Monday, 1/4/2010
No Meetings Scheduled
Tuesday, 1/5/2010
8:00 AM Mayor's Commission for Children Executive Committee Community Foundation , 425 E. Trafficway Contact: Denise Bredfeldt, (417) 864-1656
11:45 AM Special City Council Meeting* Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Brenda Cirtin, (417) 864-1650
12:00 PM (or immediately following the Special City Council Meeting) Council Lunch** Busch Municipal Building, 4th Floor Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Anita Climer, (417) 864-1654
1:30 PM Board of Adjustment Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Matt Schaefer, (417) 864-1100
Wednesday, 1/6/2010
8:00 AM Workforce Investment Board Marketing Committee Missouri Career Center , 1514 South Glenstone Contact: Karen Dowdy, (417) 887-4343
5:30 PM Landmarks Board Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Daniel Neal, (417) 864-1036
Thursday, 1/7/2010
5:30 PM Building Trades Certification and Examination Board Busch Municipal Building, 1st Floor Conf. Rm, 840 Boonville Contact: Nick Heatherly, (417) 864-1059
6:30 PM Planning and Zoning Commission Old City Hall, Council Chambers, 830 Boonville Contact: Mike MacPherson, (417) 864-1831
Friday, 1/8/2010
8:30 AM Springfield/Greene County Park Board Park Board Offices , 1923 North Weller Contact: Jodie Adams, (417) 864-1049
9:00 AM Commercial Street Community Improvement District Busch Municipal Building, 2nd Floor West Conf. Rm., 840 Boonville Contact: Donnie Rodgers, (417) 880-3435
*Special January 5, 11:45 AM City Council meeting Agenda:
1. ROLL CALL.
2. FIRST READING BILLS. CITIZENS MAY SPEAK. NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE VOTED ON.
3. COUNCIL BILL 2010-001 (O'Neal)A special ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $13,000,000 principal amount of special obligation bonds (State of Missouri - Direct Loan Program - ARRA) series 2010 of the City of Springfield, Missouri, for the purpose of extending and improving the City's sewerage system; prescribing the form and details of the bonds and the agreements made by the City to facilitate and protect their payment and prescribing other related matters.
4. NEW BUSINESS
Budget Cuts - Greg Burris
5. ANY AND ALL MATTERS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL.
6. ADJOURN.
Note: Springfield City Clerk Brenda Cirtin indicated the Council wouldn't be taking action on Council bill 2010-001, and the public hearing will be continued to the regular January 11, City Council meeting. After hearing from the public the Council will likely vote.
"Just wanted Council to have plenty of time to review it, as it is ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) money," Cirtin wrote in an email.
**City Council Tentative January 5, Lunch Agenda:
1. Citizen's Advisory Committee for Community Development (CACCD) - Vern Morgan
2. Continued Q & A regarding City Manager's Proposed 2nd Quarter Budget Cuts - Greg Burris
3. Any and all matters to come before City Council
---------------------------------------------------
Sources: City of Springfield Public Information Office and City Clerk Brenda Cirtin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label City Clerk Brenda Cirtin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Clerk Brenda Cirtin. Show all posts
Monday, January 04, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Update on "Nuisance, Nuisance Everywhere"
In a previous entry, I mentioned, City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to "JackeHammer" that Director of Building Development Services (BDS) Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation (See Springfield Municipal Code Sections 74-391 and 74-392), and was awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation.
I'd also noted City Attorney Dan Wichmer had stated in an email, "In Feb of this year, BDS sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
When I did hear back from Cirtin regarding the violation BDS had posted, she wrote, "According to Nick, the property was posted on May 5, 2008, with a “Do Not Occupy” as they did not have a C of O (Certificate of Occupancy) to occupy the structure." Later, when asked if they had acquired a C of O after being posted, the City Clerk referred my questions to Nick Heatherly to answer. Heatherly responded, "August 11, 2008 a C of O was issued for a “Business Office” use." When asked if Veterans Coming Home was attempting to "occupy" the facility before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Heatherly wrote, "They were in the process of setting up their office prior to the issuance of the C of O." So, my thought on all of that is this: It's up to the reader to decide whether "setting up" an office prior to use qualifies as "occupancy" or not and warrants an official posting of violation.
Regarding Wichmer's mention of a February letter, I was never provided a copy of a February letter and I did not ask for a copy of it...follow up for another day. Wichmer did not note what the "purported improper uses" were but, the fact they were "purported" rather than proven is a clue that the February letter was not an official "posting" by the City of ordinance violations.
Regarding Wichmer's other remark about Health and Human Services "stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses(?)" Well, Rice acquired the building from the Federal government, not the City, and I think it's fairly plain that had it been up to the City, Rice would never have been awarded the building in the first place. Further, I'm not sure of the process for complaint a City government is required to follow if an organization is not complying with stated uses when acquiring surplus property through the Federal government but, I'd assume a local City government would have to go through Federal channels to file a complaint. Action taken in that regard, it seems to me, would more likely have to come from the Federal government. Now, that is not to say the City cannot mandate Veterans Coming Home abide by City ordinance pertaining to the facility's zoning but, the City needs to prove there are violations of City ordinance before making a statement that, it appears, many perceived as a veiled threat that the City was preparing to shut the facility down for a year for non-compliance.
The whole thing seems to have been another "scratching-your- head- in-bewilderment-moment," compliments of the Springfield City Attorney's office, and then sensationalized by the Reverend Larry Rice through the pages of our local news paper. However, that said, I still feel it was important that the "Springfield News-Leader" reported on the issue for the very reason I stated in my original entry on the subject:
"...it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)"
Regarding the call I placed to Rice. If he has tried to return the call, I missed it. I've had to be out of the house for appointments the last two days after placing the call and my answering machine is not currently functional.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd also noted City Attorney Dan Wichmer had stated in an email, "In Feb of this year, BDS sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
When I did hear back from Cirtin regarding the violation BDS had posted, she wrote, "According to Nick, the property was posted on May 5, 2008, with a “Do Not Occupy” as they did not have a C of O (Certificate of Occupancy) to occupy the structure." Later, when asked if they had acquired a C of O after being posted, the City Clerk referred my questions to Nick Heatherly to answer. Heatherly responded, "August 11, 2008 a C of O was issued for a “Business Office” use." When asked if Veterans Coming Home was attempting to "occupy" the facility before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, Heatherly wrote, "They were in the process of setting up their office prior to the issuance of the C of O." So, my thought on all of that is this: It's up to the reader to decide whether "setting up" an office prior to use qualifies as "occupancy" or not and warrants an official posting of violation.
Regarding Wichmer's mention of a February letter, I was never provided a copy of a February letter and I did not ask for a copy of it...follow up for another day. Wichmer did not note what the "purported improper uses" were but, the fact they were "purported" rather than proven is a clue that the February letter was not an official "posting" by the City of ordinance violations.
Regarding Wichmer's other remark about Health and Human Services "stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses(?)" Well, Rice acquired the building from the Federal government, not the City, and I think it's fairly plain that had it been up to the City, Rice would never have been awarded the building in the first place. Further, I'm not sure of the process for complaint a City government is required to follow if an organization is not complying with stated uses when acquiring surplus property through the Federal government but, I'd assume a local City government would have to go through Federal channels to file a complaint. Action taken in that regard, it seems to me, would more likely have to come from the Federal government. Now, that is not to say the City cannot mandate Veterans Coming Home abide by City ordinance pertaining to the facility's zoning but, the City needs to prove there are violations of City ordinance before making a statement that, it appears, many perceived as a veiled threat that the City was preparing to shut the facility down for a year for non-compliance.
The whole thing seems to have been another "scratching-your- head- in-bewilderment-moment," compliments of the Springfield City Attorney's office, and then sensationalized by the Reverend Larry Rice through the pages of our local news paper. However, that said, I still feel it was important that the "Springfield News-Leader" reported on the issue for the very reason I stated in my original entry on the subject:
"...it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)"
Regarding the call I placed to Rice. If he has tried to return the call, I missed it. I've had to be out of the house for appointments the last two days after placing the call and my answering machine is not currently functional.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Nuisance, Nuisance, Everywhere
"Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the (nuisance) ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process." - Community Free Press, DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue
In light of today's "Springfield News-Leader" article regarding City Attorney Dan Wichmer's letter and Reverend Rice's response concerning neighbors' allegations of misuse of the property at 806 N. Jefferson, or Veterans Coming Home, I felt the article I wrote for the "Community Free Press" regarding similar allegations might shed a bit of light on what the City is able to do or not do in the case of allegations of nuisance properties. Readers will find that CFP article below this entry. (And I have to wonder if neighbors of Veterans Coming Home are being made aware of how little the City can actually do to enforce the nuisance ordinance)
In the letter City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote to Reverend Larry Rice, Wichmer referenced Springfield City Code sections 74-391 and 74-392. Wichmer noted, "Under these code sections, any property harboring a nuisance could be subject to closure for up to 1 year."
Wichmer then "strongly encourage(d)" Reverend Rice to stop activities not permitted and take action to eliminate activities which were a nuisance to businesses in the area. Wichmer wrote, "Failure to take corrective action will force the City to take action to abate the nuisance."
In the article attached readers will note, "According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance."
The nuisance ordinance is very specific in describing the process by which the City of Springfield may close a property. One of the City's other options (under City Code) is to shut off utilities to that property for up to 1 year. The City really can't just go around closing properties based on neighbors' complaints, there is much more to it than that. For instance, before closing a property can even be considered notice has to be given and it must be given in very specific manner.
