The City Council met on May 14th, 2007 at the Overland Community Center. I shot the meeting in static position as Charter prefers. I did slip up a bit as I zoomed in on Chuck Boone briefly when he started the Public Works report. Realizing my mistake, I zoomed back out. The point of shooting the video this way was to see what our readers think. Let me know if you prefer this approach or the way we normally shoot video here. You can do so via either the comments below or by
emailing me.
The following is the full video of this meeting. The only break in it that I am aware of is when the Council went into executive session. I recorded the remainder of the meeting when they returned so there is an odd jump towards the end.
If you're reading our News feed you can't see the following video.
You'll need to visit the site to watch it
May 14th, 2007 Overland City Council Meeting
Four residents spoke during the comments portion of the meeting. All the comments were positive with some interesting ideas presented. One resident suggested that the Council consider the feasibility of creating a farmers market in the downtown Overland area. Another thanked
Alberici for a recent event and their leadership in green building practices.
Michael Oakes asked the Council to follow St. Louis County Council's lead and hold residents comments after the meeting is called to order to ensure they were part of the public record. I would add when a resident states on the comment form that they intend to address a particular agenda item (business license, ordinance, etc), the Council should wait to call for that comment until they get to that point of the agenda.
Pat Westoff, President of the Friends of Wild Acres, asked why there had been nothing done to repair the roof at Wild Acres. The longer the repairs are delayed the more damage is done to the interior of the building. Though there was some confusion, Councilperson Conlon correctly pointed out that in the Capital Improvements budget that passed unanimously on August 14th, 2006 there is a $45,000.00 dollar line item for "2500 Ashby" under the heading of Building Maintenance. Hopefully, with this confusion cleared up the city can move forward and not allow this property decay further.
The 2006/2007 City Budget, that is nearly a year overdue, passed 5-2 with Councilpersons Keller and Owensby opposing. With this budget as late as it is, the budget period it covers is all but over. The numbers in the 2006/2007 budget are mostly limited to the money spent last year with the only spending projections being what the Council expects to spend in the next month or so. Councilperson Owensby's opposition was expected as he voted against it at the April 24th budget workshop (which we covered in the second half of
this article). However, at that workshop Councilperson Keller voted in support of this budget, though she voted to oppose it at this meeting.
One particularly funny moment during the budget discussion was when Councilman Keller asked why the line item for insurance deductible payments went from $1800.00 to $35,000.00. President Pro Tem May then asked "Do you really need us to explain that?". As was mentioned at the meeting, the City's insurance policy has a $25,000.00 deductible per lawsuit. Considering that 6 lawsuits were filled against the City during Mayor Purzner's tenure this number actually seems surprisingly low.
The Redevelopment plan for 8610 Ashby was discussed and approved unanimously. As we reported in an earlier article there were some concerns about the development agreement raised at the
May 7th Council Workshop meeting. Those concerns were ironed out in the final draft of the agreement. One of the changes tied the length of the tax abatement to the level of
LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, certification achieved by the developer.
One point of contention that came up at this meeting was the subject of audits. Councilperson Owensby stated he wanted a "State Forensic Audit". President Pro Tem May repeatedly asked Councilperson Owensby to share his specific concerns, but he offered none.
This discussion continued with Councilperson Keller suggesting that everyone at the Council Candidates Debate agreed we needed a State Audit. In our
article covering that debate, we posted the video of that question and the candidates responses.
The following is that video for your review:
If you're reading our News feed you can't see the following video.
You'll need to visit the site to watch it
Of the four candidates that won their elections, two of them answered the question a bit tongue in cheek. Councilperson Keller supported the concept of a state audit, and Councilperson Jones said it could be another good thing in the news when Overland did well on their audit.
The problem with having a state audit is that it is not something the city can simply request. To have a state level audit done would require either a successful
petition drive or it needs to be requested directly from the Governor's office. This is covered in RSMo.
29.230. A key provision of which is that
the Municipality has to pay for the audit.
There has been some discussion of late that amounts to "
if they have nothing to hide, why not have a state audit?". The reason is simple, the expense. The State Auditor's office estimates the cost of such an audit to be $16,000.00 to $24,000.00. They also pointed out that they rarely issue an opinion along with their report. So, even if a state audit was conducted and Overland passed it with flying colors, it would be unlikely that we would have a public opinion from the auditor's office stating that fact. All we would have was their report which would be subject to the mischaracterizations and spin we have seen so often.
That audit estimate is not for a forensic audit. A forensic audit would apply
Forensic Accounting practices. Forensic Auditors use a combination of accounting and investigative skills in this form of audit which is typically done with litigation preparation in mind (to either prove fraud / malfeasance or to disprove it). A forensic Audit generally goes much deeper than a typical audit and takes extensively more time. Councilman Owensby suggested this could be done for $11,000.00. However, estimates place the cost of a 10 year Forensic Audit at $120,000.00 or more. Going back 20 years in an attempt to clear up all the rumors of the past could cost the city $200,000.00 to $300,000.00.
Without specific concerns or suspicions it is unlikely the Council would approve such an expense. If enough people in Overland want to have a state audit done a petition drive could be started to accomplish this (as referenced in the links above), though this would not be a "forensic audit".
Chuck Boone provided the Council with some information about programs available at St. Louis County to help seniors and disabled residents. Mr. Boone stated that there are just over 3000 residents 65 or over who are listed as disabled to one degree or another. I've been looking into ways to create a "neighbors helping neighbors" type of program here in Overland, so I was particularly happy to hear there were programs already in place that could possibly fit the "neighbors helping neighbors" concept. Last night I spoke to several people who knew a bit about this program. They gave me the impression that it was likely the direction to go. I'll be contacting
CORP (County Older Residents Programs) about what volunteers in our area can do and pass along what I learn in a future article.
Overall, when you consider how the meetings have gone in the last year, this one went pretty well. Among other things, the Council successfully passed the overdue 2006/2007 budget, approved the 8610 Redevelopment Agreement and passed a resolution to create a continuing Redevelopment Corporation for Overland to use on this project and any similar ones in the future.
Labels: 8610 Page, Budget, CORP, Council meeting, Overland, Redevelopment, Wild Acres
