  Trash was billed at the duplex rate.  It wasn't billed at the single rate.  VP knew it - muni endorsemt, legal use!  No citations, tickets, evictions, charges EVER were brought for the 23 YRS that this house, this 2-story house has been on the corner;  uh never a peep out of the bldg cmsnr (speaker timer beeps rapidly);  never a peep out of the bldg cmsnr who was living next door!  uh never a peep out of the ald, police driving by.  Why?  Because it was a LEGAL USE!  Even EM apparently was at this house at one point in time.  It was - he would've known whether or not it was legal use if anybody.  It was not an illegal use. 

 

These ords are great laws & we live & we DIE by them.  This is what we do & this is what u apply here.  & this specific ord, the Grandfather Clause that we're talking about, we have qualified for.  Uh it was brought up at one point as a, as another drill, well, we'll just make the change because Change in Ownership, ownership.  The law says u can't do that.  This is a Property Right - It's vested!

 

An R1 Dist does NOT mean 100% of the structures are single-family.  Your own ords, 405.130, says, R1 is those districts whose PRINCIPLE USE is & ought to be single family.  It doesn't say ONLY use;  it says PRINCIPLE use & it ALLOWS for some exceptions & that's what these ords are all about, to address these exceptions.  Uh without these ords, uno any - u can just mandate whatever u want & uno this is something that's definitely uh - we have QUALIFIED for.

 

Um I hope that - there's other reasons.  Obviously, #1, it's better for prop values that we don't have a vacant house uh at the corner there - uh uno the house at the corner burnt down that was caddy-corner to this house.  Our house was unoccupied.  I don't know, potentially, if our house was occupied, maybe they would've caught it in time.  Uh so Safety of Nbhd - we got no objections from the neighbors despite the public notice that was put ON THE LAWN, it was - (we?) sent it out to 3 - to all the residents who's in - within 300 ft.  Nobody objected;  ABSOLUTELY NOBODY;  ONLY people testified in favor that this WAS a non-conforming use.  Uh so u've gotten support from that side. 

 

Uh this is not really a variance.  We're asking for confirmation that this be a non-conforming use, that we be allowed to have this 2nd uh occupancy permit issued.  Um it's not something that u're gonna have to redraw maps. This is not spot zoning.  These are exceptions.  This is DEFINITELY not spot zoning & u DON'T have to redraw the map.  U guys in your own ords have it to where u can redraw the map when U DEEM FIT;  when it looks necessary or difficult to read, that's fine. 

 

JW:  We know what the code book says.  Are u gettin' close to - 'cause I gave u more - MrME:  Oh, I'm sorry - JW: than what I'm supposed to give u, so - MrME:  Basically, the other thing is we, we, we will, we will as I said before, we (will be or we've been?) patient, we will comply with all laws that u guys set forth but PLEASE APPLY THEM FAIRLY.  Tku.  JW:  Tku.  Michele, Do u wanna speak now? 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  7 of  15

 

MsMBE:  I'll let my better half go 1st.  How about that?  JW:  Come on up.  ?: _ _ - MrSE:  Good evening.  My name is Stuart Elmore.  I am the husband of Michele & the son of (Al &?) Marcella.  Uh I have a statemt I'd like to read.  Uh 329 FRONT of the entire prop was ALWAYS, from its inception, intended to be used as a multi-family dewelling.  Otherwise, we would never have built it.  It was - we, we moved there because I needed some sort of a credit history, being relatively young, & we were taking over the paymts on the loan  (voice quivers)  to build up credit, to uh, to then enable us to, to move on or move (further?).  Um at the time it was const'd, it was in compliance with all of the codes.  We would never have made the additon of the house had we KNOWN that it would be in violation of local codes & would end up with a prop that would be very, very difficult to market.

 

A separate kitchen was designed & installed during its const.  All necessary permits & applications were handled by James Burdette.  The addition was approved for occupancy by City VP when const was completed in 1983.  Michele Burdette Elmore & I then occupied the addition until 9/94 when the prop directly across the st from 329 Jefferson became available & we purchased it because we'd had our 1st child in 12/93 & needed a little bit more room & still wished to remain close to her mother who (was?) now alone.  Since the time the prop - since that time, the prop has been in CONTINUOUS use as a multi-family dwelling with Marcella occupying the back half & unrelated tenants occupying the front.  When we were notified by City VP that we were required to have occupancy permits for the tenants, we complied & rcv'd permits for our last 2 tenants. 

