[0:00] Good evening. I'm sorry. Good morning. Good evening, sir. Good morning. Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Auxiliary University College of Communities and State Department, which is special as well.

[0:21] Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the City Council meeting from Monday, January 13th, 2020. Please rise from the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a brief invocation.

[0:32] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

[0:39] One nation, one nation, one nation, and there's a liberty in justice for all.

[0:45] As we call to order our first meeting in 2020, let us take a moment to be thankful for all that we have been given,

[0:54] and for bringing all of us together in this new year. I am proud to serve with each and every one of you.

[1:01] May we give ourselves in ways that make a difference to our families, and to our town, and may we maintain our focus with determination and vision for our community.

[1:12] For all of this, along with a few doses of good luck and grace, we give our thanks. Amen.

[1:49] That being said, if your comments have to do with the particular item or our agenda, we would respectfully request that you hold your comments to that particular item.

[2:00] With all that being said, is there anybody that would like to address the city council on any other matters this evening?

[2:07] Let's move along next night.

[2:11] Acceptance of the agenda.

[2:12] Move on.

[2:13] Any discussion? Mr. Wayne?

[2:15] Aye.

[2:16] Mrs. Silverman?

[2:17] Aye.

[2:18] Aye.

[2:19] Dr. Selma.

[2:20] Aye. Dr. Lawrence.

[2:21] Aye. Dr. Holley?

[2:22] Aye.

[2:24] Mrs. Basel?

[2:25] Mr. Travis?

[2:26] Please.

[2:27] Please.

[2:28] Now, as Mr. City Council meets the second and fourth Monday of each month, 16 to 7 PM.

[2:30] More questions?

[2:31] 7 PM regular meeting in the city council.

[2:33] Thank you.

[2:34] The next time.

[2:35] Consent agenda.

[2:36] Move on.

[2:38] Aye.

[2:39] Mrs. Basel?

[2:41] Aye.

[2:42] Dr. Lawrence?

[2:43] Aye.

[2:44] Dr. Selma?

[2:45] Mr. Selma?

[2:46] Aye.

[2:47] Mr. Selma?

[2:48] Aye.

[2:49] Consent agenda is approved unanimously.

[2:51] Next item.

[2:52] Bill's pay a little report for information only.

[2:53] Thank you.

[2:54] Next item.

[2:55] Please.

[2:56] On finished business item two, Bill number 5803 in ordinance.

[2:58] I'm ending.

[2:59] Code section 210.48478.

[3:02] And adding code section 210.3330.

[3:06] Regarding limitations on the use of drones in the city,

[3:08] eligible to find a reading and passage for the second.

[3:11] Mr. Perkins?

[3:12] I don't know anything yet.

[3:13] Mr. Law.

[3:14] Please.

[3:15] Please.

[3:16] Department have anything further to add on this.

[3:18] Questions or comments?

[3:19] Mr. White?

[3:20] I do.

[3:21] I was looking at this and it says.

[3:25] No person shall use direct or control any unman aircraft.

[3:31] Related there to source to cause it to.

[3:34] Take off from a land on any property owned by the city.

[3:38] I was going to suggest maybe.

[3:43] Something like to cause it to operate in the airspace above any property owned by the city.

[3:49] Because somebody can.

[3:55] You know, if you just take off and land and property and still fly around inside and you subvert the whole notion of this ordinance.

[4:03] Mr. Woodward.

[4:06] I understand the point you're making with the issue.

[4:09] We face is that we don't have control over the airspace.

[4:12] It's subject to that.

[4:13] It's also.

[4:14] Anybody that's lawfully flying.

[4:16] Can fly over the airspace over our property.

[4:19] But what the can control is that they can't.

[4:22] You know, actually use the property as their place of.

[4:26] Take off.

[4:28] So I talked to FAA controls 400 feet above.

[4:31] And drones can fly below.

[4:34] I think that's correct.

[4:36] If we wanted to get that specific.

[4:38] But that's the police in the situation of.

[4:41] I understand if somebody's fine at 20 feet.

[4:43] They know they're at 20 feet.

[4:45] But if there are 390 or 410, they're not going to be able to tell.

[4:49] But.

[4:50] I mean, it certainly we could look at making their additional change.

[4:53] That's the direction that he likes to look at.

[4:56] That's also going to suggest that they be able to produce a.

[5:00] Registration card.

[5:03] So we have the provision that they have to show compliance with all regulations.

[5:07] So the police can ask for that kind of identity.

[5:11] Okay.

[5:12] Whatever.

[5:13] Say I understand now, which means.

[5:15] These comfortable with that.

[5:17] That explanation.

[5:19] Yeah.

[5:20] I think.

[5:21] We can we can do a further.

[5:23] Maybe add that as an additional.

[5:25] Regulation.

[5:27] You know the whole notion.

[5:29] You know the two types of drones.

[5:31] The the UAS.

[5:33] And then there's the UAS is unmanned air system.

[5:37] And then the FPV is the first person view.

[5:40] So that one has no metadata at all.

[5:42] No GPS signature.

[5:45] And also you can even tell where it's been.

[5:48] So.

[5:50] So at least this way if they can see something flying above.

[5:54] They can take action.

[5:57] This.

[5:58] I can.

[5:59] I'll look into that for a.

[6:00] Okay.

[6:01] Other questions or comments from numbers of the city council.

[6:05] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address.

[6:08] Build number 58 or three to see if they.

[6:12] Well, we ready to load all this.

[6:14] Um.

[6:15] Yeah.

[6:16] I think so.

[6:17] It's okay.

[6:19] We have a motion in a second.

[6:21] Right.

[6:22] The vote.

[6:23] Dr. Lauren.

[6:24] Dr.

[6:26] Hi.

[6:27] This is.

[6:28] Hi.

[6:29] This is.

[6:30] Hi.

[6:31] Dr. Son.

[6:32] Hi.

[6:33] Build number 58.

[6:34] Three passes.

[6:36] Next.

[6:37] I'm three.

[6:38] Bill number.

[6:39] Five.

[6:40] Four.

[6:41] And ordinance.

[6:42] I mean code sections.

[6:43] To 10.530 to 10.540 and to 10.545.

[6:46] Okay.

[6:47] Mr. Perkins.

[6:48] I have nothing.

[6:49] Yeah.

[6:50] Police department.

[6:51] Have anything further on this.

[6:52] Mr. Lovely anything.

[6:54] Questions or comments from numbers of the city council.

[6:57] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address.

[7:00] Build number 58 or four this evening.

[7:02] Ready for the vote.

[7:04] Dr. Son.

[7:05] This is.

[7:06] This is.

[7:07] This is.

[7:09] This is.

[7:11] Mr. Wayne.

[7:13] Mr. Trevor.

[7:14] This is.

[7:15] Dr. Houghty.

[7:16] Dr. Lawrence.

[7:17] The number 58.

[7:18] Four passes.

[7:19] You may.

[7:20] Mr.

[7:22] Next item.

[7:23] Please.

[7:24] Number 58.

[7:25] Five and ordinance.

[7:26] A minute.

[7:27] A minute.

[7:28] Public works fees.

[7:29] Schedule.

[7:30] Two.

[7:31] Title four of the city code.

[7:33] Ornances.

[7:34] I'll try to ring in passage.

[7:35] Oh.

[7:36] Problems.

[7:37] That.

[7:38] Mr. Houghty.

[7:39] Mr. Houghty.

[7:40] Mr. Houghty.

[7:42] Mr. Houghty.

[7:44] Mr. Peterson.

[7:53] Mr.aiah.

[7:54] First of all.

[7:57] Hello, M Public.

[7:59] Are there this information?

[8:00] This is a vote on on hearing of such a рук.

[8:02] This is basically.

[8:06] Dr Hawk.

[8:07] Hi, Dr. Lawrence.

[8:09] Mr. Wong.

[8:12] Please.

[8:13] Is this.

[8:13] Yeah, a few things on the substitute bill. First of all, it establishes an effective data

[8:18] March 1st. So if approved tonight, these fees will go into effect March 1st. As part

[8:24] of that effort, staff will notify the public. We'll put a note card on our counter. We'll

[8:29] put information on the website and generally let folks know that these new changes will

[8:33] be an effect March 1st. The other change at the substitute bill brings forth is there was

[8:39] one recommended new fee and that's for title verifications or requests for specials or

[8:45] for leans. Title companies facts to the community of open department about 450 to 500 of

[8:51] these requests a year. And we felt that that is a high volume of service or a specialized

[8:56] request and that's something that we felt we needed a charge for. We had originally

[9:01] proposed a $40 fee to that. Since that time, we received several communications from

[9:07] title companies opposing that fee and I believe those letters are in your packet for your

[9:12] review. And we have gone back and looked at that and the bulk of the information that is being requested

[9:19] from the title companies we feel, while the volume's high, the staff time to do it is relatively

[9:26] minimal. We didn't note that St. Louis County charges $5 per letter. However, we felt that

[9:33] that was a minimal amount of a fee in order for us to try to process and avoid and collect

[9:38] that. We don't have a very expeditious way to do that. So at this time, we're recommending

[9:42] that that just fee just be eliminated. We can maybe revisit that in a few years. We might have

[9:48] new permit system online that can maybe handle a smaller payment at that time. But anyway,

[9:53] that substitute bill does remove that fee. And then finally, the last item on this substitute

[9:59] bill is we've combined just some of the wording of the other verification fees into one

[10:04] fee structure beyond that. There are no further changes.

[10:09] have any questions?

[10:21] Chancellor.

[10:24] I apologize.

[10:26] I have a

[10:39] Thank you, thank you for being here.

[10:44] Let's see if we can just welcome the problem.

[10:48] Presently the way the ordinance reads is that we can, when we stop a job, we can double

[10:55] the permit fee and assess up to a $500 penalty.

[11:02] What this suggests is not a fee, but the collecting has to grow on these stop work

[11:08] yard jobs.

[11:10] So, it's really not a big change in what we have to do.

[11:16] Now, what's happened is, the city is building a vision, issues about 250 to 300 stop work

[11:23] yarders a year, most of them are residential projects.

[11:29] And we charge an escrow, presently we charge an escrow, if the estimated construction

[11:35] cost for these projects is valued at $5,000 or more.

[11:43] So a lot of times when we stop a job, we ultimately do get an application for a building

[11:49] permit, and the estimated cost invariably is less than $5,000.

[11:57] So as a deterrent, the $500 escrow is recommended for all stop work yarders, even if

[12:07] they give us an estimated cost of $1,000 or $2,000, or the case may be.

[12:13] So this is an escrow?

[12:14] Yes.

[12:15] That was a clear review.

[12:17] Thank you.

[12:18] You're welcome.

[12:19] Go ahead.

[12:21] On a different degree on the certificate of occupancy, and now you want to diswish

[12:26] to $500 to why only $500, if someone is in an, if they don't have their certificate of occupancy,

[12:33] and we don't discover it for two or three months, that's months that they've gone rent on

[12:38] that.

[12:39] Look, it doesn't seem like even $500 would be enough to not circumvent the program, and if we're

[12:46] raising it to prevent people from circumventing the program is $500 enough in this sort of

[12:52] limit to what that penalty can be.

[12:55] It means 90 to one month's worth of rent in those locations.

[13:00] The present fee are penalty for that.

[13:03] Illegal reoccupancy is $175.

[13:08] So the $500 was based on other jurisdictions, what they charge for illegal reacts.

[13:19] That's the number that we came up that we thought this go around was a fair increase.

[13:29] Could it be more, shouldn't it be more?

[13:31] Well, that's at the city council, I think, what we do as a matter of billing these apartment

[13:41] communities is when there's an illegal reoccupancy, we become aware of it, as part of the monthly

[13:47] invoice, there's sent a breakdown of the COs that we've issued and the illegal COs that

[13:55] we discovered, and that's where that dollar amount appears.

[14:00] So going from $175 to $500, the building division thought that would be a fair increase

[14:08] at this point in time.

[14:09] If it continues, then I think we would come back to the city council.

[14:14] If that's trying that is pointed out in that table, continues to go up, then I think we look

[14:19] at raising that fee even more.

[14:21] I mean, it's gone up every year for the last five years, and we are just now increasing it.

[14:28] So I would not be against raising it to something that would actually be able to make a

[14:37] difference as opposed to, by the time we get the information that they are continuing, you know,

[14:44] 153 debt we've caught is a lot in my opinion in a year, 153 in a year, $500 is not even a

[14:57] one month.