"JackeHammer" asked City Attorney Wichmer if there had been any notice of:
"...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances" on the premises, and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances," (City code 74-391) where the initial arrest of a convict originated from the address 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri
OR for:
"...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city," and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city" involving an initial arrest of the convict from 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri (City code 74-392)
BY: "The chief of police or his designee," (City code 74-391) OR "The chief of police or director of health or other head of a department charged with ordinance or code enforcement or their respective designees?" (City code 74-392)
"No." City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote in an email response. "My letter merely referenced the fact that if we found and proved violations that originated from 806 N. Jefferson, we would treat (it) as any other nuisance property and use all tools available. We are not, to my knowledge, anywhere near sending any sort of nuisance notice."
Later in the day, when questioned about why he sent the letter at this time, Wichmer wrote, "In Feb of this year, BDS (Building Development Services) sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to JackeHammer that Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation. She is awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation, "I asked him when and what the violation was, but haven’t heard back yet," she wrote.
Wichmer said the reason he sent the letter is because Rice's local representatives had stated Rice wanted to know if there were any issues, "When he opened the center, Rev. Rice, through his local reps, stated he wanted to be a good neighbor (especially in light of the incidents he had at the Free Store, his facility near Jeff City and the stabbing in St. Louis) so if we had issues, please let him know," Wichmer wrote.
According to Wichmer, the letter was sent out 2 weeks ago. Indeed, it is dated November 23, 2009. Wichmer indicated Ron Moore, New Life Evangelical Center's on site manager and Dan Boyle, Rice's attorney, were very cordial in their responses, with Boyle stating, "he would make sure there was follow up on their (Veterans Coming Home) end." Wichmer indicated that because he had received such a cordial response from them, he thought the issue was behind him and being handled.
"He (Boyle) told me in the future to just call him or NLEC’s business manager if we received further complaints. I thought that ended the matter. That is why I stated that Rice was merely grandstanding yesterday," Wichmer wrote.
At any rate, it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)
JackeHammer has placed a call to the Reverend Larry Rice for comment and is awaiting his response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue of the "Community Free Press:"
"West Central WOES
Area developers’ cries for help reach a high level of frustration."
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
At a recent meeting at the Busch Municipal Building,tempers and accusations sometimes flared over vandalism, theft, drug use, and whether the city’s nuisance ordinance can be used to remedy recurring problems in Springfield’s West Central neighborhood. One thing was made clear by the attending city officials: there are not going to be any quick fixes to neighborhood crime in West Central or any other neighborhood in Springfield.
Carol Nachbar, a real estate investor and redeveloper who owns property in the area was frustrated over what she perceived as non-enforcement of the city’s nuisance ordinance.
Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process.
“We can’t take a whole complex with just one violating apartment unit,” Rowe said. “If they’re [owners/managers] dealing with the issue, then that precludes using the nuisance ordinance to take that property.”
Due process is what has Nachbar and other West Central investors and homeowners asking questions. Nachbar balked when told that, without convictions of crime, the nuisance ordinance could not be enforced.
“These people are out there causing all this havoc and this chaos,” Nachbar said. “The police put them in their cars and they handcuff them and then, 15 minutes later, they let them back out of the police car. That’s the problem, they are not arrested in the first place.”
The Windermere Apartments, 1055 W. Walnut St., is at the center of the debate among West Central residents and property owners. Nachbar claims problems originating at the property are interfering with her ability to lease a neighboring property she owns.
According to the city Web site, the business license for 1055 W.Walnut is issued to Shorty’s Holding, LLC. The address for the owner is also the same address issued to Cars 4 U, a car lot on Compton Street owned by Kendall Hancock. Hancock could not be reached for comment, but a woman at Cars 4 U, who identified herself as only Angela, said she was the manager of Shorty’s Holding, LLC.
“I’m the manager and we don’t have a comment,” she said.
According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance.
“I can assure you that I take you seriously, but you sitting there, indicating that I’m not doing anything, isn’t going to make me a whole lot happier dealing with you,” Wichmer said to Nachbar at the meeting. “I’ve pulled your properties, you’ve had disturbances, and you’ve had complaints. Do I shut your properties down?”
Rowe explained his department is following procedure and doing what they can under the law.
“Sometimes there’s enough [evidence] to pursue it and if there is, they go to jail every time, even though it is a revolving door and they go right back out,” Rowe said.
Another local developer and investor, David Rhodes, said, in the past, when there was more police presence crime had disappeared.
“If this issue serves one purpose, I hope it is that it will get more police on the street,” Rhodes said.
Jack Pugh, Rhodes partner in “B’s” Renaissance Renovations, LLC, identified himself and Nachbar as two of the top investors in the West Central area. Pugh lives in a home on Walnut Street that he and his wife remodeled with the intention of retiring there. His wife has since moved out, and they have purchased a new retirement home in Greenfield.
“After the two attempted murders at the rental operations next door, and our neighbor who was stabbed and left to die on our front steps by two thugs who felt they had a right to own his bicycle, she just gave up,” Pugh said. “It was just too close. She didn’t work all her life to have to live in fear.”
Pugh talked about several contractors and residents who have been victims of theft. Later, as he steered his car down Pershing Street, where he has redeveloped and assisted others in redevelopment of several properties, he pointed to his “crown jewel.”
“A young family bought that a year ago and now they’re moving out. They’ve been broken into four times,” Pugh said. “They’ve just given up.”
Suggestions offered by city officials for dealing with the nuisance properties didn’t offer any overnight solutions. Beyond continuing to file police reports, working with their Police Area Representative officer, or taking the personal initiative to sue a nuisance property owner in civil court, one of the few other suggestions was that residents become more involved in their neighborhood associations. It was suggested they start a “Neighborhood Team”program.
“Neighborhood Teams can set priorities and then we all work together,” Rowe said.
Jack Pugh had little faith that forming a Neighborhood Team was the answer.
“It’s attacking the problem at the wrong end.” Pugh said. “If we had a Neighborhood Team in place reporting on the Windermere Apartments, would anything have been done differently at this point? Would it have helped to have had 120 calls this year instead of 100? The answer is no. It’s the policies that the Neighborhood Team has to work under that are the problem.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is a Public Nuisance?
“Any place that is used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations,or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any of the inhabitants of the city after notice is given and the place continues to be used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city is a public nuisance.”
Source: Section 74-392.A, General Ordinance Number 5465 (Springfield’s nuisance ordinance)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of today's "Springfield News-Leader" article regarding City Attorney Dan Wichmer's letter and Reverend Rice's response concerning neighbors' allegations of misuse of the property at 806 N. Jefferson, or Veterans Coming Home, I felt the article I wrote for the "Community Free Press" regarding similar allegations might shed a bit of light on what the City is able to do or not do in the case of allegations of nuisance properties. Readers will find that CFP article below this entry. (And I have to wonder if neighbors of Veterans Coming Home are being made aware of how little the City can actually do to enforce the nuisance ordinance)
In the letter City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote to Reverend Larry Rice, Wichmer referenced Springfield City Code sections 74-391 and 74-392. Wichmer noted, "Under these code sections, any property harboring a nuisance could be subject to closure for up to 1 year."
Wichmer then "strongly encourage(d)" Reverend Rice to stop activities not permitted and take action to eliminate activities which were a nuisance to businesses in the area. Wichmer wrote, "Failure to take corrective action will force the City to take action to abate the nuisance."
In the article attached readers will note, "According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance."
The nuisance ordinance is very specific in describing the process by which the City of Springfield may close a property. One of the City's other options (under City Code) is to shut off utilities to that property for up to 1 year. The City really can't just go around closing properties based on neighbors' complaints, there is much more to it than that. For instance, before closing a property can even be considered notice has to be given and it must be given in very specific manner.
"JackeHammer" asked City Attorney Wichmer if there had been any notice of:
"...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances" on the premises, and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the illegal use, manufacture, keeping or selling of controlled substances," (City code 74-391) where the initial arrest of a convict originated from the address 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri
OR for:
"...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city," and whether there have been any convictions related to "...the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city" involving an initial arrest of the convict from 806 N. Jefferson Avenue, Springfield, Missouri (City code 74-392)
BY: "The chief of police or his designee," (City code 74-391) OR "The chief of police or director of health or other head of a department charged with ordinance or code enforcement or their respective designees?" (City code 74-392)
"No." City Attorney Dan Wichmer wrote in an email response. "My letter merely referenced the fact that if we found and proved violations that originated from 806 N. Jefferson, we would treat (it) as any other nuisance property and use all tools available. We are not, to my knowledge, anywhere near sending any sort of nuisance notice."
Later in the day, when questioned about why he sent the letter at this time, Wichmer wrote, "In Feb of this year, BDS (Building Development Services) sent him a letter advising of purported improper uses. This letter was in addition to a letter from HHS (Health & Human Services) stating that their inspection to be sure that he was complying with his stated uses for the building per his application to acquire the building revealed that he was not in complete compliance with his stated uses."
City Clerk Brenda Cirtin wrote in an email to JackeHammer that Director of Building Development Services Nick Heatherly, indicated BDS has "posted" Veterans Coming Home for a code violation. She is awaiting his reply about when it was posted and the nature of the violation, "I asked him when and what the violation was, but haven’t heard back yet," she wrote.
