[1:45] As a result of those discussions, we

[1:47] have developed the requirements that

[1:49] have been submitted in your packet. We

[1:51] feel these requirements are fair and

[1:53] reasonable and should alleviate some of

[1:55] the concerns that have come up regarding

[1:57] insurance coverage with when renting a

[1:59] city facility, pavilion, or hosting a

[2:01] special event. Our goal is to provide

[2:04] appropriate protection for the city

[2:06] while keeping the process reasonable for

[2:08] rentals and special events. John is here

[2:10] tonight with us this evening to go over

[2:13] the different risk categories and answer

[2:14] any questions you may have.

[2:16] John.

[2:22] » Thank you, Sherry.

[2:23] Thank you, Council.

[2:28] So, in working with Casey and Lori in

[2:30] the Parks Department over the last

[2:32] couple months, we've gone through

[2:33] several revisions of the documents in

[2:34] front of you tonight. Uh I did bring um

[2:38] another document I wanted to share that

[2:40] kind of explains how this

[2:43] uh conversation got started. It's uh

[2:46] from the Missouri Department of

[2:47] Insurance website, that's a sovereign

[2:49] immunity uh limit um

[2:53] documentation um

[2:55] to

[2:56] explain the difference between a claim

[2:59] per occurrence and out of all claims

[3:01] arising out of a single accident. In our

[3:04] world, we we use in the insurance world,

[3:06] we use the per occurrence and aggregate

[3:08] terminology

[3:10] quite often. But, an aggregate or all

[3:13] claims arising out of a single event, um

[3:16] the terminology got a little lost in

[3:17] translation. So, our

[3:19] uh we've eliminated

[3:21] um

[3:21] the the confusion around these sovereign

[3:24] immunity limits and the requirement that

[3:27] was previously 1 million per occurrence

[3:29] and I believe a three or four million

[3:32] aggregate limit. And again, uh to um

[3:36] >> [snorts]

[3:36] >> uh

[3:37] make the same point we talked about last

[3:39] June, that's just not how insurance

[3:41] policies are structured. The Rotary

[3:42] Club, the Lions Club, it's very

[3:44] difficult for them to get a 1 million

[3:45] per occurrence and a 4 million dollar

[3:47] aggregate policy.

[3:48] So, uh on tier one insurance

[3:50] requirements in the document in front of

[3:53] you. um Um, minimal risk, no insurance

[3:55] required category.

[3:58] Uh, those are rentals where it's

[4:00] one-time, um,

[4:02] citizens and and group rentals for a

[4:04] barbecue get-together where we feel

[4:07] there's no

[4:09] uh additional risk on the city or no

[4:12] additional um care of duty in in renting

[4:15] out that facility. The taxpayers pay for

[4:17] that facility. It's a private event, not

[4:19] open to the public, and in most cases

[4:22] other municipalities do not require

[4:23] evidence of insurance for a simple

[4:25] pavilion rental in a park or or similar.

[4:29] Um,

[4:30] tier two and and higher categories kind

[4:32] of escalate based off of certain

[4:34] criteria that are um

[4:37] less arbitrary than than previously.

[4:39] They identify

[4:41] um whether or not the event's open to

[4:42] the public, whether or not alcohol will

[4:44] be served, animals will be present, or

[4:47] hazardous events like fireworks and

[4:48] bounce houses will be on site. And if

[4:51] those more hazardous, um, items are

[4:55] um

[4:56] going to be included in that event, uh,

[4:58] they go to the category four risk,

[5:02] um,

[5:03] level, where we're transferring the full

[5:06] 3. 5 million in sovereign immunity

[5:11] per for any for all claims arising out

[5:14] of a single event or occurrence. So, if

[5:16] you see the the wording there um highlighted in

[5:20] light gray, "For all claims arising out

[5:22] of a single accident or occurrence."

[5:25] Um,

[5:27] that means for if a bleachers were to

[5:30] fall down at the county fair or or some

[5:33] concert event were to have an equipment

[5:35] malfunction and say five or to 10 people

[5:39] were injured,

[5:40] um, they would be limited to $530,000

[5:44] under the Missouri sovereign immunity

[5:46] caps, but all of the claims arising out

[5:49] of that

[5:50] incident could easily exceed the $1

[5:53] million requirement that was previously

[5:57] the limit needed for the

[6:00] special events and facility rentals. So,

[6:04] I don't believe there was any

[6:06] requirement above a million dollars per

[6:09] occurrence. So,

[6:11] um

[6:15] I believe that

[6:17] kind of explains how we we got over the

[6:18] last few months to this document.

[6:21] Um

[6:22] We we gave guidelines and ran it through

[6:24] our risk management team at Daniel and

[6:25] Henry

[6:26] to make sure all the boxes were checked

[6:28] that the whole harmless indemnification

[6:30] wordings, all those legal

[6:32] clauses and mechanisms in the

[6:33] application process were were there to

[6:36] make sure that when we get that evidence

[6:38] of insurance that we know how

[6:42] a claim should play out with the

[6:43] documentation we have on hand before the

[6:46] event. And as always our our goal as

[6:49] your insurance broker and risk

[6:51] management partner

[6:53] is to transfer or minimize and otherwise

[6:56] mitigate risk that the city faces

[6:59] on their facilities and and in the

[7:01] day-to-day operations. So, I'll

[7:04] open it to questions.

[7:07] >> [clears throat]

[7:08] >> Well, my first question was was back in

[7:10] January we changed it from 1 and 3

[7:13] million

[7:14] to 1 and 4.

[7:17] million on aggregate.

[7:18] >> accurate. It was increasing it

[7:20] back in in April to June when I

[7:22] >> Okay.