[15:00] Rent, I mean, it almost doesn't, it doesn't feel like it would be enough of a deterrent to me.

[15:10] If there are already doing it, then obviously the deterrent wasn't enough of a deterrent to begin with.

[15:18] But I don't know that increasing it to a amount that's still not going to, I mean, if they're looking at purely from a financial point of view,

[15:26] that they're not doing this, then $500 is not going to be enough to change it, I would think.

[15:34] Not when you can be three months without or six months or 153.

[15:42] Well, that's for fiscal year, yeah, that's for fiscal year 2018, fiscal year 2019 and it went up to 238.

[15:52] Now, it's a significant increase from 54 when we started to two and five years and we have not increased it in the last five years.

[16:02] I don't know how the rest of the council feels, but I would be in favor of increasing that amount.

[16:09] If we're if unless there's state limits on how much we can increase that.

[16:17] Well, it's not really a court fine, so it's just a scene that says charging the time we've evolved, so we have to get a challenge at the end.

[16:33] I mean, the whole point is to protect the, you know, the residents of those places and and their neighbors, you know, that that it's not like we just do this for the benefit, there's a safety issue, which is why we required these.

[16:50] I would say though that it'd remember it is a fee and not a fine, so for that reason, I do think we want to.

[17:00] Well, it's not I'm not saying increased what the actual cost have occupancy done is I'm saying if you don't get the occupancy done, so it's a penalty as opposed to just a random fee that we're giving them, I'm not saying increase the fee, I'm saying increase the penalty.

[17:17] It's technically a fee that's not being opposed by.

[17:23] And I asked you don't think 500 dollars is necessarily a small amount of money.

[17:27] I mean, to your point, I sort of hear that that I also, I mean, 500 dollars is not worth giving it a shot.

[17:41] And I think we also do need to be cognizant of that it does have to be linked to what it cost us.

[17:47] And I think that that argument can certainly be made when we're talking about our occupancy inspections, but I don't know how much higher we can go and still make that argument.

[17:56] Well, then can we look any year, can we maybe agree any year we come back and see if this is made any difference whatsoever.

[18:11] Like if the numbers are still continuing on the rapid increase any year from now.

[18:19] Why I think the building to be doing would have no objection to that.

[18:23] Then then I would like to do that. At least put it on the minute set in a year we're going to revisit and see what the actual numbers are and if this is made enough of an impact.

[18:35] Other questions or tell this from the British in the city council.

[18:39] Mr. Honster, do you have anything further than you'd like to add?

[18:44] Not on the fees, go to a note.

[18:46] I do have a number of speaker cards and we have there are some letters in your packet.

[18:55] Barbara Siri, did you still want to address this issue?

[19:08] Sure. If you please come forward and state your name and address for the record please we do report our procedure.

[19:16] Wendy Chromer and I'm representing the Missouri Land Title Association and Security Title Insurance Agency at 1-3355 Olive Boulevard.

[19:28] And now that you've introduced a substitute bill eliminating the fee to title companies first slide I'd like to say thank you.

[19:35] We appreciate that very much and I just wanted to go on record is stating that.

[19:43] Any time that the city has an issue with the title industry we would welcome you to contact our association.

[19:53] We actually have a zone committee set up for the St. Louis Metropolitan area and we're you know we we would appreciate the opportunity to work together to create better ways and you know better ways of working together.

[20:10] Instead of just jumping to fees and fines.

[20:15] So but we do appreciate you substituting the new legislation.

[20:20] Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight.

[20:25] Barbara Siri, did you want to speak?

[20:41] Thank you. My name is Barbara Siri, I'm the past president for the Missouri Land Title and I also in the COO of a title company that is located in the Paragon Building Increate Corps.

[20:51] I reiterate what Wendy said we're really very very pleased we got here tonight.

[20:56] We were prepared to think that we were going to have to have a hard battle with a very impressive board but we are very very pleased that you have reconsidered it and that that assessment is not going to that fee is not going to go in.

[21:09] We look at it as that we provide a service to you and to your community by collecting the leans that you assess against the properties within your boundaries.

[21:18] And we want to continue to do that and we don't want to do it where if a closing doesn't happen the title company has to pay that fee.

[21:25] Nor do we want it to be a pass through that will be impacting your potential buyers are your existing sellers.

[21:31] And so that's the point that I kind of wanted to make.

[21:34] I follow up with what Wendy said as well, the Missouri Land Title Association will work with you any day, any time.

[21:40] Wendy is also a past president and we know how important it is for the communities to be strong and for our relationship with the community, the community council to be strong.

[21:51] Also, I would greatly appreciate this is just sort of my own public personal note.

[21:56] If something like this comes up again being.

[21:59] Of our corporate office is inside of creep core.

[22:02] We didn't receive any notice about this.

[22:04] I found out about it from Missouri Land Title.

[22:06] So I think maybe however those notices go out maybe a little better job on that would be very very helpful.

[22:13] So that we are prepared.

[22:15] But once again, thank you and thank you for reconsidering.

[22:18] We're proposing on the first place.

[22:21] Thank you.

[22:22] Thank you for your comments.

[22:23] Thank you.

[22:24] Laura Hardy.

[22:26] Thank you.

[22:28] Thank you.

[22:31] Thank you.

[22:32] Thank you for being here.

[22:33] Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address substitute bill number 58 or five this evening?

[22:40] City council.

[22:41] Any further questions?

[22:43] Mr.

[22:46] Nothing further.

[22:47] Thank you.

[22:48] We're ready to vote on this issue.

[22:50] Dr. Sonberg.

[22:51] Mrs. Delphoza.

[22:52] Hi.

[22:53] Mr. Silverman.

[22:54] Mr. Wang.

[22:55] Mr. Trevor.

[22:56] Mrs. Basin.

[22:57] Dr. Hoffman.

[22:58] Hi.

[22:59] Dr. Lawrence.

[23:00] Substitute bill number 58.

[23:02] Passes.

[23:08] Next item please.

[23:09] Your business.

[23:10] I am five.

[23:11] It's an ordnance adapting code section 23.

[23:14] Two three zero point nine zero zero nine zero regarding request for accommodations pursuant to the federal fair housing act.

[23:21] I'll go first reading.

[23:23] Mr.

[23:26] Mr. Lundley.

[23:27] May I like to just briefly summarize this.

[23:29] We looked at other communities and thought that the city would benefit from having a formally established set of procedures so that if we face it.

[23:40] Another situation.

[23:43] Under the Fair Housing Act to stay up and better guide someone along the way.

[23:49] So the city gets full consideration to any request for reasonable accommodations.

[23:55] I think we did a good job.

[23:57] One of the representatives with that we kind of had to invent procedures as we went.

[24:02] And this will give us a little more structure to someone who is perhaps new to the community.

[24:07] They can look on the website and see how to present their issues.

[24:11] Thank you Mr. Lundley.

[24:13] Questions or comments?

[24:15] Members of the City Council.

[24:16] Dr. Lawrence.

[24:17] I want to ask you a question about the land sentence section A on page or a page.

[24:22] It's said for least property in the question of who the current state is for.

[24:26] From the property on a different one available.

[24:28] Or an explanation.

[24:30] It's just a related question.

[24:31] Probably.

[24:32] I think it's really important.

[24:36] I think we need to expand.

[24:38] How we expect to.

[24:39] We can attack the power of the order.

[24:41] Or just say.

[24:42] I have to have a lot of good property.

[24:44] Well, the reason we weren't comfortable making that a precondition is.

[24:50] Someone could actually be in a dispute with the property owner.

[24:53] It was declining to provide an accommodation that might be lawfully required.

[25:05] We thought the city should be independently looking at this.

[25:09] And so we want to know what's going on.

[25:12] But we're not making it a precondition to city action.

[25:15] If the city looks at it and determines that the accommodation is warranted.

[25:19] The city can approve it.

[25:21] The perspective tenant might still have to.

[25:24] Have to speak with the landlord about their rental situation.

[25:28] But just like we don't get involved in arbitrating subdivision indentures.

[25:32] We can't involve in a week's either.

[25:34] We just can give you a combination to what we require.

[25:37] If my own intern was like.

[25:39] In the last instance, I don't think the property owner.

[25:42] Doesn't form.

[25:43] Which I've made it different from all.

[25:47] Well, I think the lease in Asia wasn't formed.

[25:49] This is the information we got.

[25:51] So that means that the property owner wasn't formed constructively.

[25:54] And that's their problem from that communicating.

[25:57] But again, I think whatever this, you know,

[25:59] the city had made other decisions.

[26:01] If the request hadn't been modified.

[26:03] Whether or not to landlord agree with the city.

[26:05] The city's making its own.

[26:07] Fair enough.

[26:09] The questions are published from members of the city council.

[26:13] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address.

[26:17] Building number 586 to safety?

[26:20] This is the first reading in this bill.

[26:22] We will take it up again.

[26:23] And our next regularly scheduled city council meeting,

[26:26] which is on Monday, January 27.

[26:31] Next item.

[26:32] Bill number 587 in ordinance.

[26:34] And many of the adopted 2020 budgets of the city of Green Court

[26:37] by authorizing an additional appropriation.

[26:39] Authorizing the transfer between public safety sales tax funds.

[26:42] And the general fund.

[26:43] I'll just go for a short reading.

[26:45] Mr. Purpose.

[26:46] Yes.

[26:47] You'll see the memo from is overmole our director of finance.

[26:51] The biggest element of this budget amendment is the fact that

[26:55] we have changed our process for dispersing holiday pay to officers.

[27:00] Holiday pay is paid in lieu of them taking those holidays.

[27:06] Because of their work schedule.

[27:09] In with our new finance software we have found that it is.

[27:14] The system is much more conducive to simply paying out holiday pay as we go

[27:19] throughout the year.

[27:21] Each time a holiday is incurred.

[27:23] As opposed to all at the end.

[27:26] The new program was just going to be quite a bit easier for the department

[27:33] and the finance department to track the holiday pay on an ongoing basis

[27:37] and to spur sit on an ongoing basis.

[27:39] But by doing that that means we are.

[27:42] We've already dispersed for the previous year.

[27:44] And now we are dispersing it early.

[27:46] You know for this next year.

[27:48] So we needed to make a budget amendment.

[27:51] And this is a one time adjustment in order to make allow for that change.

[27:56] There's also a purchase order that you see.

[27:59] That was a carryover from our tire or software that money was.

[28:03] It was encumbered but it not actually been included in the budget for about $12,900.

[28:08] So those are the two.

[28:11] Budget amendments.

[28:13] Your request.

[28:14] Thank you Mr. Perkins.

[28:15] Questions?

[28:16] Members of the city council.

[28:18] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address bill number 5807 this evening?

[28:24] Again this is the first reading of this bill.

[28:27] We'll take it up again at our meeting on January 27th.

[28:31] Next time.

[28:32] And in seven bill number 5808 an ordinance repealing article two building code of chapter 500

[28:38] of the city code of ordinances of the city creep court and enticing in lieu of their

[28:42] a new article to building code as a bookstore first read.

[28:47] Mr. Perkins.

[28:48] Mr. Perkins.

[28:50] Mr. Perkins.

[29:03] Where would I be out of order if I revisited that apartment reoc on the issue?

[29:08] There was one thing I wanted to add that I don't know city councils of the world.

[29:14] So the other thing that happens within a legal department of react, when we discover that,

[29:20] we fill out a quarter of an affiday with two.

[29:24] So in addition to the bill they get for that penalty fee, they are also taking the court

[29:30] for the purpose of gaining a fine.

[29:34] Now that amounts usually amounts to an additional $200.

[29:39] But if it's if they have moved in illegally and there are life safety-related issues,

[29:48] such as a deteriorating deck, smoke detectors that don't work, bedroom windows that won't stay open.

[30:00] The court can assess up to a thousand dollar penalty. So two things will still happen with this passage

[30:08] of this higher penalty on the fee schedule. That will go up from 175 to 500, and there still will be

[30:16] court action. The next five ordinances are to adopt new codes for the city. About every

[30:30] six to seven years, the city looks at adopting newer codes, more recent codes, codes change

[30:40] as a result of code change hearings of a national level. They change because there have been accidents, deaths,

[30:50] other things that have happened that the code is trying to prevent. So this go around, we're looking to move

[30:59] from the 2009 ICC codes International Code Council. They publish the codes to the 2015 versions.

