Council Workshop Meeting - Oct. 29th, 2007
Another long meeting of Overland's elected officials
means another long article here.
means another long article here.
The Overland City Council met for a Workshop meeting in the Council Chambers on October 29th, 2007. Subjects discussed at this meeting included:
- The new sign at the Community Center
- Various ways to address Trash Service funding
- Demolition of the pool and associated buildings at Legion Park
- Parking and municipal boundary issues on Lackland
- The City Administrator position
- Issues with the Bridge at Wild Acres Park
- Issues with Police Radios
The Community Center sign issue was a simple matter of deciding on colors before it was ordered. The Council voted unanimously for a green background with amber LEDs (lights) for the message board. As our readers may recall this new sign will be a scrolling marquee that will allow the Community Center staff to put more information out to the public more frequently. It is our understanding that the message will be able to be added to or changed from within the Community Center. This should allow the Center staff to update the information on the sign as frequently as needed.
One interesting possibility that I don't believe has been discussed is the potential for this sign to be used to provide information to the public in times of emergency. While the need for electricity limits the sign's usefulness in that regard, it might be worth taking into consideration when the Council revisits the issue of providing backup power generation for the Center.
The next issue was Trash service. In the last budget, the Council voted to put $50,000.00 aside to help those in need with their trash bill. While that sounds simple, if you watch the video below you'll learn it's anything but.
Ultimately two possible plans were discussed. One, proposed by Councilperson O'Connell (Ward 2), was to set aside a month each year where people could come into City Hall with their federal income tax return(s) to show that their family earned less than $20,000.00 in the previous year. Once the application month ended the City would divide the budgeted $50,000.00 between all the applicants who would then receive whatever that amount was (up to the cost of a full year of service). For example, if 200 people successfully applied in that month, the City would divide $50,000.00 by 200 resulting in $250.00 per applicant which is nearly the annual cost of the service. However, if 400 people successfully applied each applicant would only get $125.00; if 1000 people successfully applied each would get $50.00, etc. As Councilperson Conlon pointed out we need to take any administrative costs associated with this program into account. City Clerk Linda Downs stated that if the guidelines for the Council were clear the administrative staff could handle it which likely means the costs would be limited to printing the forms and issuing the checks.
The other proposal came from City Attorney Bob Herman. He suggested that the City consider going to the voters for a real property tax increase aka "user fee". While we all just screamed no NO NO!!! this plan is worth some further review.
The idea is to add a tax on every lot in the city. That means that business, large multi-family properties, and industrial would also be paying towards the cost of Trash service even though they don't receive it. It might seem unfair to do this, but as Mr. Herman pointed out we do the same with school taxes now. Everyone pays the school portion of their property tax bills whether they have children in the system or not.
With more entities paying for the service it is likely the cost to the residents would be reduced to a degree. Also, the trash hauler would no longer need to collect the fees. The City should be able to negotiate a reduction in the cost as this plan would eliminate their collection costs. Interestingly enough, the cost of collection is borne, not by the City, but by the County as they would be the ones collecting this revenue for us.
Something else to consider is that those in need already have access to a program from the State of Missouri that gives them a rebate on their State income taxes based on Real Property Taxes (or in some cases rent) paid and their income. As this would increase their Real Property Taxes, it is possible their rebate would increase as well. If you've never heard of the Missouri Property Tax Credit you can find out if you're eligible by clicking on the link.
The City doesn't have the revenues at this time to pay for trash service. So, be it by quarterly bill as we do it now, or by annual "user fee" on the property tax bill, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves. The potential benefit of the tax is the possible reduction in the cost of the service.
It was also suggested that the City could budget each year to subsidize the cost of Trash service based on the previous year's revenues. Though that could reduce the cost even further, I'm afraid I'd have to see that happen before I believe it.
If the City was to move forward with this idea the soonest it would likely appear on the Ballot would be April. Councilperson Conlon pointed out that April elections require a 4/7th majority to pass bond issues, suggesting this measure would require the same. I'm not sure if this is the case. St. Ann's utility tax increase on November's ballot (which requires a 3/5th majority to pass bond issues), only needs a simple majority to pass.
Residents will need to see this in writing and in detail before they could seriously consider it. However, this plan has the possibility (depending on the number of lots taxed) to reduce everyone's bill by an amount similar to what we might expect to be able to do for low income families in the other plan. If the details are there, the loopholes are absent, and the numbers work then this plan could benefit all the residents without filing requirements and the like. As always the devil is in the details so you'll have to wait and see what the City does with this idea, if they choose to act on it at all.
