Board of Aldermen Meeting Agendas & Minutes


Every effort is made to ensure that the Agendas and Minutes provided on this and subsequent pages is timely and correct; however, users should keep in mind that this information is provided only as a public convenience. In any case where legal reliance on information is required, the official records of the City of Ballwin should be consulted.

The Board of Aldermen meet on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the Ballwin Government Center, 1 Government Ctr. Schedule and place subject to change. Meetings are open to the public. All citizens are urged to attend.

Board of Aldermen Meeting

Meeting Agenda

Meeting Agenda and Briefs

Meeting Minutes


July 14, 2008

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Young at 7:00 p.m.

             PRESENT                                                                       ABSENT

The Pledge of Allegiance was given.


The Minutes of the June 23 Board of Aldermen meeting were submitted for approval.  Alderman Fleming amended Page 6 last paragraph as follows:  “Alderman Fleming said that he is not in favor of turning off the street lights, but would be happy to continue discussing other options such as a plan that will continue funding street lights through 2011 so that subdivisions can make other arrangements to light the subdivisions.”  Alderman Suozzi amended Page 6, Great Streets.  She asked that her name be inserted as making the statements.  A motion was made by Alderman Buermann and seconded by Alderman Suozzi to approve the Minutes as amended.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.


State Representative Dwight Scharnhorst, 93rd District:  Mr. Scharnhorst said that MSD has instituted an increase in rates for those with storm water runoff.  He said he will be meeting with MSD to obtain appeal guidelines. 

Ron Marcinko, 110 Hollyleaf Drive:  Mr. Marcinko spoke in opposition to the Utility Tax increase due to the increasing cost of utilities in general and gasoline.  He said that the voters should make this decision. He asked what cuts will be made in the current year’s budget to offset revenue shortfalls. 

Lynn Goetz, 504 Kenilworth:  Mr. Goetz asked how much does it cost Ballwin per year to provide municipal services to Meadowbrook Country Club Estates?  City Administrator Kuntz said that when the streets were taken over, Ballwin took on the cost of street maintenance.  He said the overall cost of services without street work just about balances the revenues received.  Mr. Goetz suggested that the Board of Aldermen pass an ordinance that will state that Ballwin cannot take private property via eminent domain except for public use.  No eminent domain taking of property could be turned over to a private entity. 

Carl Essen:  Mr. Essen requested that Ballwin pass an ordinance that no developer be allowed to do a project in Ballwin unless all judgments against the developer and property taxes are paid, and there are no outstanding judgments in favor of anyone against the developer. 

Daniel Fox, 20 Meadowbrook County Club Estates Dr.:  Mr. Fox said he was a trustee in Meadowbrook when Ballwin took over the streets.  He said that the residents spent a lot of money bringing the streets up to a level that would have allowed them to be accepted.  He said he is willing to spend his own money to repair the streets.  He said that subdivisions that are wiling to share the cost in repairing their streets should get a higher priority in funding.  He said that it is irresponsible of the Board for the past 10 years to not have a capital budget to maintain the city streets.  He said that tax payer dollars were spent on The Pointe, Golf Course, etc. which are not raising money for the city, but are costing the city money.  He said the priorities are not in order.  He said that Ballwin should accept the money that is offered by the Meadowbrook residents for repairing the Meadowbrook streets.  He said that he opposes the Meadowbrook subdivision taking back the streets for repair. 

Mayor Young said that the Parks operations are funded by a ½ cent sales tax that cannot be used for anything but parks facilities.  There was a bond issue that was passed in 1997 for The Pointe.  All of the facilities at this time are either breaking even or close in the Parks operations.  He said we cannot, under any circumstances, take money from that area and put it into streets.  At that time, Manchester Road was a lot different than it is today and revenue was easier to obtain.  Sales tax cannot be used for another area, according to State law.  The Ballwin budget is on the website.  Capital is separate from expenses.  He said if there are questions, call City Administrator Kuntz and he will discuss the issues to address the concerns.  He said the Parks facilities have been doing very well by either breaking even or better. 