Wichmer said the reason he sent the letter is because Rice's local representatives had stated Rice wanted to know if there were any issues, "When he opened the center, Rev. Rice, through his local reps, stated he wanted to be a good neighbor (especially in light of the incidents he had at the Free Store, his facility near Jeff City and the stabbing in St. Louis) so if we had issues, please let him know," Wichmer wrote.
According to Wichmer, the letter was sent out 2 weeks ago. Indeed, it is dated November 23, 2009. Wichmer indicated Ron Moore, New Life Evangelical Center's on site manager and Dan Boyle, Rice's attorney, were very cordial in their responses, with Boyle stating, "he would make sure there was follow up on their (Veterans Coming Home) end." Wichmer indicated that because he had received such a cordial response from them, he thought the issue was behind him and being handled.
"He (Boyle) told me in the future to just call him or NLEC’s business manager if we received further complaints. I thought that ended the matter. That is why I stated that Rice was merely grandstanding yesterday," Wichmer wrote.
At any rate, it all seems much ado about nothing for the moment (unless one considers how unhappy some City staff and some members of the City Council were at the time Rice was awarded the building...and unless one has a suspicious mind that the City is setting the stage for going after Rice on a trumped up code violation while it appears to ignore code violations of others it finds less unsavory....)
JackeHammer has placed a call to the Reverend Larry Rice for comment and is awaiting his response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From the DEC. 17, 2008 - JAN. 13, 2009 issue of the "Community Free Press:"
"West Central WOES
Area developers’ cries for help reach a high level of frustration."
By Jackie Melton
CFP Contributor
At a recent meeting at the Busch Municipal Building,tempers and accusations sometimes flared over vandalism, theft, drug use, and whether the city’s nuisance ordinance can be used to remedy recurring problems in Springfield’s West Central neighborhood. One thing was made clear by the attending city officials: there are not going to be any quick fixes to neighborhood crime in West Central or any other neighborhood in Springfield.
Carol Nachbar, a real estate investor and redeveloper who owns property in the area was frustrated over what she perceived as non-enforcement of the city’s nuisance ordinance.
Though Police Chief Lynn Rowe said City Council had come up with the ordinance in order to deal with specific nuisance properties, Council was also reluctant to deprive people of their property without due process.
“We can’t take a whole complex with just one violating apartment unit,” Rowe said. “If they’re [owners/managers] dealing with the issue, then that precludes using the nuisance ordinance to take that property.”
Due process is what has Nachbar and other West Central investors and homeowners asking questions. Nachbar balked when told that, without convictions of crime, the nuisance ordinance could not be enforced.
“These people are out there causing all this havoc and this chaos,” Nachbar said. “The police put them in their cars and they handcuff them and then, 15 minutes later, they let them back out of the police car. That’s the problem, they are not arrested in the first place.”
The Windermere Apartments, 1055 W. Walnut St., is at the center of the debate among West Central residents and property owners. Nachbar claims problems originating at the property are interfering with her ability to lease a neighboring property she owns.
According to the city Web site, the business license for 1055 W.Walnut is issued to Shorty’s Holding, LLC. The address for the owner is also the same address issued to Cars 4 U, a car lot on Compton Street owned by Kendall Hancock. Hancock could not be reached for comment, but a woman at Cars 4 U, who identified herself as only Angela, said she was the manager of Shorty’s Holding, LLC.
“I’m the manager and we don’t have a comment,” she said.
According to City Attorney Dan Wichmer, as long as a landlord is working with the police department and there are no convictions, there is little the city can do under the ordinance.
“I can assure you that I take you seriously, but you sitting there, indicating that I’m not doing anything, isn’t going to make me a whole lot happier dealing with you,” Wichmer said to Nachbar at the meeting. “I’ve pulled your properties, you’ve had disturbances, and you’ve had complaints. Do I shut your properties down?”
Rowe explained his department is following procedure and doing what they can under the law.
“Sometimes there’s enough [evidence] to pursue it and if there is, they go to jail every time, even though it is a revolving door and they go right back out,” Rowe said.
Another local developer and investor, David Rhodes, said, in the past, when there was more police presence crime had disappeared.
“If this issue serves one purpose, I hope it is that it will get more police on the street,” Rhodes said.
Jack Pugh, Rhodes partner in “B’s” Renaissance Renovations, LLC, identified himself and Nachbar as two of the top investors in the West Central area. Pugh lives in a home on Walnut Street that he and his wife remodeled with the intention of retiring there. His wife has since moved out, and they have purchased a new retirement home in Greenfield.
“After the two attempted murders at the rental operations next door, and our neighbor who was stabbed and left to die on our front steps by two thugs who felt they had a right to own his bicycle, she just gave up,” Pugh said. “It was just too close. She didn’t work all her life to have to live in fear.”
Pugh talked about several contractors and residents who have been victims of theft. Later, as he steered his car down Pershing Street, where he has redeveloped and assisted others in redevelopment of several properties, he pointed to his “crown jewel.”
“A young family bought that a year ago and now they’re moving out. They’ve been broken into four times,” Pugh said. “They’ve just given up.”
Suggestions offered by city officials for dealing with the nuisance properties didn’t offer any overnight solutions. Beyond continuing to file police reports, working with their Police Area Representative officer, or taking the personal initiative to sue a nuisance property owner in civil court, one of the few other suggestions was that residents become more involved in their neighborhood associations. It was suggested they start a “Neighborhood Team”program.
“Neighborhood Teams can set priorities and then we all work together,” Rowe said.
Jack Pugh had little faith that forming a Neighborhood Team was the answer.
“It’s attacking the problem at the wrong end.” Pugh said. “If we had a Neighborhood Team in place reporting on the Windermere Apartments, would anything have been done differently at this point? Would it have helped to have had 120 calls this year instead of 100? The answer is no. It’s the policies that the Neighborhood Team has to work under that are the problem.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is a Public Nuisance?
“Any place that is used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations,or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any of the inhabitants of the city after notice is given and the place continues to be used for the commission of crimes, ordinance violations, or acts done, permitted, allowed or continued to the damage or injury of any inhabitants of the city is a public nuisance.”
Source: Section 74-392.A, General Ordinance Number 5465 (Springfield’s nuisance ordinance)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Fruits and Vegetables Exempt from Prohibition Under a Section of Springfield Municipal Code...
for as long as research can reach but answers to simple questions do not exist; Municipal code prior to 1936 lost
The other day I mentioned I would continue to update "JackeHammer" regarding the Urban Garden Task Force and issues related to its eventual goal of providing recommendations for definitions and an ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will, in turn, provide recommendations to the City Council regarding how the City will deal with urban gardening and potential sales of fruits and/or vegetables in all districts of Springfield.
I was, at the time, awaiting requested information related to the City Code which task force member Petra Butler had discovered.
Since City Code is written based upon ordinances that, at one time, had their humble beginnings as approved City Council bills, I sought, through the procurement of those past Council bills related to section 98-5 of the City Code, the answer to a very simple question,
Why did the City exempt fruits and vegetables from the prohibition of display on public ways, including sidewalks, that section 98-5 instituted in the first place?
It stands to reason the City fathers had a reason for exempting fruits and vegetables from that prohibition, and since the Council bills of today have an in depth explanation about why City staff is seeking amendments to the City code, I thought looking at the bill related to the change in the code might shed light on that simple question.
Having now looked at bills dated 1978, 1972, 1949, and 1923, I still don't have any explanation about why fruits and vegetables were exempt from that prohibition other than they have been exempt from any such prohibition going back at least to 1923, including the years 1949 - 1971 when no person was allowed to place or display merchandise, "on any public right-of-way, street, sidewalk or parkway" at all, because it was considered as constituting "a hazard to persons traveling on the streets of the city."
In 1923, the Council passed an ordinance that it would be unlawful,
In 1949, in an effort to comply with then Section 6625, Revised Statutues of Missouri, 1939, the display of any merchandise other than fruits and vegetables in the public way was banned altogether.
In 1972, City Manager Don Busch wrote by way of explanation in Council bill 9419,
In 1978, in order to accommodate businesses that had conflicts with the dates listed in the ordinance which preceded it (the 1972 ordinance), the language was amended to read,
So, apparently, since well before the City of Springfield became a first class charter City (in 1953) there was an exemption for fruits and vegetables from a prohibition of display on public ways, streets, sidewalks, and parkways in the city. There is no indication that the exemption did not include residential zoned districts, however, neither is there any indication that the exemption did include residential zoned districts. The code simply states fruits and vegetables may be placed or displayed in front of the premises where sold.
We can only speculate as to why fruits and vegetables were always exempt, even to today, from any prohibition of placement or display in the public way in Springfield. I think such speculation, taking into consideration state statute, might be interesting.
According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, the 1923 ordinance established the 1936 related code, and there is no record of codes dating before 1936.
"I went all the way back to the 1936 Code, fruits and vegetables were exempted out then. We don’t have any codes any earlier than that in our office; I have no idea what happened to them," Cirtin wrote in an email.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other day I mentioned I would continue to update "JackeHammer" regarding the Urban Garden Task Force and issues related to its eventual goal of providing recommendations for definitions and an ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will, in turn, provide recommendations to the City Council regarding how the City will deal with urban gardening and potential sales of fruits and/or vegetables in all districts of Springfield.
I was, at the time, awaiting requested information related to the City Code which task force member Petra Butler had discovered.
Since City Code is written based upon ordinances that, at one time, had their humble beginnings as approved City Council bills, I sought, through the procurement of those past Council bills related to section 98-5 of the City Code, the answer to a very simple question,
Why did the City exempt fruits and vegetables from the prohibition of display on public ways, including sidewalks, that section 98-5 instituted in the first place?