Both plans have issues. Mr. Herman explained that Overland's powers are limited by what is granted to a 3rd class City in the State statutes. He said there was no statute authorizing any sort of financial assistance program, so it would seem we cannot do this. Interesting, when Mr. Herman was challenged on this, using the current Overland utility tax rebate for seniors as an example, he said that it was his opinion that the City does not have the authority to do that either. He suggested that the reason Overland has not had a issue with this is because the dollar amount involved is so low and there are a lot of legal gray areas when dealing with programs for seniors (pun intended).
The other plan would requires a majority, possibly a super majority of Overland voters to cast ballots in favor of a significant real property tax increase aka "user fee". While this increase would eliminate the quarterly trash bill we currently receive and could possibly reduce the cost of trash service for everyone, it's doubtful that such a measure would pass.
As always when the trash issue came up a few on the Council tried to make political hay out of it. Councilperson Owensby (Ward 3)suggested that we should have used "the million dollars" we had last year to pay for it. We can argue about what million dollars he might be talking about but the bottom line is that the service cost more that that annually (last time I checked it was between 1.2 and 1.3 million annually). Even if we somehow paid for the service with last year's "million dollars" that would still only cover one year. Councilperson Owensby was challenged multiple times to present his suggestion for how to fund the service in subsequent years. He didn't directly answer that question.
This discussion went on, and Councilperson Owensby's myths continued. Though it has been proven to be a misrepresentation many times, he still insists on telling everyone that St. Ann pays half as much as Overland for Trash service. St. Ann only pays for a portion of the trash service we have in Overland. St. Ann residents have to pay for recycling and the City of St. Ann picks up the yard waste rather than pay the trash hauler to do it. The City of St. Ann pays half as much as Overland because St. Ann only provides half the services to their residents. We wonder what Councilperson Owensby will use as an example if St. Ann residents don't approve a Utility Tax increase next month and they have to drop "city paid" trash in January as a result? (link)
Then there were the hints that the purchase of Wild Acres cost us our trash service. We didn't pay for that all at once, we make payments on it similar to how people pay for their homes. However, at the current cost of trash service we could sell not just Wild Acres, but every park in the City as well and probably only be able to fund the service for two or three years at best.
Councilperson Jones (Ward 4)had an interesting suggestion as well. He asked if it was possible to create a central location where people who cannot pay for service could bring their trash. Where to put a new City dump is an obvious question. However, I'd like to know how the disabled and the housebound elderly (who make up a major portion of those in need in Overland) would possibly get their trash to this location.
For various reasons, some outside the control of previous administrations and some not, Overland's revenues have be stagnant for years. While the revenues did not increase, our operating expenses sure did. Gas, wages, raw materials, and more all combined to put a real squeeze on our City (as it has done to most of us at home as well). As Councilperson Keller (Ward 3) correctly pointed out, we need to focus on ways to bring new businesses into Overland to generate more revenue. That is of course the ultimate solution. If Overland prospers, revenues increase and the City could potentially return to paying for Trash service (as Maryland Heights did thanks to their casino revenues). However, this doesn't happen overnight. There is a Chinese proverb that says it best: "One generation plants the trees; another gets the shade." We cannot resolve this issue at this time. The funds are simply not there. For the foreseeable future we are going to have to pay for our Trash service, as nearly every municipality around us does. While we cannot get out of paying for this service, there may be ways to reduce how much it costs.
We could go on for pages and pages about the trash issue (did we do that already?), but there were other issues addressed at this meeting as well.
Though the Council has not come to a final decision on what to do with the land afterwards, they did vote unanimously to direct the Public Works department to start the demolition of the Legion Pool and the associated buildings. Councilperson Owensby likely echoed the thoughts of many long time residents of Overland when he explained that though he understands there is nothing we can do to reopen that pool, he has a lot of fond memories from there and will miss the place. Some of the more interesting suggestions for this property's future have been a few ball fields, sand volleyball courts, gazebos, a concession stand (to generate revenue for Overland through sales at baseball or volleyball games) or some mix of them all.
