[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.