[7:23] >> It actually was last It was latter part

[7:26] of last year when it was brought to our

[7:28] attention that our limits

[7:29] [clears throat] weren't high enough.

[7:31] >> Right.

[7:31] >> And so, that's when we moved the 1 to 3

[7:33] to 1 to 4.

[7:35] >> What What you're saying there though

[7:36] that the 1 to 4 was never

[7:39] necessary or it was [clears throat]

[7:40] never

[7:42] the right way to go about it.

[7:43] >> right structure. There was There was a

[7:44] disconnect in communication at some

[7:46] point in in the chain about um the

[7:51] uh the higher sovereign immunity limit

[7:53] for all claims arising out of a single

[7:55] accident or occurrence. So, we

[7:57] recommended I I believe I don't again I

[8:00] don't have any documentation of this

[8:02] going back in 2025 and 2004 and and

[8:05] before that. But, the aggregate limit

[8:09] that's present on a general liability

[8:11] insurance policies usually $2 million

[8:15] and the wording for aggregate, the

[8:17] definition of an aggregate in that

[8:19] policy is all claims arising and you

[8:22] know

[8:23] out of a single policy year. So,

[8:26] you're right. There was a disconnect in

[8:29] what we were asking citizens and and

[8:31] organizations and the appropriate

[8:34] structure we we should have had in

[8:35] place.

[8:37] >> Okay.

[8:40] >> Luckily, I don't believe there were any

[8:41] claims that that arose during that time.

[8:44] Um

[8:45] >> No, there was no claims, but we

[8:49] Correct me if I'm wrong, Lori or Chad,

[8:50] that but we required the one and four

[8:52] and therefore

[8:54] the Lions Club, it was like the

[8:56] you know, their premium went up

[8:58] exponentially.

[8:59] So, therefore they came back and then we

[9:01] come up with this and the four was never

[9:03] really necessary is how I'm

[9:05] understanding it, right? Is that But,

[9:08] now we also have the umbrella on top of

[9:09] this moderate and high risk categories.

[9:13] So, is that a different way of saying

[9:15] that we have more coverage?

[9:17] I'm not an insurance guy, so I'm just

[9:19] asking the bare bottom question here.

[9:21] >> With this new policy, we will have up to

[9:23] $4 million or

[9:26] the the only limit in excess of the $3.5

[9:28] million

[9:30] sovereign immunity cap. So, all of the risk that that would be faced by the

[9:34] city of Washington in in an event like

[9:36] the Town and Country Fair, Rocks Fest,

[9:38] or any other large festival um where

[9:41] we'd be on the hook for no more than 3.5

[9:45] million. That full limit is now

[9:46] transferred to the event host. In in

[9:49] those cases where we have a higher care

[9:51] of duty to verify a liquor license and

[9:54] make sure security and parking are

[9:56] arranged and and maybe there there

[9:58] vehicles on site like uh golf carts and uh UTVs, ATVs that are utilized for

[10:05] facility management and and those are

[10:08] the cases, the very very few cases in

[10:10] which the the full

[10:13] $3 million umbrella, $1 million general

[10:15] liability limit plus the $3 million

[10:17] umbrella would be required. And it's my

[10:21] professional understanding that special

[10:23] event policies for festivals like this

[10:25] are really available.

[10:26] There is a higher premium for a $4

[10:29] million limit, of course. But

[10:32] I I I believe that that that that

[10:34] coverage is available in the market you

[10:36] know, for or events like this. Uh

[10:39] like those hosted here in the city.

[10:41] >> Do we know that were they able to get

[10:44] the insurance they needed because I know

[10:46] they were concerned that there wasn't

[10:48] going to be

[10:50] that company that was going to insure it

[10:53] for a one-day event.

[10:55] >> I'm waiting on Rick to get back to me.

[10:57] We've touched base a couple of times.

[10:59] He's traveling back

[11:00] from being out of town and he was going

[11:02] to talk to me tomorrow.

[11:03] >> Okay. Yeah, I [laughter] just that's

[11:05] been the conversation I heard. My

[11:06] biggest fear is we get to you know

[11:09] >> Sure.

[11:10] >> the end of the line here and they're

[11:11] saying, "Uh-oh, we had it can't get

[11:13] insurance."

[11:14] >> So, council council, it's my

[11:16] understanding and and working with the

[11:17] sheriff and Lori that that we

[11:19] working towards a grandfathering or some

[11:22] otherwise exception for this event

[11:24] because it was already permitted and

[11:26] planned well before these changes came

[11:28] into place.

[11:29] >> Okay.

[11:29] >> So, we're not trying to draw draw a hard

[11:32] and fast line but but again to adopt the

[11:34] best practices

[11:36] for the city.

[11:37] >> Correct. So we're we've asked for them

[11:39] to quote two policies.

[11:41] One with the one and three and then one

[11:43] with the two the two and four.

[11:44] >> Two and two and four.

[11:45] >> Yeah.

[11:46] >> So

[11:47] we're asking them to double the per

[11:49] claim or incident coverage limit from 1

[11:51] million to 2 million this year.

[11:53] To more appropriately transfer you know

[11:56] majority of the risk the city would face

[11:59] at that event. And

[12:02] you know if these recommendations are adopted you know by the city in the uh

[12:08] the council.

[12:09] I believe they would start you know for

[12:12] any events permitted or planned after

[12:14] that date.

[12:15] Of approval.

[12:16] >> Right and to Tim's point or

[12:18] um

[12:19] we have in here that they need to have

[12:20] it proof of insurance to the parks

[12:22] office 30 or three weeks before.

[12:25] It surely wouldn't be right for us

[12:26] tonight to implement this and then 10

[12:28] days

[12:29] require ox.

[12:30] >> Just to have this. We're talking about

[12:31] one event.

