 |
|
SEARCH
IN THIS SECTION
Popular Pages in this Section
| MORE
SEARCH
IN THIS SECTION
Popular Pages in this Section
Archived Meeting Agendas
Every effort is made to ensure that the Agendas and Minutes provided on this and subsequent pages is timely and correct; however, users should keep in mind that this information is provided only as a public convenience. In any case where legal reliance on information is required, the official records of the City of Ballwin should be consulted. The Board of Aldermen meet on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the Ballwin Government Center, 1 Government Ctr. Schedule and place subject to change. Meetings are open to the public. All citizens are urged to attend. Board of Aldermen MeetingMeeting Agenda
Meeting Agenda click here
Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pogue at 7:02 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT The Pledge of Allegiance was given. MINUTES The Minutes of the December 12, 2011 Board of Aldermen meeting were submitted for approval. A motion was made by Alderman Finley and seconded by Alderman Leahy to approve the Minutes. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. PRESENTATION PENDING ISSUES CITIZEN COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS LEGISLATION BILL # 3722 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOLICITING, PEDDLING OR HAWKING IN THE CITY OF BALLWIN. A motion was made by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Boerner for a first reading of Bill No. 3722. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3722 was read for the first time. Alderman Harder said, “On Section B2, I don’t recall the parenthesis area being in the last document, which is ‘unless an office is maintained in the City of Ballwin’. It sounds like there are certain people who are exempt from the fee, but if you have an office in the city, then you pay.” City Attorney Jones said, “That’s what Section 71.620 says. That was in the draft that was reviewed on December 12.” Alderman Harder said, “If somebody had an office in Ballwin, they are paying a fee to be in the city, so then we’re charging them again for solicitation. It seems it should be reversed, that if they are not in Ballwin, they should pay, but in the city, they shouldn’t pay.” City Attorney Jones said that Section 71.620 pre-empts the regulation of those registered professionals, unless they maintain an office in the city. We charge a business license fee, and we can also charge a solicitation fee if they maintain an office in the city. If they don’t, we can’t charge either fee. Any business that maintains an office in Ballwin and pays a business license fee, and also wishes to solicit, will pay twice. Not all professions listed in Section 71.620 should be exempt, because if they maintain an office, they’re not exempt, according to the State law. The local government has the right to charge a license fee from businesses that are doing business in the city.” Alderman Terbrock said, “I’m concerned that we’re getting off track regarding the purpose of this legislation. Protection of our residents is what this is supposed to be about.” Alderman Boerner said, “We’re making it more difficult for the individuals who have businesses in the city than those who don’t have businesses in the city. It’s not about protecting the citizens, but whether we make it more difficult for people who have businesses in the city, than the ones that don’t have businesses in the city.” Alderman Terbrock said, “That makes no difference when their walking up to people’s houses. People want to know who it is, whether they have a business in the city or not.” City Attorney Jones said, “The only exemption is regarding the fees. They will still have to apply for a permit and be subject to the time, place, and manner restrictions that are in the ordinance.” Alderman Boerner said, “It doesn’t make sense why people who have a business in the city have to pay a fee while someone outside the city doesn’t have to pay a fee.” City Attorney Jones said, “This is what the State law says.” Alderman Boerner said, “If we’re not going to impose the fee on those that don’t have businesses in the city, then why should we charge those to have businesses in the city?” Mayor Pogue said, “I agree with Alderman Boerner. We should be business friendly and exempt them also. They will still have to get the background check and identification, but not be subject to the fee. This will even the playing field with the businesses that are not within the city.” A motion was made by Alderman Boerner and seconded by Alderman Harder to amend Bill 3722 by removing from Section 14-3 B. 2 the phrase in parenthesis “unless an office is maintained in the City of Ballwin”. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Alderman Finley said, “I propose that we add, under Section 14-3 A, and create a sub-section 11 which would cause the applicant to provide information pertaining to any second party that is managing the endeavor. If the applicant soliciting is being managed by another party or organization, the name, address, and phone number of that party and the supervisor in charge of the applicant be provided. City Attorney Jones said, “Section 14-3 A9b already requires the applicant to provide the name, address and phone number of the organization to be soliciting.” Alderman Dogan said, “My concern is that if we are amending this such that we are trying to protect the interest of people who are not soliciting money, then if you are asking those people to provide more information, the burden is being put on non-commercial speech, which is protected.” City Attorney Jones said, “That was the concern that prompted us to look at this legislation again.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “I don’t know how realistic it’s going to be transferring it down to the door knocking level. I suspect that the people knocking on doors are getting their orders from the very lowest level of sophistication. This may be a responsibility that’s not enforceable.” Alderman Harder asked, “Where would the boy scouts and girl scouts be covered in this?” City Attorney Jones said, “It will depend if they are soliciting funds or not. If they are selling anything, they would be subject to all the terms of this ordinance except for fees, since it’s a not-for-profit organization. This legislation can be as strong or as weak as the Board wants to make it. We need to be careful to recognize that canvassers and handbillers who are just putting out public interest information for electioneering, or who are championing a cause, not soliciting money, need to be treated differently. I would be very hesitant to call out by name, organizations that you want to exempt from any of the terms.” Alderman Dogan asked, “Could we provide an exception for individuals who are younger than the working age, which I believe is 16, people who are not getting paid for solicitation activities? This would cover children that are soliciting.” City Attorney Jones said, “I encourage the Board to think about what you are trying to accomplish with this legislation. The purpose was to make the residents feel more secure when somebody knocks on their door at a particular time.” Mayor Pogue asked, “Chief Schicker, have you ever received any complaints about the scouts going door-to-door?” Police Chief Schicker said, “With 32+ years of experience here, I have never seen a permit issued or a complaint filed against the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts going door to door.” Alderman Terbrock said, “Even if you received a complaint, it’s still at your discretion to site this or not.” Police Chief Schicker said, “There is a difference between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. Discretion can be used.” Alderman Harder said, “I like the suggestion to apply this to those above age 16. That is a working age, and they would normally be hired to put out handbills. Most Scouts going door to door are below age 16.” Alderman Fleming said, “Do we really feel that all of this will make the ordinance substantially better, even though this has never occurred. We’re adding a restriction that someone could argue gives us liability for trying to put a restriction on it. I don’t know that this substantially improves it, and I don’t want to be sitting here two weeks from now with no one having given the final list of things they’re concerned about, and more items pop up. I don’t think this substantially improves it. The most recent round was brought about by something you saw that needed to be fixed from a legal perspective. I suggest we move on with it. We don’t have time to keep circling back. We’ve paid Bob, by his own admission, three times to prepare this legislation. The reason this started was that we wanted a particular vendor to stop knocking on people’s doors when it was dark. That was all we were trying to accomplish with the fine tuning. Now we’re talking about Cub Scouts selling cookies.” Alderman Finley said, “This is what happens with the legislative process.” A motion was made by Alderman Finley and seconded by Alderman Harder to amend Section 14-3B to add a Section 11, which states ‘If the applicant’s solicitation activity is being managed by another party or organization, the name, address, and phone number of that party or organization, including the name of the supervisor in charge of the applicant be provided.’” A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Terbrock for a second reading of Bill No. 3722, as amended. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3722 was read for the second time. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3722 with the following results: Ayes – Fleming, Terbrock, Kerlagon, Finley, Dogan, Boerner. Nays – Leahy, Harder. Bill No. 3722 was approved by a vote of 6-2, and became Ordinance No. 12-01.