[31:09] So tonight is an introduction to those two codes, 15 codes, and there are five of them. One of them

[31:21] is a new code that ICC has published. It's the International Swimming Pool and Spock Code. That

[31:30] used to be part of the International Residential Code in an appendix. The issues surrounding pools

[31:38] have become more prevalent in terms of sanitation, safety, other issues like that. So the ICC felt

[31:47] it was necessary to publish a code just to address that. So that's how that code came about.

[31:54] The with and less Council of Jax tomorrow, we will post on the city's website, a notice, public

[32:08] and that begins the 90 day public review period. So the building division is fully expecting that between

[32:17] January the 14th and April the 13th to receive comments, pro and con maybe additional information that the building

[32:28] division was not a world to review those comments and to recommend they become part of our codes or

[32:36] recommend they not become part of our codes. So this tonight will begin that tomorrow will actually begin the 90 day public review

[32:45] review period. Thank you, Mr. House, your questions, your comments from our University of

[32:53] the City Council. Go ahead, Mr. Scale folks.

[32:57] No, this isn't as sorry for Mr. Ansar, but I'm under section. I can't tell you, Jesus, but it's

[33:04] 113.4, it's talking about the membership of the board and it says it's a child consists of five regular

[33:10] numbers. Should we switch that up to not knowing that we've had some important issues in the past

[33:18] with our board of the, has it been, have we had four issues with the building called Board of

[33:25] Appeals, I think?

[33:27] It was a last time, was it like that?

[33:29] We have not met in a while. We did reduce that core number from four to three.

[33:36] So here it says it's five still.

[33:40] Well, there's five members.

[33:41] No, that's number.

[33:43] The core, the core would be three.

[33:46] Okay, so three would be fine.

[33:49] Okay, that's fine.

[33:51] Okay.

[33:52] Other questions are covered.

[33:54] Mr. Woodley.

[33:56] I just don't know what Mr. Ansar was saying.

[33:59] The motion would be in order to continue.

[34:01] These five bills to the April 13 meeting.

[34:05] So, second.

[34:06] So you have to do one at a time.

[34:09] Okay.

[34:10] That's right.

[34:11] I'm saying that there's going to be the 90-year review period.

[34:12] The bullet needs to.

[34:14] Okay.

[34:15] It's on this.

[34:16] On each of the next.

[34:19] One board portion, the side and all of the bill.

[34:20] No, that's two.

[34:21] There's a very special issue.

[34:23] This is a very special issue.

[34:24] It's a good way.

[34:25] Perfect.

[34:26] No, I mean, this is a very important introduction to the next.

[34:34] Let's go.

[34:36] So we've been moving for 58 away?

[34:38] I'll second that one.

[34:42] 58 and nine.

[34:43] I'll second it.

[34:45] Well, what do we have to do?

[34:47] We have to do that.

[34:48] We don't have to do that.

[34:49] We don't have to do that.

[34:50] You want to discuss some separate?

[34:51] I have to read each one.

[34:52] I have to read each one.

[34:53] 58 is another day.

[34:55] So what was, will you repeat your motion?

[34:58] I'd like you to just go 58 away for a second.

[35:00] You need me to take off 13, will you?

[35:03] It's about not prior to April.

[35:05] No prior to April for June.

[35:07] And I'll second that.

[35:08] Any discussion about that?

[35:10] Right for the vote, Dr. Lawrence.

[35:12] Dr. Hope.

[35:13] Hi.

[35:14] This is Basel.

[35:15] Hi.

[35:16] Mr. Wayne.

[35:17] Hi.

[35:18] This is Sylvia.

[35:19] Hi.

[35:20] Dr. Sylvia.

[35:21] Hi.

[35:22] The past is you.

[35:26] I'm sorry.

[35:27] You know what?

[35:28] We did that.

[35:29] And I did not ask if there was anybody in the audience

[35:31] that would like to address Bill 50.

[35:32] We did not ask Bill 50.

[35:33] You remember.

[35:34] I put the 807.

[35:36] Okay.

[35:37] But well, we just need 50.

[35:38] So we'll take it back and do 50.

[35:40] But we'll take it up again.

[35:43] Not prior to April 13th.

[35:46] So if you have comments, we'll take it up there.

[35:49] Next item, please.

[35:51] I'd have made a bill number 5809 and ordinance repealing article six.

[35:55] Residents should code for one and two family dwellings of chapter 500.

[35:59] The city code of ordinances of the city of Creep Corps.

[36:02] And an accident in lieu of their article six.

[36:04] Or the digital code for one and two family dwellings.

[36:07] I was both first reading.

[36:09] Would you like Mr. Razer to provide a brief review of the major changes

[36:15] of each of these codes tonight?

[36:18] I think that would be a very good.

[36:21] Because I would like to also know with a local amendment.

[36:28] So the first ordinance that was looked at our proposed is the 2015 International Building Code.

[36:53] And that building code regulates construction and alterations

[36:57] renovations for commercial type structures.

[37:01] Such as office buildings, temples, churches, theaters, restaurants,

[37:05] schools, hospitals, hotels, warehouses.

[37:10] And when we reviewed the 2015 IBC versus compared it to the 2009 IBC that we're under,

[37:20] there were really no significant changes.

[37:24] There was a lot of reformatting, reorganizing, moving sections to better places in the code.

[37:33] But there was really nothing that would have a significant change in terms of construction cost.

[37:48] I would say that the energy conservation code.

[37:52] There were some changes made to that in terms of windows and doors.

[37:58] But nothing significant to really bring to council's attention.

[38:07] The International Residential Code for one and two single family dwelling units and town homes.

[38:16] Yes, I think there are some significant changes.

[38:20] And that is pointed out in exhibit B where it compares the 2009 energy conservation code,

[38:31] which is also chapter 11 of the International Residential Code.

[38:36] It compares that to the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code in chapter 11 of the 2015 Residential Code.

[38:48] So in that table, there's three columns.

[38:51] One is what the 2009, the code that we enforce now requires.

[38:58] The next column is the proposed requirements for the new codes.

[39:03] And in the third column is what St. Louis County did with these particular code requirements.

[39:14] Probably the most significant is in terms of our value as the attic our value.

[39:20] That's the first row.

[39:22] Today's code requires R38.

[39:25] The 15 code requires R49.

[39:29] And county kept it at R38.

[39:33] And I don't know unless there are specific questions.

[39:36] I don't know that I need to go through the whole table.

[39:39] But there are changes.

[39:42] One thing I can tell you is that these changes will not affect the number or type of building inspections that we're already doing.

[39:51] Part of the 2009 IRC and the Energy Conservation Code.

[39:56] Meaning, part of the Energy Conservation Code, we do look at the thermal envelope before it gets covered with the New Year's.

[40:06] So that will remain.

[40:09] We still require a duct-tightness test in the door-blower test for new homes.

[40:15] That will remain.

[40:17] We still do an insulation.

[40:19] We will still do an insulation inspection prior to the insulation getting covered up.

[40:24] We do that now and we will continue to do that.

[40:27] So in terms of workload, really that will not be impacted.

[40:32] It's just what we're looking at.

[40:34] We'll be a little different.

[40:39] You might as a result of that rafts have some additional re-inspection.

[40:43] Potentially.

[40:45] Possibly.

[40:46] I think another table that was provided.

[40:53] Exhibit A.

[40:55] There are cities that have adopted the 15 codes well in advance of us.

[41:02] And when you look at that,

[41:04] those are our comparator cities along with St. Louis County.

[41:09] And you can see when you get to the amended chapter 11 of the IRC column.

[41:18] About six jurisdictions made no amendments to it.

[41:21] They adopted the Energy Conservation portion of the IRC as written.

[41:26] And about half made amendments.

[41:30] The types of amendments vary from city to city and St. Louis County.

[41:39] But yes, there will be a transition period between what we enforce now and what we will require

[41:49] to be shown on plans and what we'll be inspecting in the field.

[41:53] But that's expected.

[41:56] Whenever you go to a new code or dot new codes, there's always that transition.

[42:01] That's why we have the 90 day, one of the reasons you have the 90 day public review period.

[42:07] And also we will provide information at our counter on our website to notify residents, contractors,

[42:17] of these changes when they ultimately do get passed.

[42:23] Thank you, Mr. Alcher.

[42:24] Questions or comments from members of the City Council?

[42:27] Mr. Spaceman.

[42:28] How are we relating to our residents that there's going to be this review during the time period?

[42:36] How do we let people know?

[42:38] Well, it will be posted on the city's website.

[42:41] Hopefully in a prominent location.

[42:43] It will be information.

[42:46] The public notice and copies of the ordinances will be available at the city clerk's office.

[42:51] And also have the building vision counter.

[42:55] I will notify with a packet of information.

[43:01] The Home Builders Association of St. Louis.

[43:04] The Associated General Contractors of St. Louis.

[43:08] We'll also notify the Chief Court all of that Chamber of Commerce.

[43:14] We'll also notify there's a national remodeling Institute

[43:20] and Association for that.

[43:22] The majority of the permits we issue are for residential remodeling.

[43:27] And I've been invited to speak at a couple of their meetings.

[43:31] And have also provided them with information that they've requested.

[43:36] They'll also be provided with that packet of information.

[43:40] Any other interested parties who, some of you in email, can also have that information.

[43:46] But I think what's going to be posted on the website are the ordinances themselves.

[43:52] So I'm sure there'll be questions about maybe what that means, what this amendment means, or not.

[43:59] So we're fully expecting that those conversations and meetings to occur will also be notifying our building court board of appeals.

[44:10] We will be at least wise on these proposed changes to see if they're okay with these.

[44:19] We'll also notify the city's energy and environment.

[44:24] About the changes and what the city is recommending for the international energy conservation code.

[44:32] Seems thorough. Thank you.

[44:34] And welcome.

[44:36] We needed a motion to extend this for the 90 days also.

[44:41] I'll see if there's any other questions or comments.

[44:46] Any other questions or comments?

[44:49] So what we're doing is similar to what county.

[44:53] Recently passed.

[44:56] Well, there are some changes.

[44:59] Thank you.

[45:00] As the city is building official, I recommend that the city adopt the codes as written. The amendments that are made are proposed. A lot of them are administrative and nature. And some are in the commercial code. We have some more restrictive requirements for the fire districts because we want to be on the same page as that.

[45:29] So when you look at that exhibit B and see what county did versus what is being proposed, that's where you'll see the changes.

[45:39] And our 49 in the attic versus in our 38. While value are 20 versus in our 15 is what the county amended that to.

[45:53] Some of the things that they had deleted the last go around, they've actually incorporated into their new code adoption.

[46:03] Their ordinances are on their website as well. They go into effect equal the first, I believe.

[46:12] And ideally, if everything goes according to plan on iron, we'll be following suit in adopting the new codes effective, may first or shortly thereafter.

[46:23] But a lot of things that they did change are that they did not delete is the duct tightness test and ceiling those ducks.

[46:35] And the duct tightness test occurs where you have ducks in unconditioned spaces, like addicts, crawl spaces, not basement.

[46:45] So if all your duct work is in the basement or in interior walls, you don't do the duct tightness test.

[46:54] They also will do the door blower test according to their amendment. Meaning they did not delete that out.

[47:01] So there has been, I guess, progress, the lack of a better term, meaning there are less differences now between what the city requires and what county is requiring than there has been in the past.

[47:14] So, so, Mr. Usher, I'm not sure I understand your answer to Mrs. Sullivan's question or, is far as the insulation value of addict insulation value, or we are, are you proposing we got the same standards as St. Louis County or are you proposing that we do as the code.

[47:43] Yes, sir. As a note, on exhibit B right under the title, like put the building division will recommend that the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code in chapter 11 energy efficiency of the 2015 International Residential Code is adopted as written.

[48:07] Is that a distinction that we want to have in the community?

[48:13] I understand our code would be stricter.

[48:22] We would have a, I believe it also would have a significant impact on the system we've been talking about the conditions that were sort of paramount in the,

[48:36] in the available park discussion. There's also, we'll have an impact on the affordability of our housing, the diversity of our housing.

[48:46] But when you're changing an energy code from a two-by-four all through a two-by-six small, an addict insulation costs, and it's not to say that people can't do those things if they ought to do them,

[49:12] but is that what we want for our minimum building code?