[12:31] >> We won't we

[12:32] >> Right. So that's kind of where we're at

[12:34] there. This in all these

[12:37] categories

[12:39] I guess in my opinion kind of what Tim's

[12:41] saying are we can we even get this

[12:42] coverage. We rely on Rick Happ who Rick

[12:44] does a lot of the policies for local.

[12:47] But I think we need to find a couple

[12:49] different companies and and back into

[12:51] the fact that can they insure this for a

[12:54] one day and what that number is.

[12:57] You know if I want to rent the

[12:57] auditorium what are my requirements? And

[13:00] then what's that insurance cost? If it's

[13:02] a thousand or two thousand dollars then

[13:03] I know that. If it's 15 or 20 then we're

[13:06] never going to rent it Brazilian never

[13:07] going to rent the auditorium.

[13:09] >> And that's that's a part of my concern

[13:11] is are you deterring people from wanting

[13:14] to take that nice stage that we just

[13:17] built and make it impossible for you to be able to put on event. Because you

[13:23] know obviously at those things where

[13:25] you're you to make your money you're got

[13:26] to make your money on the concessions

[13:29] and alcohol sales and all the things

[13:30] besides the ticket. So, yes, those are

[13:33] all things that are going to be used

[13:35] at most events.

[13:37] You know, that that that are used there,

[13:39] especially if a let's say a production

[13:41] company comes to you and sees it,

[13:43] they're going to get excited about it

[13:45] and then they're not going to be able

[13:46] to, you know, it's going to be cost

[13:47] prohibitive to be able to do it.

[13:50] >> Sure. Um one thing that underwriters

[13:53] look for is some type of contractual

[13:55] requirement to carry that limit. So,

[13:57] they're not going to offer, say, 4

[14:00] million if the city of Washington

[14:01] doesn't contractually require

[14:03] >> Sure.

[14:04] >> you to to to have the 3.5 million.

[14:06] [laughter] So,

[14:08] um it's a bit of a cart and horse, you

[14:11] know, situation. You know, when our our

[14:13] contracting clients, same thing, you

[14:15] know, if they need a $10 million

[14:16] umbrella for one project or

[14:18] you know, their their carrier, usually

[14:20] if they've been had a long relationship,

[14:22] can make an exception or or can can

[14:24] offer that.

[14:25] >> Special event policies are different. Um

[14:27] they are one-day events, you know, or

[14:30] schedule of events like perhaps in the

[14:33] uh the Chamber of Commerce the

[14:34] situation.

[14:35] Um and you know, those folks that do

[14:39] have more uh events do get, you know,

[14:42] economies of scale in a master policy

[14:44] program. I know that was brought up, you

[14:46] know, last year. Um

[14:49] You know, we could work on vetting a

[14:51] source

[14:52] uh special event policy to be a

[14:55] preferred

[14:56] stop for the city of Washington.

[14:59] It it would not be an overnight thing.

[15:01] It would be a

[15:02] probably 6-month or greater,

[15:04] you know, program, but

[15:06] in this exercise, Lori and and uh Casey

[15:10] and Sherry and I, we've basically have

[15:12] all the information we need. We know how

[15:13] many people are going to be at what

[15:15] event. We know what events have alcohol.

[15:17] We know, you know, all of that stuff.

[15:20] And so, I can do a little more research

[15:23] now that I'm better educated

[15:25] on that front.

[15:26] Um

[15:27] I I think it's more realistic, the scale

[15:29] of events now that I that's in front of

[15:30] me. You're right. It it For a $5 million

[15:33] policy for an event like Ox Fest where

[15:34] you might have

[15:36] 5,000 people attend. I'm not Yeah, sure.

[15:39] But, you know, that that's going to run

[15:41] about 5,000 for the first million and up

[15:43] to 2,500 per million thereafter. So, it it again, if the event is has bounce

[15:49] houses or the liquor sales from that

[15:52] event are traditionally maybe higher

[15:54] than the the gate receipts or, you know,

[15:57] other other revenues. That's that's kind

[15:59] of how it's all underwritten in the

[16:01] special events world. Um and so, now

[16:04] that we have that information,

[16:06] if you'd like us to to undergo that

[16:08] exercise, we'd be happy to do it,

[16:10] you know, as as your partner in

[16:13] insurance and risk management.

[16:15] >> I'd say we wait until find out what Rick

[16:17] says. If he's got a source for it, then

[16:19] it

[16:20] >> So, are you familiar with an insurance

[16:21] company that would write a policy with

[16:23] these numbers that could give us a

[16:25] couple of examples along with Rick and a

[16:27] couple, you know, I guess that would be

[16:29] our my opinion to back into is this even

[16:32] feasible for us for an organization?

[16:33] >> K&K is like the the industry leader in

[16:35] special event policy. They insure race

[16:38] cars. They insure concerts, music

[16:39] venues. American Specialties is an

[16:41] underwriter for movie productions,

[16:43] concerts, uh music production, artists.

[16:48] Um so, yeah, Daniel Henry certainly has

[16:51] uh

[16:52] a a stable of special event underwriters

[16:54] that we would go to and could help, you

[16:56] know, on a

[16:58] uh complimentary or you know, basis

[17:00] again as as the city's, you know,

[17:02] partner to help any of these special

[17:04] event uh sponsors, those Chamber of

[17:07] Commerce, the the gentleman who

[17:09] organizes Ox Fest, which I have not

[17:11] attended, but I hear great things. So,

[17:15] >> [clears throat]

[17:18] » It would I think it'd be great only

[17:20] simply because most of the people that

[17:22] are from these groups aren't insurance

[17:24] guys either and they're not

[17:25] professionals at putting on concerts.