It stands to reason the City fathers had a reason for exempting fruits and vegetables from that prohibition, and since the Council bills of today have an in depth explanation about why City staff is seeking amendments to the City code, I thought looking at the bill related to the change in the code might shed light on that simple question.
Having now looked at bills dated 1978, 1972, 1949, and 1923, I still don't have any explanation about why fruits and vegetables were exempt from that prohibition other than they have been exempt from any such prohibition going back at least to 1923, including the years 1949 - 1971 when no person was allowed to place or display merchandise, "on any public right-of-way, street, sidewalk or parkway" at all, because it was considered as constituting "a hazard to persons traveling on the streets of the city."
In 1923, the Council passed an ordinance that it would be unlawful,
"...for any person, firm or corporation to display or exhibit any merchandise upon the sidewalk in front of it, or their place of business except as follows:
That fruits and vegetables when displayed upon the sidewalk cannot encroach upon said sidewalk in excess of two feet from the building line and shall be displayed upon benches or in crates not less than fifteen inches above the sidewalk.
That merchandise other than fruits or vegetables when so displayed shall not be placed upon any sidewalk a distance to exceed two feet from the building line."
In 1949, in an effort to comply with then Section 6625, Revised Statutues of Missouri, 1939, the display of any merchandise other than fruits and vegetables in the public way was banned altogether.
In 1972, City Manager Don Busch wrote by way of explanation in Council bill 9419,
"Last year a two day sidewalk sale was held in July; apparently it was met with some enthusiam. It is proposed that one be held on the days of July 28 and 29 of this year (1972). In order that ordinance authority might exist for such a sale, the attached ordinance is submitted following the outlines of the conditions under which the sales were held last year."
In 1978, in order to accommodate businesses that had conflicts with the dates listed in the ordinance which preceded it (the 1972 ordinance), the language was amended to read,
"No person shall place or cause to be placed or display merchandise on any public way, street, sidewalk, or parkway, except that fruit and vegetables may be so placed or displayed in front of the premises where sold if not less than fifteen (15) inches above the ground or pavement and if not extending more than two (2) feet into the public way. However, the City Manager may establish not more than two (2) sales periods each year. Each sales period shall be not more than two (2) consectuive days, and the sales periods shall be at least two (2) weeks apart. The sales periods shall be held only during the spring, summer or fall months of each year. During each sales period it shall be lawful for licensed business enterprises to display and sell merchandise upon the public sidewalks in accordance with the following conditions...."
So, apparently, since well before the City of Springfield became a first class charter City (in 1953) there was an exemption for fruits and vegetables from a prohibition of display on public ways, streets, sidewalks, and parkways in the city. There is no indication that the exemption did not include residential zoned districts, however, neither is there any indication that the exemption did include residential zoned districts. The code simply states fruits and vegetables may be placed or displayed in front of the premises where sold.
We can only speculate as to why fruits and vegetables were always exempt, even to today, from any prohibition of placement or display in the public way in Springfield. I think such speculation, taking into consideration state statute, might be interesting.
According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, the 1923 ordinance established the 1936 related code, and there is no record of codes dating before 1936.
"I went all the way back to the 1936 Code, fruits and vegetables were exempted out then. We don’t have any codes any earlier than that in our office; I have no idea what happened to them," Cirtin wrote in an email.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, February 27, 2009
Vision 20/20 Inspired, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) should be Revisited, Suspended by the City Council
or tossed in the "paper only" recycling bin until further notice
And, yes, I know the CIP sales tax was voter approved, as was the recent 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, which was rolled into the CIP by the City Council at a recent, past Council meeting. I understand that, as a voter approved sales tax, it isn't as simple as the City Council suspending or tossing the CIP.
I also know a new group, Save Our Springfield (SOS), has recommended that the new Council, to be elected in early April, combined with current Council members Doug Burlison, Ralph Manley, Dan Chiles and Cindy Rushefsky, provide a ballot allowing for the expiration of the 1/4-cent CIP sales tax, rather than one calling for extension of the sales tax, and instead, provide for a 1/4-cent pension fund sales tax initiative to replace it. By allowing the CIP sales tax to sunset and be replaced by a pension sales tax proposal of the same amount on the ballot, voters could approve the 1/4-cent pension sales tax with no increase in taxes.
Later, after the pension plan shortfall has been addressed, through that 1/4-cent pension sales tax and other contributions from the City, (I don't think anyone is expecting the 1/4-cent sales tax to completely repair the pension shortfall), SOS has stated, the CIP could be brought back for renewal. In fact, such a move might even allow the City adequate time to revisit the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive and Strategic Plans before the CIP sales tax is placed on the ballot in the future.
My understanding of the CIP is that it is a necessary evil the City must prepare, and the Council must approve, in order for the City to request matching funds from other government entities, much like the Five Year Consolidated Plan, the current Council is expected to approve before the April election, is required in order for the City "to be eligible to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program" (as I noted on page 4 of the December 17, 2008 issue of "Community Free Press," under the heading of "CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Community Block Grants Could Fund Enforcement").
In fact, I was assured by the City's Special Project Manager Mike Brothers, that in regards to the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, recently rolled into the CIP, when a 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax project is proposed as a cost share, it does come before the City Council (see: "Update on 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Issue"). At the time of that "update," back on July 30, 2008, I had questions about when and under what bill identification the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax project(s) would come before the City Council.
In his June 29, 2008, email to me, Brothers wrote:
Why does it matter in regards to the Vision 20/20 public input process? Because CIP projects are predicated by the public input process which resulted in the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive and Strategic Plans.
Brother's assurances that Council would oversee and have an opportunity to revisit any project the City had proposed was meant to satisfy me, and my readers, that the public would have another opportunity to weigh in and the final decision on any given Transportation Sales Tax project would be approved by Springfield's elected representatives and not administratively, just as the recent Wayfinding Sign project was placed as a one reading resolution for the approval of our elected representatives before the City could go ahead with an over $300,000 contract with a Michigan company to design and fabricate Wayfinding signs. Our representatives were split on that vote, but a lame duck Council of four plus, one Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky, chose to approve the contract and continue the project.
The publics' voices were heard. Right?
At the Council luncheon, when it was decided, at the request of Councilman Denny Whayne, to reconsider whether now was the time to go forward with the Wayfinding Sign contract, I believe it was Mayor Carlson who said public input had already been received, leaving, at least, this lowly blogger with the impression that Council would be revisiting it, not the public.
Somehow, I'm not sure how it happened, but somehow, six members of the public who, mostly, happened to be representatives of organizations associated or loosely associated with Springfield City government, happened to be there to turn in cards to speak in support of the Wayfinding Sign project, before it was even added to the February 23, Council agenda. A couple of other citizens, who just happen to regularly attend meetings, managed to slip a card to the City Clerk in time to address the other side of the issue but, there was no real notice given to the public that they'd have another opportunity to speak to the issue prior to the meeting.
I note this occurence because it seemed inconsistant with another recent meeting, in which Councilwoman Rushefsky wanted to question Walmart representatives, who happened to be in attendance that night, about a bill but the Mayor, instead, said there would need to be notice that the issue would be reopened, so those members of the public who were not aware it would be reopened that night, could make plans to be in attendance for the next meeting:
There was no vote taken for a continuance, to make sure the public was aware the Wayfinding sign issue was reopened for public hearing at the meeting wherein Council revisited the Wayfinding sign contract, and subsequently, approved it. I found that interesting considering 6 people who supported the Wayfinding sign project took their chances they'd be allowed to speak. Do you find that interesting?
The reasoning behind the Wayfinding sign projects approval is, and was, that the public had voted to approve the 2007-2010 CIP (now available at a City Web site, linked below) which listed the project. But, as noted, the City Council, as the taxpayers' representatives, are expected to have the final say, and the City Councils' final say should take into account the voters' wishes at the moment the expenditure(s) are approved. The CIP represents a wish list of the City government based on a wish list of the public who happened to attend the Vision 20/20 meetings and offered their opinions about priorities. For an interesting read on that ongoing (?) process, check out: "busplunge: Sidewalks: Ferguson, New & Weaver OR Fort Street? Campbell Street?"
Excerpts from the busplunge entry:
Who represents the City of Springfield or your neighborhood? 35 people? 350 people? Hundreds of people?
If the 35 or 350 people "the bus" referred to, represent the entire voting population's views on what are priority projects of the City, all I can say is "God, please help us."
I've sent an email to the City Clerk with a request that she forward it to the City staff employee in charge of overseeing the Vision 20/20 process. I asked some questions which haven't been answered yet but that, I feel, hold great relevance to the Vision 20/20 process and the priorities set in the CIP.
The Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan states:
Questions I have asked in an email:
If I get the answer to that question, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, here is some information I alluded to providing in a previous comment under another posting:
Vision 20/20 Questions and Answers:
Question: In total, how many different "elements" are there to the Vision 20/20 Plan?
Answer: Eight.
Question: May I have a complete list of each of the different "elements" which have generated a separate Vision 20/20 document or report?
Answer: Center City, Community Facilities, Community Physical Image and Character, Growth Management and land use, Historic Preservation, Neighborhoods, Parks Open Space and Greenways, Transportation
Question: How many total pages are there in the Vision 20/20 Plan when one adds up all the different reports covering different "elements" of the plan?