 

The prop was put on the market, as well as our house at 10 Jefferson Lane, in 10/05 because of Marcella's failing health & we needed so more room so that we could take care of her.  Uh we used Prudential as our agent & the - it was decided to market the house as a, uh to investors, primarily BECAUSE it was listed as a duplex, & it in fact had been used as a multi-family house for the past 12 YRS!  Our understanding had ALWAYS been that it was in fact approved for use as a multi-family dwelling with separate gas, electric, phone & cable svc.  Water & MSD were taken care of by Marcella;  um or so I thought.  Apparently MSD was billed as a duplex rate.  My understanding is the prop was again inspected by City VP prior to closing on the sale of the house in 1/06 & it was determined that certain mods needed to be made to the structure, but it could then be auth'd for occupancy once these mods were made.  This is 3 TIMES the City VP has officially come out & inspected the prop for occupancy & not one of those 3 times was any mention made that anybody was in any kind of violation. 

 

NOW, having sold the house, Marcella's being faced unfortunately with the possibility of a lawsuit by the new owners who feel that the prop was misrep'd because City VP now claims that the house was NEVER approved for use as a multi-family prop & that in fact, there never should've been a separate kitchen or utilities. (voice quivers)  In 8/06, VP P&Z Cmsn voted to ALLOW the cont'd use - excuse me - of the prop as a multi-family dwelling & it now comes before u.  I'd like to ask u to please confirm the P&Z's rcmd & let's leave this whole mess behind us.  Tku.  Any ques's or  (pause) - JW:  No, they're done with ques's.  We're listening to u (now?).  MrSE:  Ok. 

 

MsMBE:  Good evening.  (grabs podium mic from its stand)  Um I believe MMW said that the uh P&Z Cmte got this at the last minute.  I had sent letters out to all of them prior to the mtg informing them - informing them of what we have - uh what the situation was.  They may have not have gotten the many really legal stuff that - MMW?: _ _ - MsMBE:  uh Mr Elhoffer - yeah, but they were aware of the situation is what I would like to say.  Uh in the last couple of months of this Summer, um I had held little conversations by phone with the Chairman of the P&Z Cmsn, Cmte who informed me that at the time this addition was built it was LEGAL - um & I guess that's a - uno uh because how could u build it if it weren't! 

 

Um I understand that my father had turned over the bldg uh inspector's position to another person so as to avoid some kind of conflict of interest. Um & I guess the, the fact that the, the code changed - uno I'm not a rocket scientist & nor am I a lawyer & I've never played one on TV - but I thought that if that was the case, that those kinds of things were grandfathered in!  The city has had over 20 yrs to challenge this use, especially during the last 3, & it has never been done.  & I really suspect that's because the bldg inspector position was kind of a revolving door, that, that anybody coming in, that this house has really become part of the landscape for the last 20 yrs. & it has been standing there & it's been used - & I guess they maybe saw no reason to challenge it. 

 

Uh bottom line is that I'm, I'm, I'm thinking that the city - _ were told one thing _ the city know about this to another - they told me uh uno this, the offers - the Elhoffer's, yeah, go ahead & make, make mods X, Y & Z & u're good to go & they did.  At the risk of sounding like my 7-yr old, (sing-songingly)  that's just not fair.  Um I think that u changed the rules, gentlemen, in the middle of the game & u've only told half the players.  Please, I would like to see VP step up to the plate & take responsibility for this & do the right thing;  do the right thing by these people!  Give them their permit.  & that's pretty much all I have to say.  Everybody was, was working here on good faith.  Uh we had placed our trust in VP;  they had placed their trust in VP.  Just do the right thing;  give them an (speaker timer beeps) occupomises permit.  Tku & there's the buzzer.  ?: _ _ _ - ?:  _ _ _ -

 

MsMF:  Hi, I'm Maureen Flynn, Mark's wife.  Um I just wanted to clarify when u said - someone said that a lot of mods or something had to be made.  I just want it clarified, the mods we're talking about was the fire dept told me that the rating had changed.  Rather than 0.5" of drywall, it was required to have 5/8".  So we added an eighth of an inch drywall to the whole wall.  He told me at that time u can either um include the whole wall with that so there's no more doors or u can get a fire-rated door.  & I chose to get a fire-rated door.  If I'd have known it was gonna (chuckle) cause all these problems, I would have wallpapered.  It didn't - it seemed really like kind of a non-issue & I um - but those were the mods we were talking about. 