Mr. Fox said that streets are equally important.  He said there are other private recreational facilities that the residents can join.  He said he is not asking that Ballwin take sales tax dollars that were designated for the pool.  He asked for a budget plan to repair the streets. 

Robert Epstein, 88 Meadowbrook Country Club Estates:  Mr. Epstein said he was involved when the subdivision was working with the City to cause the streets to be accepted for maintenance.  He said the residents are frustrated because the streets are in badly need of repairs.  He said Ordinance 2692 on July 27, 1998, states that the “minimum standards relative to width, curb, and gutter and pavement conditions as determined by the Board have been met”.  He said the city acknowledged that the streets were brought up to Ballwin standards, and then later, the City states that the streets were not brought up to the acceptable standard and the City should not have taken the streets for future maintenance.  He is in favor of taxes for street repairs.  If Ballwin cannot afford to do this, some of the Meadowbrook residents are willing to pay the funds for the project.  This will free up funds for other public services.



This bill regarding the Utility Tax received a first reading at the June 23 Board meeting.

A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Lembke for a second reading of Bill No. 3532.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.  Bill No. 3532 was read for the second time.

Alderman Robinson said that he is opposed to this tax.  He said that Ballwin’s infrastructure is not being addressed.  Ballwin’s streets have been neglected for at least 9 years.  He said that the street budget is under-funded.  The utility tax will be used for street lights, snow plowing, leaf pickup, etc.  The residents in Ward 3 want their streets fixed.  Until there is a plan to devote the money that is needed for streets, he is not in favor of a utility tax for other services. 

Alderman Pogue said on May 19 at the Aldermanic Work Shop, Mayor Young had endorsed three individual tax increases; a ¼ cent sales tax increase, a property tax increase, and a utility tax increase, and that the property tax and sales tax would require voter approval.  Alderman Pogue suggested that the utility tax be presented to the voters for approval. 

Alderman Fleming said he supports passage of the utility tax increase.  The utility tax used to be higher.  The tax was rolled back to 5% when it was not needed.  The 7% utility tax is now needed again.  If it is not needed in the future, the tax can be rolled back at that time.  He said that we cannot continue without the utility tax increase. 

Alderman Boerner said that the increase in utility tax is needed.  A much as possible of the utility tax increase could double the amount currently spent on streets.  He said he agrees with the statements that have been made about infrastructure, parks, etc.  This increase is needed to make street repairs. 

Alderman Buermann said that in 1996, the utility tax was rolled back from 7% to 5% at the Board’s discretion.  A commitment was made to the voters who voted for the ½ cent capital improvement sales tax.  He said he will honor that commitment to the voters.  The utility tax increase will not put $1 million into street repairs.  This money is not earmarked for streets.  It will go into Operations.  He said that the utility tax increase will fund the leaf pickup, snow removal, and other services.  He said the utility tax increase should be decided by the voters. 

Alderman Boerner said that the money will go to operations, and can be allocated by the Board to wherever it chooses.  He said that the money will not go directly to leaf pickup and other services.  Alderman Buermann said he disagrees.

Alderman Suozzi said that the Ballwin situation is not stagnate.  She said when the residents voted against the property tax, it is her opinion that this was because of the current St. Louis County assessment issues and that the residents do not understand the situation that Ballwin needs to spend $3 million on streets and only has $1 million.  She said we must adjust the City’s revenue sources with what is happening in the economy.  There was no earmark of any of the utility tax money just for operations, or just for streets.  It was to move us forward to be a phase one of an increase in revenue so that the City can function.  She said the money can be used for increasing the reserves balance in case of an emergency.  A proper reserve balance will secure the bond rating if money must be borrowed.  The Board determines what will be done with operations and capital revenues.  She said that since the property tax failed, we have to look at other revenues. 

Alderman Fleming said that future Boards cannot be bound by decisions made in the past.  He said the hear and now says that the utility tax increase is necessary and reasonable.  He will be open to rolling the tax back to 5% at some time in the future. 

