I'll bet you didn't know...

...On this day in 1535 the first complete English Bible was printed....

Council Bill 2008-280

The resolution adopting:

"...a Memorandum of Understanding for Employment of Greg Burris as City Manager effective September 15, 2008, and by authorizing payment of benefits in accordance with provisions set forth therein."

...will be presented at Monday night's City Council meeting as a one reading consent agenda bill.

To read the four page ordinance setting the terms of compensation and listing the bullet points for that compensation agreed upon between the city and new city manager Greg Burris, click the above link.

Citizens wishing to address the Council regarding the terms of compensation laid out in the resolution will be required to request Council Bill 2008-280 be removed from the consent agenda prior to the Council meeting, or upon the Mayor's invitation at the beginning of the Council meeting. Citizens can request its removal by letting the City Clerk or her surrogate know before Carlson brings up the question, if they so choose.

Did you see this coming?

15. COUNCIL BILL 2008-208.

"The City Council approved a Development Agreement ("Development Agreement") between the City and 910 Springfield, L.L.C. ("Opus"), on June 30, 2008. The Development Agreement obligates the City to provide tax abatement* to the land to be purchased, and the office building to be constructed, by Opus pursuant to the Development Agreement. The Developer has requested tax abatement* in the form of issuance of Industrial Development Bonds pursuant to Chapter 100, RSMo("Chapter 100") as authorized* in the Development Agreement.

"Pursuant to Chapter 100, the land and improvements to be constructed by Opus will be owned by the City and leased to Opus. As a result of the City's ownership of the Project, the site will be exempt from payment of real property taxes.* The project is expected to cost $21,500,000* and bonds will be issued in that amount to fund the acquisition and construction of the project. Opus will purchase the bonds. Principal and interest on the bonds will be paid solely with revenue derived from rent payments under the lease agreement between the City and Opus."

My collegue, Stu, over at Stu's Potluck was wondering today why that Hammon's Agreement was made an "emergency bill" at the June 30, Council meeting, I think he might have just got his answer.

*all emphasis, mine

Update: Companion, item 17. COUNCIL BILL 2008-209.

"WHEREAS, 910 Springfield, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company"), has requested that the City (i) approve a plan for a project for the building for use as office industry located at 910 St. Louis Street in the City of Springfield, Missouri (the "Project"), (ii) issue its industrial develoment revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $21,500,000 to provide funds to pay the costs of the Project, and (iii) lease the Project to the Company with an option to purchase the Project, for the purpose of financing the costs of the Project, all in accordance with and pursuant to the Act; and..."

This bill is a resolution, meaning it only requires one reading for the Council to find and determine:

"...that the Project will promote the economic welfare and the development of the City...,"

among other things. Read it for yourself.

Transportation Tax Uses - TBA

Regarding the general nature of what the transportation tax can be used for, here is Ms. Whall's answer:

"We will be developing the project list in more detail, similar to what is on the Web site for previous project lists, for the election materials after it receives final approval."

I hope the language is less general in nature than that in Bill 2008-116.

Council Bill 2008-132

...and a refresher course on procedure for addressing the Council

Item 13 is Council Bill 2008-132 and regards the city budget, for public hearing:

"PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD FOLLOWING SECOND READING BILLS. NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE VOTED ON. A special ordinance adopting a budget for the City of Springfield, Missouri, for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 and providing that certain amounts shown in the budget document are appropriated for the various departments specified in said budget, and declaring an emergency."

The Council may decide to hold the public hearing over but aren't required to do so. That means if you have a comment on the city budget, tonight will be the night to address council about it.

Since it is an item on the agenda, it isn't necessary to do anything other than show up, fill out a card (found in the back of the pew in front of you) and submit it to the City Clerk, Brenda Cirtin.

There are two times when it is necessary to contact the City Clerk on the Friday before the Council meeting to speak to an issue. The first is when the bill is going to be read for the second time (meaning public hearing is closed), unless the Council has decided to continue the public hearing beyond the first reading. Unfortunately, in the case of a second reading bill, the Council has already heard the public and should you choose to speak regarding a second reading bill, under "petitions, remonstrances, and communications," generally you'll be called upon after the Council has already voted on the bill. The other instance in which you'd need to contact the Clerk on the Friday before the Council meeting is when you want to address the Council on an issue that is not appearing on the agenda at all.

Examples:

The bill regarding the budget will be read for the first time tonight so the public may address the Council simply by filling out a card provided at the back of the pew in front of them and submitting it to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin before the bill comes up for reading.