 

Um the other thing I'd just like to say is that um your own ord says, & it's Sec 405.440, Change of Tenancy for Ownership - There (may?) be a change of tenancy, (voice quivers) ownership, or management of an existing non-conforming use, building or structure, provided there is no change in the nature or character, extent or intensity of such non-conforming use, building or structure.  The only thing that's changed here has been ownership.  That's the only thing. 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  8 of  15

 

JW:  Mr Nicolas, would u like to cmt.  I know u've had a few cmts directed in your direction _ _ _ - DNicolas:  Good evening, u all.  Uh the only cmt I have is I, I went back uh on what Mrs Burdette just said again - I did uh con- contact her & I asked her for all the paperwork she could supply so we, we, in the future, could make a, a reasonable uh decision on it.  & uh she failed to submit anything.  Uh the only add'l info I got was - ?: _ - DNicolas:  uh Jeff, the bldg cmsnr, he supplied me with all the docs that I could - that he could muster, (voice quivers) & um up until that night, we even had her handed a pkt - which I should've never allowed, which since then, I've changed the form(um?) that they can't do that any more & also, I changed the form(um?) that only one person can make a uh appearance. 

 

Um I have to go back with our city atty said, originally, what - I asked him for a legal opinion & he stated that the bldg originally was built illegally - ?: _ - DNicolas:  & it was occupied illegally.  & uh I took it from there & uh said, well, u can't continue this use & I think that the cmsn at the time, um IF - like the gentleman said, he had about an hour of testimony.  & I think they voted their hearts, not their, not the book.  & I've cautioned 'em many times in the workshops that we've had since uh April, that they have to go by what the book says & they just got caught on their first...(exchange tapes, during which DNicolas finshed)...JW:  Tku. 

 

MP?:  YH - ?: _ - MP?:  I saw  this thing from (cmte?) chairman that's talkin' about - DLC:  That was the permit that was issued in 83 for a single-family & that's exactly what _s being built _s a single-family _ _ _ the other single families.  So it's not they needed a permit to build a duplex, they _ permit to build a single family.  That's exactly what they're doin'.  U've got 2 single families _ _ _ what they applied for & what they got for it, what they - what u've got right now, 2 single famil_ _ _ _. 

 

JW:  I, I personally think that uh what is happen_ _, somebody was allowed to build this facility, &, & u can call it 2 families all day long;  it was one BLOODED family that lived in that, Michele & her parents I guess & her grandmother.  ?: _ _ _ - JW:  Lately, the (Cole?) was one family; it wasn't a duplex.  U can call it a duplex all day long.  Uno I, I think the bd has a chance to correct some wrong-doing & it's been good about doin' that. ?:  Hu-hum.  JW:  I think the house is just a, a problem in the future if u do let it be multi-family.  & we WILL have to change that zoning no matter what anybody else has said. 

 

& spot zoning - & there's not another one of them houses around to - just name me one that, that borders that & it's 2 families & uh we may be able to change some of the bd members' minds & myself.  & the sharing the door, just invites overcrowding & I don't know how many people u could stick in that & we faced that in other parts of the town.  So I, I - that's my only just personal beliefs & I was one of the - AP?: _ _ - JW:  members on the P&Z who did vote against it.  & uh I still today, think that it's an improper use & I, I believe in my heart that one family that, that built the house & if somebody did rent it after that family moved out - ?: Hu-hum.  JW:  the city was at fault & did make some mistakes, & now we're tryin' to correct them.  But luckily, I don't get to vote unless u guys make me here.  So, any other cmts?  I think we need to vote.