Alderman Buermann said that City Administrator Kuntz’s memorandum of May 19, 2008 stated that the money was earmarked for operations and said nothing about capital budgets.  He said that it is not logical to vote on something before there is a plan.  He said that this issue should be decided by the voters.

Alderman Terbrock said that times have changed and things are not the same as it was in 1996.  He said that nothing has been done to enhance revenues.  As a result, revenues have gone down.  Something different needs to be done.  He said that City Administrator Kuntz has cut expenses everywhere possible without cutting jobs.  He said he believes that taxes should be voted on by the people; however, at this point, something different has to be done to survive.  He would like to see the Ballwin lifestyle continue. 

Alderman Lembke said that we waited to ask the voters for a property tax until we really had to have it.  He said that no one wants to pay more taxes, but the City of Ballwin needs more money now.  The City no longer has the luxury of time to wait on this issue.  A step forward must be made immediately.  If the utility tax increase does not pass tonight, it won’t get passed for another 2 years, neither will a property tax or sales tax because this Board will pontificate over it for the next 2 years.  Top notch employees will be lost and the citizens will be upset about what is happening to Ballwin.  He said he is very much in favor of passing the utility tax increase immediately.  If the Board decides to present to the voters a plan to implement a property tax that rolls the utility tax back to 4% if it’s passed, he will be happy to do this, as long as the utility tax stays in place until Ballwin starts receiving money from the property tax.  He said that this Board does not have a choice about the utility tax at this point in time. 

Alderman Fleming asked what role does the Planning & Zoning Commission play regarding approval of the annual budget?  City Attorney Jones said none in the Operating budget.  To a limited extent, the Capital budget is presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission so that they can review public improvements such as streets and other things that are included within the capital budget.  He said this is the only part of the budget that is review and either recommended for passage or denial.  Alderman Fleming said that two years ago, he asked the Planning & Zoning Commission to disapprove the budget due to a lack of money for streets.  The Commission rejected the Capital budget.  He said this is a tool to insure that more revenue goes to streets. 

A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3532 with the following results: 
Ayes – Fleming, Lembke, Boerner, Suozzi, Terbrock.    Nays – Pogue, Buermann, Robinson.  Bill No. 3532 was approved by a 5 – 3 vote and became Ordinance No. 08-22.




City Administrator Kuntz introduced the city’s financial advisor, Laura Radcliff.  Ms. Radcliff said that this is a way to save the city money.  She said that the IRS allows one advance refunding.  The 1992 bonds were advance refunded in 1998, and not permitted to refund them again until now.  Interest rates are now in the City’s favor and there are savings to be generated by doing the refunding.  She said this Resolution authorizes the finance team to move forward to bring this issue to market if interest rates at the time of the sale of the bonds are at a level that net the City at least 2% savings.  If interest rates are not at a level on the day of the bond sale where this could be achieved, we do not go forward.  The 2% represents approximately $90,000 in savings over the life of the debt.

City Administrator Kuntz said that these are costs that are directly charged to the Capital budget because they relate to the retirement of street type of improvements.  That amount of savings would go back into the fund and be applicable for the Board’s purposes.  This is a pre-authorization resolution.  No other action is necessary. 

Alderman Boerner asked in the event the conditions are not right for the sale of the bonds, who bares the responsibility for the cost?  Ms. Radcliff said not the City.  The finance team does not receive payment until a successful bond issue has closed.  The city has no responsibility for the costs unless the bond issue closes. 

A motion was made by Alderman Robinson and seconded by Alderman Lembke to accept and proceed with the qualified Resolution.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.


A motion was made by Alderman Buermann and seconded by Alderman Pogue for a first reading of Bill No. 3536.   A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.  Bill No. 3536 was read for the first time.

A motion was made by Alderman Suozzi and seconded by Alderman Buermann for a second reading of Bill No. 3536.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.  Bill No. 3536 was read for the second time.