The bill highlighted in the previous post, 2008-116, regarding the 1/8 cent sales tax revenue for transportation has already been read, the public hearing has not been extended by the Council, therefore the public hearing is closed. You may submit your name to the Clerk the Friday before the meeting and address the Council about it but you'll likely be addressing them after they have already voted either for or against the bill. You'll have your chance to make a further statement in this specific instance when you vote for or against the extension of the 1/8 cent transportation sales tax.

Suppose you want to address the Council tonight about the Pythian Castle or tell the Council what your favorite flavor of ice cream happens to be, in that case, you would have needed to have submitted your name to the Clerk last Friday by 5:00 p.m. to get listed under "petitions, remonstrances, and communications," if you didn't, tough luck, submit your name the Friday before the next meeting because that's the rule. You would not be recognized tonight unless you submitted your name to the Clerk last Friday because there is no bill on the agenda regarding the Pythian Castle or ice cream. (Now, could you submit your name to speak under Bill 2008-132 and then spend your time talking about the Pythian Castle and/or ice cream? You could try it. I suspect you'd get called down by the Mayor and reminded that this bill is regarding the budget, not the Pythian Castle and not belgian chocolate, and advised to follow protocol to speak to an unrelated issue.)

Now, regarding items found on the "Consent Agenda," that's a whole 'nuther thing. There are procedures for speaking to items on the consent agenda. Maybe I'll post about that another time.

Council Bill 2008-116

Item 25 on the City Council Agenda for May 5 is Council Bill 2008-116.

"A special ordinance calling an election on August 5, 2008 in the City of Springfield, Missouri, to submit to the qualified voters a question as to whether or not to continue a one-eighth of one percent transportation sales tax on retail sales within the City of Springfield, Missouri, for high priority transportation improvements, providing for a sunset on the tax at the end of four years, and declaring an emergency."

One thing on the list of items approved for expenditures from this sales tax revenue that Springfield voters may not realize is:

Center City Parking

Revenue from the 1/8-cent sales tax for transportation will be used to construct additional parking in Center City to enhance current revitalization efforts.

Another use of the funds people might find of interest is its subsidy of the parks.

In 1998-1999 several projects were completed involving parking and other improvement projects for area parks. One might question whether it is a good use of transportation funds for roofing, building expansions, etc., considering parks already has their own funding - some might consider the parking lots and facilities in area parks as being part and parcel of the respective park.

Some examples, projects completed unless noted otherwise:

Cooper Park Soccer Improvements
Chesterfield Park/Gym Multipurpose Wing
Greenway Development
Nathanael Greene Park Parking
Oak Grove Community Center Roof
Park Improvements Programs
PK Land/School/PK Land Acquisiton - ongoing
Park Reforestation/Irrigation
Ray Kelly Senior Center Expansion
Washington Park Improvement
Young-Lilley Park Improvement
Zoo Improvement ADA Requirement

I thought people might like to know that the funds can be used to fund Center City parking garages and subsidize the parks. Everyone likes to have a place to park when heading to "Center City," (which seems to keep expanding, by the way - that's another item on the agenda) and people can decide whether they think the parks ought to be paying for their own parking lots and improvements or if the transportation fund should be subsidizing that for them.

Edit: The parks projects were not a part of the Transportation Tax Funding. That was a different tax. I still think it was confusing to list it on the informational page for transportation funding. Ms. Whall has provided me with a link to a page that doesn't include it but that doesn't change the fact that it was included on the page I viewed, originally. I am trying to get some additional information that I will post regarding the general nature of what the transportation tax can be used for before adding any more. I'll have a separate post on that soon. - J.

Council Bill 2008-058

The City's Green Building Policy

Here's a portion of the bill, you can read the whole bill by clicking on the hot link "Bill 2008-058," here:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, as follows:

Section 1 - Green building design, construction, and operation furthers the goals set forth in the Springfield-Greene County Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan.

Section 2 - The City Council hereby adopts the "City of Springfield Green Building Policy." This policy reflects the City's commitment to encourage environmentally sensitive construction practices in the City of Springfield by utilizing, for City-owned buildings, construction practices that meet the prerequisites and performance benchmarks of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification process.