 

RH:  YH, I just have one brief thing.  I asked for how many people could occupy this unit & my ques was never answered & it's just hard to vote on something if u don't know.  That's the only point I'm tryin' to make here.  & there's blueprints in here, but I can't really read - ?: _ _ - RH: about it or about (sittin' here & I been?) (big sigh seems from an ap)  but I don't know.  That's all I'm sayin'. 

 

MrME:  We'd stipulate to 4 in ea.  JW:  We have a - I'm sorry, sir, u're finished;  u uh u's had your time.  MrME:  Ok.  JW:  We have - we have a - let's vote on this;  do a roll call vote on approve the mins which would in turn approve the zoning change to multi-family at 329 Jefferson.  DLC:  Mr Mayor, _ talkin' about (the uh?) zoning change - we _ask if the city atty would answer that - would that be - have to have a zoning change on that?  EM:  Well, I, I - DLC?:  It would just be a non-conforming use - EM:  a non-conforming use is - ?:  Hu-hum.  EM:  uh a zoning change, sort of using interchangeable words here but it - a non-conforming use is a use that is NOT in conformance with the existing zoning in the area.  So, so I guess it is sort of a zone of its own _ _ _ _ -

 

JW:  Roll call vote, please.  MW:  (Yes: JKB, RH, DLC, MP, Walker, SD.  No: MMW.)  6 yes, 1 no _ - (aud applauds)  MW?:_ _ _ -

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  9 of  15

 

JW:  _ have no aldermanic cmte report mins.  We have no ords.  Under the Mayor's Report - I don't know if Jim will be prepared.  We went out for a bid & specs to possibly uh buy an emerg generator for the city hall & I don't know if he's prepared tonight to give any of those uh (many?) devrs later on under his report.  But I asked Jim to go out on that because uh the last storm kind of put us in a bad position & most other cmtys do have a back-up system so I would hope that the bd would consider uh Jim's hard work & planning on gettin' SOME type of sytem installed here at City VP.  & I, I believe we're looking at a total of around $50K for the, the wiring, generator which would be portable if we could use it for VDays & other future events.  So all of that would be taken into consideration.  So if someone would wanna cmt, we can just wait until Jim - with his report to make any motions or uh -

 

& I did hire 2 graphic artists to render a new logo for City VP which they'll bring fwd to us here in the near future.  MMW:  _have a quick, quick cmt - JW:   MMW.  MMW:  Yeah, quick cmt on the, the emerg generator - I think that's an outstanding idea.  I think that uno when power goes out 'n the, the city hall, can't do what it needs to do, there's gonna be a time, uno hopefully not today or tomorrow, but in the future where that's gonna be a real necessity & I think we should have something against that.  JW:  Tku.  I have no other items.

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  10 of  15

 

Clerk's Report - MW:  I have 2 things - the 1st one, uh is this Poll of the Bd.  I'd like to get that thru.  JW:  Yeah, would u read the, those Poll of the Bd & then we'll _ _ _ _ _ uh (vote again?).   MW:  Ok, uh this was a Poll of the BOA on 8/31/06, uh it was stated, did u approve of issuing a Liquor License Renewal to Shooters 141 & Mobil on the Run for the next (roads day?) & I have JKB's yes, DA yes, RH yes, DLC yes, MP yes, Walker yes, MMW yes, SD yes, 8 yes's & oh no & the poll was taken by the city clerk uh (end or as?) of 8/31/06.  JW:  Is there a motion to approve the polling?  ?:   _ - ?:  2nd.   MMW:  _ approve the Poll of the BOA on the 8/31/06.  ?: _ - ?: _ - SD: _ 2nd.  JW:  _ _ your 3rd - SD:  That's fine.  (they all chuckle)  JW:   We uh - the reason why this poll came up, them 2 uh bizs were late in applying for their Liquor License so I appreciate the bd takin' their personal time out to uh help the 2 bizs not loose any revenue in their bizs.  All in favor of the motion, say (ayes - none heard opposed).  Motion carried.