An issue with parking on Lackland at Oakland was discussed. As Acting Public Works Director Chuck Boone and Chief Herron pointed out, though they agree that this is an issue, there is nothing that Overland can do about it as the City of Overland ends at the curb of that street. Councilperson O'Connell raised the question that if the road and the shoulder belong to Sycamore Hills, but from the curb out is Overland, how would Sycamore Hills put up No Parking signs if they choose to. Mr. Herman stated that the City could give Sycamore Hills permission to do so by passing a Council resolution to that effect. Mayor Schneider asked that the Ward 2 Council members get in touch with Sycamore Hills and possibly even the business that is the cause of this problem. While I agree working with our neighbors is a good thing, if all Sycamore Hills needs to resolve this is a Council resolution, why devote any more time to this issue that could be better used dealing with other problems in our own City?
The next was the City Administrator issue. Other than debates concerning the history of the previous attempt to hire a City administrator the Council voted unanimously to schedule a Workshop meeting to review the City Administrator ordinance. They also voted unanimously to contact the East West Gateway Council of Governments to let them know of our intent to engage them for the hiring process once again. It is nice to see our City finally taking a few steps in this direction once again.
One of the most surprising suggestions was when Councilperson Owensby stated that he thinks we should hire former Mayor Frank Munsch as the new City administrator. I didn't live here when Frank Munsch was the Mayor, I've never met the man and I have no idea what his educational background is. What I do know is that I agree with Councilperson Cuminale (Ward 1) when she said we need to fill this position with a neutral party. We need someone who doesn't live or work in Overland and has no connection to Overland Politics. Mayor Schneider agreed with this as well and seemed to suggest to Councilperson Owensby that anyone could apply for the position via East-West Gateway once the process begins.
Councilperson May wanted to be sure that we would only consider candidates who had been vetted by East-West Gateway. Though Councilperson Owensby tried to suggest some sort of discrimination in that statement (which Mayor Schneider promptly corrected him on), all Councilperson May seemed to be suggesting is that we limit the field to those who meet the qualifications for the position and were recommended by the neutral group we'll be hiring to make those recommendations.
After the agenda items were completed some new and old business issues were raised. Mr. Boone asked for direction from the Council on what to do about the bridge at Wild Acres. He explained that a structural engineer looked at the bridge and told him it would be better to tear it down and build new than to try to restore it. Mr. Boone would not commit to whether or not this engineer said the bridge was unsafe for foot traffic. The Council voted to direct him to use public works to recover and store all of the bridge's ornamentation that could be saved.
While there has been a persistent rumor in Overland that this bridge came from the St. Louis Worlds Fair, it is my understanding that the Overland Historical Society has been unable to find any evidence of this. In all likelihood this bridge was build by the property owner in the same style as the Worlds Fair but that's as far as the connection appears to go.
The Mayor suggested that we need Citizens Committees to help the City address issues and research solutions. The Overland Examiner could not agree more. There's entirely too much to do for 9 part-time elected officials. Many residents have expressed interest in volunteering for the city so filling those committees is not likely to be an issue. The Mayore also said he'd like to get together with the entire Council and tour all of the parks to start thinking about what they would like to do with them so they are much better prepared for filing for grants in the future. This is a great idea, however due to the Sunshine Law this will have to be a public event which could complicate matters.
Mr. Boone also informed the Council that he expects work to finally start on the Wild Acres Seminary Property roof in the next week or two. He also asked the Council members from Ward 3 to get together with him to work out positioning of the lights that are to be installed in Brooks park in the hopes that they will reduce vandalism there.
The Chief raised an issue with the Police Radios. He explained that there are several areas in the City where officers cannot communicate with dispatch. The Chief pointed out that their equipment is working properly, and that this is a problem related to the ever growing number of frequencies in use rather than an equipment failure. According to the chief there were a few possible solutions. One was to shift to an 800 Mhtz system. He didn't recommend this however do to the huge cost involved as every hand-held and vehicle radio would have to be replaced as would most of the equipment at the station. The solution the Chief recommended was to install a booster system. This would require equipment to be installed at the Station that he estimated would cost $7000.00. Additionally it would cost the City $3000.00 for each booster as well as about $150.00/mo. for a phone line connected to each one.
Chief Herron explained that the problem is mostly in the Western portion of Overland as well as some sections of Page. He recommended that they purchase one booster and install it at the Wild Acres Police substation first as this might resolve all of the issues. If it didn't handle the problems on Page entirely, they could add a second booster at the City garage. The Council agreed and directed the Chief to begin gathering bids for this equipment.