Section 3 - The City Council hereby declares that all new City-owned buildings, of any size, intended for human occupation, shall be designed, contracted, and built to LEED Silver Certification for New Construction (LEED-NC), and shall strive to achieve higher certification levels (Gold or Platinum) whenever project resources and conditions permit. Regardless of the level of certification, the project shall include at a minimum: seven (7) of the total LEED points achieved shall be for energy performance; two (2) of the total LEED points achieved shall be for water use reduction; and one (1) of the total LEED points achieved shall be for construction waste management. All projects shall develop and implement a Measurement & Verification Plan consistent with EA CRedit 5, which will result in an additional point for energy efficiency. All new City buildings not intended for human occupation shall be designed, contracted, and built to include as many prerequisites and performance benchmarks of the LEED-NC program as possible. Buildings not intended for human occupation include utility, material, and equipments storage type structures, structures where occupancy is typically intermittent, or structures not designed to have heating and/or air conditioning equipment installed, i.e. open sided structures.

Section 4 - The City Council hereby declares that all future renovations of City buildings shall be designed, contracted, and built to include as many prerequisites and performance benchmarks of the LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) program as possible. If a building renovation involves replacement of appliances, heating and/or air conditioning equipment, or other systems that use energy, the new equipment shall be Energy Star qualified, if qualified equipment is available.

Section 5 - The City Council, to maintain tight control over the cost of City building projects, qualifies the above Section 3 of this Green Building Policy to require the total LEED project life cycle cost analysis demonstrate an operational cost savings payback within ten (10) years for any premium above the industry standard. Where the operational cost savings payback is anticipated to be more than ten (10) years, the City Manager is directed to approve the level of LEED certification appropriate for that particular project. If no level of LEED certification is feasible, the project under consideration shall include as many prerequisites and performance benchmarks of the LEED program that are feasible and at a minimum all equipment installed in the building shall be Energy Star qualified, if qualified equipment is available.

Section 6 - The City Council may grant exceptions to this Policy when it deems appropriate.

Section 7 - The City Council directs the City Manager to perform a review of this policy within two (2) years after the policy is adopted and to provide a report to the City Council's Community Involvement Committee regarding any recommended changes to the policy.

I didn't like this bill when it first came out because I saw it as a waste of taxpayer money. Citizens spent a lot of valuable time in public input processes and the city spent a lot of money in time and resources bringing this bill before Council (I think at Council's request) to make the statement: "Look at what the city is doing! We're building green! Follow our lead!" When all they really had to do was request City staff to build city buildings green and they'd do it. I'm not making that up. Dan Wichmer, the City Attorney told me that. It wasn't necessary to generate a bill/resolution to build green. If they wanted attention they could have just built green and at the ribbon cutting announced they'd had the building built to LEED Silver Certification standards and that they plan to continue and would encourage the community and other businesses to do the same.

But, now they've done it. They spent taxpayer time and resources to bring us this lovely resolution on a green building policy. They tabled the first one, went back to the drawing board, spent time rewriting and now we have the new draft. At this point it would be a bigger waste of taxpayer money not to pass it after spending all the time they have on it than to go ahead and pass it.

There might be one other consideration. It will likely cost more money to build green initially but the idea is that in the long run our government will save money over the life of the building by building green. That's a fact and I embrace that fact. I do wonder, at a time when we are facing a budget crises and need to be finding ways to fund the police/fire pension plan, if this was the best timing to promote another goal "set forth in the Springfield-Greene County Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan" that initially costs more money to implement even though I recognize its money saving future.

A person would be a fool to argue against the objectives of building green. They are great objectives. But a person should, in my opinion, weigh the timing of such policies and the necessity of them before spending the taxpayers' money through cost and administrative resources.

For more information about LEED Certification: USGBC: LEED

Council Bill 2008-052, Park Central Square Renovation

It's 1:07 p.m. and citizens interested in the bill which Council will vote on at 11:30 tomorrow morning is still not available online. The bill authorizes city staff to adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. for the downtown (Park Central) square.

I have a copy of the bill in my possession, my thanks to Mike Brothers of the city's Public Information Office for spending a great deal of time on my behalf getting this information to me.

Brothers wrote in an email response that they will be voting on the resolution on Tuesday, February 12. Brothers indicated that because it is a resolution it only requires one reading and the Council can vote on it. He wrote, "The Council could decide to hold it over, but that doesn't often happen with a resolution."

Here is what he gave as the reason for it being held in a Tuesday vote rather on the Monday night agenda:

"The reason it was called for Tuesday instead of Monday was to make sure we would be able to meet the 24-hour posting notice per the sunshine law, which would be 11:30 a.m. today, in case it wasn't completed by end of the day Friday."

Since it is (or was) still unavailable online (at the time of this writing), here is the pertinent information on the bill, transcribed from the document Brothers sent me this morning, some of the layout varies but the words are directly from the bill:

Sponsored by: Deaver

Substitute No. 1
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2008-052 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION

AUTHORIZING city staff to adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. for the downtown square.