 

MW:  & the only thing I have is um I probably would like the ald to let me know by the end of this wk & if they're planning on attending the MO Muni League that's gonna be held 10/1 thru the 4th, at the Renaissance Grand Hotel in StL.  We can get a discount if we can get our reservations in early & better than late.  & that's all I have.  JW:  Is that it?  EM has a few items he wants (to tie-in?) -

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  11 of  15

 

EM:  This is really under the Clerk's Report uh we, we did get notice today that the, the CHANGES that were made by this bd that were mandated by law to the uh gross receipts utility rates for telephones & uh cell phones & other - ?: _ - EM:  data uh utility paid up linked to utilities was rendered unconstitutional by the MO Supreme Ct um at this past term. Um therefore, under the terms of our ord, um that CHANGE that was made in which we rolled back our rates from 5% to I think it was 2.79%, something like that, uh so by the terms of that (old or own?) ord, that becomes of ill effect.

 

So the prior ord reimposing the rates at 5% are now the ones that are in effect.  Now, we're not quite sure what it all means as to who's going to be PAYING the gross receipts from tax;  whether it's the LARGER group that the LEG mandated that would pay or whether it's the same old people.  Uh & uh this is a direct pay to us & we'll just reform the next order on, on who's made paymts.  Probably under the terms of our old ord, it was uh - we, we would expect the status-quo for the matter & uh I, I'm sure the LEG in the next term will - ?: _ - EM: again take a stab at that, which is in my mind, helping the utility industry with (without saying anything?) 

 

Uhhh & that - & the only other matter was uh we, we - MW:  For that - EM:  _ _ get approval.  MW:  tax thing.  EM:  Yeah, we got - MW:  Ok.  EM:  we got cert'n from the uh auditor's ofc as to the tax rate so, so that means that we complied with everything that we have to comply with (beginning this day?).  JW:  MMW.

 

MMW:  I, I, I, I think I was reading just a little bit about this uh the, the telephone & utilities tax or whatever.  I was hearing that it's more than likely gonna take 2 yrs of litigation - Eric's been objecting - before this gets straightened out.  Is that - EM:  Yeah, it's, it's (less or unless?) uh the Supreme Ct said that uh the, the rate structure 'n the rollbacks, uh _ they, they've weighted it as, as uh unconstitutional & I, I have not read the opinion.  I just read that it (won't?) be in the (mail?) _ so I'm not really sure what the scope of the ruling was but I know it has the effect that our rollback is - ceases to be a rollback any more;  that it jumps back up in flact {sic} so -

 

MMW:  Is that quote sort of negative impact (in then the?) 2nd half on the city?  EM:  It, it will not have a negative impact.  It, it, it was a revenue-NEUTRAL proposition under the OLD - under the unconstitutional act because it increased the base.  It brought in more than just cell phones & land lines.  It brought in a whole host of other operators out there, including cable lines & that kind of thing.  So that's why we rolled it back to the same rate.  Now that the law is back in there, we're at 5% & I think we're just relegated under our ord for land lines & telephone & cell phones.  (I think?) that it's all sort of a voluntary tax - it's not voluntary if - MMW?:  No - EM:  (they didn't?) pay it, but it's voluntary compliance, so to speak;  because WE DON'T KNOW who's out there - ?: _ - EM: & charging telephone svcs _ _ city or, or making telephone svcs _ - ?: _ _ - JW:  Is that it, MMW?  ?: _ _ _ -

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  12 of  15

 

JW:  Parks Dir.  Pam:  Nothing at this time.  JW:  Tku.  PBW - Jim.  JM:  Uh, YH, The only thing I, I have is uh I can eleborate a little bit on the uh emerg generator.  I don't have the file with me.  Um I am unprepared because I had no ideal u were gonna bring it up tonight.  Um - JW:  (It's or Just?) preferable.  

 

JM:  We, we had 3, &, & uh 3 bids & I, I did some phone soliticitations:  Reinhold Electric, Aschinger Electric & Metropolitan Electic.  & I gave them all the same tour & the same info & explained to 'em what we were looking for & not bein' electrician, not knowing how many kw's is of the generator we need, but we did kind of know how we wanted the system to hook up to our bldg & be portable.  & uh I got 3 different bids rangin' anywhere - uh the, the lowest bid was between 45 & 50K.  The - one of the - the 2nd bid was 60K;  the 3rd bid was 65K.  The generators range from 75kw all the way up to 100kw. 