Answer: Based on the copies online:
> Historic Preservation and Land Use – 118 pages
> Center City – 108 pages
> Community Facilities – 52 pages
> Community Physical Image and Character – 46 pages
> Growth Management – 30 pages
> Neighborhoods – 47 pages
> Parks, Open Space, and Greenways – 182 pages
> Transportation – 254 pages
> TOTAL PAGES – 837 pages
Question: Finally, a rhetorical question (since I got an answer, I am posting this): How can the average working citizen of this City be expected to be informed when such a document is so inaccessible (prior to my queries) and so much of the City's capital expenditures are linked to it?
Answer: By definition, a rhetorical question does not request an answer – however, this is a very good question. Over 350 citizens of Springfield and Greene County worked a total of roughly 16 months on the background for this comprehensive plan. The actual documents were written by a consultant. A decision was made to use a consultant to avoid hiring additional staff. There were numerous public events to present and get feedback on the elements of plan before adoption. This included the VisionFest which was a day-long Saturday event attended by roughly 1,000 citizens. The newspaper and television stations gave coverage to the plan. At the time of adoption, I think the citizens were more familiar with the plan than they are today.
All the elements are on the City’s website and have been for some time. The elements of the plan were adopted between 1998 and 2001.
(Source: Ann Razer. I do not know Ms. Razer's official title but according to the City Clerk she is, "presently over the Vision 20/20 process")
While all the elements to the plan are available at the City's Web site, they were not easily accessible to the public because they were not listed under the headings of Vision 20/20 and CIP, at the time I began my search the only CIP document which was currently available was the most recent report approved by the City Council. I had to seek assistance from the City Clerk and Ms. Razer in order to locate them as they were listed under a "Comprehensive Planning Office" page, apparently, the Comprehensive Planning Office is a branch of the Planning & Development Department of Planning Services. I will note that the City Clerk and Ms. Razer have made available documents which were not available online when I first began looking for them. Yesterday, the Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan was added and today past CIP reports have been added and are now available to the public online. It is for this reason I have confidence in the City of Springfield's City Clerk. She listens and she addresses issues as they are raised. We should all thank her for her responsiveness. I'll also note, I have not checked the City's Web site to see if they might have honored my recommendation that they list these items in the City Web site's "Site Map" under Vision 20/20 and CIP so that the general public can more easily access them but, it wouldn't surprise me if that wily Clerk hadn't taken action on that, as well. Thanks, Ms. Cirtin!
The links are listed as "Planning Documents and Reports for Download," here are the available links:
Additional information. There were complaints from City Manager Greg Burris that voter turn out was low in the February 3 election, in which voters voted down a 1 percent sales tax to fund the police and firefighters pension plan. Because voter turnout has been reported to be consistently low in all February elections, I asked County Clerk Richard Struckhoff for some information going back to 1998 on voter turnout for February elections. Following is the information from that query as provided in documents made available by the Greene County Clerk*:
Percentage of voter turnout for February election in:
1998: 22.59
2001: 9.19
2002: 20.70
2003: 7.01
2004: 24.34
2005: 2.98
2007: 6.56
2008: 39.11
2009: 17.15**
*If a year is not listed, there was no February election held in February of that year
Update: **I averaged the February election voter turn out from 1998-2008 (or over a 10 year period) by totalling the turn out for those years and dividing that sum by the total of years represented (8), that average was 16.56 percent February election voter turn out, making the 17.15 percent voter turn out for the February 2009, election slightly above the 10 year average for February election voter turn out (0.59%).
If that total represented by the last ten years is divided by 10 years as opposed to the 8 years represented, the average would be 13.25 percent. Which would make the February, 2009 election above the average of February election voter turn out by almost 4 percent (3.9%).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, yes, I know the CIP sales tax was voter approved, as was the recent 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, which was rolled into the CIP by the City Council at a recent, past Council meeting. I understand that, as a voter approved sales tax, it isn't as simple as the City Council suspending or tossing the CIP.
I also know a new group, Save Our Springfield (SOS), has recommended that the new Council, to be elected in early April, combined with current Council members Doug Burlison, Ralph Manley, Dan Chiles and Cindy Rushefsky, provide a ballot allowing for the expiration of the 1/4-cent CIP sales tax, rather than one calling for extension of the sales tax, and instead, provide for a 1/4-cent pension fund sales tax initiative to replace it. By allowing the CIP sales tax to sunset and be replaced by a pension sales tax proposal of the same amount on the ballot, voters could approve the 1/4-cent pension sales tax with no increase in taxes.
Later, after the pension plan shortfall has been addressed, through that 1/4-cent pension sales tax and other contributions from the City, (I don't think anyone is expecting the 1/4-cent sales tax to completely repair the pension shortfall), SOS has stated, the CIP could be brought back for renewal. In fact, such a move might even allow the City adequate time to revisit the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive and Strategic Plans before the CIP sales tax is placed on the ballot in the future.
My understanding of the CIP is that it is a necessary evil the City must prepare, and the Council must approve, in order for the City to request matching funds from other government entities, much like the Five Year Consolidated Plan, the current Council is expected to approve before the April election, is required in order for the City "to be eligible to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program" (as I noted on page 4 of the December 17, 2008 issue of "Community Free Press," under the heading of "CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Community Block Grants Could Fund Enforcement").
In fact, I was assured by the City's Special Project Manager Mike Brothers, that in regards to the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax, recently rolled into the CIP, when a 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax project is proposed as a cost share, it does come before the City Council (see: "Update on 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax Issue"). At the time of that "update," back on July 30, 2008, I had questions about when and under what bill identification the 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax project(s) would come before the City Council.
In his June 29, 2008, email to me, Brothers wrote:
"...anything involving the 1/8 cent goes to Council. Any kind of cost share with MoDOT or private developers or anyone else would go to Council for approval. Smaller projects on down to sidewalks would still have to be bid out to developers and that would require Council approval, too. So there are no staff decisions (if that's what you meant by administrative) as to how to allocate the money."
Why does it matter in regards to the Vision 20/20 public input process? Because CIP projects are predicated by the public input process which resulted in the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive and Strategic Plans.
Brother's assurances that Council would oversee and have an opportunity to revisit any project the City had proposed was meant to satisfy me, and my readers, that the public would have another opportunity to weigh in and the final decision on any given Transportation Sales Tax project would be approved by Springfield's elected representatives and not administratively, just as the recent Wayfinding Sign project was placed as a one reading resolution for the approval of our elected representatives before the City could go ahead with an over $300,000 contract with a Michigan company to design and fabricate Wayfinding signs. Our representatives were split on that vote, but a lame duck Council of four plus, one Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky, chose to approve the contract and continue the project.
The publics' voices were heard. Right?
At the Council luncheon, when it was decided, at the request of Councilman Denny Whayne, to reconsider whether now was the time to go forward with the Wayfinding Sign contract, I believe it was Mayor Carlson who said public input had already been received, leaving, at least, this lowly blogger with the impression that Council would be revisiting it, not the public.
Somehow, I'm not sure how it happened, but somehow, six members of the public who, mostly, happened to be representatives of organizations associated or loosely associated with Springfield City government, happened to be there to turn in cards to speak in support of the Wayfinding Sign project, before it was even added to the February 23, Council agenda. A couple of other citizens, who just happen to regularly attend meetings, managed to slip a card to the City Clerk in time to address the other side of the issue but, there was no real notice given to the public that they'd have another opportunity to speak to the issue prior to the meeting.
I note this occurence because it seemed inconsistant with another recent meeting, in which Councilwoman Rushefsky wanted to question Walmart representatives, who happened to be in attendance that night, about a bill but the Mayor, instead, said there would need to be notice that the issue would be reopened, so those members of the public who were not aware it would be reopened that night, could make plans to be in attendance for the next meeting:
"Rushefsky made a motion to continue the bill (to the next meeting) because she wanted to question Wal-Mart representatives on behalf of her constituents, and this could only be accomplished (according to Mayor Tom Carlson) by reopening the public hearing. Continuing it will allow the public to have notice the hearing has been reopened, (so the public would know they had another opportunity to speak to the issue) Rushefsky’s motion was passed by a majority of Council." (See CFP's December 3, 2008, issue and go to TV23 and click on the November 24, 2008, City Council meeting and then the bookmark for Bill number 2008-344 to hear Carlson's reasoning.)
There was no vote taken for a continuance, to make sure the public was aware the Wayfinding sign issue was reopened for public hearing at the meeting wherein Council revisited the Wayfinding sign contract, and subsequently, approved it. I found that interesting considering 6 people who supported the Wayfinding sign project took their chances they'd be allowed to speak. Do you find that interesting?
The reasoning behind the Wayfinding sign projects approval is, and was, that the public had voted to approve the 2007-2010 CIP (now available at a City Web site, linked below) which listed the project. But, as noted, the City Council, as the taxpayers' representatives, are expected to have the final say, and the City Councils' final say should take into account the voters' wishes at the moment the expenditure(s) are approved. The CIP represents a wish list of the City government based on a wish list of the public who happened to attend the Vision 20/20 meetings and offered their opinions about priorities. For an interesting read on that ongoing (?) process, check out: "busplunge: Sidewalks: Ferguson, New & Weaver OR Fort Street? Campbell Street?"
Excerpts from the busplunge entry:
"Almost four years ago, on Saturday, May 1, 2004, 35 people attended a Fassnight neighborhood assessment workshop held in the Portland Elementary School all purpose room....