[17:27] They just want to make some money for a

[17:30] for you know

[17:32] >> Yeah, they're trying to have a

[17:32] fundraiser and

[17:34] >> So having that in our in our back

[17:37] pocket, I think would be nice to be able

[17:39] to have some ammunition to say go here and here.

[17:43] >> And does it matter if it's a

[17:44] non-for-profit as opposed to profit in

[17:46] that world or is it insurance required

[17:48] no matter what?

[17:49] >> Um

[17:50] We we would put together basically an

[17:52] application on behalf of the city for a

[17:54] city sponsored event program where the

[17:56] city's not the named insured but offers

[17:58] it as a third-party

[18:00] you know, sponsored basis and then

[18:03] we would look at these larger events

[18:04] with a five or six that are going to be

[18:08] you know, maybe in that that the level

[18:10] four category and take that information

[18:12] and be able to offer some general

[18:14] pricing and and

[18:16] bring that information back uh and so

[18:19] compare it to what their current costs

[18:22] are.

[18:23] >> And then I think we it also goes with

[18:24] you know, the chamber takes care of

[18:26] their own with the fair and other events

[18:27] they have a year long

[18:28] >> Sure and

[18:29] >> Downtown Washington.

[18:31] Three, four events that they have and

[18:33] that's good spread that cost out over

[18:35] all three events, four events, whatever

[18:36] it may be but maybe it's worth having

[18:39] they might want that information also to

[18:40] know another option.

[18:42] >> Well, to know that these events are

[18:44] being you know, vetted by the city and

[18:45] the parks department and permitted and

[18:47] going through a certain process every

[18:49] time that that's a certain you know, um

[18:53] uh

[18:54] box checked that underwriters like to

[18:56] see the certain process followed every

[18:57] time and and all possible risk

[18:59] management efforts in place. So

[19:03] >> Any other questions or comments?

[19:05] >> I just think the other thing to think

[19:06] about looking

[19:07] what you handed us here since

[19:09] 22 we've been north of $3

[19:12] >> Right.

[19:13] And it's going up about 3% every year.

[19:15] So, to put something in black and white

[19:17] that says this is where we're going to

[19:18] be, we might need to have something

[19:20] that's tied to a CPI or whatever this

[19:22] comes out at next year. At some point,

[19:25] it's going to jump the $4 million mark

[19:27] and

[19:28] we'll be back looking at what's our

[19:30] risk.

[19:31] So.

[19:34] » [clears throat]

[19:34] >> So, is this something that council would

[19:36] like to table and then bring back later?

[19:38] >> I'd be in favor of tabling right now to

[19:41] understand all of this.

[19:41] >> We gather information and then before we

[19:43] adopt this,

[19:44] it'd be worth more information.

[19:46] >> I mean, we're really

[19:47] you're looking at Ox Fest, which is

[19:49] already right on the horizon. And beyond

[19:51] that,

[19:52] what else

[19:53] would fall into this?

[19:55] >> Sure. I would hate to give any

[19:56] >> will downtown.

[19:57] >> Yeah.

[19:58] >> We got Friends of Aaron.

[20:00] >> All of it's so close that I have a hard

[20:02] time saying, "Here it is. Bring me your

[20:04] insurance certificate tomorrow." So.

[20:06] >> And I I believe the the couple of the

[20:08] other larger organizations already met

[20:10] this requirement as well with with a a

[20:13] 3-year $4 million umbrella in place. So,

[20:17] um I think there were down to two or

[20:19] three organizations that were not

[20:20] already

[20:21] in compliance. And so, I I I'd love to

[20:24] explore the master plan if the city

[20:26] would like us to do that. I would hate

[20:27] to hold up the implementation of of the

[20:32] um

[20:33] at least part of this. You know, the

[20:36] even the tier one eases the requirements

[20:39] for the vast majority of uh citizens and

[20:42] organizations. So,

[20:44] um

[20:45] approving it does

[20:47] provide a lot of immediate

[20:48] administrative um clarity for the board

[20:52] at least again on on tier one or two.

[20:55] And you could suggest a date to be

[20:57] implemented by the first of the year or

[20:59] any any date in the future. You know,

[21:01] the our our

[21:04] main focus was was to your point, a

[21:06] councilman Patki,

[21:08] getting the aggregate terminology and

[21:10] the per occurrence uh sovereign immunity

[21:12] limits aligned. So, I think we're we're

[21:14] all aligned now, so whatever decisions

[21:16] we make and and we're completely

[21:18] flexible. Again, there's no insurance

[21:19] requirements from our carrier partners

[21:21] that we implement these. These are just

[21:23] best practices and um

[21:27] the work product of of the parks

[21:29] department, myself sitting down

[21:32] on at least uh

[21:34] two occasions in person and in a couple

[21:35] uh

[21:36] conference calls, so.

[21:38] >> Well, I don't want to speak for the rest

[21:39] of council, just so that we get this

[21:40] clear. I think we're good with the

[21:42] category breakdown here,

[21:44] right? So, as as a document going

[21:46] forward, I think we're in favor of that.

[21:48] It's just a matter of tabling it until

[21:50] we get

[21:51] I don't want to approve it tonight.

[21:52] >> Sure. Sure, and I'm just trying to meet the needs or or uh goals of of uh

[21:58] the folks I've worked with on the

[21:59] administrative side. So.

[22:01] >> I'd like to understand that

[22:03] an Oktoberfest or Alliance Club would be

[22:05] able to get what we're requiring.

[22:07] >> I think we'll

[22:08] >> Is there someone out there that will

[22:10] insure it? Because right now what I'm

[22:11] hearing is they're not finding anybody

[22:13] yet. I'm not saying it doesn't exist,

[22:15] and I'm sure you can find it, but

[22:17] without knowing that, I have a hard time

[22:18] saying, "Yeah, let's put this in place."