Though the meeting was long, and it had its tense moments, the Council definitely did a bit better at working together than at the previous Council meeting. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see how votes on some of these issues go at the next Council meeting before we can judge how they're doing.
The following are two versions of the entire video of this Workshop meeting for your review (please let us know how the first one plays for you):
One interesting possibility that I don't believe has been discussed is the potential for this sign to be used to provide information to the public in times of emergency. While the need for electricity limits the sign's usefulness in that regard, it might be worth taking into consideration when the Council revisits the issue of providing backup power generation for the Center.
The next issue was Trash service. In the last budget, the Council voted to put $50,000.00 aside to help those in need with their trash bill. While that sounds simple, if you watch the video below you'll learn it's anything but.
Ultimately two possible plans were discussed. One, proposed by Councilperson O'Connell (Ward 2), was to set aside a month each year where people could come into City Hall with their federal income tax return(s) to show that their family earned less than $20,000.00 in the previous year. Once the application month ended the City would divide the budgeted $50,000.00 between all the applicants who would then receive whatever that amount was (up to the cost of a full year of service). For example, if 200 people successfully applied in that month, the City would divide $50,000.00 by 200 resulting in $250.00 per applicant which is nearly the annual cost of the service. However, if 400 people successfully applied each applicant would only get $125.00; if 1000 people successfully applied each would get $50.00, etc. As Councilperson Conlon pointed out we need to take any administrative costs associated with this program into account. City Clerk Linda Downs stated that if the guidelines for the Council were clear the administrative staff could handle it which likely means the costs would be limited to printing the forms and issuing the checks.
The other proposal came from City Attorney Bob Herman. He suggested that the City consider going to the voters for a real property tax increase aka "user fee". While we all just screamed no NO NO!!! this plan is worth some further review.
The idea is to add a tax on every lot in the city. That means that business, large multi-family properties, and industrial would also be paying towards the cost of Trash service even though they don't receive it. It might seem unfair to do this, but as Mr. Herman pointed out we do the same with school taxes now. Everyone pays the school portion of their property tax bills whether they have children in the system or not.
With more entities paying for the service it is likely the cost to the residents would be reduced to a degree. Also, the trash hauler would no longer need to collect the fees. The City should be able to negotiate a reduction in the cost as this plan would eliminate their collection costs. Interestingly enough, the cost of collection is borne, not by the City, but by the County as they would be the ones collecting this revenue for us.
Something else to consider is that those in need already have access to a program from the State of Missouri that gives them a rebate on their State income taxes based on Real Property Taxes (or in some cases rent) paid and their income. As this would increase their Real Property Taxes, it is possible their rebate would increase as well. If you've never heard of the Missouri Property Tax Credit you can find out if you're eligible by clicking on the link.
The City doesn't have the revenues at this time to pay for trash service. So, be it by quarterly bill as we do it now, or by annual "user fee" on the property tax bill, we are going to have to pay for it ourselves. The potential benefit of the tax is the possible reduction in the cost of the service.
It was also suggested that the City could budget each year to subsidize the cost of Trash service based on the previous year's revenues. Though that could reduce the cost even further, I'm afraid I'd have to see that happen before I believe it.
If the City was to move forward with this idea the soonest it would likely appear on the Ballot would be April. Councilperson Conlon pointed out that April elections require a 4/7th majority to pass bond issues, suggesting this measure would require the same. I'm not sure if this is the case. St. Ann's utility tax increase on November's ballot (which requires a 3/5th majority to pass bond issues), only needs a simple majority to pass.
Residents will need to see this in writing and in detail before they could seriously consider it. However, this plan has the possibility (depending on the number of lots taxed) to reduce everyone's bill by an amount similar to what we might expect to be able to do for low income families in the other plan. If the details are there, the loopholes are absent, and the numbers work then this plan could benefit all the residents without filing requirements and the like. As always the devil is in the details so you'll have to wait and see what the City does with this idea, if they choose to act on it at all.
Both plans have issues. Mr. Herman explained that Overland's powers are limited by what is granted to a 3rd class City in the State statutes. He said there was no statute authorizing any sort of financial assistance program, so it would seem we cannot do this. Interesting, when Mr. Herman was challenged on this, using the current Overland utility tax rebate for seniors as an example, he said that it was his opinion that the City does not have the authority to do that either. He suggested that the reason Overland has not had a issue with this is because the dollar amount involved is so low and there are a lot of legal gray areas when dealing with programs for seniors (pun intended).