A roll call was taken for passage and approval of Bill No. 3536 with the following results: 
Ayes – Robinson, Boerner, Lembke, Pogue, Suozzi, Terbrock, Buermann, Fleming.   Nays – None.  Bill No. 3536 was approved and became Ordinance No. 08-23.

CONSENT ITEMS:  (Budgeted items which are low bid and do not exceed expenditure estimates and/or items which have been previously approved in concept.)

A. Mudjacking (various concrete streets)
B. Compressor (chiller compressor at The Pointe)
C. Audit Services (2-year extension)

A motion was made by Alderman Robinson and seconded by Alderman Buermann to accept the Consent Items.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.


Great Streets Program:  Mayor Young asked the Board if it wants to proceed with this program.  City Administrator Kuntz said an inter-governmental cooperative agreement is the next step.  The Board’s concurrence tonight will authorize the City Attorney to provide his services to bring this to a legislative format for this Board’s official consideration and hopefully the same model to be considered and adopted by the other participating cities. 

Alderman Suozzi said this agreement is not a commitment of funds, however, some of the revenue from the utility tax increase could be used to fund Ballwin’s portion of any required match.  When the Federal Government and East-West Gateway are going to fund the majority of the project, it’s foolish for us not to take them up on it.  She said that Manchester Road today is typical of the 1960’s.  It’s unattractive to developers and pedestrians, and it does not function well as a roadway.  Businesses are going to continue moving out unless Ballwin updates its planning and addresses some of these issues.  She said that Ellisville, Manchester, Winchester, and Wildwood are also interested in the project with strong support of the Chamber of Commerce. 

Mayor Young said that of the 20%, Ballwin will pay a portion based on an unknown number at this time.  This will be determined by the number of cities that will contribute.  He said at the next meeting with the Mayors, the goal is to find out if there is a commitment from each city to go forward.  This will clarify the dollar amount. 

Alderman Suozzi said that there is interest by private developers to contribute to the city share of this cost.  This is not only the cities that are involved.  The utilities were represented including MoDOT.  She said while these entities are united, we should move forward. 

Alderman Lembke said that it’s important to keep in mind that this is an 80% refund, not an 80% payment up front.  The cash flow will have to be available to fund this project and then wait for the refund check. 

A motion was made by Alderman Lembke and seconded by Alderman Suozzi to proceed with the next step into the Great Streets program.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.


Architectural Services and Government Center:  City Administrator Kuntz said the 5 bids received were well over budget.  Architect Tom Hall apologized for the overage.  He said that he has been in this business for 35 years and has done over 450 projects.  He has never seen an estimate that was this far off.  He said that 5 other project that they recently have worked on all fell within the normal 10% over or under.  He said there were a lot more site development costs of having to change grades, relocate sewer lines, design around lines that were going through repaving, and include the ADA requirements.  Under the current codes, soil tests must be done.  The result of the tests indicated soils that were unsuitable for the standard footings and that the more extensive footings would have to be used.  This went over the cost and was not expected.  He said when he takes into account the issues that are extraordinarily high, such as site work, concrete, glass, metals, mechanical and electrical, he is still $400,000 over budget with no explanation for it.  He recommended rejecting all five bids. 

Mayor Young said that circumstances occurred that were out of Mr. Hall’s control.  City Administrator Kuntz said that in addition to rejecting all bids, the second recommendation is to approve the architectural service amendment on the contract due to the additional services that were provided by Mr. Hall.  He said the third recommendation is to put a smaller project back out for bid to eliminate the ramp problem.  The ramp can be replaced with a simple stair case and a lift to meet the ADA requirement.  He said this will solve the problems for a lower cost. 

A motion was made by Alderman Buermann and seconded by Alderman Suozzi to reject all of the bids on this project.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

A motion was made by Alderman Suozzi and seconded by Alderman Buermann to accept the additional architectural cost. 

Alderman Robinson said he is shocked that after all of this time has been spent on the project and now the cost is 300% more.  A $500,000 project is now a $1.5 million project.  Mr. Hall is now asking for more money. 