A motion was made by Alderman Terbrock and seconded by Alderman Fleming for a first reading of Bill No. 3723. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3723 was read for the first time. A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Terbrock for a second reading of Bill No. 3723. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3723 was read for the second time. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3723 with the following results:
A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Finley for a first reading of Bill No. 3724. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3724 was read for the first time. Mayor Pogue said, “The discussion at the Planning & Zoning Commission was for a 60-foot tower. The plans show a 62-foot tower. Should this go back to Planning & Zoning?” Steve Walters, representing AT&T regarding the cell tower in New Ballwin Park, said the additional 2 feet is the ball at the top of the pole. City Attorney Jones said, “Since the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission called for a larger ball to make it in proportion with the increased diameter of the pole, this is consistent with the discussion and recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission.” Mr. Walters said, “The diameter of the tower is 32 inches. The gold ball on top would be 24 inches.” Alderman Kerlagon said, “The drawing shows the proposed 32-inch ball.” Mayor Pogue said, “It is 62 feet to the top of the tower, not to the top of the ball.” Mr. Walters said, “That then should be clarified to 60 feet to the top of the tower.” Mayor Pogue asked, “Are they in agreement to the maintenance allowance one-time fee of $3,000 to the City?” Mr. Walters said, “Yes they are.” Mayor Pogue said, “I noticed the landscaping plan. It should be different than matching the existing shrubbery.” Mr. Walters said, “It will be a combination of shrubs.” City Administrator Kuntz asked, “Could this be subject to staff approval?” Mr. Walters said yes. Alderman Harder asked, “Who is going to maintain the flag.” Mr. Walters said, “AT&T will do this. They have a company that rotates the flags every quarter to make sure they are in proper condition. If the flags are tattered, they will take it down.” Alderman Harder said, “The plan shows a spot light. Since we are going to a taller pole and bigger flag, does the light need to be adjusted?” Mr. Walters said, “It will need to be adjusted slightly. The lighting on the 50-foot pole will not change.” Mayor Pogue said, “There were no neighborhood complaints at the Planning & Zoning meeting.” Alderman Leahy said, “My brother works for AT&T, so I will abstain from voting.” A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Terbrock for a second reading of Bill No. 3724. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3724 was read for the second time. Findings: A vote in favor of the bill finds that the Petition, as submitted, would not substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion; would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood; would not adversely affect the general welfare of the community; would not over-tax public utilities; would not adversely affect public safety and health; is consistent with good planning practice; can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the District; and can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area. A vote against the bill means that one or more of these findings are absent. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3724 with the following results:
A motion was made by Alderman Terbrock and seconded by Alderman Leahy for a first reading of Bill No. 3725. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3725 was read for the first time. Alderman Harder asked, “Who pays for this, and is this a budgeted item?” City Engineer Kramer said, “It is a budgeted item, which includes the total cost, which is Ellisville’s portion and the County’s portion. The County and Ellisville will reimburse the percentage of the total cost based on the actual bid. We determine the percentage based on measurements of what part is in Ellisville and the County. Once this is signed, it will go to bid in the spring. The striping will be included with the rest of the city’s striping. If everything goes as planned, the work would be done in the summer.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “This is a maintenance project. There’s no provision for curb and gutter, no elimination of the curb that we would like to see as a realignment. This will give relief to the affected residents in Ballwin and Ellisville. We have a 3-part agreement, subject to Board approval.” A motion was made by Alderman Boerner and seconded by Alderman Leahy for a second reading of Bill No. 3725. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3725 was read for the second time. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3725 with the following results:
A motion was made by Alderman Boerner and seconded by Alderman Leahy for a first reading of Bill No. 3726. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3726 was read for the first time. Mayor Pogue said, “This is the section of property that we agreed to dedicate for the U-Gas development.” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “This is a piece of the Government Center property where the road widening will be built on the west side of Seven Trails Drive. The road widening will then be in the Seven Trails Drive right-of-way and not on the Government Center property.” A motion was made by Alderman Kerlagon and seconded by Alderman Boerner for a second reading of Bill No. 3726. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Bill No. 3726 was read for the second time. A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3726 with the following results:
A motion was made by Alderman Terbrock and seconded by Alderman Finley to accept the Consent Items. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.