 

Um IF the bd would wanna proceed with this, um my goal was uh - not bein' an electrician, & then rather than pay an architectural eng- an architect or an electrician, electrical eng to write up BID SPECS for us, my goal was to have electric co do it for free.  & so I called the 3 co's & they gave me some ideals.  If the bd would wanna proceed with this, I could advertise for this, make some bid specs off of the 3 bids that I have. 

 

I have a general ideal of what we're looking for based on these bids & we can go out for bids.  There's a little of WORK entailed.  I hate to spend time on something if we're not gonna proceed with it but um if the bd tells me to proceed, um I will start puttin' some specs together &, & advertise it. 

 

Uh I will do a little conferring with Eric to review the procuremt ords but it would be a very limited amt of time.  Um but um to review that, um with the way I've started this & uh we would get movin'.  Uh & I might add, our new P&Z chairman, since he, he uh is a retired electrician too - to help me with them bid specs but I think we can get thru this & uh - JW:  I beat u to it. 

 

JM:  Yeah.  & other than that I'd just to say uno the uh with the bd & the mayor's help, the city employees continue to do a good job & uh we're, we're takin' the task on that the bd & the mayor asked us to do & gettin' it done!  JW:  As always, u guys are doin' a good job.  Pass that on!   

 

Is there any uh bd members wanna give directive?  Are we int'd in the generator system or we're not or - ?:  Well, that'd be a good idea.  DLC:  I'd be in favor of getting the - at least the info on (lookin' at it?) right - sounds like a good idea to me just to see what the budget looks like for bein' able to, to do it.  I make a motion we proceed with it.  MMW:  I'll 2nd.  JW:  Any further discussion?  All in favor, say (ayes - none heard opposed).  Motion carried.  There u go, Jim!  JM:  Alrighty, sir, tku.  JW:  Is there any more q/c for Jim?  ?:  I do have one for Jeff.  JKB?: Yeah _ - JW:  Tks, Jim. 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  13 of  15

 

Police.  LtM:  Nothing at this time.  JW:  I think uh - oh u're gonna do - Chad's gonna do his - LtM:  Well - JW:  _ little show under Jeff's?  LtM:  Yeah.  JW:  Ok.  LtM:  It's Jeff's show _ _ - JW:  Jeff's show?  Alright. 

 

Bldg Cmsnr.  JS:  Guess we can answer ques's 1st that the bd had & then - JW:  That'll be cmts.  JS:  Cmts.  JW:  Positive.  JKB:  I got a ques.  JW:  Oh, u _ -  JKB:  Uh at 611 Benton - that refrigerator sittin' outside, it's all goofed up.  JS:  The uh - yes, there is one & we did notify 'em that it has to be uh taken back inside.  Uh they're - right now, they are underneath the uh the ct;  they're supposed to show up in ct uh on the 12th for public violations.  JW:  Jeff, Since u're puttin' the show on, u might as well go _ _ _ _ _ _ -

 

JKB:  & I wanna tell u uh Leonard St is lookin' a lot better over there.  I believe they fixed 2 or 3 houses up already over there _ _ _ - JW:  Not bad!  ?:   _ (can mow his own grass?) _ - JW:  I think Jeff's got 'em all runnin' across (those or Los?) (Tramos?) (from here?). ?:  (So Jeff is our?)  (man or mayor?).  JW:  Doin' a good job.  ?:  (That's what u want me to?) _ -  JW:  MMW. 

 

MMW:  Yeah, I was curious.  There is - over where we took that uh - ?: _ _ - MMW:  that old run-down house out, they're pkg a big ol' dump truck over there, is that - JS:  I believe - MMW:  Is that in violation of anything or is that allowed to go on?  JS:  (No, they're?) basically, they're pkg on city prop right now.  JW:  See that's our prop so that - they're in violation.  JS:  So we can go over there & _ _ - MMW:  I think it's - I'm not sure if it's there, it's gone in the morning, but it was there again when I - JS:  I seen it there today.  Uh the concrete contractor who's in one of the bldgs, can never get a hold of him during the day.  Uh there is a # on the side of the truck.  I, I will uh contact him & educate him a little bit more on the - JS&/orMMW?:  (fact they ain't?) - ?: _ _  - JS:  (your?) props.  MMW?:  U're doin' a great job _ _ - ?:  Tks. 