____________________________________________

WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has determined that the downtown square is a functionally obsolete public asset, last renovated 38 years ago; and

WHEREAS, for the last year, the City, the Urban Districts Alliance and a committee comprised of members of the community conducted numerous public meetings to seek input from members of the general public regarding design alternatives for the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, over 750 people offered input to assist in designing alternatives for the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. designed three variations for the redesign of the downtown square; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, in an effort to comply with time frames set forth in the redevelopment agreement with Kevin McGowan for the redevelopment of the Heer's Building has determined that design alternatives proposed by Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. have sufficiently encompassed the concerns and proposals offered by the citizens of the City of Springfield and are ready to proceed with the design and construction of the downtown improvements; and

WHEREAS, the City has obtained federal funding for the design and implementation of Phase 1 for the redevelopment of the downtown square; and

WHEREAS, Urban Districts Alliance, the City, and the business community are working in a joint effort to raise funds to assist in implementing the remaining phases of the square.*

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD as follows, that:

Section 1 - The recommended design of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc., as presented to the Springfield City Council on February 5, 2008,* is hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Springfield as the proposed design for improvements to the downtown square.

Section 2 - City Council hereby directs staff to take any and all steps necessary to prepare plans, documents, and drawings and to proceed with the design set forth above. The City Manager is further authorized to enter into agreements necessary to effectuate the terms of this resolution.

Section 3 - This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SUBSTITUTE #1: EXPLANATION TO COUNCIL BILL NO. 2008-052

ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: City Manager

PURPOSE:

To adopt the design proposal of Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc for development of the downtown square and to permit the City Manager to enter into agreements to meet the terms of the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Springfield received a federal grant to assist in the renovation of Park Central Square. After an extensive public input process, Butler Rosenbury & Partners presented alternative designs to City Council on February 5, 2008.

REMARKS:

This resolution adopts the recommended alternative design presented February 5, 2008, directs staff to proceed with construction plans, and authorizes the City Manager to take all actions necessary to implement the preferred design.

Submitted and approved by:
Bob Cumley
City Manager

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Brothers, Special Projects Coordinator, City of Springfield wrote:

"The public will be able to comment on Tuesday."

If you would like to comment tomorrow, Tuesday, February 12, 2008, the meeting will be conveniently held in City Council Chambers at 11:30 a.m.

*Emphasis mine. Butler Rosenbury & Partners, Inc., recommended the complete package offered, Phase 1, 2 and 3.

Council Bill 2008-052

Mike Brothers of City Connect posted the new events calendar for the week of February 11 - February 15:

Events Calendar Now Posted

The City's weekly events calendar is now posted. Some of the highlights include Monday's City Council meeting and a special City Council meeting at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday. The special council meeting is being called to vote on a proposed resolution concerning the redesign concepts for Park Central Square. Immediately following the special meeting, Council will have its regular weekly lunch session in the Busch Building fourth floor conference room.

Since the council bill (2008-052) is not listed on the Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda, I can only assume it is going to be added to the agenda Monday night because I don't believe the Council can vote, as Brothers writes they will do at the Special Council meeting on Tuesday, without having a first reading of the bill and giving the public an opportunity to speak on the bill.

Trouble is, if you follow Brother's link in his posting "Weekly Events Calendar" and click on the link, "Special City Council Meeting," the link to the bill is not a hot link, meaning citizens cannot access the bill and read it prior to the Monday night City Council meeting where it is not listed on the agenda.

How can citizens properly weigh in on the issue when it is not listed as part of the Monday night agenda, cannot be accessed for reading online and then will be voted on at a special 11:30 a.m. meeting the next day?

I've had to make some assumptions based on past experience and the information available to me tonight. It's Saturday, so the City offices are not open for questions. If I am incorrect in my assumptions, perhaps Louise Whall, if she happens by the blog will correct me.

Council Bill 2007-027

I don't think there are many people who aren't concerned about the environment and about conserving energy these days.

Since so many people are already contemplating the environment and wanting to live more environmentally friendly lives I just wonder if it's necessary for the City of Springfield to contribute $20,000 and enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Partnership for Sustainability. That is what Council Bill 2008-027 is intended to fascilitate. The bill will come before Council Monday night as a first reading bill and it will be open for public comment.

"...the Partnership for Sustainability is a new group designed to help local businesses and institutions lead the Springfield/Greene County community toward environmental and economic sustainability...."

The city wants to be "an active participant and to contribute $20,000."