Mr. Hall said that the additional cost is due to structural changes based upon the soils engineer’s recommendation that a different footing system.  Alderman Robinson said that a plan was submitted for a $500,000 project.  He said that this plan is now worthless, along with the original contract.  We are paying for something that we didn’t get. 

Alderman Boerner asked why should Mr. Hall’s firm be used at this point.  Mr. Hall said that they have developed two scenarios at no cost to the City of Ballwin for a scaled-back project.  He said that he is not asking for a renewal or extension of the contract.  He has offered to redesign the project to get it on budget.  He said there is no intent for additional cost. 

City Administrator Kuntz said that this is a fiber optic discovery, a mechanical and the change in the parking lot that were undetectable underground obstacles until the plan was started.  He said this is not a blank check to keep going.  This is to bring the project to closure.  He said the current ramp will not make it through another winter.  He said the Board is being asked to reimburse the architect for the additional fees that were incurred, not for additional services. 

Alderman Robinson asked who reimburses this Board for all of the time spent on this project and the plan that cannot be used?  Mr. Hall said that his firm is willing to move forward without additional cost to the City to find a solution and a set of plans that stay within the budget. 

Alderman Pogue asked what part of the new design are the re-designed piers going to be used?  Mr. Hall said that he wants to do away with the piers in a new design.  He would like a new soils engineer to give an opinion.  It’s possible that the redesigned piers might not be used. 

Alderman Fleming asked will spending an additional $12,000 get a plan that will take care of the ramp situation this year.  City Administrator Kuntz said that his goal is to address the ramp situation well within budget and to leave the remainder of the project for the following year. 

Alderman Fleming asked about the ADA compliance with the current ramp.  City Attorney Jones said that even though the ramp looks bad, it’s functional at this time.  Alderman Fleming asked if ADA access will be satisfactory with a staircase with a lift?  City Attorney Jones said yes.  Alderman Fleming said he is opposed to spending more than $12,000 at this time.  He does not want this project turned into the school house.  City Administrator Kuntz agreed. 

Alderman Terbrock asked if previous bids just to repair the ramp were approximately $400,000.  City Administrator Kuntz said yes.  The plan was to tear down and rebuild the existing ramp.  The new suggestion is to tear down the ramp, put a straight up from the ground parking lot, six steps to the landing where it is now, a rail on the side for a lift.  He said this cannot be done any cheaper than the new plan.  It will solve the problem.  The piers will not be need with the new plan. 

Mr. Hall said that his firm was paid to prepare a design, which was determined that this was an acceptable building in terns of solving a function and falling within budget.  He said that what we got was a building that was out of budget.  He said his firm has made the commitment to do what is necessary to come up with a solution, for no additional charge, to find and answer, do the drawings and whatever is necessary. 

A voice vote was taken with the following result:  Aye:  Terbrock, Buermann, Suozzi, Fleming, Lembke, Boerner.   Nay:  Robinson and Pogue.  The motion passed by a vote of 6 – 2. 

Refuse Collection:  City Administrator Kuntz said that this is regarding extension of the refuse collection contract through December 31, 2008, based on current rates.  He asked that approval of the existing contract not be subject to transfer or assignment to any other company besides Allied Waste.  City Attorney Jones said that this is consistent with the ordinance that the contract can be extended, consistent with the current contract, but not to be assigned or transferred to any successor entity of Allied Waste. 

City Administrator Kuntz said that Waste Management is pursuing an unsolicited offer to purchase Republic Services, who is pursuing an offer to purchase Allied Waste.  He said that the purpose of the requested motion is to make sure Ballwin is not providing any transferable contractual obligation to a company that has not previously contracted with Ballwin. 

Mayor Young asked what happens if Republic Services is successful in taking over Allied Waste.  City Attorney Jones said that the extension will be invalid without another opportunity to meet and agree on the extension, ask for a new contract, or put it out for bid.  He said that this extension applies only to Allied Waste and not to any successors or assigns. 