[49:16] How do you know if you're applying that option?

[49:22] I don't know the answer to that.

[49:25] But I think my adopting this as is, I think you're also making the statement as far as affordability of housing in the city of pre-Core.

[49:39] And it makes no noise about it. There's a significant cost to those urgent questions.

[49:49] Hi, I agree.

[49:52] What is it? 2018?

[49:54] One.

[49:55] Say, do we know?

[49:57] Because I know that this is the 2015 or but like the most recent one.

[50:02] What is that make it even further than this?

[50:10] You know, I've not had the opportunity to look at that. The only thing I saw was a graph that kind of went,

[50:18] if you're going from 2009 energy conservation code requirements to 2015, which is what we're doing,

[50:26] there is a spike in requirements and actually in cost, but also in cost savings, you know,

[50:34] recruiting that cost, the longer you live in the house.

[50:36] Then the graph then went from 2015 to 2018 and was almost leveled, had leveled off.

[50:43] And I'm just making an assumption based on that.

[50:47] I don't think our values have increased. There may be somebody else who knows the 18 code better than I,

[50:54] but really have not had the time to explore that.

[51:02] I think the fans on what website you go to.

[51:12] And that's the truth.

[51:15] And I think that's going to be part of the discussion in this 90 day review.

[51:22] What is the actual construction cost increase?

[51:26] And what is the payback?

[51:29] I think I think it depends on the website you go to.

[51:33] Whether it's an energy conservation.

[51:36] Groups website or a building website.

[51:39] You will see the difference in numbers.

[51:43] I don't know if there is, and I'm sure there must be.

[51:47] But again, I'm not.

[51:49] Look forward to that.

[51:51] Maybe an independent objective.

[51:54] Look.

[51:55] I can tell you what you did or so.

[51:57] Because you don't have to do like that.

[51:59] And you put the really high R value for it to be that.

[52:03] And it cuts our energy cost savings.

[52:06] It was funded with all of the money.

[52:10] Well, on the other hand, I want to make clear, too,

[52:12] that these new energy code requirements will apply only to new homes and to room additions.

[52:20] Won't go back into your existing home and say, because you're remodeling your kitchen,

[52:25] you've got to increase the R value whatever's up in your attic to R49.

[52:30] There's just no authority to do that.

[52:32] No intent to do that.

[52:34] So for the last two or three years, we've averaged about 20 new homes a year.

[52:41] I think it's important that we have the 90 days to get the input from the community,

[52:46] but don't bring in resonance.

[52:48] And I think that's going to wash it out, you know, tell us what we need to do.

[52:52] We're not taking a final vote now.

[52:54] I think we need to listen carefully to what people have to say in that 90 days.

[52:58] Well, the 90 days is a stick wall.

[53:00] We have to do that.

[53:03] I know, but I mean, that's going to give us the opportunity to evaluate this better.

[53:07] We will have the benefit of the St. Louis County having gone through this process.

[53:13] And as a result, the HBA has reviewed already this morning.

[53:18] It's pretty thoroughly.

[53:19] And they're very anxious.

[53:22] And we told them that we would be meeting with them in the coming weeks here, probably.

[53:27] I would say certainly in the next month.

[53:29] So you'll have the benefit of a whole lot more commentary.

[53:32] Right.

[53:34] Mr. Roy.

[53:35] I sometimes feel like the IRC.

[53:38] They miss all these opportunities.

[53:41] They feel like they're cutting costs.

[53:43] But they're obviously, like, for example, when they say,

[53:46] go to high efficiency light bulbs, early days.

[53:50] They could take the additional step to say,

[53:53] you can use the LEDs that run on three or six bolts,

[53:56] then you don't need 14 gauge wires going up to the top.

[54:02] You could practically use the wire.

[54:05] So if they were that concerned about energy,

[54:08] they should take the whole view.

[54:10] Instead of all these things that just keep adding costs to the home,

[54:13] and I agree with the mayor that it could,

[54:16] it could stymie growth in a way.

[54:18] It could make all the difference between somebody wanting to add a room or not to the home.

[54:25] Just the energy, the insulation costs,

[54:31] the factor.

[54:32] I'm just thinking about the added insulation they call for R49s.

[54:37] Quite expensive.

[54:39] Anyway, that's just something I'd like to discuss.

[54:42] So I'd point to say.

[54:46] Any other questions or comments from members of the city council?

[54:49] No, I would just add that, I think that this is always,

[54:53] I think a difficult issue that we grapple with every time we adopt cones.

[54:58] And that is, you know,

[55:02] do we look at the code as we believe,

[55:06] you know, it ought to be in our community,

[55:08] only or do we look at creed core and the context of St. Louis County,

[55:14] because it's a community of builders, community of contractors,

[55:18] community of architects.

[55:20] So I do think that there is a benefit from regional,

[55:27] perfective to look at consistency among cones.

[55:31] So we will be on the same code as St. Louis County.

[55:34] So we'll be pretty close, but there are some differences.

[55:38] And so looking at each one of those and saying,

[55:40] hey, are these important enough to us that we're going to say,

[55:43] you're going to have an R49 and creed core versus an R38?

[55:47] Look at those, but I do think that the consistency is something

[55:51] that's appreciated significantly by the contractors in the community

[55:56] and therefore, by extension, I think the residents

[55:59] like to see that consistency.

[56:01] So it's really kind of balancing the community for consistency

[56:04] with how hard we want to push energy.

[56:08] During our work session with E&E,

[56:14] though, didn't they tell us maybe I misunderstood

[56:18] that several of the communities have very,

[56:20] I mean, even some have,

[56:22] that are adopting 2018, some are, you know, like,

[56:25] it was very inconsistent between all of our,

[56:29] you know, so while we might have the same as the county,

[56:35] you know, or maybe at neighbors, we're not going to have the same

[56:40] necessarily.

[56:41] On exhibit, it looks like Brentwood is the only community

[56:44] that's adopted 18.

[56:45] And everybody else is on 15.

[56:48] The city of San Luis also adopted 18.

[56:51] The, the, in their adopted as run.

[56:55] But I do think that there is a point to consistency.

[57:02] And I'd also be interested, is the environmental impact

[57:06] of having, you know, our piece of the regional puzzle,

[57:09] having that higher standard, is there a significant environmental impact

[57:13] in that if no one else is doing it?

[57:15] Because I mean, it's not as if the things that happen here

[57:19] only affect what is happening here,

[57:22] balancing that out with being able to provide it in affordable housing stock.

[57:33] For the purpose of the city council, is there anybody in the audience

[57:37] that would like to address bill number?

[57:40] 18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19.

[57:46] Somebody want to make a motion about that.

[57:48] On that commotion that we extend the second vote to April 13th or later.

[57:56] Second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second, second.

[58:01] Twenty.

[58:03] Can you just question?

[58:04] Very for vote Mr. Trevor.

[58:06] I have a total high, Dr. Lawrence, Dr. S own, high.

[58:10] Mrs. Delfaz O'hoves.

[58:11] Hi.

[58:13] Mrs. silver,kay?

[58:13] Mr. Roy.

[58:14] Hi.

[58:18] Thank you for voting.

[58:20] Thank you Mr. O'ow, Mr. O'ow.

[58:21] Mr. O'ow.

[58:22] Not a problem.

[58:24] At a nine Bill number 15810, in order in third Repealing Article

[58:26] 10, Inter quiero Conservation Code in Chapter five hundred of the city vote

[58:28] city code of ordinances in the city of Crete Court and in action in lieu of in lieu thereof a new article 10 energy conservation code out for first reading

[58:41] Mr. I'm to give any comments on this code

[58:46] Can you please come to the microphone we're recording the meeting

[58:49] Yeah, the the international energy conservation code has two parts residential provisions and commercial provisions

[59:07] So again the significant changes of the IECC are in the residential provisions of the IECC and they mirror

[59:21] Chapter 11 of the IRC

[59:24] So whatever we do with Chapter 11 of the IRC we would have to also do with the residential provisions of the international energy conservation code

[59:37] Thank you for that clarification questions or comments from members of the city council

[59:44] Is there anybody in the audience? I'd like to address bill number 5810

[59:51] I have a motion. I move that bill number 5810 be moved for a second reading no earlier than April 13

[1:00:00] Second, committee discussion. Mr. Wine, this is so bad. This is the help of Dr. Solis, Dr. Warren, Dr. Paul, aye, Mrs. Bayes, Mr. Traverse, thank you all. Next item, please.

[1:00:15] I'm 10 November, 5811, an ordinance repealing, Article 9, Property Maintenance Code of Chapter 500, the City Code of Ornances, the City of Group Court, and an action in lieu thereof in Article 10, Property Maintenance Code, Elver First Reading.

[1:00:30] Well, one thing to point out with this code is if you adopted as written, it would apply to owner occupied dwellings, as well as apartments, rental property, and commercial buildings.

[1:00:45] So, what we did, and we adopted the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code, as we created an exception under scope, that accepts detached single-family dwellings, our owner occupied dwelling units are not subject to the provisions of this code.

[1:01:06] And all that means is that we will not continue to not have a reoccupancy program for homes and condominiums. We do have an exterior maintenance code that would apply to homes.

[1:01:21] And that's what will continue to enforce as it applies to any exterior violations in homes or condominiums.

[1:01:35] So, that same exception will get carried over when we adopt the 2015 International Property Maintenance Code.

[1:01:45] Questions or comments from members of the City Council?

[1:01:50] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address bill 5811?

[1:01:56] Somebody is under the biggest civil approach. How moved that the second reading be?

[1:02:01] No earlier than April 13th of 2020.

[1:02:05] Second.

[1:02:06] Dr. Saunders?

[1:02:08] Mr. Stel Pazzo?

[1:02:09] Hi.

[1:02:10] Mr. Saunders?

[1:02:11] Hi.

[1:02:12] Mr. White?

[1:02:13] Mr. Travis?

[1:02:14] Mrs. Bayes?

[1:02:15] Hi.

[1:02:16] Dr. Halley?

[1:02:17] Dr. Horace?

[1:02:18] Thank you all. Next item please.

[1:02:20] Mr. Newman?

[1:02:21] Bill number 50, 12, and ordinance enacting a new article 11, Sweining Pool and Spot Code.

[1:02:26] I've checked for 500 of the City Code of Ornitses, the City Creative Corps, I'll tomorrow.

[1:02:32] Well, this is a new code and it incorporates more requirements for swimming pools and spots.

[1:02:43] who publishes these codes felt that a standalone code was required to regulate.

[1:02:51] Swing pools and spas.

[1:02:53] The way we regulate it now is regulated by appendix G in the 2009 IRC.

[1:03:02] So there's a little bit more specific in turn.

[1:03:07] Well, I should say appendix G of the IRC referenced a swimming pool standard.

[1:03:16] So we, in effect, were enforcing that this new code has taken that standard and made it into a code.

[1:03:31] Does this address leaks of swimming pools or spas?

[1:03:38] Well, it addresses repairs.

[1:03:40] Yeah, renovations, demolition.

[1:03:43] Ask a very pointed question.

[1:03:45] Would it address a reflection pond on a property such as a cemetery?

[1:03:52] No.

[1:03:53] Would not.

[1:03:54] Okay.

[1:03:56] Because the intent is not to swim in that pond.

[1:04:00] I don't think.

[1:04:01] I mean, the principle.

[1:04:02] Can I ask?

[1:04:03] Other questions are published in a member of the city council.

[1:04:06] Does anybody in the audience sit with like to address Bill 1512?

[1:04:11] I think so.

[1:04:12] She doesn't have about a similar motion to the other public.

[1:04:18] Oh, we can't.

[1:04:19] No.

[1:04:20] No.

[1:04:21] No.

[1:04:22] Second.

[1:04:23] A discussion.

[1:04:25] Dr. Wars.

[1:04:26] Dr. Hull.

[1:04:27] I.

[1:04:28] This is basically this.

[1:04:29] Mr. Wang.

[1:04:30] This is silver.

[1:04:31] This is the.

[1:04:32] Dr. So.

[1:04:33] Thank you.

[1:04:35] Thank you.

[1:04:36] Mr.

[1:04:38] Excuse me.

[1:04:39] And 12.

[1:04:40] Mercy.

[1:04:41] Patience Center.

[1:04:42] South Campus.

[1:04:43] I.