Not too long ago the City introduced a "green building policy" because they want to be leaders in green building. They want to set an example to encourage the rest of the business and local community to consider building green, and I think building green is a great idea. I'm not opposed to becoming more environmentally friendly. I'm not opposed to energy conservation or recycling, etc., but I marvel that all these environmental issues keep cropping up at Council meetings unnecessarily. (You can throw your organically grown tomato or free range egg at me now, I know you want to.)

I mentioned in a Community Free Press article in December, 2007 (Citizens Helped Change City in 2007) that City Attorney Dan Wichmer had told me that it wasn't necessary for the Council to pass a green building resolution to build green. Wichmer said all the Council has to do is tell city management that they'd like a new government building or all new government buildings to be built green and management would simply honor the Council's request. All they really have to do is ask. Wichmer said, and I partially paraphrase, that the resolution was just to show the City was taking the lead in building green and the community ought to follow their lead. The question is, is it necessary to invest so much time, energy and taxpayer dollars into making such a statement?

If the city wants to get the message out to the community that they are leaders in building green, they should build green, then, when the new green built government building is open, at the ribbon cutting ceremony when the media and press are present couldn't they simply let the public know that the city of Springfield has built yet another beautiful green building that will be more economically and environmentally sustainable? Couldn't they just announce that they are leaders in building green and the community ought to follow their lead?

I can't understand why it is necessary to spend taxpayer money to join with another group to promote building green. I can't understand why it was necessary to propose and then table a green building resolution because people who have built green in the past didn't think the resolution went far enough and they wanted the public to have more input. Now, the public (because they don't have enough to do watching how the city handles the container ordinance and addresses issues from the audit report, trying to make sure they have adequate input into the Council's City Manager Search Committee process...etc., etc., etc.) must spend time making sure the city handles this green building resolution right, investing valuable time away from their own lives, families and businesses to make sure that the city, if they are going to pass a resolution, passes the right resolution. Planning and Zoning have invested heaven knows how many man hours and administrative hours in studying and writing the resolution only to have it tabled. Discussions and meetings have ensued and changes will be made, translating into more Planning and Zoning meetings, man hours and administrative hours invested in a resolution that is intended to do nothing other than to say, "Look at what the city is doing! We're building green! Follow our lead!" When all they really have to do is follow the Nike ad campaign's slogan and "just do it." Then tell about it.

That is why I think all this green building policy resolution stuff and alliances with environmental groups and contributions of $20,000 here and $8,000 there would be better spent going straight into the police and fire pension fund instead of unnecessary, time consuming and expensive alliances, contributions and resolutions meant to do nothing other than make a statement.

Dear City Council, just do it, then make your statement. The media will give you your moment in the sun free of charge.

Another side issue of concern for me is that a certain member of the City Council is in alternative heating sales and I guess there's nothing unethical about promoting environmental and economic sustainability, it just troubles me when a member that is in that business (who naturally knows more about it, that's a given) uses televised City Council meeting time to promote something that in turn, could be beneficial to his business. I don't know, does that bother anyone else?

Council Bills 2007-363, 364

Council Bill 2007-363 amends the City Code, Traffic and Vehicles, Section 106-96 so that conservators of the peace (people the City Manager authorizes to issue parking citations) will also be given the authority to ENFORCE city parking ordinances, ENFORCE rules, regulations and ordinances pertaining to handicapped parking, and ENFORCE all Park rules, regulations and ordinances while on Park property.

Council Bill 2007-364 amends Article 1, In General, Chapter 82 of the Springfield City Code, Park rules generally, by adding an additional subsection (c) to Section 82-1 for ENFORCEMENT of the Park Rules, Regulations and Ordinances by THE PARK RANGERS for the Springfield-Greene County Parks Department, while on park property.

The originating department is the City Manager.

Under "remarks" at Bill 2007-364:

"The proposed amendment is in response to a request received from the Springfield-Greene County Park Board. This expanded authority will assist parks in dealing with problems at the various park locations, which is often a low priority for the City and County Police Departments, when compared to other service calls these Departments normally receive. This amendment will allow parks to address the park problems with its own Park Rangers as they occur."

Questions 1 and 2: How do you "enforce" rules, regulations and ordinances? Will Park Rangers be authorized to carry firearms for enforcement purposes?

