July 7, 2023 Special Board of Aldermen Meeting

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held on Friday, July 7, 2023 at 4:00 PM in the City Hall office at the Clarkson Executive Center in Ballwin, Missouri. The meeting was also accessible virtually via a Zoom link.

ABSENT

AGENDA APPROVAL

A motion was made by Alderperson Low, seconded by Alderperson Schweig to approve the Agenda. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion to accept the Agenda as presented was declared passed.

OPEN MEETING

2023-2024 Budget: Discussion centered on the technology update the City will be doing and Alderperson Schiller noticed we inadvertently added the hardware update to the Budget when, in fact, we were going to use ARPA funds. Through discussion, a new line item was added to the Budget for Software Updates and Subscriptions. It was also mentioned that the building commissioner’s role is changing. He will no longer perform the code enforcement duties and we’ll have to hire someone else, which might change the actual amounts. There were several items listed in the St. Louis County Revenue sections that were questioned, but in the end, the Board felt there was almost a $70,000 budget surplus this year. The City Clerk will send the updated version tonight and this will be on the Agenda for final passage.

Codification Update: Mayor McNamara said our portion of the codification process is over and everything has gone to the editor. We’ll have an opportunity to review everything one more time before it goes to print. eCode 360 was discussed as being a huge benefit to the residents and to the Board Members, further stating that the Board will have the opportunity to review all area municipalities’ codes with one search, rather than approaching each city’s website individually.

Flock Cameras: Mayor McNamara turned our attention to a bulleted informational sheet she sent everyone prior to the meeting. She reported that today, she called ten cities that participate in the Lafayette Mayors Organization with three questions regarding Flock cameras, how they handle their complaints and who they use. Regarding the Flock cameras, she is attempting to find how these can be used in unison with other nearby cities, which she found is difficult to get a good picture from the sales representative, as her overlay contains not only city-owned cameras but also independently owned commercial cameras. She is going straight to the various nearby cities to try to get an idea of which main roads are covered so we do not duplicate the process. Alderperson MacDonald said that one or two cameras isn’t great but adding that one or two cameras would not only serve as a benefit to our residents, but would contribute to the flock, which is the namesake of this product. Everyone agreed $3,000 is hefty and that we must weigh the benefits. It is an annual contract that you would sign for a one-to-five-year agreement – depending. The benefit of a longer contract is that where the annual fee goes up, you are locked into the price for that period of time. When/if we decide to place these and there is a pole to locate the camera, the installation cost is $150; however, if we install a new pole, the cost of installation is $600. Everyone agreed we are not going to have enough information by Tuesday and that this should not be included on Tuesday’s agenda.

Arborist: Mayor McNamara said the City of Winchester utilizes the services of an arborist because they recently became a Tree City, they use Omni Metropolitan Tree Service for this purpose. However, a quote from Omni was not available but Metropolitan Tree will provide the same service for $100 per report. If the tree is only 20% alive, it is considered dead. There was discussion as to who would pay; can you enter onto property without the owner’s consent; procuring the services of experts is a good thing; but in the end it came down to three things: The issue we were having with a dying tree since 2014 was remedied and the tree was taken down yesterday; we are not going to mandate residents remove dead limbs (unless completely dangerous to others); and this will not be included on Tuesday’s agenda.

Handling Complaints: Mayor McNamara brought up a property in Dunhill where we sent 17 letters or more about various housing issues. The problem is, we keep sending letters, but they don’t do anything. Alderperson Schiller said she would not like to discuss this topic until we hire someone, but Mayor McNamara said she would like to have a process in place for when they do hire someone. One Alderperson mentioned setting up a committee, but he was the only one who volunteered. In the end and with more discussion, the conclusion was: Procedure was set – the City will send 2 letters and then we’ll send them to housing court; if we contract for services to remedy a nuisance property, we will put more teeth in the invoice to the homeowner; and we will send one last letter to the homeowner who asked to keep the permanent fence posts on his property in order to string protection fencing during rut season.

Code Official: Mayor McNamara said there are three professional organizations we could advertise for building inspectors. Alderperson Schiller reminded everyone that our code states the building commissioner is the Code Enforcement Officer. City Attorney, Patrick Butler, said that we could call this new code officer the Assistant Building Commissioner. Alderperson Low said he feels strongly that we should not have a building inspector who works on the side while working for another municipality full time. Mayor McNamara said she also has some names of people not affiliated with any other municipality. Through the discussion, the majority felt we should be looking for both a building inspector and someone who would handle all aspects of complaints; that until that person is hired, the city clerk can sign her name to the outgoing nuisance letters; and this will be included on Tuesday’s agenda.

Police Enforcement Agreement for Subdivisions and Forest Hills Country Club: There were several paragraphs that Alderperson Schiller asked to either remove in their entirety or wording therein. The most discussion came with her request to remove “the Police Chief” or “Police Department” from signage placement verbiage. In the end, we were able to reword the paragraphs that appeased the City Attorney, the Mayor, and the Alderpersons. This will be included on Tuesday’s agenda.

Possibility of Updating the City’s Logo: Mayor McNamara asked how everyone felt about updating our logo stating how long ago ours was created. She said she has several art director friends who are good at this, and she would like to see our logo more contemporary and a little more sophisticated. They could offer up to six different versions of a new logo – through execution and print-ready for $3,000. Alderperson Bogosian said our logo is on everything and he would not be in favor of this. Alderperson Low said that is an obscene amount. It was also mentioned that perhaps we could have a high school student do something for us again. This will not be on Tuesday’s agenda.

ADJOURN

A motion was made by Alderperson Schweig to adjourn, seconded by Alderperson Low. A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion was declared passed. The Working Session of the Board of Aldermen adjourned at 6:30 p.m.