[22:20] Just to come back and change it.

[22:23] >> Okay, so moving forward, we'll

[22:26] >> Sure.

[22:27] >> We'll meet again, and then we'll table

[22:28] it, and then come back.

[22:30] >> Right. And and tabling it means that

[22:33] Brewfest is required I mean uh

[22:35] Oktoberfest required to one and three

[22:36] like they had before, and the Brewfest

[22:38] also. That's what they were before was

[22:40] one and three.

[22:41] >> We're just going to leave everything as

[22:42] is.

[22:42] >> That that's going to stay the same as

[22:44] is.

[22:45] And then when we implement, then we have

[22:47] to look at what is pending,

[22:49] I guess. Right, Casey? Yes.

[22:51] >> You got to watch that. You can do a

[22:52] calendar year at a time. So, if you

[22:54] somebody comes in tomorrow and books it, it doesn't bring us up.

[22:58] >> But so, I guess I'm just And that's what

[23:00] I'm saying is is that when we know

[23:03] who's going to book it for next year

[23:04] already,

[23:05] that are we going to tell Casey to hold

[23:07] off on insurance or on cost?

[23:09] >> I could offer another suggestion that

[23:11] might you might approve

[23:13] change in policy to adopt a 1 million

[23:16] per occurrence, 2 million aggregate

[23:18] limit for all

[23:22] private events

[23:23] immediately.

[23:25] And for the private events even you're

[23:27] requiring a 2 million dollar limit you

[23:29] don't have to

[23:30] >> You can still just do the one two or one

[23:32] three. There's not a lot of benefit to

[23:34] the the three million aggregate because

[23:37] you'd have to have three

[23:39] claims or multiple claims

[23:41] in the single event for that aggregate

[23:43] to have an impact because it's an it's a

[23:45] calendar year aggregate or

[23:47] policy year

[23:49] term aggregate. So, again um

[23:53] amending it to 1 million per occurrence,

[23:55] 2 million dollars aggregate limit

[23:57] immediately eases the burden and puts

[23:59] the

[24:01] requirements in line with how policies

[24:03] are written on a daily basis.

[24:06] And then

[24:07] um

[24:08] you could optionally also require an

[24:09] additional 1 million dollar umbrella

[24:12] for these other limits.

[24:13] And it's kind of the Solomon's baby

[24:15] solution and you could do that on a

[24:17] calendar

[24:18] date basis so that no new

[24:21] events

[24:22] um

[24:23] with a higher hazard criteria and it

[24:26] slipped through. Even

[24:27] going from 1 million per occurrence to

[24:30] the 1 million occurrence

[24:32] and the 1 million umbrella

[24:34] would be a

[24:36] kind of step towards where we're

[24:37] heading.

[24:39] And again,

[24:40] uh to to Casey's point, would address

[24:43] the calendar year application

[24:45] concern.

[24:47] So, it's just an option.

[24:49] Um

[24:54] And we just we would change this

[24:55] document to to tier four two through

[24:58] four

[24:59] where it's you know

[25:01] the insurance requirements are are

[25:03] higher

[25:04] or or we could table it. Maybe I'm

[25:05] complicating things.

[25:08] » Thank you, Council.

[25:09] >> to table.

[25:11] >> Second.

[25:12] >> Motion by Bear, second by Briggs to

[25:14] table

[25:15] the

[25:17] category one through four table for

[25:19] future information. Is that right?

[25:23] All those in favor?

[25:24] >> Aye.

[25:25] >> Any opposed?

[25:26] Three to vote.

[25:28] Passes. Thank you for being here, John,

[25:30] for that.

[25:30] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[25:31] >> We're and just to clarify, we're going

[25:32] to stay with one and three, correct?

[25:35] >> We're going to stay the way we are,

[25:36] right, Council?

[25:37] >> Yeah.

[25:38] >> That's what I would

[25:39] >> Council suggested we could go to one and

[25:40] two, but one and three we've been

[25:41] working with and we're there

[25:43] and we can do that

[25:45] and we'll have more information next.

[25:47] >> And just get the details on

[25:49] what those folks can obtain and if it's

[25:51] obtainable so that we can understand

[25:53] this a little better.

[25:54] >> What's the income though for like

[25:56] Brewfest or Oktoberfest that comes in

[25:59] tomorrow?

[26:00] To do that, we're just going to table

[26:02] that cuz

[26:02] >> I would say it's already booked for this

[26:04] year. Don't book anything past that

[26:06] until

[26:07] >> not not not for this year. I'm saying

[26:08] next year

[26:09] >> That's what I'm that's what I mean. I'm

[26:10] just saying you already have it established for this

[26:14] year.

[26:16] Next year is going to be subject to the

[26:19] change that we make after

[26:22] the information comes in.

[26:24] >> I just want to clarify

[26:26] >> Sure, I'm with you. I agree.

[26:28] >> And I'm assuming they know that and

[26:29] they're already shopping to see what

[26:30] they can get and what how it's going to

[26:32] affect.

[26:32] >> So

[26:33] >> That's what I'm saying.

[26:34] >> I think everybody knows that, but I just

[26:35] want to make sure everybody's clear what

[26:37] we

[26:38] >> Yeah.

[26:39] >> I would hope that we have talked with

[26:41] the organizations and they understand

[26:42] that you know, we have risk here and

[26:44] we've got to look at what we can do to

[26:45] mitigate the risk.

[26:47] So, if we haven't, we need to.

[26:49] >> It has been relayed to some of the

[26:50] organizations, Casey. Correct me if I'm

[26:52] wrong.