[1:04:45] Yeah.

[1:04:47] Mayor members of city council.

[1:04:49] This is an extension from Mercy Hospital.

[1:04:51] To extend the approvals for the outpatient center.

[1:04:54] It is on the south side of Conway West of Valice City Council.

[1:04:58] Approved this in February 26, 2018.

[1:05:01] And issued two prior extensions to that approval.

[1:05:05] Mercy is coming forward.

[1:05:07] Seeking the third extension.

[1:05:08] And if approved that extension would carry the zoning approvals and site plan.

[1:05:12] Approval forward to August 24th of this year.

[1:05:16] See representatives are here as well from Mercy and the civil engineer.

[1:05:20] If you have any further questions.

[1:05:22] Otherwise, a vote would be required to extend it.

[1:05:24] Thank you.

[1:05:25] Mr. Stock.

[1:05:26] Anything further that you'd like to add.

[1:05:33] Good evening.

[1:05:34] Honorable Mayor members of the council for the record.

[1:05:36] My name's George Stock.

[1:05:37] And I am here tonight on behalf of Mercy along with Mr.

[1:05:40] Calacac from Mercy, who I know has a familiar face to all of you.

[1:05:43] We're happy to answer any questions.

[1:05:45] We continue to make progress.

[1:05:48] The amaran substation, which was the first component of the project, is close to completion.

[1:05:53] In fact, they'll be turning over their property and the land exchange will occur in March of 2020.

[1:05:59] At that time, some site improvements work will start relative to the drive access and reconfigurations of the parking lot of the 763 and the 777.

[1:06:09] All in anticipation of the outpatient services building, which is currently under design.

[1:06:15] And we'll be continuing under design over the next several months with a submission of site improvements.

[1:06:21] Hopefully prior to this August date.

[1:06:24] But it is possible we could be here in six months asking for another extension.

[1:06:29] I believe.

[1:06:30] Technically, the site work has started.

[1:06:32] So I don't know if we fulfilled the full obligation.

[1:06:35] We may be back in August again asking another extension.

[1:06:38] But I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:06:40] Mr. Calacac is well on behalf of Mercy.

[1:06:43] Thank you, Mr. Stark.

[1:06:44] You're welcome.

[1:06:45] Thank you.

[1:06:46] Thank you.

[1:06:47] Thank you.

[1:06:49] Thank you.

[1:06:50] Thank you.

[1:06:52] Thank you.

[1:06:54] Any further questions?

[1:06:56] Excuse me.

[1:06:57] Are you coming from the city council?

[1:06:59] Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address orders 55.

[1:07:04] 743?

[1:07:05] Do we need to vote on this?

[1:07:08] Who is it?

[1:07:11] Who is it?

[1:07:13] Just the extension request.

[1:07:14] It's not the ordinance.

[1:07:16] Okay.

[1:07:17] So do we need to vote on the...

[1:07:19] Yeah.

[1:07:20] Some move.

[1:07:21] Second.

[1:07:22] Any discussion?

[1:07:23] Dr. Solner.

[1:07:24] Hi.

[1:07:25] Mrs. Dielfanzo.

[1:07:26] Hi.

[1:07:27] Mrs. Solner.

[1:07:28] Hi.

[1:07:29] Mr. White.

[1:07:30] Hi.

[1:07:31] Dr. Huffman.

[1:07:32] Hi.

[1:07:33] Mr. Roberts.

[1:07:34] Hi.

[1:07:35] Your extension is great.

[1:07:37] Thank you very much.

[1:07:38] Thank you.

[1:07:39] Next item, please.

[1:07:41] Mrs. Romair and City Council.

[1:07:43] I have 13 councilees and reports.

[1:07:45] I will go ahead to add to the Parks and Historic Preservation.

[1:07:49] Did not have a meeting in December, although there was a meeting this afternoon about the

[1:08:00] Tribal Park and moving forward with acknowledging the history of animal park.

[1:08:07] And what should happen?

[1:08:08] Part of the discussion included a recommendation during that meeting that we create a task force

[1:08:15] to look at appropriate ways to...

[1:08:19] I suppose memorialize what happened.

[1:08:22] So I wanted to bring that forward.

[1:08:28] Give people a pause.

[1:08:29] And see if that was something we wanted to do.

[1:08:34] What's the coverage?

[1:08:37] I also have a meeting where I think that's a really helpful need to trust.

[1:08:43] I have always liked idea of the task force to help us to get more impact.

[1:08:48] Would that be a task force that's officially created by the City Council?

[1:08:53] Yes.

[1:08:54] We would determine it's makeup as well.

[1:08:56] I think that that would be appropriate.

[1:08:58] I expect it would be subject to the normal nominating committee process.

[1:09:03] Would it be time limited or would it be forever?

[1:09:06] No task force.

[1:09:08] So do we want to attach a time limit to it?

[1:09:11] I would recommend that we sort of look at all of the specifics before we sort of actually vote and create something.

[1:09:21] But I think something that's time limited and I think thinking between now and the next meeting about

[1:09:25] that time limit and who should be on it.

[1:09:30] I agree.

[1:09:31] I think it's a very good idea.

[1:09:33] It is city only properly.

[1:09:36] I think it's such.

[1:09:39] Well, I think the makeup of the task force should be discussed and we should get it to first group.

[1:09:45] It is city property and I think the city should control through task force.

[1:09:53] So is that something that we want to bring forward at our next meeting?

[1:09:58] Or at least an outline to discuss?

[1:10:00] I think an outline to discuss with the next meeting.

[1:10:03] Yes.

[1:10:04] You know, we'll have that.

[1:10:05] Is that something we can do?

[1:10:06] Oh, yeah.

[1:10:07] Absolutely.

[1:10:08] Is there anybody that disagrees with that idea?

[1:10:11] Thank you for bringing that up.

[1:10:14] Any other councillors?

[1:10:15] I want to talk more.

[1:10:18] I've got two of them.

[1:10:19] Well, by the way, we've been doing struggling with.

[1:10:23] Can we think money anywhere in our insurance portfolio?

[1:10:27] And what the two weeks after several weeks finally came to this meeting.

[1:10:33] That probably the best way forward to both current employees and the entire youth who have a spouse that's entitled to their phone insurance.

[1:10:42] If that's about a luxury name will increase poor insurance.

[1:10:47] They would pay $200 additional money.

[1:10:50] So that's what's going to be called for council.

[1:10:53] The next work situation is fine.

[1:10:56] But I want to go to everyone to think about this.

[1:10:58] So if their spouse has the ability to be on their own employers,

[1:11:02] sponsored insurance, yet choose to be on Creek Forest.

[1:11:05] There will be a charge of $200 a month.

[1:11:08] Correct.

[1:11:09] Correct.

[1:11:11] Which is still probably less than what a lot of people would end up paying for their own.

[1:11:16] So that's purely recommendation.

[1:11:18] I think we should come up with plenty of security.

[1:11:20] How about have we ever explored doing like a tobacco surcharge or anything about nature for those that are for those of you here?

[1:11:32] I personally, I feel like exploring something like a tobacco surcharge.

[1:11:39] A tobacco surcharge might be advantageous of us to try and save some money there and less than this fossil surcharge.

[1:11:48] $200 a month.

[1:11:49] Well, I understand what you're saying if you got into the marketplace.

[1:11:53] I do think that's steep though.

[1:11:58] I would agree.

[1:11:59] I think it's a significant hit.

[1:12:02] That agree.

[1:12:03] Part of the benefits when we think about sort of a holistic approach is what it brings through the families also of those that we employ.

[1:12:12] Because I mean, I think what I'm talking about is planning to show you exactly what our focus may in their premiums.

[1:12:20] Compared to the other areas in the city.

[1:12:23] But I just want everyone to be thinking about this because we're, I think we,

[1:12:28] The third or fourth work session, I think is what's for you.

[1:12:32] You're right.

[1:12:33] I would really like everyone to be thinking about this.

[1:12:35] If you have some alternative, please bring those ideas with you as well.

[1:12:40] Yeah, I think we can't look at it in a vacuum though.

[1:12:42] We've got to look at it in terms of the whole package that we're offering, including salary and other benefits.

[1:12:47] And how does that compare to other municipalities, not just the insurance piece?

[1:12:53] I think they can really try to do that.

[1:12:55] And that's the beauty of every session.

[1:12:58] We can just set that up.

[1:12:59] Oh, what do you say?

[1:13:00] My request is everybody thinking about it.

[1:13:02] And you can think of anything else.

[1:13:04] We're in that with you.

[1:13:05] So we'll look a little bit lighter here.

[1:13:08] The 2020 part of our commitment, our race date is June 6th.

[1:13:13] Put that on your calendar.

[1:13:15] We're targeting 350 people this year.

[1:13:20] It looks like our channel partner will be the live 3-4, which runs fantastic.

[1:13:27] Our race is 100% smaller to your organization.

[1:13:30] So it looks like I've been joining us.

[1:13:35] And I've also got pictures of our logo, which we will be doing in mid years.

[1:13:40] Pantink are here.

[1:13:42] I think it's this blue right here.

[1:13:45] Thank you, Dr. Warms.

[1:13:50] Any other council liaison reports?

[1:13:53] Mr. White.

[1:13:54] The police committee met.

[1:13:57] Update on a building.

[1:13:59] The police building is about two-thirds occupied.

[1:14:02] The Sally Fort is completed.

[1:14:05] The good news for the smoke exhausting problem is that they have a design ready.

[1:14:11] The bad news is about 2200.

[1:14:14] But then that should trigger the errors and omissions.

[1:14:19] Ensurance that the engineering firm should have had.

[1:14:27] Build a left off a few cameras.

[1:14:29] So that's going to be fixed property.

[1:14:32] They've got some money for our license plate reader.

[1:14:36] And also two drones.

[1:14:38] Good news.

[1:14:39] It's not to type a drone.

[1:14:41] You can trigger a little bit of tree width.

[1:14:44] That's it.

[1:14:46] Thank you.

[1:14:47] Any other council liaison reports?

[1:14:50] Thank you all very much.

[1:14:52] Next item, please.

[1:14:54] And important construction dumpsters?

[1:14:57] Mr. Steel Thompson.

[1:15:00] Three, over the years, and especially this last month, I've had a couple different properties that are upset with the lengths of time the dumpsters are in their neighborhood.

[1:15:15] For I think that email, we're not one of the things, but a lot of the times when you have a dumpster there that's that long, especially if the neighbors don't see work being done.

[1:15:27] Other things start getting thrown into the dumpster, and they just feel like it's a big trash site.

[1:15:34] So, it does seem to me the fact that we could have a dumpster for a property, we might all this long as a permit up to a year.

[1:15:43] There's a long time for neighbors to have to sit with a dumpster that is only half full and no work is visibly being done.

[1:15:52] So, I wanted to discuss lowering the time allowed to have dumpsters if they're not actively being used.

[1:16:04] So, that someone doesn't just put a dumpster, it sits out there, no work is being done for whatever reasons for extended period of time, and then the neighbors are dealing with the, you know,

[1:16:19] not improve property and the dumpster sitting out.

[1:16:25] So, I think 10 days is too short of the time because sometimes people do have remodels and they do work on the weekends or they do, you know, their contractors may be earning.

[1:16:38] Doing evenings or weekends, but I do think a year is a considerable amount of time for a residential property to have a dumpster sitting out.

[1:16:51] So, I would like to suggest not that we have a dumpster permit, but that we do look at some way where the dumpster isn't tied to the final approval permit.

[1:17:05] And instead, maybe come up with some idea of if the dumpster is not being actively used for the current demolition of the house.

[1:17:14] That maybe we had a separate ordinance of how long the dumpster can be sitting on a piece of property.

[1:17:21] So, there is some reports for the students.

[1:17:25] Mr. Porto, Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Sir.

[1:17:27] You know, we would have a chance to talk about it.

[1:17:30] That's too much. Certainly ask Steve to, you know, what is initial comments.

[1:17:36] We talked about it just a couple of minutes earlier today.

[1:17:39] In the air, we're certainly open to seeing what we can come up with to address the concerns.

[1:17:46] You know, we want to make sure we, if we approve something, it's something we can reasonably enforce and also put it to scale with how big of an issue.

[1:17:56] You know, we're seeing out there. And that's one question I'll ask for Steve too is we can kind of give us an idea of the kind of complaints that he receives or how many.