...I shoulda gone, my neighbor thinks he should have gone. This is almost like the 350 people who made up Vision 20/20 deciding things for the city or that small group who went to the quarry meeting. We shoulda gone, yep, shoulda, coulda, woulda."
Who represents the City of Springfield or your neighborhood? 35 people? 350 people? Hundreds of people?
If the 35 or 350 people "the bus" referred to, represent the entire voting population's views on what are priority projects of the City, all I can say is "God, please help us."
I've sent an email to the City Clerk with a request that she forward it to the City staff employee in charge of overseeing the Vision 20/20 process. I asked some questions which haven't been answered yet but that, I feel, hold great relevance to the Vision 20/20 process and the priorities set in the CIP.
The Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan states:
"The 2004 VISION 20/20 Strategic Plan for Springfield and Greene County is an outgrowth of the planning process undertaken in the mid-1990s and the plan elements that were prepared and adopted as a result of that planning process. The process was citizen-driven and involved hundreds of volunteers...."
Questions I have asked in an email:
"I believe people who are interested in coming to an understanding of the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive and Strategic Plans want to know the identities and associations of the citizens who "drove" the process and the hundreds of volunteers who decided how capital expenditures should be spent on the Springfield/Greene-County taxpayers' behalf.
Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective) people are suspicious of who this "public" was who decided what the City would spend their tax dollars on from the inception of the plan and forever after. Personally, and I think most people would agree, the citizens involved in a process which determined future expenditures for, what appears to have become eternity, should be identified, as they are being allowed to speak on behalf of every tax payer in the City of Springfield and every tax payer in Greene-County. People want to know who these people were who determined the future growth of our City and therefore, the use of their taxes and whether these people have associational ties within the City government, for instance, are they members of non-profit groups whose budgets have been or were being subsidized from the City of Springfield's general budget? I believe these unanswered questions are the primary cause of most of the underlying suspicion present among Springfield/Greene County tax payers today. Since it was a public process, that information should also be public information, correct?"
If I get the answer to that question, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, here is some information I alluded to providing in a previous comment under another posting:
Vision 20/20 Questions and Answers:
Question: In total, how many different "elements" are there to the Vision 20/20 Plan?
Answer: Eight.
Question: May I have a complete list of each of the different "elements" which have generated a separate Vision 20/20 document or report?
Answer: Center City, Community Facilities, Community Physical Image and Character, Growth Management and land use, Historic Preservation, Neighborhoods, Parks Open Space and Greenways, Transportation
Question: How many total pages are there in the Vision 20/20 Plan when one adds up all the different reports covering different "elements" of the plan?
Answer: Based on the copies online:
> Historic Preservation and Land Use – 118 pages
> Center City – 108 pages
> Community Facilities – 52 pages
> Community Physical Image and Character – 46 pages
> Growth Management – 30 pages
> Neighborhoods – 47 pages
> Parks, Open Space, and Greenways – 182 pages
> Transportation – 254 pages
> TOTAL PAGES – 837 pages
Question: Finally, a rhetorical question (since I got an answer, I am posting this): How can the average working citizen of this City be expected to be informed when such a document is so inaccessible (prior to my queries) and so much of the City's capital expenditures are linked to it?
Answer: By definition, a rhetorical question does not request an answer – however, this is a very good question. Over 350 citizens of Springfield and Greene County worked a total of roughly 16 months on the background for this comprehensive plan. The actual documents were written by a consultant. A decision was made to use a consultant to avoid hiring additional staff. There were numerous public events to present and get feedback on the elements of plan before adoption. This included the VisionFest which was a day-long Saturday event attended by roughly 1,000 citizens. The newspaper and television stations gave coverage to the plan. At the time of adoption, I think the citizens were more familiar with the plan than they are today.
All the elements are on the City’s website and have been for some time. The elements of the plan were adopted between 1998 and 2001.
(Source: Ann Razer. I do not know Ms. Razer's official title but according to the City Clerk she is, "presently over the Vision 20/20 process")
While all the elements to the plan are available at the City's Web site, they were not easily accessible to the public because they were not listed under the headings of Vision 20/20 and CIP, at the time I began my search the only CIP document which was currently available was the most recent report approved by the City Council. I had to seek assistance from the City Clerk and Ms. Razer in order to locate them as they were listed under a "Comprehensive Planning Office" page, apparently, the Comprehensive Planning Office is a branch of the Planning & Development Department of Planning Services. I will note that the City Clerk and Ms. Razer have made available documents which were not available online when I first began looking for them. Yesterday, the Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan was added and today past CIP reports have been added and are now available to the public online. It is for this reason I have confidence in the City of Springfield's City Clerk. She listens and she addresses issues as they are raised. We should all thank her for her responsiveness. I'll also note, I have not checked the City's Web site to see if they might have honored my recommendation that they list these items in the City Web site's "Site Map" under Vision 20/20 and CIP so that the general public can more easily access them but, it wouldn't surprise me if that wily Clerk hadn't taken action on that, as well. Thanks, Ms. Cirtin!
The links are listed as "Planning Documents and Reports for Download," here are the available links:
Comprehensive Plan (all are PDF)
> Center City
> Community Facilities
> Community Physical Image and Character
> Growth Management and Land Use
> Historic Preservation
> Neighborhoods
> Parks, Open Space, and Greenways
> Transportation
> Capital Improvements Program 2009-2014
> Capital Improvements Program 2008-2013
> Capital Improvements Program 2007-2012
> Capital Improvements Program 2006-2011
> Southeast Springfield Development Study
> Vision 20/20 Strategic Plan
> Year End Report, Year 3
> Year End Report, Year 2
> Year End Report, Year 1
Additional information. There were complaints from City Manager Greg Burris that voter turn out was low in the February 3 election, in which voters voted down a 1 percent sales tax to fund the police and firefighters pension plan. Because voter turnout has been reported to be consistently low in all February elections, I asked County Clerk Richard Struckhoff for some information going back to 1998 on voter turnout for February elections. Following is the information from that query as provided in documents made available by the Greene County Clerk*:
Percentage of voter turnout for February election in:
1998: 22.59
2001: 9.19
2002: 20.70
2003: 7.01
2004: 24.34
2005: 2.98
2007: 6.56
2008: 39.11
2009: 17.15**
*If a year is not listed, there was no February election held in February of that year
Update: **I averaged the February election voter turn out from 1998-2008 (or over a 10 year period) by totalling the turn out for those years and dividing that sum by the total of years represented (8), that average was 16.56 percent February election voter turn out, making the 17.15 percent voter turn out for the February 2009, election slightly above the 10 year average for February election voter turn out (0.59%).
If that total represented by the last ten years is divided by 10 years as opposed to the 8 years represented, the average would be 13.25 percent. Which would make the February, 2009 election above the average of February election voter turn out by almost 4 percent (3.9%).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Summary of April 20, 2004 City Council Luncheon Meeting
The First City Council Presentation of the Wayfinding Sign System as Noted in the City's White Paper
Members present: Tom Carlson, Mary Collette, John Wylie, Denny Whayne, Gary Deaver, Sheila Wright, Conrad Griggs, and Bob Jones. Ralph Manley was absent.
Guests present: Jeff Corbin, Consultant, Corbin Design Group; Barb Baker, Urban Districts Alliance (UDA); Tracy Kimberlin, Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB); Dale Ricks, and Leo Kalona, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDot); Christina Moses, Battlefield Mall; and Members of the Media.
Staff present: Tom Finnie, and Bob Cumley, City Manager's Office; Ralph Rognstad, Vern Morgan, Mary Lily Smith, and Brendan Griesmer, Planning and Development; Earl Newman, Public Works; Louise Whall, Public Information Office; Howard Wright, City Attorney; Brenda Cirtin, and Anita Baker, City Clerk's Office.
According to the notes, Tom Finnie made some remarks about wayfinding signs, then introduced Vern Morgan of Planning and Development. Mr. Morgan noted that Bass Pro and Wonders of Wildlife representatives had been invited to the meeting but, were not present.
Mr. Corbin gave a "Wayfinding and Cross Marketing Challenge" presentation. Corbin said approximately 70 percent of all visitors to Springfield explore one of three major destinations: Bass Pro/Wonders of Wildlife; Downtown/Jordan Valley Park; and the Battlefield Mall.
Corbin discussed cross marketing secondary attractions like the Dickerson Park Zoo by using informational kiosks or pedestrian maps at the three major destinations. He also talked about using existing billboards to advertise Jordan Valley Park within the Wayfinding System.
Other points Corbin discussed were: The need for periodic realignment of destinations listed in the Wayfinding System; The total cost of $600,000; The need to set aside $200,000 of the total cost for "gateways"; that 15 percent of the total spent on the signage should be designated each year for maintenance of the signs; and the signs should be replaced about every 7 years.