[26:53] >> They're just a couple of them that

[26:54] >> it this way this year, but then going

[26:56] forward, it's going to be the new

[26:57] limits.

[26:58] >> Yeah. So then, I I completely agree with

[27:00] that.

[27:00] >> Yeah.

[27:01] >> All right. Thanks.

[27:02] >> Thanks, Jeff.

[27:03] Casey. [clears throat]

[27:06] » Casey and John again, and Lori, thank

[27:08] you for all your hard work. Appreciate

[27:10] it.

[27:11] >> Yeah, and

[27:12] >> Thank you. Continuing it, too.

[27:13] >> Yeah, continuing it. I'm not done yet.

[27:15] >> We'll get it right.

[27:16] >> Thank you.

[27:17] >> Thanks. [clears throat]

[27:17] >> Thank you.

[27:19] >> Building Department, drywall

[27:21] inspections, new residential

[27:22] construction, and commercial projects.

[27:29] » Good evening, Council.

[27:30] Um

[27:33] and city administrator, sorry.

[27:35] Uh

[27:36] I just wanted to bring to your

[27:36] attention, we're going to start doing

[27:38] drywall inspections. Um something that

[27:41] we've done a few [clears throat] of in

[27:42] the past. Um mostly on larger commercial

[27:46] uh

[27:47] three and four-story buildings, uh where

[27:49] we've got rated corridors and stuff. But

[27:51] the plan now is to move that to all the

[27:52] residential.

[27:54] Um we've got some pretty big townhome

[27:56] developments uh coming in, where we've

[27:58] got um fire separations between all of

[28:00] the the units. Uh we feel that that's

[28:03] important that we get in there and make

[28:05] sure those drywall inspections are done.

[28:07] Um those kind of compartmentalize these

[28:09] things um

[28:10] basically from the foundation all the

[28:12] way to the roof deck. Um we get to see

[28:14] some of that. Um but right now, what

[28:17] we're doing is um

[28:19] the uh rough-in framing, electrical, and

[28:21] plumbing inspections, and then we don't

[28:22] see the buildings again until they're

[28:24] finaled out. So, this gives us another

[28:26] chance to go in and make sure they're

[28:27] putting the right drywall in the right

[28:28] places um in all the right manners um to

[28:32] compartmentalize [cough]

[28:33] [clears throat] um those fire

[28:35] firewalls.

[28:37] So, really I'm just just here to

[28:38] [clears throat] bring you up to speed.

[28:39] If you get get uh questions from

[28:42] uh any of the builders around town or

[28:44] anything, um you know, we've got a bunch

[28:46] of big developments getting ready to get

[28:47] started, so kind of felt like now is the

[28:49] time to do it. Uh, we anticipate maybe

[28:52] it's going to average about one

[28:54] inspection per day over the course of a

[28:56] year.

[28:57] Um,

[28:59] something like that. You know, I it's

[29:00] just kind of what we're anticipating.

[29:01] So, it's going to be a little bit of

[29:02] additional burden, but it's not going to

[29:04] be terrible for us to to um make that

[29:07] happen, so.

[29:09] >> But, Blake, you already have the

[29:10] requirements already in place in the

[29:11] building code. This is just an

[29:13] opportunity to inspect

[29:14] >> Correct. Additional time.

[29:16] >> That's that's correct.

[29:16] >> doing it right. Yeah.

[29:18] >> Yeah. And and they're doing these

[29:20] drywall inspections in the county in the

[29:22] city Union. I believe in the city of

[29:23] Pacific they're already doing these

[29:25] drywall inspections, so it's not going

[29:26] to be anything new for any of the

[29:28] builders that I know of. I've talked to

[29:29] a couple of them already. They they

[29:31] anticipated that we were doing them and

[29:32] we're not. So, it's it's not going to be

[29:34] a surprise, so.

[29:36] Shouldn't be too big of a deal, I don't

[29:37] think.

[29:38] >> You're going to communicate this to the

[29:39] contractors, I guess.

[29:41] >> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.

[29:43] >> [clears throat]

[29:43] >> I'll be and and we're

[29:45] we don't have a hard fast date on this.

[29:48] We're we're going to just slowly slowly

[29:50] push this out to them.

[29:52] All the new developments we're going to

[29:53] be doing it. The developments out on

[29:55] Becker Road, you know, we're going to

[29:56] talk to them and say, "Hey, any new

[29:57] construction you're going to be required

[29:58] to do it."

[29:59] Anything [snorts] that's under

[30:00] construction currently,

[30:03] maybe they do them, maybe they don't.

[30:04] Maybe it's kind of a warm up. They're

[30:05] going to try to remember to call them

[30:06] in, but we're going to we're we're

[30:08] obviously going to miss some. We're not

[30:09] going to see them all. So, the idea is

[30:11] to do the best job that we can do to try

[30:13] to help them and help the customer get

[30:15] um a better product, hopefully.

[30:17] So.

[30:19] >> Okay.

[30:20] You do it before you do it before they

[30:22] hang the drywall or after?

[30:24] >> Af- after they hang the drywall. We want

[30:25] to see that there's 5/8 drywall where

[30:27] there's supposed to be 5/8, 1/2 in um

[30:29] green board in the in the wet rooms in

[30:31] the bathrooms and stuff. That's what

[30:33] we're looking for.

[30:34] >> Cuz you do the blocking inspection with

[30:36] the plumbing and electric.

[30:37] >> Correct.

[30:38] That's correct.

[30:39] >> Okay.

[30:41] >> Anything else?

[30:42] >> Any other Any other for Blake?

[30:44] >> Hey,

[30:45] >> Thank you.

[30:45] >> I will ask you one question. This is

[30:46] kind of to Kevin and you both, but I was

[30:50] had a conversation with a couple of our

[30:51] city employees last week, and they were

[30:54] going to a particular business to clean

[30:56] out their grease trap

[30:58] and our sewer again.