[1:18:06] You know, what he sees coming in from the standpoint of, you know, dumpster issues.

[1:18:13] I know that we were obviously hearing about it in the community based on, well, we heard a nine.

[1:18:21] And just to say at least, well, at least one of these properties, I know, this is this issues that this is a consistent.

[1:18:33] Issue for that neighborhood.

[1:18:35] Well, let's find what it is so that council knows there's a condominium just west to 70.

[1:18:40] It's one.

[1:18:41] What does it call water or water served now?

[1:18:44] And there dumpsters been there for over a year in its antennas court area where they keep their buildings.

[1:18:50] They keep their building supplies and it is right at the entrance of the country for subdivision from north to south.

[1:18:58] And they'll come, well, and that's a commercial.

[1:19:01] And they're with the second.

[1:19:03] Both of those are about the right.

[1:19:04] The trailer there, there's a pile of bricks there.

[1:19:07] So on the commercial side, because on that, because that wasn't in the neighborhood.

[1:19:12] For that one part of the issue is if you're going to have something like an apartment complex that's going to constantly.

[1:19:19] The constantly have open permits that could be forever forever that they have that dumpster sitting out for get.

[1:19:26] You know, it's just like it's just tied.

[1:19:28] So that's one issue.

[1:19:30] You know, I do think that there should be screening.

[1:19:33] And, but I also think specifically for a residential neighborhood that you know, I do also want to look at.

[1:19:42] Because the two dumpsters issues, in addition to the water from the crossing,

[1:19:46] the dumpsters that are at someone's house, that are sitting out for extended periods of time and nothing else.

[1:19:55] The structure.

[1:19:56] Well, and I think you've got two issues.

[1:19:59] Right.

[1:20:00] Waterfront crossing aside.

[1:20:02] I think when you get into dumpsters when they're allowed for a construction project, especially residential, it has always been tied.

[1:20:13] And a duration has always been tied to the building permit.

[1:20:17] I mean, that once we issue a building permit, sometimes we do give a contractor permission to begin demo because he's applied for the permit.

[1:20:26] And he wants to get going.

[1:20:29] So the duration has been tied to the building permit.

[1:20:36] Now, it used to be a year to go.

[1:20:39] A residential building permit used to be good for two years.

[1:20:44] And that was felt it was too long.

[1:20:46] And that got reduced way back 2001, I believe, when we adopted a different code.

[1:20:56] So the bigger complaint, and obviously I would say at any given time in our city right now, we have between 450,

[1:21:05] to 500 active data sites in our city.

[1:21:09] Not all of them have dumpsters or need dumpsters.

[1:21:13] But some do.

[1:21:14] New homes.

[1:21:15] The one on fillets is essentially a gut rehab of the interior of that house at 404 fillets.

[1:21:22] So they have a dumpster that's been there quite a while, not up to a year.

[1:21:28] So I will say that my experience with dumpsters is we do get more complaints about what's blowing out of them than how long they're there.

[1:21:40] And to that end, when we receive a complaint like that, we do call the contractor, let him know what the problem is.

[1:21:48] The dumpster gets empty, sometimes it gets placed back on the site, sometimes it doesn't.

[1:21:54] Sometimes they put a smaller dumpster out there because they don't need a bigger dumpster, and it has a lid.

[1:22:00] So all that helps.

[1:22:04] But yes, right now, and for as long as I've been with the city, the placement and duration of a dumpster is tied to a building permit.

[1:22:12] Now having said that, I will say 90% of the permits we issued get completed before a year is up.

[1:22:21] The contractor doesn't want to pay the monthly fee for that dumpster.

[1:22:25] And it either gets filled and removed, prior to us giving final approval, depending on where the work is at.

[1:22:36] And sometimes depending on the project, it can be, depending on the contractor.

[1:22:42] It can be out there as short as two or three months, but yes, we have had some that have been there for the duration of the permit.

[1:22:50] And you know, if council deems that a problem, then certainly the building division is willing to look at that.

[1:22:59] I do agree that issuing a dumpster permit is not the way to go.

[1:23:04] I don't think we need another layer of bureaucracy and yet another permit for the city to issue.

[1:23:12] What Mr. Perkins that I talked about today was maybe look at tying the duration of a dumpster to the stage of construction.

[1:23:23] And one of the thoughts was, well, maybe once we approve a drywall inspection, that's when the dumpster needs to go.

[1:23:33] We approve a drywall inspection and as a matter of policy are as part of a building code, maybe the new building codes were adapting.

[1:23:42] The dumpster should be removed from the site.

[1:23:45] Our experience has shown that dumpster is definitely needed for demolition and even for new construction to put old plumbing, old wiring, old whatever in the dumpster.

[1:23:58] And then depending on how much drywall has to get installed, a lot of that ends up being drywall waste that's thrown into the dumpster.

[1:24:08] So that's part of the logic for saying, once we approve a drywall inspection, you really don't need that dumpster on that site any longer.

[1:24:18] That's one possible option of dealing with duration.

[1:24:24] Because the dumpster is not in use, so they're not throwing anything in it.

[1:24:28] Well, that's a little bit harder to regulate.

[1:24:33] I did speak with the contractor at four or four full days.

[1:24:36] And that dumpster was dropped illegally, back in the Juneer July of last year.

[1:24:43] And we were notified of that. So we put a stop work order on the job and they came in and got there permit.

[1:24:51] Now it took him two months to get the permit. And the dumpster was there illegally for two months.

[1:24:57] But we did issue the permit bag in September.

[1:25:01] The in talking with the contractor, he wants that dumpster to be out of there by March the first.

[1:25:08] Simply because that's their goal to bring closure to the building permit and put the house on the market.

[1:25:17] There is rough in occurring. It's almost done now. So they are using the dumpster for old pipes, cast iron pipes, old electrical wiring, what have you.

[1:25:27] So, but again, I think the bigger complaints we get about job sites are work is starting to early or continuing to light beyond our construction hours.

[1:25:40] Hey, housekeeping is an issue.

[1:25:43] I've raised one around. And more recently, with this particular subdivision, the waterfront crossing complaint and four or four full days.

[1:26:01] I would like you to look into some options because I feel right now the residents don't have residents of the who are next to that property have no recourse.

[1:26:13] And so even though it might be a minor thing that happens.

[1:26:18] If you're the resident that has to live next to the dumpster that's been sitting out for a year and you're constantly having to call because trash is blowing out.

[1:26:28] And it's not even trash from the site. It's just trashed because the dumpster and everyone knows and that's what they throw the dog waste or that's where the local dumping ground for the furniture or whatever it is, which is a herd of both of these, both of these dumpsters.

[1:26:48] That I've gone complaints about, you know, they would like some recourse besides being able to call and say it's going to be until the final permit.

[1:26:58] But he's going to get it out more trust or that one.

[1:27:02] But that doesn't, that doesn't solve the problem for the next one or for the other dumpsters.

[1:27:07] I don't think that this is a one time that this is the only time that this is happened.

[1:27:12] I would still like to look at some other options. I don't want to create more paperwork or more bureaucracy.

[1:27:18] But I do think that residents should be able to have some type of recourse if they have a problem that they have a property that is an issue and a consistent issue.

[1:27:31] Because at this point there's no, there's nothing they can do about it.

[1:27:35] I mean the most that you can say to them is, well, until the final permit happens, which is going to be a year, you know, call us the next time the trash that isn't even from this job site that's being done.

[1:27:49] Like I'm thinking about over on the Conway house is the one that I think, you know, it's just sitting there and we couldn't even tell what was being thrown in the house.

[1:28:00] I think something should be done. You don't want to create a dumpster permit.

[1:28:05] But just to sit back and say nothing, because not the answer.

[1:28:10] I wouldn't want to live next to dumpster that wasn't being utilized for its purpose for a year.

[1:28:17] So the drywall one suggestion you came up with sounds like a starting place to me at least.

[1:28:27] Any other thoughts?

[1:28:30] Are there covers for these receptacles, these roll-offs?

[1:28:36] So is it possible that we could say that a roll-off is going to be located at a spot for a particular length of time.

[1:28:43] Then it will require a cover when it's not being used like in the evenings.

[1:28:48] That way, you know, people can't come and dump the stuff and then get it blown away.

[1:28:54] But the problem with one of them was they dumped the couch next to it.

[1:28:58] You know, they didn't throw it in, they just dumped it next to it.

[1:29:01] This is the scene people who dumped it in the creek.

[1:29:04] Yeah.

[1:29:05] I mean, that's a problem with whoever's dumping nothing, the dumpster.

[1:29:08] We're dumpsters, yeah.

[1:29:10] The dumpsters act as an activist.

[1:29:12] Thank you.

[1:29:13] The dumpsters act as an activist.

[1:29:15] There's nothing to do about that.

[1:29:20] I think we look at the drywall.

[1:29:22] It's special to start from the drywall.

[1:29:26] As far as lids, I don't think the full size dumpsters grow off dumpsters that you have at waterfront crossing.

[1:29:34] They don't come with lids.

[1:29:36] I've seen smaller dumpsters that do.

[1:29:39] I don't think lids.

[1:29:40] I know what you mean.

[1:29:41] Put some canvas or tarp over it.

[1:29:44] And then that's going to start blowing around.

[1:29:46] Yeah.

[1:29:47] I'm not sure.

[1:29:48] Maybe.

[1:29:49] I mean, that's why we're having this discussion.

[1:29:51] I don't know.

[1:29:52] I don't know.

[1:29:53] I have a cover over there.

[1:29:55] You know, the wind isn't blowing it off the depth attached.

[1:29:57] I mean, that that's actually required.

[1:29:59] So.

[1:30:00] I think it's the same kind of thing, could be done with the way.

[1:30:06] I guess it could, yes.

[1:30:12] Any think further?

[1:30:14] So, I will take a look at this, is that one hearing and we'll come back in some options?

[1:30:22] Yeah, I think we could take a look at it.

[1:30:24] I think it's going to be hard to find a common theme for all the dumpsters throughout the city.

[1:30:34] Sometimes we just have to be diligent with our various gut tractors.

[1:30:42] But it's probably worthy of looking at a little further.

[1:30:49] Are you satisfied with that?

[1:30:50] Yeah, as long as we, you know, I don't have the answer.

[1:30:54] I just...

[1:30:55] Yeah, at this point, I don't either.

[1:30:57] Just thinking aloud, you know, a couple might be a good idea.

[1:31:01] Saying it has to go at the drywall inspection.

[1:31:04] Maybe that's a good idea, fair amount of time.

[1:31:07] I don't, for my own personal experience.

[1:31:11] I don't think it's a very prevalent of a problem.

[1:31:16] Most of the permits, you know, we issue 75% to 80% of our permits are residential remodeling projects.

[1:31:24] And of those, not many have done to you.

[1:31:29] And I can see why it would be a big problem for most of them.

[1:31:33] But if you...

[1:31:34] The few times that it is, it's kind of...

[1:31:36] For those residents that are living next to the problem, they don't really care if it's not a problem for everybody else.

[1:31:43] They care about what's next to them.

[1:31:45] Oh, sure.

[1:31:46] And I think the one on...

[1:31:48] Filets and the one on Comway World.

[1:31:51] And they'll legally drop to begin with.

[1:31:53] So that got off to a rough start right away.

[1:31:56] The one at Waterfront Crossing.

[1:31:58] We will be working with Somerset Management to relocate that staging area.

[1:32:04] Because yes, there's always...

[1:32:06] Work being done out there that requires a permit.

[1:32:10] That staging area was agreed upon.

[1:32:12] A couple of years ago when we issued some master permits to put new roofs on that.

[1:32:21] A lot of those buildings.

[1:32:23] To redo a lot of the e-fists to rebuild and replace a lot of the decks.

[1:32:29] And that work occurred.

[1:32:31] And with those master permits are finaled out.

[1:32:36] And I do think based on the photos that we took today.

[1:32:40] And some of the things we've seen in the past.

[1:32:42] There was never an intent to have a flatbed trailer there.

[1:32:48] There was never an intent to have a pile of winter salt there.

[1:32:54] Certainly the dumpster.

[1:32:56] I don't think anyone would have any of this.

[1:32:59] Because the projects aren't that big right now.

[1:33:03] So we will work with Somerset Management to see about getting that relocated somewhere else.

[1:33:09] On their community.