Question 3: Is the lateral hiring program, which allows experienced police officers to be hired at a higher level of pay in consideration of their previous experience working? (see: CFP Midweek - Archive Issues Page, Volume 5 Issue 11 City Council Roundup, Addressing Police High Turnover Rate)

City of Springfield, MO - Upcoming Council Meeting Agenda

URGENT ~ e-m-e-r-g-e-n-c-y

Emergency Council Bill 2007-353 is:

"A special ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or the Deputy City Manager, on behalf of the City of Springfield, to enter into an agreement with the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission (MHTC) for the purpose of coordinating participation by the City and the County in the cost of the Commission's public improvement known as Airport Boulevard...."

Just in case you're wondering why it's an emergency, Section 5 of the bill states:

"The City Council finds and declares that this ordinance constitutes an emergency because it pertains to an appropriation for payment of current expenses for the City government and THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IS AFFECTED...."*

So, dear citizen, if they don't hurry up and approve their part of the financing of the new "airport boulevard" your health, safety and welfare is in danger. Thar yew go.

*emphasis mine.

Council Bill 2007-352

Oh, good heavens! The City Manager or his designee is asking for City Council approval to enter into more sale negotiations. Geesh.

See November 5 Council Meeting Agenda.

Hey, the peanut gallery needs to apply for volunteer service on the City Manager Search Committee!

Council Bill 2007-351 qualifies as an item of interest. It's a resolution to formulate the process for establishing a Search Committee for the hiring of a new City Manager. It states, in part:

"Whereas, it has been determined that a Search Committee which will consist of representatives from a cross section of the community will be established, and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver will Chair this Committee; and

Whereas, there may be other members of City Council that desire to be involved in establishing the criteria for the Search Committee, and in determining its makeup.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI as follows:

That Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver and members of the City Council desiring to do so, shall meet and establish the process for selecting members of the Search Committee.Additionally, they should develop the process they wish the Search Committee to follow in selecting candidates for the City Manager position. This selection process shall be presented to City Council for formal approval within thirty days of the passage of this resolution.

Be it further resolved that following the formal approval of the selection process, citizens interested in serving on the Search Committee shall file a Volunteer Service Application with the City Clerk. All applications received by the deadline established by the process, will be considered for appointment to the Committee. The names of those being recommended to serve on the Selection Committee shall be submitted to the City Council for final approval, not more than thirty days following the deadline."

Under remarks the bill states:

"Mayor Tom Carlson has indicated that he would like to follow the process that was following when Missouri State University was looking ot hire a new President. That process was the establishment of a Search Committee that was comprised of members of the Board of Governors, alumni, faculty, staff, and students. This approach provided representation from a wide range of perspectives."

I hope they do not forget to include representatives of the peanut gallery on the Search Committee. I know peanut gallerians do not always have "real money at risk, time, money, and effort to spend,"* but they deserve representation as much as anybody else. And please, do not forget conspiracy theorists, you never know, Tony Messenger might want to file an application. Oh, my, I wonder if the applications will be subject to the Sunshine Law? That could open a whole new can of worms! ;)

*source: Mayor Tom Carlson

Council Bill 2007-335

Vincent David Jericho of KSGF announced this morning that Rick Baier, the Principal of BC Development will be addressing City Council tonight.

According to an October 13 story in the News-Leader, here:

"The potential departure of BKD changes the economics of the project, and it would not be feasible to build only a hotel at the site, both Huffman sand Baier said....

Because Hammons has exclusive control over food and beverage service, a major revenue source, at the expo center as part of an operating agreement he signed with the city five years ago, the out-of-town developers said."

At an October 8 City Council meeting, Becky Spence, a local Springfield partner to BC Development, stated that several City Departments told someone from BC Development that it was a "done deal" and that the city already had a verbal agreement with John Q. Hammons.

And the puddin' got thicker when Baier was quoted by The Springfield News-Leader, here, on October 10:

"Contradicting claims made by his business partner Monday, a Kansas City developer said Tuesday that city officials had not told him a downtown hotel deal was going to John Q. Hammons.

"No, it wasn't inside the City Hall," said Rick Baier, principal of BC Development, a day after Becky Spence said in front of the Springfield City Council that city employees told the firm about Hammons having locked up the deal.

Baier said sources outside City Hall led him to believe that Hammons, a well-known Springfield developer, would get the job on a piece of city-own property."

On October 12, City Manager Bob Cumley wrote that Spence's "unfounded allegations made in a public meeting impugn the integrity of all city employees....To have someone make false statements in a public meeting is totally unacceptable and will not go without response." The letter demanded an apology from Becky Spence.