A motion was made by Alderman Harder and seconded by Alderman Terbrock to draft appropriate legislation regarding Section 627. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. Mayor Pogue said, “Section 628, Subsection 10 states that they can’t have a for-profit business come in and aid in any way other than what’s agreed to with the vendor of the rides. The two co-chairmen would like to have some flexibility in case they decide to do some different things in regards to helping out some of the Ballwin businesses such as restaurants. Last year they had some of the Ballwin restaurants participate in A Taste of Ballwin. The co-chairs will have the final call on this. No restaurants have been previously excluded unless they missed the deadline to participate.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Duplication of product has been an issue in the past. If there are 6 people selling the same product, no one is going to make money. It’s become more difficult to find a volunteer group to make the 2-day commitment on a labor standpoint, as opposed to a structured business that makes it just an off-site premises of their establishment. If you’re going to strengthen the midway, and food is one of the things that draws the crowd, you need flexibility.” Alderman Finley said, “If this will allow us to showcase Ballwin businesses, I’m in favor of this.” A motion was made by Alderman Terbrock and seconded by Alderman Fleming to draft appropriate legislation regarding Section 628. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.
Mayor Pogue said, “The new code says, ‘floor assemblies not required elsewhere in this code to be fire resistant rated, shall be provided with a half-inch gypsum wallboard membrane 5/8 inch wood structure panel membrane or equivalent on the underside of the floor framing member.’” He said, “I would like to ask that we put an exemption on this section until January 1, 2013, or until the time that recommendations for amendments to the code are received from the Home Builder’s Association. They did this in the past with the 2009 code. This code has created a great issue for the HBA and they have concerns about it. My recommendation is that we pull this section and give the HBA time to finish their review and set a date that it would go back into effect on January 1, 2013 or at a time that staff has had a chance to review the amendments with the HBA, and report back to the Board.” Alderman Terbrock asked, “Are we the only city that has adopted this so far?” Mayor Pogue said, “In the St. Louis area, they think we are the first to adopt the 2012 residential building code.” Alderman Terbrock said, “I’m on board with this. There are houses being built in Ballwin, and I don’t want to spoil that. If someone already has a contract on a home, it’s going to change the cost. We’re going to have to get a grasp on this before it takes off, or the builders are going to have to change the way they’re building houses, which will change the cost structure. Either all of the basements will get ceilings put in, or they will go back to regular 2x10 or 2x12 floor joist and get away from the engineered floor joist. I don’t like the way it’s written because it doesn’t seem consistent that our ceilings in our houses have to be 5/8 sheet rock, but this, which is going to be considered a ceiling, only has to be ½ inch. It doesn’t specify if it has to be taped or anything. I think some thought should go into this and see what happens.” Mayor Pogue said, “I called Alderman Terbrock about this last Friday and gave him a brief overview since he is experienced in residential construction. I had another discussion today with a representative from the HBA. They have started the review and are on chapter 7. He expects to be finished with the review by the end of February. They are meeting with Hazelwood and doing a review with their amendments and recommendations at the end of February. I would like to meet with the HBA and our staff to go over their recommendations and make any amendments that we feel appropriate.” Mayor Pogue asked City Attorney Jones, “Would it be appropriate to rescind that section and another ordinance?” City Attorney Jones said, “I recommend what has been done in the past, which is to impose a moratorium on enforcement of this particular section until the end of the year.” Mayor Pogue said, “The date was January 1, 2013. That would set a time that if the HBA says nothing and does not come through with the review, they will understand that this is going into effect.” City Attorney Jones said, “I prefer the moratorium because they expire by their own terms, so that if we forget about it, we won’t have to worry about reinstituting something that we already have.” Mayor Pogue said, “If they come to us in early March and staff does a review, and they present a list of recommendations, and we decide to put this back into effect, we could do that then and make whatever amendments are necessary.” City Attorney Jones said, that’s right. Alderman Harder asked about the procedure of the moratorium. City Attorney Jones said, “I recommend placing a moratorium on the enforcement of this particular section, so that there would be no such requirement.” Mayor Pogue said, “After the HBA has completed their review, I would like for their representative to meet with our Code Enforcement personnel and go over their recommendations. It will be staff’s discretion if anything should be amended.” Alderman Terbrock said, “This has so many different effects to it. It’s not just a matter of dry wall on the ceiling. It’s the inspection point, HVAC wiring, plumbing, etc. There’s a lot that this can affect. It could impose serious problems for someone that signed a contract on a house last month and now it may be changed.” Alderman Harder asked, “Why didn’t this come up a month ago when we were talking about this?