Corbin recommended the following steps to implement the program:
In an insuing discussion about the wayfinding signs the following points were made by different people throughout the course of the discussion:
> The issue of electronic marketing, such as radio, was a recommendation for the cross marketing destinations within the City. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> An area around Kansas City had been court ordered to implement "enhancements" (presumably like the wayfinding signs) but, not to the extent Springfield was discussing implementing them. (Ricks, MoDot)
> MoDot did not want distracting signage which could be linked or related to an accident. (Ricks, MoDot)
> The Wayfinding System would be similar to the "monument idea" proposed as a Highway 13 entrance to the City. (Finnie, City Manager's office)
> Costs could be divided between several entities, if so desired by the City. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> Federal or state grants via transportation enhancement monies would be options related to financing a portion of the Wayfinding System. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> 35 percent of tourists in Springfield also visited Branson. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> 17 percent of over-night travelers who stayed in Springfield also went to Branson. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> Finances were a major reason the City did not advertise or market the Zoo in 2004. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> The CVB and Chamber of Commerce had had meetings to "brand" the City of Springfield for marketing purposes but, had not come to a decision or conclusion. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> One of the themes for review by the Chamber of Commerce regarding "branding" the City of Springfield was, "a common name in an uncommon place." (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> Existing wayfinding signage would be replaced for a consistent look throughout the system. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> A better system was needed to guide visitors to the three major destinations; cross market to secondary locations such as the Zoo and Fantastic Caverns. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> Costs of "the three" Corbin Design Group recommended steps were not definite at that time. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group and Morgan, Planning and Development)
> Funds were available at the time from the quarter-cent monies for the signage. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
(Source: City of Springfield; City Council Luncheon Notes, April 20, 2004)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Members present: Tom Carlson, Mary Collette, John Wylie, Denny Whayne, Gary Deaver, Sheila Wright, Conrad Griggs, and Bob Jones. Ralph Manley was absent.
Guests present: Jeff Corbin, Consultant, Corbin Design Group; Barb Baker, Urban Districts Alliance (UDA); Tracy Kimberlin, Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB); Dale Ricks, and Leo Kalona, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDot); Christina Moses, Battlefield Mall; and Members of the Media.
Staff present: Tom Finnie, and Bob Cumley, City Manager's Office; Ralph Rognstad, Vern Morgan, Mary Lily Smith, and Brendan Griesmer, Planning and Development; Earl Newman, Public Works; Louise Whall, Public Information Office; Howard Wright, City Attorney; Brenda Cirtin, and Anita Baker, City Clerk's Office.
According to the notes, Tom Finnie made some remarks about wayfinding signs, then introduced Vern Morgan of Planning and Development. Mr. Morgan noted that Bass Pro and Wonders of Wildlife representatives had been invited to the meeting but, were not present.
Mr. Corbin gave a "Wayfinding and Cross Marketing Challenge" presentation. Corbin said approximately 70 percent of all visitors to Springfield explore one of three major destinations: Bass Pro/Wonders of Wildlife; Downtown/Jordan Valley Park; and the Battlefield Mall.
Corbin discussed cross marketing secondary attractions like the Dickerson Park Zoo by using informational kiosks or pedestrian maps at the three major destinations. He also talked about using existing billboards to advertise Jordan Valley Park within the Wayfinding System.
Other points Corbin discussed were: The need for periodic realignment of destinations listed in the Wayfinding System; The total cost of $600,000; The need to set aside $200,000 of the total cost for "gateways"; that 15 percent of the total spent on the signage should be designated each year for maintenance of the signs; and the signs should be replaced about every 7 years.
Corbin recommended the following steps to implement the program:
1. Clarify MoDot's position/role
2. Design the program
3. Test the design
4. Document the project
5. Bid the project
6. Fabricate and install the signs
In an insuing discussion about the wayfinding signs the following points were made by different people throughout the course of the discussion:
> The issue of electronic marketing, such as radio, was a recommendation for the cross marketing destinations within the City. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> An area around Kansas City had been court ordered to implement "enhancements" (presumably like the wayfinding signs) but, not to the extent Springfield was discussing implementing them. (Ricks, MoDot)
> MoDot did not want distracting signage which could be linked or related to an accident. (Ricks, MoDot)
> The Wayfinding System would be similar to the "monument idea" proposed as a Highway 13 entrance to the City. (Finnie, City Manager's office)
> Costs could be divided between several entities, if so desired by the City. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> Federal or state grants via transportation enhancement monies would be options related to financing a portion of the Wayfinding System. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> 35 percent of tourists in Springfield also visited Branson. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> 17 percent of over-night travelers who stayed in Springfield also went to Branson. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> Finances were a major reason the City did not advertise or market the Zoo in 2004. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> The CVB and Chamber of Commerce had had meetings to "brand" the City of Springfield for marketing purposes but, had not come to a decision or conclusion. (Kimberlin, CVB)
> One of the themes for review by the Chamber of Commerce regarding "branding" the City of Springfield was, "a common name in an uncommon place." (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> Existing wayfinding signage would be replaced for a consistent look throughout the system. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group)
> A better system was needed to guide visitors to the three major destinations; cross market to secondary locations such as the Zoo and Fantastic Caverns. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
> Costs of "the three" Corbin Design Group recommended steps were not definite at that time. (Corbin, Corbin Design Group and Morgan, Planning and Development)
> Funds were available at the time from the quarter-cent monies for the signage. (Finnie, City Manager's Office)
(Source: City of Springfield; City Council Luncheon Notes, April 20, 2004)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, February 16, 2009
Election Results as Certified by the City Council on February 9, 2009
According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, the agenda for the February 9, City Council meeting may not ever be published at the City Web site (the City has been fighting a computer virus).
Since Council Bill 2009-032, certifying the February 3, election is still not available in a bill search at the City's Web site, I thought I would go ahead and post those certified results as a community service. I did not verify whether any of the other bills which were passed at the February 9, meeting have been made available through a bill search at the site.
Following are the the election results as certified by the City Council at the February 9, City Council meeting:
For the office of Mayor:
Jim O'Neal 10,967
Sandra Queen Noble 1,507
Christopher M. Donegan 3,689
Tamara Finocchiaro 1,725
For General Council Seat A
Robert L. "Bob" Stephens 7,814
Lyle Q. Foster 3,819
Tom Martz 4,165
For General Council Seat B
John Rush 8,178
Jason P. Lillard 2,730
Fred B. Ellison 4,811
For Council Zone 1
Nicholas Ibarra 1,413
Denny Whayne 1,191
Cameron Eaton 602
Question 1:
"Shall the City of Springfield impose a sales tax at a rate of one percent solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the Springfield Police and Firefighters Pension System with said tax to sunset upon the earlier of A) Five (5) years from the date of the commencement of collection of this tax or B) the Pension System fund reaching a fully-funded (100%) status as determined by an independent actuarial study conducted for the Pension System Board of Trustees?"
Yes 9,160
No 10,041
--------------------------------------------
The two candidates who received the majority of votes were certified as eligible for the General Municipal Election in April 2009.
Those candidates were: For Mayor, John O'Neal and Christopher M. Donegan; for General Council Seat A, "Bob" Stephens and Tom Martz; for General Council Seat B, John Rush and Fred B. Ellison; for Council Zone 1, Nicholas Ibarra and Denny Whayne.
It was also declared that Question 1 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since Council Bill 2009-032, certifying the February 3, election is still not available in a bill search at the City's Web site, I thought I would go ahead and post those certified results as a community service. I did not verify whether any of the other bills which were passed at the February 9, meeting have been made available through a bill search at the site.
Following are the the election results as certified by the City Council at the February 9, City Council meeting:
For the office of Mayor:
Jim O'Neal 10,967
Sandra Queen Noble 1,507
Christopher M. Donegan 3,689
Tamara Finocchiaro 1,725
For General Council Seat A
Robert L. "Bob" Stephens 7,814
Lyle Q. Foster 3,819
Tom Martz 4,165
For General Council Seat B
John Rush 8,178
Jason P. Lillard 2,730
Fred B. Ellison 4,811
For Council Zone 1
Nicholas Ibarra 1,413
Denny Whayne 1,191
Cameron Eaton 602
Question 1:
"Shall the City of Springfield impose a sales tax at a rate of one percent solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the Springfield Police and Firefighters Pension System with said tax to sunset upon the earlier of A) Five (5) years from the date of the commencement of collection of this tax or B) the Pension System fund reaching a fully-funded (100%) status as determined by an independent actuarial study conducted for the Pension System Board of Trustees?"
Yes 9,160
No 10,041
--------------------------------------------
The two candidates who received the majority of votes were certified as eligible for the General Municipal Election in April 2009.
Those candidates were: For Mayor, John O'Neal and Christopher M. Donegan; for General Council Seat A, "Bob" Stephens and Tom Martz; for General Council Seat B, John Rush and Fred B. Ellison; for Council Zone 1, Nicholas Ibarra and Denny Whayne.
It was also declared that Question 1 failed to pass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
An update on a previous posting
In Tight-fisted City (and Councilman?) make it Difficult, I wrote:
Here's the update:
Upon further communication with City Clerk Brenda Cirtin it has come to my attention that the meeting was posted, but not as a Compensation Package Sub-Committee meeting, it was posted as a "Community Visioning Exercise," because of the way it was posted, it was missed by Ms. Cirtin. It was an unintended oversight on her part.
Ms. Cirtin was unaware of previous queries I had made to Sharon Smith of the City Manager's office and Sharon Smith was out of town when Ms. Cirtin, kindly, tried to assist me with an answer to my question regarding the February 15 meeting. It would be unfair of me to imply that Ms. Cirtin should have known of requests I had previously made to Ms. Smith and I felt that bore noting to readers here.
CFP got a response, on June 18, from City Clerk Brenda Cirtin about the February 15 meeting referred to during the course of the February 1 meeting. The Administrative Assistant for the Committee was out of her office and unable to respond so I had forwarded my query to the City Clerk:
"I have checked our files and there was no meeting posted for the Compensation Package Sub-Committee on February 15." Ms. Cirtin wrote in an email.