Jericho has been telling his listeners the last page of this story has not yet been written. Today he is calling for "the peanut gallery" to attend tonight's City Council meeting. He has suggested that patrons of the peanut gallery bring peanuts with them since they were mentioned by Mayor Carlson, albeit not specifically, at a Council luncheon on October 16 where the term sheet for the sale of the former arena site to John Q. Hammons was revealed, Carlson said:

"Any day of the week, I'll bet on people that have got real money at risk, time, money and effort to spend as opposed to the people from the peanut gallery."

See the quote in context here.

After a public hearing tonight the City Council is expected to vote to accept the terms of the agreement for the sale of the former arena site and parking garage to John Q. Hammons.

"This is the beginning of the end of the Care Bears," says Jericho.

Council Bill 2007-291 ~ 9/24/07 Agenda

Second reading but exception has been made and citizens may speak. First reading was issued at a special meeting on Sept. 18.

COUNCIL BILL 2007-291. (Carlson) CITIZENS MAY SPEAK. MAY BE VOTED ON.A special ordinance to approve the City Utilities Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2008.

Council Bill 2007-301

Oh, all right. I just haven't been in the mood to post about this but here it is anyway:

Council Bill 2007-301 will extend the MDFB loan on the Heer's building to cover the time frame it'll take for the Heer's building sale to close, actually beyond that time frame.

It still doesn't explain how the sale of $3 million is going to cover a loan of $3,100,000, the almost $260,000 set aside from the general fund back in June and the additional $26,000 the city is going to ask the council to approve to amend the budget to cover additional interest tomorrow night*...but hey, the Springfield News-Leader said the city is going to net $3 million on the Heer's deal so whadda I know?

*Geesh, I meant Monday night, the 24th

Emergency Council Bill 2007-290

I've been looking into Council Bill 2007-290, the emergency bill involved in the Special Meeting called September 18. Follow the links above and below for background.

According to what the City Council adopted on August 27 (Special Ordinance 25244) the Director of Finance cannot exceed her certified levy listed in Section 2 of that ordinance. The Council, however, has authorized the Director of Finance to set each levy in an amount equal to the levy authorized by the State Auditor.

Apparently there are some adjustments to be made in the levy amounts, but according to section 3 of Special Ordinance 25244 the levy amounts can only be adjusted down because the Finance Director was not authorized by Council to adjust them up:

Section 3 - The levies listed in Section 2 are estimated based on the preliminary assessed valuation provided by the Greene County Clerk. The City Council authorizes the Director of Finance to set each levy in an amount equal to the levy authorized by the State Auditor. However, the levy certified by the Director of Finance shall not exceed the levies listed in Section 2.

The city was required by State law to have their certified levy amount submitted to the State by Sept. 1. Did the City hear back from the State Auditor and how do they plan to adjust the levies? Unless otherwise authorized the Director of Finance cannot adjust the levies up, they can only be adjusted down. Which would be a good thing for tax payers.

Is it possible that the new emergency Special Ordinance/Council Bill 2007-290 authorizes the Director of Finance to adjust the levies to exceed the levies listed in Section 2? There is no available online explanation to the Special Ordinance listed on the Special meeting agenda for September 18 so citizens won't know unless the City posts it on Monday or Tuesday before noon, the time of the special meeting. I think it is legitimate to wonder about that scenario because the Director of Finance has already been authorized to adjust them down, so unless the City must again approve the final valuation in the form of an ordinance for the public record (which could very well be) then one would wonder why it was necessary to bring it before Council again.

In the case of Special Ordinance # 25244 the city was required to post a public hearing notice. There has been no public hearing notice in this case, as yet, and the fact that it is brought as an emergency bill tells us it will be voted on September 18.

Council Bill 2007-251

The Community Free Press - Midweek website lists Council Bill 2007-251 under agenda items. They are correct that it's an interesting issue.

There are some home owners at Broadway and Talmage who'd like to put a tea house in a restored home there. I haven't seen the pictures or been by there but I'd like to because I understand, from all accounts, they did a beautiful job of restoration.

At the first reading, August 13, I thought Councilwoman Mary Collette made a good point in that the City had been encouraging "urbanization" and zoning some commercial into residential areas.

There were some neighbors there who seemed opposed to the tea house for mostly emotional reasons.

I find it interesting that "both Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend denial," and look forward to finding out why they are opposing it.

UPDATE: Tea house ~ Opening soon! Passed 5-4

The Heers Building ~ Council Bill 2007-267

I note that Vince of KSGF weighed in on the Heers deal here and Jason at Life Of Jason weighed in on the Heers deal here.