Alderman Lembke said that one of the reasons for the extension was to obtain the recycling carts.  Mayor Young said that Mr. Lamantia with Allied Waste said the carts will be delivered around October 1.  City Administrator Kuntz said that the pre-bid conference was today, we can go out to bid, award, and the delivery will be around October 1.  He said that he told Allied Waste not to present a proposed rate increase without providing the recycling carts.  He said that as long as Ballwin stays in the leaf collection business, that is a cost that’s factored in that no one else seems to have, including St. Louis County.  Twice per week collection would be eliminated, as well as unlimited collection and year-round yard waste collection. 

A motion was made by Alderman Lembke and seconded by Alderman Buermann to accept the extension of the current Allied Waste contract through December 31, 2008, and that the contract is not subject to transfer or assignment to any other company.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed. 

Transfer of Funds:  City Administrator Kuntz said this is a transfer from the operating budget to the capital budget on a temporary basis.  The capital expenditures come in a surge as opposed to the revenue coming monthly through gas tax etc.  This has been done for the past 3 or 4 years because it must be supplemented from operating to capital for auditing purposes, and then in the upcoming months when the revenue exceeds expense, it will be paid back.  Alderman Boerner said this is similar to tax anticipation financing that is financed by the general fund.  City Administrator Kuntz said another alternative is to build up a cushion of reserves in the capital fund.  He said that we don’t carry reserves in the capital fund.  Every dollar authorized is expended into projects. 

A motion was made by Alderman Boerner and seconded by Alderman Robinson to grant the transfer of funds proposed by City Administrator Kuntz.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

Office / Facility Hours:  City Administrator Kuntz said that a change in office hours due to construction was considered.  However, due to energy costs, providing flexibility of the office hours for energy conservation or other benefits to the city is requested. 

A motion was made by Alderman Suozzi and seconded by Alderman Lembke to draft the proposed legislation for consideration.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

Swimming Pool Removal:  City Administrator Kuntz said this has become a problem both financial and for code enforcement.  Assistant City Administrator Aiken said that the demolition ordinance does not address the removal of foundations or basements.  The only regulations for the removal of those materials is in the refuse ordinance.  If it was put in a pile and buried, it would be considered an accumulation of refuse and would be a violation.  When buildings are town down, there is an expectation that a building will be built on that site.  It is required that all foundations and footings be completely removed from the site.  It is not allowed to be buried.  The only exception is that in subdivision situations, when houses were being town down, the burial of the rubble has been allowed under certain engineered circumstances in common ground areas where there would not be a structure built on top of it.  An example is the detention basin in Clayton Ridge Subdivision behind The Barn At Lucerne.  The foundation rubble from the previous condos was allowed to be buried under the detention basis in that subdivision. 

Assistant City Administrator Aiken said that up until 10 years ago, Ballwin didn’t have many in-ground swimming pools, therefore, this type of demolition was rare.  Some of the older pools have begun to deteriorate.  The homeowner is usually the one taking out the pool.  To be economically responsive to these owners, if the concrete pools are pushed in, broken into small pieces, compacted and covered, we allow them to be buried on the site, with a Demolition permit.  This has been the practice that has been followed for many years.  He said there is nothing in the building code or an ordinance that specifically addresses this practice.


City Attorney Jones reported that Louis Greenberg has dismissed his federal suit against Ballwin.  The appeal of the local case will go before the St. Louis County Circuit Court in September.


Capital Improvement Projects:  Alderman Pogue requested an update on the asphalt projects.  City Engineer Kramer said that Ballwin’s obligation has been met.  The paving will start next Monday. 

Gas Stations:  Alderman Terbrock asked about gas stations requiring pre-payment for cash gas purchases.  He asked if the police have been involved in enough activity to warrant this requirement.  Captain Godefroid said that this has not been an issue in Ballwin. 