[1:33:13] Yes, sir.

[1:33:15] Can we specify the size of these dumpsters.

[1:33:19] Instead of 40-foot, just 20-foot, 10-footers.

[1:33:24] It might be more acceptable.

[1:33:26] Well, I guess we could.

[1:33:28] I guess though, it's the contractor saying,

[1:33:32] Here's how big a dumpster I need.

[1:33:36] And if we say, no, you can't put one that big.

[1:33:39] Then he might have to empty it more often.

[1:33:42] I don't know.

[1:33:44] My turn to be just having a mess on some of these homes are very large that they're building.

[1:33:49] And I would be concerned about overflowing dumpsters if we undersized it.

[1:33:56] Well, I don't think dumpsters on the new homes are an issue.

[1:34:03] Because most of our home builders want that dumpster to go away as soon as possible.

[1:34:08] Because they've got to grade the site.

[1:34:10] They've got to put the driveway in.

[1:34:12] They've got to do a lot of things.

[1:34:14] And so, that's where the drywall inspection idea came.

[1:34:19] Building a new house, hanging a lot of drywall, a lot of drywall ways.

[1:34:24] Once that's done, usually the dumpster goes away on a new house.

[1:34:29] Anyway, I think it's those isolated incidents where you have a dumpster.

[1:34:37] Maybe the job has been done in the water for a while.

[1:34:42] Maybe we stopped the job and the dumpster was illegally placed to begin with.

[1:34:48] So I think there are different factors that come into play.

[1:34:55] Thank you all.

[1:34:59] Good discussion.

[1:35:00] Next time.

[1:35:01] We do.

[1:35:02] This is from the Administrator.

[1:35:03] And in 15 correction to ordinance.

[1:35:05] $56.75 that extended imminent domain of authorization.

[1:35:09] Yes, this was just an error.

[1:35:12] We wanted to bring to the council's attention that the reference in that award.

[1:35:18] And that many ordinance was to.

[1:35:21] The ordinance.

[1:35:22] $33.71.

[1:35:23] In fact, it was ordinance.

[1:35:25] $56.75.

[1:35:28] So, this is not required amendment, but we wanted to bring it to the council's attention.

[1:35:33] And Clark's making that change.

[1:35:36] So, thank you.

[1:35:37] Next time.

[1:35:38] Item 16.

[1:35:40] Staff report.

[1:35:41] Other than I north.

[1:35:42] Phase one.

[1:35:43] Grant status.

[1:35:44] And recommendation.

[1:35:45] Mr. Walberg will make this report.

[1:35:47] Good evening.

[1:36:05] Further, the record.

[1:36:06] My name is Matt Walberg.

[1:36:07] It's the engineer for brief court.

[1:36:09] In your packet, staff report about the various grant opportunities and the results of our applications.

[1:36:16] For the 39 north phase one.

[1:36:21] And that's the intersection of Limburg and Old Olive.

[1:36:25] So, we have.

[1:36:27] There's the two different cost share programs.

[1:36:29] And we're back in September when we last talked about it.

[1:36:32] We had applied for the cost share program.

[1:36:34] But then there's this new program.

[1:36:36] The governor's transportation cost share program.

[1:36:39] And the short stories we've applied for both of those.

[1:36:42] And we've been successful in both of those applications.

[1:36:46] And that that summarized how much how much money that is.

[1:36:51] It's about.

[1:36:52] The two combined is about 1.6 million.

[1:36:56] The two programs have different timelines and different restrictions.

[1:37:02] With.

[1:37:04] And I think the most the most important one to talk about is this governor's.

[1:37:08] A lot of the pressure program.

[1:37:10] We don't really know the exact schedule that yet.

[1:37:14] Not sure.

[1:37:15] Mode not really knows that exact schedule.

[1:37:18] Okay.

[1:37:19] But all indications.

[1:37:21] First indications are we got were that we'd have to spend the construction funds.

[1:37:25] And and that.

[1:37:27] By this.

[1:37:29] By the end of June of this year.

[1:37:31] And and that.

[1:37:32] Would not have been feasible from a skinny product we'd have.

[1:37:36] We're now seeing that as being by the end of June next year, and that still carries

[1:37:44] a concern, that timeline still feels too short when we need easements and utility

[1:37:51] relocation, it's intersection, everything has to go right, and even then it might be

[1:37:58] a stretch to meet that.

[1:38:00] That's like Governor's transportation and costure program to be really effective.

[1:38:06] We'd have to be out to bid, probably in about a year, and to spend roughly $600,000

[1:38:12] of the construction funds by June 30th of next year.

[1:38:18] That is a concern that it is funny that we have in hand, and I don't think we necessarily

[1:38:28] make a decision on that, or it's hard to make a recommended decision on that until we really

[1:38:33] know what the timeline is for us, but it is funny that we've been awarded, but I'm

[1:38:39] not exactly sure we're going to be able to use.

[1:38:44] I'm kind of laid out two paths in the staff, and we have the first path that is trying

[1:38:52] to use this funding and really push to get this construction started in about a year.

[1:38:57] The second path is really what we envisioned when we didn't have the Governor's

[1:39:03] transportation and costure program that didn't exist was to pursue federal funding through this

[1:39:10] current grant round for this project, and in that way the project would be built in fiscal year

[1:39:19] 24, and that's really consistent with the CIP, that's what we had laid out last spring.

[1:39:27] The recommendation is to really pursue the federal funding for this project now, and not count

[1:39:36] on this Governor's transportation costure program, and to submit that federal application for the

[1:39:44] Old Island Limburg Interchange Interchange on February 13th, so with that deadline coming

[1:39:52] up we would be coming back to the city council, and the next meeting was the recommendation

[1:39:58] for having that resolution to support the application for the federal funding.

[1:40:03] They want to just bring that tonight, because there's a potential to discuss several different options,

[1:40:12] and I guess the option, the alternative federal application would be applying for a similar

[1:40:19] amount of federal funding for Craig Road, and I think that's the next application and that's

[1:40:25] the vision of the CIP, it's probably the private street with the most need, and I guess if we

[1:40:34] if we pursued the Governor's program and tried to do that, tried to owe the Old Island Limburg

[1:40:43] outside of the federal process, we would recommend applying for a grant application for Craig Road this

[1:40:50] year, the C is also doubling its cost in a way by doing that, so I think that has more

[1:41:00] complications than solutions, so that's where we're not recommending pursuing that Governor's program

[1:41:11] right now, or we're recommending pursuing the federal program, and if the Governor's program

[1:41:17] somehow gets extended, then that's kind of a bonus for us, a little bit, sorry, a little bit

[1:41:26] confusing perhaps with the three different programs, we'd be happy to go through any of the funding

[1:41:34] that summary of what we've been awarded, what we're seeking, what we seek to pay, that's where

[1:41:46] any other questions you have, thank you, this is all of our questions, covers, thoughts.

[1:41:51] We were aware of this when we applied and sort of did this in case federal funding, if I recall correctly.

[1:41:58] One of the reasons we applied for the Governor's Transportation Program was because we didn't

[1:42:04] know we didn't know whether or not we would get the first one, and so both of those are state

[1:42:10] run, the cost share program, and it's a shame they're both called the cost share program,

[1:42:17] so it makes it a little confusing or maybe a lot confusing, that the cost share funding with the

[1:42:23] million dollars, that is federally funded, it's just state administered, that's why it's on the same

[1:42:29] schedules that you federal STP grant program.

[1:42:34] No, that cost share program, if we don't move forward to 2024, we're not going to lose it,

[1:42:47] correct?

[1:42:49] The cost share, the state cost, that program, we've applied for funding for part of the design right

[1:43:01] away construction, all those phases, so we would move forward probably within the next year

[1:43:06] or year and a half.

[1:43:07] We could still use part of that to do all those things.

[1:43:10] Correct.

[1:43:11] And so the Governor's program, is there any negative consequences for us to say thanks, but no

[1:43:17] thanks to that?

[1:43:18] I guess if I think eventually the city may actually say that, I don't think there's a negative

[1:43:28] consequence to it.

[1:43:29] I might, I would advise waiting until we know the, when, what the deadline would be.

[1:43:35] Can we wait to put some of what it's going to be?

[1:43:41] So I think that's up to, in a way, up to mode out of when we start rolling out the agreements for

[1:43:47] the grants, but.

[1:43:48] That's certainly not guaranteed, it is, I think the project has a lot of, a lot of good

[1:44:12] things going for it, it removes a significant barrier, a literal barrier in the middle

[1:44:22] of Lindbergg, and introduces the sidewalk crossing and the bike path crossing, but really

[1:44:31] the connection of old olive, that has a pretty big impact for that 39-hour district.

[1:44:42] With the, the studies done with the, the great streets plan and the master plan, I think

[1:44:49] there's a lot of support, a lot of backup documentation for the city saying, well, we think

[1:44:55] this is a good idea, it's not, it's not just the city saying, we think it's a good idea, but

[1:44:59] there's a lot of research.

[1:45:00] I think it does have some, it does have a good amount of, it will score well in that application.

[1:45:11] And it's a, it's a way that the city takes over old allot for mode access. We do have that support.

[1:45:19] And we will support from the neighboring property owners.

[1:45:23] I think we're going to start now with Governor's program.

[1:45:26] And then get stuck with the room to the cost.

[1:45:29] We're not going to be looking at the SDK there.

[1:45:32] Right.

[1:45:33] I mean, that's actually a real criminal.

[1:45:35] And in, in a way, we're, we're, we're somewhat back to where we were in September.

[1:45:39] When we, you know, do we apply for this governor's program?

[1:45:42] Because we don't really know if we have the, the, the cost share award.

[1:45:47] We're a little bit in that situation here with the federal money.

[1:45:52] We don't know, we don't exactly what the terms of the governor's program are.

[1:45:58] And yet we, we don't, we can't wait until we know before we apply for the SDK grant.

[1:46:05] All right.

[1:46:06] There's no guarantee.

[1:46:11] But from a scheduling standpoint, I find it hard to rely on that governor's program.

[1:46:19] If it, if it is going to be there, we have to build at least 600,000 dollars of that project or 575 of that project by June 30 next year.

[1:46:34] Yeah, the, the fear of that is just, just having a right away phase at all in this project.

[1:46:40] I mean, Emerson takes a certain amount of time.

[1:46:43] They all take a certain amount of time.

[1:46:45] The season we reviewed by mode out at every phase.

[1:46:48] And we know we have to move at least one utility pool.

[1:46:52] How could any.

[1:46:53] I don't know.

[1:46:54] You see, that's why, so they change, you know, and that would be our benefit if the changes.

[1:46:59] Because I don't think anybody could get it done in 18 months or less.

[1:47:03] Right.

[1:47:04] If, if this was, say, the firm via resurfacing project.

[1:47:08] Yes, that could be done by the next summer.

[1:47:11] Because it's, you know, it's resurfacing a road.

[1:47:15] This is more complicated.

[1:47:21] So I guess the, the point of all this is that we're, the recommendations that we would apply for the federal funding with this current grant round.

[1:47:30] And then we would.

[1:47:31] We would.

[1:47:32] Yeah.

[1:47:33] I mean, we, we talked quite a bit about this.

[1:47:46] The, you know, it's a tough call.

[1:47:49] But, you know, this timeline that they're talking about is just unrealistic.

[1:47:54] And then when you've got these utilities and mass talking about right away, easements,

[1:47:58] it's just no way.

[1:48:00] And, and my, my concern also is that we've got these projects that if we have to rush through this one,

[1:48:08] then.

[1:48:09] Or we're going to be able to keep up with, you know, woesley and somebody's other projects that are important.

[1:48:14] You know, to get done to and get done right.

[1:48:17] Because they've all got lots of record keeping lots of grant obligations too.

[1:48:23] So that's the concern.

[1:48:26] And I have council on Lawrence.

[1:48:28] I think the tier question is, are it negative?

[1:48:31] I think the negative would be if we.

[1:48:34] If I say for the.

[1:48:36] Emerson or more, more so for the mostly project to be on the right away phase next year.

[1:48:41] If we're not paying attention to that.

[1:48:44] Give it enough attention to that and it fails.

[1:48:47] If the future for one of those like for another governor's program.

[1:48:51] Would be a thing.

[1:48:53] Yeah.

[1:48:54] Do you get our names?

[1:48:56] Because you said no type on this one.

[1:48:58] Right.