The other plan would requires a majority, possibly a super majority of Overland voters to cast ballots in favor of a significant real property tax increase aka "user fee". While this increase would eliminate the quarterly trash bill we currently receive and could possibly reduce the cost of trash service for everyone, it's doubtful that such a measure would pass.
As always when the trash issue came up a few on the Council tried to make political hay out of it. Councilperson Owensby (Ward 3)suggested that we should have used "the million dollars" we had last year to pay for it. We can argue about what million dollars he might be talking about but the bottom line is that the service cost more that that annually (last time I checked it was between 1.2 and 1.3 million annually). Even if we somehow paid for the service with last year's "million dollars" that would still only cover one year. Councilperson Owensby was challenged multiple times to present his suggestion for how to fund the service in subsequent years. He didn't directly answer that question.
This discussion went on, and Councilperson Owensby's myths continued. Though it has been proven to be a misrepresentation many times, he still insists on telling everyone that St. Ann pays half as much as Overland for Trash service. St. Ann only pays for a portion of the trash service we have in Overland. St. Ann residents have to pay for recycling and the City of St. Ann picks up the yard waste rather than pay the trash hauler to do it. The City of St. Ann pays half as much as Overland because St. Ann only provides half the services to their residents. We wonder what Councilperson Owensby will use as an example if St. Ann residents don't approve a Utility Tax increase next month and they have to drop "city paid" trash in January as a result? (link)
Then there were the hints that the purchase of Wild Acres cost us our trash service. We didn't pay for that all at once, we make payments on it similar to how people pay for their homes. However, at the current cost of trash service we could sell not just Wild Acres, but every park in the City as well and probably only be able to fund the service for two or three years at best.
Councilperson Jones (Ward 4)had an interesting suggestion as well. He asked if it was possible to create a central location where people who cannot pay for service could bring their trash. Where to put a new City dump is an obvious question. However, I'd like to know how the disabled and the housebound elderly (who make up a major portion of those in need in Overland) would possibly get their trash to this location.
For various reasons, some outside the control of previous administrations and some not, Overland's revenues have be stagnant for years. While the revenues did not increase, our operating expenses sure did. Gas, wages, raw materials, and more all combined to put a real squeeze on our City (as it has done to most of us at home as well). As Councilperson Keller (Ward 3) correctly pointed out, we need to focus on ways to bring new businesses into Overland to generate more revenue. That is of course the ultimate solution. If Overland prospers, revenues increase and the City could potentially return to paying for Trash service (as Maryland Heights did thanks to their casino revenues). However, this doesn't happen overnight. There is a Chinese proverb that says it best: "One generation plants the trees; another gets the shade." We cannot resolve this issue at this time. The funds are simply not there. For the foreseeable future we are going to have to pay for our Trash service, as nearly every municipality around us does. While we cannot get out of paying for this service, there may be ways to reduce how much it costs.
We could go on for pages and pages about the trash issue (did we do that already?), but there were other issues addressed at this meeting as well.
Though the Council has not come to a final decision on what to do with the land afterwards, they did vote unanimously to direct the Public Works department to start the demolition of the Legion Pool and the associated buildings. Councilperson Owensby likely echoed the thoughts of many long time residents of Overland when he explained that though he understands there is nothing we can do to reopen that pool, he has a lot of fond memories from there and will miss the place. Some of the more interesting suggestions for this property's future have been a few ball fields, sand volleyball courts, gazebos, a concession stand (to generate revenue for Overland through sales at baseball or volleyball games) or some mix of them all.
An issue with parking on Lackland at Oakland was discussed. As Acting Public Works Director Chuck Boone and Chief Herron pointed out, though they agree that this is an issue, there is nothing that Overland can do about it as the City of Overland ends at the curb of that street. Councilperson O'Connell raised the question that if the road and the shoulder belong to Sycamore Hills, but from the curb out is Overland, how would Sycamore Hills put up No Parking signs if they choose to. Mr. Herman stated that the City could give Sycamore Hills permission to do so by passing a Council resolution to that effect. Mayor Schneider asked that the Ward 2 Council members get in touch with Sycamore Hills and possibly even the business that is the cause of this problem. While I agree working with our neighbors is a good thing, if all Sycamore Hills needs to resolve this is a Council resolution, why devote any more time to this issue that could be better used dealing with other problems in our own City?
The next was the City Administrator issue. Other than debates concerning the history of the previous attempt to hire a City administrator the Council voted unanimously to schedule a Workshop meeting to review the City Administrator ordinance. They also voted unanimously to contact the East West Gateway Council of Governments to let them know of our intent to engage them for the hiring process once again. It is nice to see our City finally taking a few steps in this direction once again.
One of the most surprising suggestions was when Councilperson Owensby stated that he thinks we should hire former Mayor Frank Munsch as the new City administrator. I didn't live here when Frank Munsch was the Mayor, I've never met the man and I have no idea what his educational background is. What I do know is that I agree with Councilperson Cuminale (Ward 1) when she said we need to fill this position with a neutral party. We need someone who doesn't live or work in Overland and has no connection to Overland Politics. Mayor Schneider agreed with this as well and seemed to suggest to Councilperson Owensby that anyone could apply for the position via East-West Gateway once the process begins.
Councilperson May wanted to be sure that we would only consider candidates who had been vetted by East-West Gateway. Though Councilperson Owensby tried to suggest some sort of discrimination in that statement (which Mayor Schneider promptly corrected him on), all Councilperson May seemed to be suggesting is that we limit the field to those who meet the qualifications for the position and were recommended by the neutral group we'll be hiring to make those recommendations.
After the agenda items were completed some new and old business issues were raised. Mr. Boone asked for direction from the Council on what to do about the bridge at Wild Acres. He explained that a structural engineer looked at the bridge and told him it would be better to tear it down and build new than to try to restore it. Mr. Boone would not commit to whether or not this engineer said the bridge was unsafe for foot traffic. The Council voted to direct him to use public works to recover and store all of the bridge's ornamentation that could be saved.
While there has been a persistent rumor in Overland that this bridge came from the St. Louis Worlds Fair, it is my understanding that the Overland Historical Society has been unable to find any evidence of this. In all likelihood this bridge was build by the property owner in the same style as the Worlds Fair but that's as far as the connection appears to go.
The Mayor suggested that we need Citizens Committees to help the City address issues and research solutions. The Overland Examiner could not agree more. There's entirely too much to do for 9 part-time elected officials. Many residents have expressed interest in volunteering for the city so filling those committees is not likely to be an issue. The Mayore also said he'd like to get together with the entire Council and tour all of the parks to start thinking about what they would like to do with them so they are much better prepared for filing for grants in the future. This is a great idea, however due to the Sunshine Law this will have to be a public event which could complicate matters.
Mr. Boone also informed the Council that he expects work to finally start on the Wild Acres Seminary Property roof in the next week or two. He also asked the Council members from Ward 3 to get together with him to work out positioning of the lights that are to be installed in Brooks park in the hopes that they will reduce vandalism there.
The Chief raised an issue with the Police Radios. He explained that there are several areas in the City where officers cannot communicate with dispatch. The Chief pointed out that their equipment is working properly, and that this is a problem related to the ever growing number of frequencies in use rather than an equipment failure. According to the chief there were a few possible solutions. One was to shift to an 800 Mhtz system. He didn't recommend this however do to the huge cost involved as every hand-held and vehicle radio would have to be replaced as would most of the equipment at the station. The solution the Chief recommended was to install a booster system. This would require equipment to be installed at the Station that he estimated would cost $7000.00. Additionally it would cost the City $3000.00 for each booster as well as about $150.00/mo. for a phone line connected to each one.
Chief Herron explained that the problem is mostly in the Western portion of Overland as well as some sections of Page. He recommended that they purchase one booster and install it at the Wild Acres Police substation first as this might resolve all of the issues. If it didn't handle the problems on Page entirely, they could add a second booster at the City garage. The Council agreed and directed the Chief to begin gathering bids for this equipment.
Though the meeting was long, and it had its tense moments, the Council definitely did a bit better at working together than at the previous Council meeting. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see how votes on some of these issues go at the next Council meeting before we can judge how they're doing.
The following are two versions of the entire video of this Workshop meeting for your review (please let us know how the first one plays for you):
If you are viewing this content through a news-reader
you might not be able to see the videos below.
click window to play
The above version is from a new hosting service
did it work well for you?
October 29th Overland
City Council Workshop
( 2 hours, 21 minutes )
comments are enabled
you might not be able to see the videos below.