[31:00] And I'm only going by employees' words.

[31:03] We've gone there.

[31:05] What do they get charged? Do are we Do

[31:07] we have something in place where if

[31:09] someone's not complying with our grease

[31:11] trap or sewer

[31:13] Is that something through

[31:14] building codes for Blake, or does Kevin

[31:16] take care of that?

[31:17] >> Uh I take care of that in my department.

[31:19] And yes, we can charge them. It's just

[31:21] been

[31:22] because Washington's always been such a

[31:24] friendly community, we've avoided

[31:26] charging it. However, they will be

[31:28] receiving the bill for the 2 days of

[31:30] labor, the two trucks that were there,

[31:32] the vac truck that was there,

[31:34] and anything else that happened to come

[31:36] up with it, yes.

[31:37] >> Good. Like I said, I don't get told this

[31:38] all the time.

[31:39] >> And it's moving forward from here this

[31:40] point on. Anybody that causes a problem

[31:42] like that will get charged labor charges

[31:45] from from Washington.

[31:46] >> Okay. Sorry, Blake. It wasn't I thought

[31:48] maybe it went through building and

[31:49] >> we do work together on that. So, it's that's Yeah.

[31:53] >> All right. Thank you.

[31:54] >> That's in process right now.

[31:55] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[32:00] » Engineering Department High Street

[32:02] Project Supplemental Agreement Number

[32:04] Two.

[32:07] » Good evening, Council. Uh this is just

[32:09] cleaning up our contract with uh HDR

[32:12] who's doing our construction inspection

[32:14] uh for the High Street project. Um they

[32:16] just had a completion date of December

[32:18] 31st, 2025. Obviously, we're already

[32:20] past that date.

[32:22] Um so, we're moving it out 60 days past

[32:24] the completion of the construction,

[32:25] which is

[32:26] February 13th, 2027.

[32:29] We just got to make sure it's in place

[32:30] so that it doesn't mess up our

[32:31] reimbursements since it's tied to the

[32:33] grant, so.

[32:35] >> You said December 31st this contract end

[32:37] or to be completed?

[32:38] >> Uh

[32:39] >> this for the construction inspection was

[32:40] December 31st of 25. They just had like

[32:43] the wrong date in there. We just had it

[32:45] from previous when we started all this

[32:47] grant back in 21, you know. Um but the

[32:50] actual completion of construction is

[32:52] December 15th

[32:53] of this year.

[32:54] >> You think they're going to make that?

[32:56] >> They're pretty confident, so we'll see

[32:58] how that goes.

[33:01] » Thank you.

[33:01] >> Yeah.

[33:02] >> I'll make a motion send it on.

[33:05] >> Second.

[33:05] >> Motion by Bear, second by Briggs to send

[33:08] uh

[33:09] item 3C on to council. All those in

[33:11] favor?

[33:12] >> Aye.

[33:13] >> Any opposed?

[33:14] By your vote, we move to council. Thank

[33:16] you.

[33:17] >> Fire department fire station one mowing

[33:19] bid.

[33:27] » Good evening council and admin.

[33:29] Uh station fire station one opened

[33:31] before the contract was or after the

[33:33] contract was let. So the uh grass

[33:36] cutting bid for the new firehouse does

[33:38] not is not included in the in the uh

[33:41] contract. This is a request to extend

[33:43] that at $100 per cutting.

[33:47] Please.

[33:49] >> Guys are tired of doing it in the heat.

[33:52] >> I don't know what Well, yeah.

[33:55] We got the hoses picked up finally.

[33:56] We've got the lawn established as far as

[33:58] we're going to be able to get it.

[33:59] >> Right.

[34:00] >> That's why we were holding off was

[34:01] because of the all we didn't want to buy

[34:03] garden hoses.

[34:06] » Any questions for chief for mowing at

[34:07] the new fire station?

[34:10] >> Make motion.

[34:10] >> Second.

[34:11] >> Motion by Holtmeier, second by Hydrick

[34:13] to send to council.

[34:14] >> All those in favor?

[34:16] >> Aye.

[34:16] >> Any opposed?

[34:18] By your vote, we move to council. Thank

[34:19] you.

[34:19] >> Inflatable boat motor and trailer

[34:21] purchase.

[34:22] >> Yes. Uh during the flooding in

[34:24] Lesterville, we sent our uh inflatable

[34:27] boat down to there down there. Uh and it did very well, made a number of

[34:31] rescues uh while I was down there.

[34:34] Unfortunately, eight of eight boats that

[34:35] went down there were significantly

[34:37] damaged including ours.

[34:39] Um in the meantime, I spoke with state

[34:41] emergency management said, "Hey, we got

[34:43] a problem. We ate all these boats up.

[34:44] What are we doing when we have the next

[34:46] rain?" And at that time Missouri State

[34:48] Patrol had a boat that was preparing to

[34:51] go to surplus and it was loaned to us.

[34:54] Um

[34:54] in further discussions, that boat was

[34:56] offered to us at $3,000.

[34:59] Um started doing some research and found

[35:01] out that the motor alone is worth about

[35:03] 2,700. The trailer is about 1,500. Start

[35:05] doing the math. We're getting it for

[35:07] somewhere between 33% and 50% of cost.

[35:10] Um so I'd like to make the

[35:11] recommendation to purchase the boat.

[35:13] What we find in these in these water

[35:15] events, uh typically what we have is

[35:17] multiple events simultaneously. It's not

[35:19] just one creek flooding at one time.

[35:21] It's all the creeks flooding at once.