Granted, my query specified a particular meeting in this instance, however, originally, I had requested all meeting minutes regarding the committee from Ms. Smith and there were no other meeting minutes beyond the February 1 meeting of the Compensation Package Sub-Committee included with those minutes.
Here's the update:
Upon further communication with City Clerk Brenda Cirtin it has come to my attention that the meeting was posted, but not as a Compensation Package Sub-Committee meeting, it was posted as a "Community Visioning Exercise," because of the way it was posted, it was missed by Ms. Cirtin. It was an unintended oversight on her part.
Ms. Cirtin was unaware of previous queries I had made to Sharon Smith of the City Manager's office and Sharon Smith was out of town when Ms. Cirtin, kindly, tried to assist me with an answer to my question regarding the February 15 meeting. It would be unfair of me to imply that Ms. Cirtin should have known of requests I had previously made to Ms. Smith and I felt that bore noting to readers here.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Tight-fisted City (and Councilman?) make it Difficult
To provide depth, scope, and understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering? (see: Mayor Carlson: Excerpt from the State of the City Report)
In Salary ranges recommended for next city manager, Wes Johnson wrote for the Springfield News-Leader:
Then, Johnson (and the News-Leader) provided the link to the City Manager Compensation Recommendations, I do not know if this is the actual "study" Deaver asked the News-Leader not to publish: Salary ranges recommended for next city manager.
I hope Mayor Carlson is proud of Mr. Johnson for providing such depth and scope, indeed, such understanding of the issue.
CFP requested meeting minutes from all of the City Manager Search Committee meetings and Sub-Committee meetings, including the Compensation Package Sub-Committee. Note was made that at the time of publication of CFP's (June 18) current issue:
CFP got a response, on June 18, from City Clerk Brenda Cirtin about the February 15 meeting referred to during the course of the February 1 meeting. The Administrative Assistant for the Committee was out of her office and unable to respond so I had forwarded my query to the City Clerk:
Granted, my query specified a particular meeting in this instance, however, originally, I had requested all meeting minutes regarding the committee from Ms. Smith and there were no other meeting minutes beyond the February 1 meeting of the Compensation Package Sub-Committee included with those minutes.
At the online supplimental page at CFP you can read, under the heading of "The Four Sub-Committees of the City Manager Search Committee," the information I (or CFP, through me) was provided regarding meetings held by the the over-all city manager's search committee and the sub-committee meetings.
Interesting. Apparently, all of that study and preparation necessary to create the Sub-Committee's recommended salary ranges was accomplished with one meeting of the Compensation Package Sub-Committee.
At the first meeting of the City Manager Search Committee, on January 14, 2008, Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver stressed that the Committee needed to make the search process as open and transparent to the public as possible.
I signed up for news-letters from the City regarding the progress of the search. I can't remember the last time I received one, seriously.
Maybe you're placing the blame on the wrong people, Mayor Carlson? Just a thought.
*emphasis mine
In Salary ranges recommended for next city manager, Wes Johnson wrote for the Springfield News-Leader:
"Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver, who chairs the effort to find a new city manager, said the City Council and Arcus search firm can use the pay study to evaluate what to offer a prospective candidate.
"It's a benchmark tool they can use to understand what wages and compensation is in like-sized cities," Deaver said. "We want to be competitive, but not pay too much."Though he agreed it was a public document, Deaver asked the News-Leader not to publish the subcommittee's pay-range study....*
He acknowledged the search committee and City Council weren't bound by the pay range included in the study."
Then, Johnson (and the News-Leader) provided the link to the City Manager Compensation Recommendations, I do not know if this is the actual "study" Deaver asked the News-Leader not to publish: Salary ranges recommended for next city manager.
I hope Mayor Carlson is proud of Mr. Johnson for providing such depth and scope, indeed, such understanding of the issue.
CFP requested meeting minutes from all of the City Manager Search Committee meetings and Sub-Committee meetings, including the Compensation Package Sub-Committee. Note was made that at the time of publication of CFP's (June 18) current issue:
"The minutes of the February 1 (Compensation Package Sub-Committee) meeting indicated there would be a "brainstorming meeting" held on February 15. Minutes to that meeting, if it took place, were not submitted to CFP and a response to a follow up request for that information did not come in time for inclusion in this publication." (see: Online Supplimentals to the Print Edition).
CFP got a response, on June 18, from City Clerk Brenda Cirtin about the February 15 meeting referred to during the course of the February 1 meeting. The Administrative Assistant for the Committee was out of her office and unable to respond so I had forwarded my query to the City Clerk:
"I have checked our files and there was no meeting posted for the Compensation Package Sub-Committee on February 15." Ms. Cirtin wrote in an email.
Granted, my query specified a particular meeting in this instance, however, originally, I had requested all meeting minutes regarding the committee from Ms. Smith and there were no other meeting minutes beyond the February 1 meeting of the Compensation Package Sub-Committee included with those minutes.
At the online supplimental page at CFP you can read, under the heading of "The Four Sub-Committees of the City Manager Search Committee," the information I (or CFP, through me) was provided regarding meetings held by the the over-all city manager's search committee and the sub-committee meetings.
Interesting. Apparently, all of that study and preparation necessary to create the Sub-Committee's recommended salary ranges was accomplished with one meeting of the Compensation Package Sub-Committee.
At the first meeting of the City Manager Search Committee, on January 14, 2008, Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver stressed that the Committee needed to make the search process as open and transparent to the public as possible.
I signed up for news-letters from the City regarding the progress of the search. I can't remember the last time I received one, seriously.
"It's not like it used to be, there's not the depth, there's not the scope, there's not the understanding on the part of the media, on the topics that they're covering.... It makes it very difficult to get your message out." - Mayor Tom Carlson in his state of the city report.
Maybe you're placing the blame on the wrong people, Mayor Carlson? Just a thought.
*emphasis mine
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Recommended Reading 3
Will the City ask for public input about guidelines for public input?
Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.
I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."
Carlson:
Carlson said he has:
On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.
Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:
Read the article in the News-Leader but pay particular attention to the right hand column "More About This Story" where past public comments are outlined. See if you think the past public comments are unrelated or inappropriate to a School Board meeting.
I'm recommending this in light of the recent suggestion by Mayor Carlson that maybe the Council needs to form a Committee to look at rules pertaining to what the public should be allowed to comment on at City Council meetings under "petitions, remonstrances and communications."
Carlson:
"I don't want to be arbitrary in enforcing the rules but at the same time, I think we need to know what they are and maybe have a Council committee look at, as we come forward, because it seems like we're getting more and more of these things and that may be fine, and we may decide that we wanna be here a lot later for everybody to come talk about whatever they do. Frequently, we have people come and talk about things that have nothing to do with city government, for example."
Carlson said he has:
"...different Council people telling me different things. Some Council people say, uh, "you ought to be able to talk about anything," other people say, "there oughta be some rules around here," and if we wanna have rules, fine, if we don't wanna have rules, fine, I just think we need to get on the same page."
On occasion there is a gentleman who addresses Council only to advertise his personal interests, he does his best to tie it in by suggesting the City should take action to promote his interests but it's mainly an advertisement. It would be unfortunate if one man who has probably appeared 2 or 3 times since April 2007, or a total of 10-15 minutes, gave Council an excuse to limit others from addressing the Council about issues of concern they have with the City.
Something I thought was rather important was left out of my current City Council Roundup column at Community Free Press - Midweek. It was probably edited out before I read the proof and okayed it and I just missed it but I thought it was important in light of supplimentals found at the website. The leed in the section about rules for addressing Council that was removed:
"According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin the city's guidelines for addressing Council have evolved over the years. The roots for the guidelines are found in Chapter 2 (Administration), Sections 43-45 of the Springfield Municipal Code. As the guidelines have evolved, addressing Council about issues not on the agenda have changed to that of simply registering with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., the Friday preceding the Monday meeting. The current guidelines do not indicate the registration must be done in writing, as stated in the code."
You can access the supplimentals at the Community Free Press - Midweek website. They are:
Municipal Code Chapter 2, Administration, Sections 43-34
A Citizen's Guide to Addressing Council, from the city's website
Public Hearing Procedures, a handout available at all Council meetings
It seems counterproductive to me that at the same time the City is seeking public input in so many areas, the Council and School Board are discussing restricting established public speaking venues. In fact, as I was getting ready to post this entry I received a news release from the City that they'd like public input on the proposed speed limit reduction for residential streets.
If the Council decides to form a Committee to study the guidelines for addressing Council do you think they'll seek public input about whether public input should be allowed on topics not on the agenda or will the Committee, formed by elected officials, "represent us" in that regard?
Related: School board seeks more public input written by Kris Callen, president of the Springfield Board of Education, excerpt:
"To the News-Leader's credit, they were the only media to cover the retreat with a reporter present for a portion of the evening. With that presence, readers should expect accurate headlines and complete coverage. And while the retreat was posted as an open meeting and patrons could have attended, we have no expectation that most citizens would choose to spend their entire Thursday night attending a four-hour meeting. This leads to a more important reason for accurate and complete reporting. Citizens rely on the media for correct information regarding the work of their public entities and boards when they cannot or choose not to attend in person. We do not believe this occurred in this instance and hope that future articles and headlines will more accurately reflect the true nature and extent of the discussion."
Related: from KSGF's Vincent David Jericho Program, February 05,_How can we make dialogue between parents and Springfield Public Schools healthier, Tuesday, February 05, 2008, Guest: Dr. Ridder- Springfield Public Schools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