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  14 of  15

 

JS:  Everybody got (ahold or all?) the pkt tonight - uh just basically, it's to inform everybody about what we are looking for out uh, uh for Nbhd Preservation to try to make the cmty in a (w?!)hole  (mumbling & coughing)  look a little better.  We did uh - Chad Louis from the POL Dept did the uh presentation on the computer.  JW:  Jeff, Grab that mic, would u please?  U can get some GERALDO experience!  JS:  (takes mic, uses only periodically)  Oh, great!  (they & others laugh, cmt indec, then as Roxanne manages the new video system's computer, the huge screen in back shows text that JS reads from his hardcopy)

 

But uh Chad Louis was uh good enough to actually do the presentation on the - powerpoint tonight, so uh he set most of this up but uh - JW?:  Hu-hum.  JS:  basically, the uh (via?) the, the Cmty Dev has got a uh mission statemt uh basically, to preserve & improve the physical, social & ec health of City VP, support nbhds' self-reliance & enhance the quality of life for the residents thru cmty-based problem solving, nbhd (braided safis?) svcs & public/private corporations - cooperations.  Uh the whole goal of the Nbhd Preservation is to uh, uh go around & EDUCATE the cmty more on uh basically, helping themSELVES uh before we have to go in & actually uh abate a prop or uh send them thru the ct sytems.  Uh there are orgs out there, out there that uh are willing to help for uh for people who fall underneath the categories. 

 

Some of the things we do look at for uh for housing code violations or public nuisances - uh rubbish, trash, junk.  Uh grass & weeds of course, anything over 8" is uh - we do put notices out on everything.  Uh how it, how it works uh myself, since there's only one person in Cmty Dev, or Chad Louis is helping out uh - JW:  Don't forget about Roxanne.  She's in your ct.  JS:  There u go!  As long as she'll be willin' to help me, I'll keep u _ - JW:  (chuckle)  She helps u every day!  JS:  That's right. 

 

Oh!  One of us will be going out uh & driving around the nbhds uh looking at problem areas & uh getting a hold of uh the people, either at their residence or the homeowner uh, telling them the different violations that are out there & giving them a timeline to actually uh take care of the problems.  We also send a cert'd letter along with it. 

 

The uh - there is a panel that's been uh directed I guess for, for lack of better words uh - being the mayor, myself, police dept, EM & uh Nbhd Assisting Neighbors, which, they're already helped uh a couple of people in the cmty that uh that have been out there, uh that fall underneath the criteria for the, the uh grants that are involved.  Neighbors Assisting Neighbors (NAN) - uh it's a non-profit org, goes out - that offers uh help to org & perform work projects for individuals 'n cmtys;  uh they act as a liason between the Nbhd Preservation Panel & cmty assistance agenies

 

Uh they did do a couple projects back in 03, uh they, they have assisted with the city of wide-VP tire cleanup, uh they took 630 tires & removed & recycled.  Uh 1/4, they assisted a resident to clean up his prop;  6 roll-off dumpters, dumpsters were uh were basically GIVEN to the prop to uh to cleanup the prop.  2006 uh they hosted another cleanup, uh that time getting 550 tires removed.  Uh 2006 again, the uh cnty health ct uh cleaned a resident's prop.  (JW & EM have an indec but jovial chat as JS continues)

 

Uh the NAN is uh is WANTING (_someone coughs_)  (the dirty?) clean(ed?) (up or out?) as, as much as they possibly can - (tho?) they're got a, a large un-coming project that uh Chad might be able to get a little bit more light on.  Now, what is it?  Chad:  10/12.  JS:  They, they've got a uh project that will boast somewhere around 150 uh hi-school students that wanna come in & actually help cleanup the alleys & uh & other areas around town, uh as needed.  They can get as many dumpsters uh brought is as, as what they feel necessary. ?:  It's what he features.  JS:  There's a large project that could help out a lot thru the whole area.  