The above version is from a new hosting service
did it work well for you?
City Council Workshop
( 2 hours, 21 minutes )
Labels: City Administrator, City Council, Council, Overland, Trash, Workshop
posted by Overland Sailor @ 5:42 PM 
5 comments
Post Permalink
links to this post
5 Comments:
During the break, I asked Bob Herman a few questions about his proposal.
I was very interested because I thought why not do something similar back when we were first contemplating resident-paid trash.
1) It is a user-fee, not a tax. Thus, Bob said it was not tax deductible for those that itemized.
2) Since it is a user-fee and not based on a rate/assessment percentage, the city would be able to adjust the amount based on a) the cost of trash service that year b) the amount of that cost the city would pay.
It would then be evenly divided among each parcel of land, regardless of its value.
The sewer lateral fee works similarly. Everyone currently pays $28/year, regardless of their property's value.
Back to this service fee, I really don't understand Owensby's lack of support. "His residents" would actually be paying less through this proposal. And, it would be taken out of the mortgage payment for the large percentage of us.
I saw it as a win-win, but don't see much chance of this at the polls if you can't even get your council members to support the idea.
Of course, Owensby will only be happy once the city is paying 100% of the bill and will not settle for anything less (and will not propose any alternatives).
The idea of the attition the fee to the Real Estate Taxes seem frought with problems in my opinion. Overland is notorious for not support tax increase in almost any shape or form. The CCFPSD receives little or no support for their porjects.
Besides on my street alone there is a family getting $45,000 tax free, through SSI, Veteran Disabiltiy Benefits, Pension incomes and god knows what else. Their medical is paid for by the VA, and medicade and medicare. They have DISH TV with all the extra channels, High Speed DSL, several computers. Yet they can not pay for theitrash pickup. They own 13 acres in Sullivan Mo. Are 3 years behind in Real Estate Taxes and Personal Property Taxes, haven't yet paid the sales tax on their vehicles yet they complain. they tried to get help from a Church but were laughed out their door.
Why should I and the rest of the taxpayers in Overland subsidization their lack or management.
Councilman O'Connel idea was dead on, let then show they can't afford it. This same family hasn't filed a tax return in over 10 years citing poverty.
Their net is only slight lower that what my family makes, I pay for my trash and so does everyone else on this street. We are not in W3 or W4 were in 1. We're not rich but we survive.
I've filed taxes for over 40 years and never been able to use my trash on an itemized tax return. Herman is living in the world of Ladue or Town in Country.
This issue REQUIRES some tough decisions made on the true need of the residents. There may be some very well in need, but their not around me.
But I did get a kick out of Owensby, He is humping Fetech?
Herman said you could NOT write off this amount. I apologize if that was not clear.
You are right about the lack of support for Fire and School. The only thing with this is that by passing, it would actually lower the bills. And there would be no way to escape it.
If you don't pay your Real Estate property taxes for 3-years, the county can/will auction off your property.
I am not sure if they do anything with cars/pers property. However, you do need a receipt to get new plates.
Abuser I understand your frustration, however here's two things to consider:
1> Assuming they apply ( and if they get that much aid I imagine they are rather adept at such applications), the people you referenced who receive 45,000.00 a year tax-free would get a subsidy if we go with Councilperson O'Connell's plan as income tax returns are likely the only document we could use to verify income.
2>The user fee proposal, while it would reduce their cost of trash service would also reduce your's, mine and everyone else's cost of the service.
It seems to me, if we have to choose between one or the other, the the user fee option is far more fair, though I doubt it can pass. I also think it's likely that the reduction in cost we'd see will be very close to what people would get under O'Connell's proposal as the city is likely to receive a fairly high number of applications.
SuzyJax 2 questions:
Being a user fee, would it be subject to the same super majority requirements as bonds are?
Do you know if someone paid all their taxes but the user fee, and they did that for several years, would they be risking a lean or tax sale of the property as they would be if they did the same with say the school portion of their tax bill?
Also, thanks for the comments on the player in the earlier article. I agree the time stamp issue is a problem, though there might be a workaround for that if I can find an alternate player at that host.
The slider is a problem in the beginning, but there is a possible work around. If you hit play, then pause, the video will continue to load in the background. Doing that say when you first check out an article, and then go back to playing after reading one of my voluminous (of late) tomes should have loaded the video enough to scroll though most of it. At least, that's my understanding of how it works.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home