[35:23] And so having additional resource would

[35:25] be valuable. The one that was damaged is

[35:27] in North Carolina currently being

[35:29] repaired and hopefully sent home before

[35:31] too terribly long.

[35:34] » Is it one of those that have both boats

[35:36] on one trailer or is it on two separate

[35:37] >> Two separate trailers, two separate

[35:39] households.

[35:40] Up to two vehicles for both.

[35:43] >> I'll make a motion.

[35:44] >> Second.

[35:45] >> Motion by Pepsol, second by Hydrick to

[35:47] send the inflatable boat purchase on to

[35:50] council.

[35:51] >> [clears throat]

[35:51] >> Any other discussion? All those in

[35:53] favor?

[35:54] >> Aye.

[35:54] >> Any opposed?

[35:56] By your vote, we'll move to council.

[35:57] Thank you.

[35:58] >> Thank you.

[36:02] » Any other department heads?

[36:10] » Good evening, council. Uh I just want to

[36:12] let you all know that the Titus Twister

[36:14] odor removal equipment that you all

[36:15] approved us to purchase came in early.

[36:18] Um it is installed. We got it installed

[36:20] on Friday. It has been running since

[36:21] Friday. Um

[36:23] starting up I went on Saturday. You

[36:25] could still smell smell some odor.

[36:27] Sunday a little bit. I did a little bit

[36:28] adjustments on the machine and by

[36:30] Monday, I couldn't smell the odor. So,

[36:32] Mike, how's it doing for you?

[36:34] >> I have to ask you cuz you live down

[36:35] there.

[36:35] >> been home much this weekend, but I'm

[36:36] assuming it's okay.

[36:37] >> Okay. So, today [laughter]

[36:39] I was down there and it smelled good.

[36:40] So, it is it is it is working doing what

[36:42] it had to do demo had done. So, just

[36:43] wanted to let you all know it's in and working. So, we put it inside the

[36:47] building. You can't even hear it hear it

[36:48] run. So, there'll be no noise down there

[36:51] and and it'll do its job. So,

[36:53] >> Okay.

[36:54] >> Good fix. Thank you.

[36:55] >> Thank you, Kevin.

[36:56] >> All right.

[36:57] >> [clears throat]

[37:02] » Anyone else?

[37:04] >> I have a question to either Charles or

[37:06] Aaron, maybe Charles since Blake left.

[37:09] Um

[37:10] It's a touchy subject here, but I just

[37:12] like

[37:13] I've had a few people ask me about this.

[37:15] The alley is having some events that are

[37:19] some people feel less appropriate than

[37:21] others.

[37:22] Um do we have a system in place where

[37:25] they're not having

[37:27] so-called adult events where the kids

[37:29] are at the arcade?

[37:32] Are you familiar with what I'm asking?

[37:34] >> I I just heard about some of this this

[37:35] morning, um but didn't

[37:38] Really?

[37:39] >> Yeah, I mean I I I can I can look into

[37:41] that. I I don't have a good answer for

[37:42] you right now, but I'm I'm more than

[37:43] happy to look into, you know, the

[37:45] specifics. So,

[37:46] >> I mean, obviously some people feel at a

[37:48] different level of, you know,

[37:49] complaining, but I guess from a city

[37:51] standpoint, do we have something in

[37:52] place that would be good to know?

[37:54] Um

[37:54] >> Sure. Yeah, I'm more than happy to

[37:56] provide you a report on

[37:57] >> breaking the rules on

[37:57] >> our adult entertainment

[37:59] >> Specifically, it's rules.

[38:00] >> The events are fine, but it's that the

[38:02] kids are there.

[38:03] >> Well, I mean,

[38:04] personally for me, yeah, I think the

[38:06] events are inappropriate. There's no

[38:07] doubt about that. I don't but I guess my

[38:10] question to you is is there anything in

[38:11] our city ordinance or anything like that prohibits them from having that?

[38:15] And I guess my biggest fear goes back to

[38:17] the fact that we're

[38:19] promoting this business as an arcade and

[38:21] then we're going to have certain adult

[38:24] events there seems completely

[38:25] inappropriate. So

[38:27] someone did tell me that they were

[38:28] downstairs. They renovated the basement

[38:30] for that. So is there something else?

[38:32] I don't know.

[38:34] Um it's just kind of eye-opening and

[38:35] something that we have

[38:37] on our main street and I'd like to know

[38:40] what's allowed and what's in our

[38:42] city ordinance.

[38:43] >> Sure. I'll get back to you with an email

[38:45] regarding our adult entertainment rules

[38:47] and how that applies there. So thank

[38:48] you.

[38:49] >> Aaron, can you send

[38:50] >> everybody one on that? Include everybody

[38:51] on that.

[38:52] >> Absolutely. Yes.

[38:52] >> Thank you.

[38:53] >> [clears throat]

[38:55] >> Any other questions for department

[38:56] heads?

[39:00] All right. Seeing none, Sherry, we'll go

[39:01] to executive session.

[39:03] >> Executive session, public vote on

[39:05] whether or not to hold a closed meeting

[39:06] to discuss personnel, legal, or real

[39:08] estate matters

[39:10] pursuant to section 610.021

[39:12] RSMO 2000. Bear?

[39:15] >> Yes.

[39:16] >> Briggs?

[39:16] >> Yes.

[39:17] >> Coulter?

[39:17] >> Yes.

[39:18] >> Highridge?

[39:19] >> Hi.

[39:19] >> Holtman?

[39:20] >> Hi.

[39:20] >> Hackney?

[39:21] >> Yes.

[39:21] >> Hapsel?

[39:21] >> Yes.

[39:24] >> Thank you, folks. We'll see you back at

[39:25] 7:00.

City of Washington Council Workshop Meeting 09/08/26

Transcript