I agree on some points each of them made and disagree on others. The primary distinction I would make would be that the time for the City Council to have taken action against the 2.5% kick back from the Convention & Visitor's Bureau (CVB) hotel/motel tax was when Mary Lilly-Smith sweet talked the City Council into leaving it in the list of incentives for negotiation when they approved the term sheet back on July 2, 2007.

Smith explained on July 2 that when the City brings back the redevelopment agreement in the form of an ordinance, that we now know as Council Bill 2007-267, that Council will be voting on the incentives that the city negotiated with McGowan/Walsh as a package. If they didn't realize it would be "all or nothing" then, they should have.

At that meeting, Lilly-Smith said:

"You'll have an opportunity when we bring a redevelopment agreement back to you around August 1 that will say, 'here are the incentives that the City agrees to provide,' and you will take action on that ordinance and then between that time and December 31 we have to put in place those incentives."

Certainly, the City Council could have displayed a bit more backbone on July 2, but we saw what happened when Councilman Burlison complained about the loss of general revenue for the interest payment on the loan on the Heers building. When he expressed:

"a sense of, well, almost a sense of outrage,"

over the city letting

"a quarter million dollars slip though our fingers."

City Manager, Bob Cumley stated that Burlison's concern was well founded, but Mayor Tom Carlson went on a tirade over Burlison's use of the term "outrage." How dare Burlison tell it like it is?

Jason, at Life of Jason blog, quotes Councilman Ralph Manley from the Springfield News-Leader,

"I don’t want to give away the store to get it done.”

But back at the June 18 City Council meeting Manley said:

"Two hundred sixty thousand dollars at this moment will be peanuts...While it may be dealing in several figures here, those figures are peanuts when we talk about the objective this total thing is going to meet."

Really?

Granted Manley was talking about the loss in interest payments at the time, but speaking of the "objective this total thing is going to meet," he knew on July 2 what the terms of negotiation for the agreement were. He and the other Council members listened to the representative from the CVB, they listened to other local hotel owners who didn't want to see revenue be taken from the CVB, he and every other Council member had a problem with the city possibly giving up 2.5% of the hotel/motel tax then, why did they allow Smith to push it through with that left in the list of possible incentives? Why didn't they call to amend the term sheet before approving it on July 2?

But...I don't blame the City Council, at least not today's City Council. I blame Mary Lilly-Smith and the City Manager and the City Council that existed when the Heers building deal(s) first began to be negotiated.

I blame a City Manager who, at the July 30 Council meeting, said about the ongoing former "arena site" negotiations:

"This is one of the areas, as Mr. Manley said, that we can have a closed session on because it involves negotiations, which we don't do in public, otherwise we wouldn't have negotiations with anybody if we had to do that. So we will have a closed session on that. Once we get the term sheet...we'll have to lay it out, what's the best deal, here's the reason and that will be public...."

You see, Cumley is basically telling the Council and the citizens of Springfield, Missouri, "trust us," trust us to negotiate a good deal with one of the prospective developers of the former "arena site." Trust us to negotiate in private, bring you a term sheet to approve and get the best deal for Springfield. "Just trust us."

And that's the problem.

The City of Springfield, a past City Council and the Economic Development Director, Mary Lilly-Smith, negotiated away any leverage they had in the Heers building agreement. They HAD no leverage in the McGowan/Walsh deal because they negotiated away every bit of leverage they had, now they are concerned about negotiating privately on the development of the property adjacent to the expo center because they don't want to lose leverage in ongoing negotiations by discussing details in public? Give me a break.

As far as the Heers building deal? Council has no choice but to pass it. If they don't pass it another quarter of a million dollars will be frittered away in interest on the note, the note they successfully negotiated their way into assuming from Vaughn Prost.

Remember how proud we were when, at the passage of the budget for the City on June 4, Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky made a motion to amend it to place a quarter of a million dollars out of the "rainy day fund" into the police and fire pension fund? We stand to lose twice that amount in interest on the Heers building note if the Council doesn't pass the emergency ordinance accepting the Heers deal, and it could likely be more than that because the city has likely already negotiated away every other developer who might have, at one time, had an interest in the Heers Tower.

I think one of my commenters, "John Lilly" had it right when he wrote:

"The city wanted a hotel, but the developer has the upper hand. He put in a poison pill (he gets 50% of the guest tax that goes to the CVB). The city punted and left it up to the CVB board to say yes or turn it down. They would be idiots to accept it, thus creating a prescident. So the developer gets his condos with 80 parking spaces in the garage and the ability to build a sky bridge. "

I couldn't have said it better myself, John Lilly. I'm sorry I don't have a box of chocolates to offer you.