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “This code amendment has been proposed for two code review terms. This is not something new to the Home Builders Association. These codes are amended. They’re not just done by people sitting in a building somewhere. People from the building trades are involved, manufacturing, inspectors, code enforcement officials, academia; this is a wide range of all the people in the fire departments, fire districts, fire enforcements. All of these agencies are involved in writing and preparing the codes. This is not a new concept. It’s been in the works for at least two code cycles. When they say they didn’t know it was coming, it’s only because they were not paying attention.” Alderman Fleming asked, “Were we out ahead of this since we were the first to adopt the new code?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “We did this because of the IOC inspection, which is not related to the code people. It’s the insurance industry that rates us. They rate every five years. Codes are renewed every three years. It was coincidence that this IOCoccurred right at the time the new code landed. Normally, we don’t adopt every code. We adopt every other code because it’s a complicated procedure. The insurance agency’s directive is to get current with the code or lose rating points.” Alderman Fleming said, “Lots of people have been involved in this and they didn’t do it arbitrarily. There was a reason for it, possible safety related, and they may not have factored the cost aspect to be as important as safety. My preference might be to wait for them to complete their review in its entirety and deal with anything at that time. How many houses are under construction in Ballwin that would be affected by this?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “There are ten lots on Henry, one on Kehrs Mill, four or five off of Ramsey, Coachlight has four, and there are four or five lots in Meadowbrook that would be subject to meeting the new code requirements. Any house that is already under construction or subject to an approved standard plan is still subject to the old code. A new building permit would be subject to the new code.” Alderman Fleming asked if we could just re-adopt the modified code. Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “We’ve never modified a code. We’ve adopted the recommended code. The last time when there was a serious objection to a major element of a new code was in the 2000 code. That was when they changed the stair geometry. There were a lot of houses under construction. When you elongate the stair geometry, that changes all of the elevations over the stairways, room spacing, distances of stairways from doorways, etc. It was a big deal to redesign the building to accommodate the longer stair run that was required in the new code. For any standard plans that were already in effect, we allowed them to finish those subdivisions using the standard plan. New plans had to meet the new code. Today, there are a few standard plans in subdivisions under construction. They haven’t submitted plans for Ballwin Grove. For many subdivisions, plans were submitted them one lot at a time as they sold them. The last subdivision with standard plans was Magnolia Trace on Ries Road and Chavenel on Parker. Both are fully built out at this point. New changes to the code are never cheaper. They’re always more.” Alderman Leahy asked, “Are the homes under construction right now under the old code?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said yes. Alderman Leahy said there are no projects under the new code at this time. Assistant City Administrator Aiken said this is correct. Alderman Leahy asked, “Are you saying it’s going to cost more to build a new home, or are they concerned that the plans will change in the middle of a construction project?” Mayor Pogue said, “Their concern is how to interpret this. They want to know are they going to be required to fire tape everything, fireblock, use UL factory rated assemblies? The code doesn’t answer that and needs to be discussed.” Alderman Leahy asked, “Are other municipalities eventually going to be using the same codes?” Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “I’m sure they will.” Alderman Leahy said, “I agree with the Mayor that we should wait. One reason I say that is because I don’t want a construction builder to have a lot in Ballwin and a lot in Chesterfield, and they can take a homeowner to Chesterfield and say the same exact house can be built for $5,000 or $10,000 cheaper in Chesterfield. I think we should wait.” Alderman Terbrock said, “About the cost factor, that will shake out. The matter of the cost right now is that if someone put a contract on one of these particular lots last month or this month, that contract was drawn up with a certain price schedule. Now, that price schedule will change. Until these guys figure out how they are going to handle it, those houses are all priced out. The materials they are using are priced. They are all pretty standard. They’re going to use TGIs, which are the manufactured joist, they know what the cost is on those, and that’s what they’re doing. Now, they will pull back and use 2x10s and will take everything away. Right now, the people that have purchased the homes and have the contracts, it’s going to cost them more right now. Six months or 10 months from now, it’s not because they will be ready for it. The stairway issue was a big nightmare. We were trying to put stairs in houses that weren’t designed for the new code. Up until when I wasn’t framing anymore, we still had plans that were designed for the old stair style, and they refused to have them redesigned. We had to figure it out in the field to make it work.” Alderman Fleming said, “I will almost guarantee that any good builder has some protection written for themselves written into the contract, so that if circumstances change, a pricing adjustment is allowed. To my way of thinking, you adopt the code or you don’t. That’s where it ends for me.” Mayor Pogue said, “I would agree with that, but at this point, the builders don’t know what to expect as far as the interpretation of the code from one city to the next. A motion was made by Alderman Boerner and seconded by Alderman Terbrock to adopt the recommendation of the Mayor to establish a moratorium on the implementation of this particular section related to the 2012 new building code, Section 501.3. A voice vote was taken with the following result: Aye: Terbrock, Finley, Dogan, Harder, Leahy, Boerner, Kerlagon. Nay: Fleming. The motion passed by a vote of 7-1.
Government Center: City Administrator Kuntz said staff is looking at the inefficiencies of operating at the Government Center, such as interrelationship of work space, public access to restrooms, security, where the work room is for mail, etc. in relation to work stations. There are inefficiencies that have become more obvious. There will be some discussion on this at the Workshop, with possible implementation in 2013. The Board agreed to the Workshop session on January 21 at 8:00 a.m. in the Board room. The public is welcome to attend. Fingerprinting: City Administrator Kuntz said that this is a requirement by REJIS that monitors data issues for the court. We have to create compliance with their security measures with respect to access to the court offices. It’s a physical limitation problem that we have as a result of moving the court office to the Government Center. He urged the Board to schedule their fingerprinting with the Police Department. STAFF REPORTS CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT ALDERMANIC COMMENTS Alderman Harder asked, “Has anyone inspected the property for asbestos?” City Administrator Kuntz said, “That’s part of the demolition and is in the bid specifications.” City Attorney Jones said, “They’re being asked to assume the worst. The concern was that if we opened the property up, we’ll then have an issue of tampering or access to the property. If the bids are too high as a result of assuming the presence of asbestos, then we’ll probable reject the bids and look for another alternative.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “Several members of staff have inspected the property from the exterior, but no access has attempted to be gained.” Alderman Harder said, “The big items are lead, asbestos, and age of the structure.” Aldermanic Board Meeting Packets: Alderman Terbrock said, “We received the final version of the budget on a disc instead of a thick paper copy for each alderman to take home and store in a file cabinet. Would anyone be in favor of eliminating the paper Board meeting packets and using the electronic packet. Anyone needing the paper version could print the document themselves. This packet of 26 pages for everyone who receives the information, which is the Board, City Attorney, Mayor, and department heads, equals a total of 416 pages. With some of the larger packets of 58 pages per person, the total has been 928 sheets of paper for one meeting. Using the electronic packets will save the City quite a bit of money in paper over a year’s time. Everyone on the Board has computers and printers and we can print it ourselves instead of the City paying for the whole project.” City Administrator Kuntz said, “This is a good suggestion, and I am in favor of this because it will save money in paper costs. We duplex (2-sided) copy as much as possible to cut down on paper usage and cost.” Adjourn: A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Boerner to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. TIM POGUE, MAYOR ATTEST: MC |
Contact Us |
(636) 227-9000 voice |
|