 

Here's a couple pictures of different areas that uh that were helped out by NAN;  before & after pictures.  I think Chad's got this sec of the report. JW:  (Yeah?) _ !  JS:  They're basic #'s of what we've been doin' so far.  I'm gonna hand it over to him.

 

9/5/06 BOA - Sec  15 of  15

 

Chad:  The #'s (shown on the screen) are a little skewed right now 'cause we've only been keeping track of 'em for roughly 6 wks.  So there's a lot of what u would see in the 1st column, which is the active cases that we have. Letters we've sent out just be in-touch with the people, saying hey, u need to clean this up.  Uh we have had 3 people with the trash & rubbish um who have partially con- uh abandoned their prop, & we go by basically what we would call a rough est, 50% of their prop - if they start cleanin' it. 

 

Um 2 people have completely abandoned their prop;  um they're 100% compliance now.  We have a total of 5 people who have basically not coop'd & have been put in ct uh here in VP. 

 

Uh there's 5 people that NAN is going to assist. They've express health {sic}.  They're elderly people, um people who for whatever reason either can't afford the dumpsters & can uh can PROVE that they can't afford it.  They're gonna help 'em them out, get 'em the dumpsters, & we have 2 of 'em currently waiting for legal opinion as to who's the rightful owner because the people that are on the tax bill have either passed away or can't be found & there's discrepancies as to who owns the prop.  Um & once those 2 - the 2 with Wiggin (?)  for legal, they are - once we find out who the legal ownership, we'll then make contact with them & work thru them, explain to 'em the whole process & how to get it. 

 

Uh I believe we condemned 4 props?  JSchaub:  Well, they're in the process.  Chad:  Process of being condemned, 4 props;  the one, we've met with the guy, he is uh has now put the prop up for sale & is in the process of getting the permits to actually condemn the bldg. 

 

So it's been uh fairly positive.  We've haven't really had anybody fight us with it, so uh we'll enact that.  There's actually a prop um that's a stack of tires;  the picture really doesn't do it any justice.  (Screen shows close-ups of only tires & debris, not location)   It's about 4' tall & about 8' wide in diameter of tires!  

 

JW:  Is that Tri-Star?  Chad:  No!  That's a res prop. (one person cracks up)  That's another piece of prop that (Screen shows  before & after cleanup pics of an unidentified prop.) - JKB:  That's the one (that u should own?).  (they laugh) Chad:  Oh-ho!  Once again - ?: _ _  - ?:_ _ - Chad:  it's just a big pile of - ?: _ _ - Chad:  rubbish uno that'll - JKB: _  - Chad:  that ain't what kids can get back there & get hurt on.  Uh he's one - ?: _ - Chad:  that we're workin' to get a lotta that cleaned up. 

 

& that's one thing that with this - the big cleanup in Oct, uh the goal is right now, they're still - well, the mtg, 9/12, uh to really down to the nitty-gritty & discuss it.  One of the things that NAN has is they have a block grant uh which is what's gonna fund all this.  & their block grant - their goal is tire-recycling, electronic recycling & just trash & debris.  Uh like Jeff said, the neighbor, do the streets & alleys & also people that can't - uh elderly people, people that need our help to get 'em, get their houses cleaned up. It's gonna be Lutheran South kids, hi-school kids who have - need the cmty svc hrs.  That should be it.  Got any ques's, let us know.  (applause)  AP?:  That's a progress right there. 

 

JW:  _ _ _ _uh  - JM:  Good job, (General or Genrock?).  JW:  Tku & Jeff 'cause u guys are the 2 main, main guys who run out findin' this stuff & dealin' directly with the people &, & makin' it happen so the bd & citizens need to know that u guys deserve a whole lotta credit for this, upgradin', pullin' off them kids, vagrants. 

 

We have no bills to pay!  I think we need a motion to go into exec ses with a recess _ _ _.  ?:  So moved _ _ - (a cell phone plays) - ?:  2nd.  ?:  2nd.  (people disburse as MW does roll call;  results are unheard in the comotion)  JW:  5-min recess.  (end taping 9/5/06 BOA)