Meadowbrook Subdivision Street Repairs:  Alderman Fleming asked Jack Hanley, Meadowbrook Trustee for an update.  Mr. Hanley said that it does not appear that the Meadowbrook streets will be repaired under the ownership of the City of Ballwin in the time frame desired by the Meadowbrook residents.  He said that the Great Streets Program is designed to save the city money.  This is what the Meadowbrook Trustees have also been trying to do and have not been successful so far.  He said that they held another meeting with the residents, and 88% of the owners voted in favor of Ballwin vacating the streets to the subdivision.  He presented a petition to vacate the Meadowbrook streets as follows:  “We the undersigned, hereby petition the City of Ballwin, Missouri, to vacate the streets of Meadowbrook Country Club Estates, with the sole exception of the main entrance road off of Clayton Road.  This street was repaved last year and, therefore, does not need repaving.  The purpose of this petition is to enable the homeowners to repair the subdivision streets.”  He said the petition is signed by 81 homeowners.  He said the owners of the Villas are sympathetic to the cause and are going to help pay for repairing the streets.  He said there are now 140 homeowners represented who believe it is important to repair the Meadowbrook streets even if this must be done by the homeowners. 

Mr. Hanley said that they will meet with contractors to hopefully sign a contract contingent with Board of Aldermen approval at the next meeting.  The paving will start as soon as Ballwin releases the streets.  (The petition referred to by Mr. Hanley was given to the Recording Secretary, who gave the signed petition to the City Attorney).

Alderman Fleming said that when the streets are vacated, there will be a loss of snow plowing and street light services.  Mr. Hanley said that he is aware of this, including the trustees and Meadowbrook homeowners.  Alderman Fleming said that it appears that everyone signing the petition have been well informed in order to make a reasonable decision and they still overwhelmingly support the motion.  He said that at this point, Ballwin’s City Attorney will need to verify that this is a valid petition.  He said he is in favor of vacating the streets back to Meadowbrook homeowners after City Attorney verification and discussion at the July 28 Board meeting. 

City Administrator Kuntz asked if the petition has been reviewed by an attorney for the Meadowbrook residents.  Mr. Hanley said yes. 

A motion was made by Alderman Robinson and seconded by Alderman Fleming to direct City Attorney Jones to prepare legislation for consideration to vacate the Meadowbrook streets, contingent upon verification of an acceptable petition.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

Alderman Lembke asked if there is any reason that would prevent preparation of the legislation.  City Attorney Jones said that the only item that could prevent this would be the threshold requirements of Chapter 71 and Chapter 88 of the Missouri Statutes, dealing with the vacation of streets.  There are legal requirements that a petition to vacate must meet.  He said he will look at this promptly and speak to the Council for Meadowbrook. 

Mr. Daniel Fox said that when the City passed the ordinance accepting the streets for dedication in July, 1998, it provided that the acceptance was conditional upon a representation of the trustees of Meadowbrook and that they have the authority to dedicate the streets.  He said the Trustees are present and will state that they have the authority to cause the streets to be vacated.  This was a standard that was acceptable to the City 10 years ago.

The Meadowbrook Trustees introduced themselves as follows:  Barbara McFadden, 44 Meadowbrook Country Club Estates; Jim Ming, 76 Meadowbrook Country Club Estates; Jack Hanley, 111 Country Club Estates.  The Meadowbrook Trustees stated and agreed that they have authority as Trustees to cause the streets to be vacated, subject to the approval of the residents; that they have had more than one vote obtaining authority from the residents to cause such approval.  Both of the votes were to authorize the streets be vacated because the City has not fixed the streets – the Trustees agreed.  Alderman Robinson said that all of the Trustees have agreed to the statements. 

Alderman Robinson commended the Meadowbrook Trustees for their hard work and the residents for their willingness to work together on this issue and for providing funds for this project.

Mr. Daniel Fox said that the Board of Aldermen has disrespected the residents of Meadowbrook by expecting, congratulating, and applauding them for spending their own dollars on the streets and agreeing to salt and snow plow as a result of the vacation.  He said there is no assurance that Ballwin will take back the streets after the repairs are done.  He said that this situation is absolutely a joke.

Adjourn:  A motion was made by Alderman Buermann and seconded by Alderman Suozzi to adjourn.  The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.