[1:48:59] And I.

[1:49:00] I don't know if there would be another governor's program.

[1:49:04] Okay.

[1:49:09] Everybody sort of in agreement.

[1:49:13] The direction that we're.

[1:49:15] The heading.

[1:49:17] Thank you.

[1:49:18] Thank you.

[1:49:19] Over.

[1:49:20] Next item.

[1:49:22] Please.

[1:49:23] And I'm 17 planning and so many staff report.

[1:49:26] Nice.

[1:49:43] I thought I would change my report up a little bit for you this evening and show a few pictures.

[1:49:50] Thank you.

[1:49:51] I don't know if you can expect us every month, but for this update, I thought it might be useful for you.

[1:49:57] Some things that are that we've received for applications and items are going to be going forward to P and Z.

[1:50:03] Give you the information tonight.

[1:50:06] This is a project that proposes a new apartment building.

[1:50:16] This is in the East Olive Corridor.

[1:50:18] This property is located right here.

[1:50:22] So if you're familiar, there's there's a couple of houses.

[1:50:25] I mean, there's actually three houses on the north side of Olive.

[1:50:28] There's two office buildings here.

[1:50:30] Spaniard Road is here.

[1:50:33] So it's those properties right there.

[1:50:36] Those houses would be demolished and this new apartment building is being proposed.

[1:50:42] This area is owned CB core business district.

[1:50:45] This is the only area.

[1:50:46] Extendable for the west.

[1:50:48] But this is the only area that's owned CB in the East Olive Corridor.

[1:50:51] Most of it's zone GC general commercial.

[1:50:54] So, but since it's zone CB, it allows apartment buildings of up to 20 units an acre as a permitted use.

[1:51:01] So there's no conditional use permit.

[1:51:03] There's no rezoning.

[1:51:04] It's straight the zoning allows for it.

[1:51:06] It's just a site plan approval where we look at the layout of the building and the materials and design and so forth.

[1:51:12] And so we're expecting this will be ready to present to the P and Z commission next Tuesday for their review.

[1:51:19] The building and just to give you a layout is that it would front olive.

[1:51:24] This is the site plan here.

[1:51:26] This is the outline of building.

[1:51:27] It's one building with 20 units.

[1:51:29] The site is just over one acre size.

[1:51:31] So they're maximizing their allowable density for the site.

[1:51:35] The parking would be concentrated along the side and to the rear and they're proposing some parkboards back there as well.

[1:51:41] But again, what you're going to see along olive would be mostly the building.

[1:51:45] You're not going to see a lot of the parking.

[1:51:48] Yeah.

[1:51:49] One structure would be here.

[1:51:51] Parkboard here behind the building.

[1:51:52] Directly behind.

[1:51:53] So this is all of running down here.

[1:51:55] You wouldn't see it to be all the way behind the building.

[1:51:58] The other one would have a little bit of visibility but it's running north and south over in this area.

[1:52:03] And the rest of these would be open.

[1:52:04] So about half the parking spaces required for the building would be covered with parkboards half would be open.

[1:52:11] There's landscaping proposed here sidewalk connecting to the public sidewalk on olive.

[1:52:18] We're asking for some enhanced landscaping here because of the existing office building.

[1:52:23] So we still got some recommendations involved.

[1:52:26] But this would be essentially the layout that we.

[1:52:30] That's Huck-in's building.

[1:52:31] That's correct.

[1:52:32] Yeah.

[1:52:33] He's attending that building right here.

[1:52:35] Detention would be featured back in here in this area would be under stir.

[1:52:39] Most of it back in this area.

[1:52:41] You see a lot of regrating here to support the new parking lot.

[1:52:44] There'd be a small regaining wall running along here again to level off the site.

[1:52:49] And the building again would mostly be in this area here.

[1:52:53] And in terms of the design.

[1:52:55] This is what being proposed.

[1:52:57] It would be four stories tall.

[1:52:58] Again, a total of 20 units.

[1:53:00] So quite a big project for this site.

[1:53:03] But it is allowed personas.

[1:53:05] So no special approvals would be necessary.

[1:53:08] Balconies would be proposed.

[1:53:10] Another thing these would all be two bedroom units.

[1:53:12] About 1100 square feet in size each.

[1:53:15] So these would not be small efficiency units.

[1:53:18] These are actually pretty well sized for a four rental across.

[1:53:22] They're also talking about having an amenity deck on it as well.

[1:53:27] Which would be somewhere in this area.

[1:53:30] Some seating.

[1:53:31] So a little bit of outdoor amenity space to go along with it.

[1:53:35] I bring this to your attention.

[1:53:37] Because you will not see this.

[1:53:38] You're not required to act or approve it.

[1:53:40] It's all within the hands of PNZ.

[1:53:42] So just want to give you a heads up on this project.

[1:53:45] It's pretty significant.

[1:53:47] Yeah.

[1:53:48] You can see here.

[1:53:49] These are what colors are proposed.

[1:53:50] So we don't have any bright yellows or greens or anything like that.

[1:53:53] This one.

[1:53:54] We do think it resembles the view quite a bit in design.

[1:53:58] If you just do a kind of a quick look, it looks very much like the view.

[1:54:02] The architect has told us it's not.

[1:54:04] But us it resembles the view.

[1:54:07] So I think it's very similar to the view.

[1:54:09] What are the things that are staring at the view?

[1:54:11] They seem to be water.

[1:54:12] Yeah, they are.

[1:54:13] They're waterproofing.

[1:54:14] They're doing some awnings and things relative to water.

[1:54:17] And water issues that are freezing and causing some problems.

[1:54:20] And they've got elevator issues because of the freezing weather.

[1:54:23] So they're going back and doing some of that repair.

[1:54:25] Okay.

[1:54:26] The next thing I wanted to share with you tonight is Shamanah.

[1:54:29] They've submitted application for a brand new standalone basketball arena.

[1:54:32] And if you can read here, they have a major donor.

[1:54:35] His name is Bradley Beal.

[1:54:37] He's an MBA basketball player.

[1:54:39] Pretty well known.

[1:54:40] I don't follow MBA, but I can Google them.

[1:54:43] Yeah, he's a pretty good basketball player.

[1:54:45] And he wants to Shamanah.

[1:54:47] So he is giving back to his alma mater.

[1:54:49] And it's proposing this arena.

[1:54:51] You can see here.

[1:54:53] We don't have all the specifics yet on the material.

[1:54:55] We're working through that with the applicant.

[1:54:57] We just got these plans other day.

[1:54:59] But since it's submitted, I want to share with you.

[1:55:01] In terms of its location on the campus, this is Limburg here.

[1:55:04] North is up.

[1:55:06] This is the football stadium and the new baseball stadium.

[1:55:09] So it's mostly central to the campus.

[1:55:12] Which is nice.

[1:55:13] It's not going to be on the perimeter.

[1:55:15] Should have minimal impact to any residential areas.

[1:55:17] And in this case, this uses all indoors versus a stadium with PA systems outdoor.

[1:55:22] So with all that in mind, it should be minimally impactful to any other residents.

[1:55:28] The other thing I wanted to bring your attention.

[1:55:31] We are working with Amran.

[1:55:33] And we've been doing so over the summer.

[1:55:36] We're hearing that there may be delayed.

[1:55:39] But we're kind of excited about the prospect of this.

[1:55:42] And we're hoping that maybe it can come sooner.

[1:55:44] But it does sound like they are.

[1:55:46] And the project would be a relocation of that substation.

[1:55:50] So if you've seen that very rusty, nasty looking equipment,

[1:55:54] they are proposing to relocate that to this parking lot here.

[1:55:59] So they would do a land swap with the owner of the shopping center.

[1:56:02] Onal.

[1:56:03] Yes, thank you.

[1:56:04] It's onal.

[1:56:05] So this is a US bank here.

[1:56:07] This is the Aldi Center here that just had a renovation.

[1:56:09] And it would be a land swap.

[1:56:11] And in fact, my understanding is that land purchase is already closed.

[1:56:15] So Amran has purchased this property.

[1:56:18] And we have reviewed plans, issued comments.

[1:56:21] Pretty near the end of our review.

[1:56:23] But then we heard they're delaying it.

[1:56:25] And they may not proceed for another year.

[1:56:27] We're hopeful that this was for because we think it would have a lot of positive impacts

[1:56:31] to the community.

[1:56:32] Get that site clear away.

[1:56:34] If equipment would be all new.

[1:56:36] It would be landscape and screen back here.

[1:56:38] And then this would be open to any future development potential.

[1:56:42] And I think that's what we get cut through.

[1:56:44] Yeah.

[1:56:45] Let me show you.

[1:56:46] That's a good question.

[1:56:47] This is a very basic site plan.

[1:56:49] You would have.

[1:56:50] The cut through now comes through here.

[1:56:52] They would just relocate itself.

[1:56:54] So you would still have the ability to cut through.

[1:56:56] They would just relocate it.

[1:56:57] To the banks.

[1:57:00] Okay.

[1:57:01] So here's the existing cut through right now.

[1:57:03] You can come through here.

[1:57:04] That would go away because equipment will be in here for Amran.

[1:57:07] And a new road would come through here.

[1:57:10] So you would still have access.

[1:57:12] We were working with them on some sidewalks.

[1:57:15] And actually better access.

[1:57:17] Yeah.

[1:57:18] It is.

[1:57:19] And then they would try to put in a make up a few parking spaces up here.

[1:57:22] You can see on some of the pedestrian accommodations.

[1:57:25] We're also trying to work with them.

[1:57:27] But certainly a.

[1:57:29] Because viewed as a positive project.

[1:57:32] For the city.

[1:57:33] We're just waiting to see when they might schedule that for a former view by a PNZ.

[1:57:37] That is a conditioning experiment.

[1:57:38] So it would come to you eventually.

[1:57:40] When it gets that point.

[1:57:41] So because of the updates.

[1:57:43] I had for you this evening to have to answer any other questions.

[1:57:46] The trees are installed.

[1:57:49] I don't know if you noticed that they have all the new trees on the perimeter.

[1:57:53] They still do not had the fencing up yet.

[1:57:57] And they're not ready to install the shrubs yet due to the web.

[1:58:01] So we have had some weather concerns.

[1:58:05] They also need to install a retaining wall on that north lot that is sold.

[1:58:11] So there is some activity, but it's it's very slow.

[1:58:16] But we have issued one permit for the house.

[1:58:18] And we hear the other one is in contract discussions.

[1:58:22] So I think we're at two in terms of the nine lots.

[1:58:26] Two of them.

[1:58:27] Initially it was three that were sold down to.

[1:58:30] One permit's been issued.

[1:58:32] Have they picked that permit up?

[1:58:34] As of last week they have not.

[1:58:36] Yeah, very slow.

[1:58:41] I was excited to see the trees come up.

[1:58:45] That helps.

[1:58:46] But obviously there's a long way to go.

[1:58:48] Thank you for your comment.

[1:58:51] Thank you.

[1:58:53] Would like the property next to first community credit union, the residents?

[1:58:58] No activity.

[1:58:59] Oh, well, we have two houses that are there to not in great shape houses.

[1:59:04] Are you talking about those of the vacant lot next to them?

[1:59:07] The one with the Cadillac?

[1:59:09] Yes.

[1:59:10] I believe that is scheduled for demolition.

[1:59:13] Just demolition?

[1:59:14] Yeah.

[1:59:15] I don't know of any purchase activity over there that I can speak to.

[1:59:20] Is that from even the chair still?

[1:59:24] Excuse me?

[1:59:25] Is that right?

[1:59:26] Is the structure there secure still?

[1:59:29] We can check on that.

[1:59:30] The last that I saw.

[1:59:31] They were moving a lot of stuff out of the house.

[1:59:33] It's probably more secure than it in.

[1:59:36] Yeah.

[1:59:38] I can't tell you that it's sure for now.

[1:59:41] No.

[1:59:42] I've heard it's quite quite an in-system problem.

[1:59:46] Any additional questions or filaments?

[1:59:48] Any other business?

[1:59:50] Any reason for executive assessment?

[1:59:52] No.

[1:59:53] Who's a journalist?

[1:59:54] Any discussion?

[1:59:56] Dr. Wardstein?

[1:59:57] Aye.

[1:59:58] Please.

[1:59:59] Thank you.

[2:00:00] Yes, thank you very much.

City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript