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

To view the Agenda click here

 

 

Meeting Minutes

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
CITY OF BALLWIN – 300 PARK DRIVE

March 26, 2012

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

             PRESENT                                         ABSENT
MAYOR TIM POGUE 
ALDERMAN JIMMY TERBROCK 
ALDERMAN MICHAEL FINLEY 
ALDERMAN MARK HARDER 
ALDERMAN SHAMED DOGAN 
ALDERMAN FRANK FLEMING 
ALDERMAN JIM LEAHY 
ALDERMAN RICHARD BOERNER 
ALDERMAN KATHY KERLAGON 
CITY ADMINISTRATOR ROBERT KUNTZ 
CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT E. JONES 

The Pledge of Allegiance was given.

MINUTES

The Minutes of the March 12, 2012 Board of Aldermen meeting were submitted for approval. 
Amendments:  Alderman Harder; page 10, second paragraph – change “some regulations” to “the same regulations” for an approach to reduce the deer population. 
A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Leahy to approve the Minutes as amended.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

PRESENTATION
None.

PENDING ISSUES
None.

CITIZEN COMMENTS
Lois Linton, 322 Algonquin and Barbara Botts, 319 Wildbrier:  Ms. Linton and Ms. Botts spoke to the Board regarding the “National Day of Prayer”.  They asked if the Board would consider giving a Proclamation for the National Day of Prayer, which has been a historic event in this country.  Ms. Botts said, “The National Day of Prayer, specifically is a vital part of our national heritage.  Since the first call to prayer in 1775, when the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation, the call to prayer has continued through our history, including President Lincoln’s proclamation of a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, in 1863.  In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress, signed by President Truman, declared an annual national day of prayer.  In 1988, the law was amended and signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May.  Each year, the President signs a proclamation, encouraging all Americans to pray on this day.  The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation.  It enables us to recall and to teach the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions.  It stands as a call for us today to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders, and His grace upon us as a people.  The unanimous passage of the bill establishing the National Day of Prayer, as a set day each year, signifies that prayer is as important to our nation today as it was in the beginning.” 

Ms. Linton provided a sample City of Manchester Proclamation that regarding the National Day of Prayer.  This event is on Thursday, May 3, and the theme this year is “One Nation Under God”. 

Ann Florsek, 827 Westwood Drive:  Ms. Florsek spoke in opposition to the 2012 Building Code.  She is a Ballwin resident and an architect.  She said that information on the St. Louis County website shows that there are 66 municipalities in St. Louis County.  Out of those sixty-six, 18% do not use the County for permit issuance.  She said she works in many of the municipalities, along with the City and St. Charles County.  The current building practice of the St. Louis region is not the same issue of the building code that Ballwin uses.  When St. Louis County started using the 2003 version, Ballwin started using the 2006 version of the code.  When the County starts using the 2009, Ballwin uses the 2012.  With the 2012 code, Ballwin is not in sync with the current practice of the region. 

Ms. Florsek said, “In 1963, an average house cost $18,000.  Today, that same type of house is almost $122,000.   A $12,000 house, would today be built at $84,500.  If the inflation rate of $12,000 is added, the price is $147,000.  The house that we should be building for $84,500, is costing an additional $63,000.  I wonder if any of these regulations have anything to do with this.  It’s not just inflation or regulation of the building code. 

Ms. Florsek asked that the Board postpone approving the whole 2012 building code and to get in sync with St. Louis County.  Mayor Pogue said that we have already adopted the 2012 IRC.  We met with HBA and did a staff review of some of the changes in the code to come up with a resolution which meets more of the current building practices of the region.

Emily Wineland, Staff Vice President for Public Policies for the Home Builders Association:  Ms. Wineland introduced herself and that there are several home builders in attendance to answer technical questions about the 2012 Building Code. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
NEW BUSINESS

LEGISLATION
None.

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. Ballwin Days Rides
B. Fireworks

Alderman Finley asked how long as Miller Spectacular Shows been awarded the contract for the Ballwin Days rides?  City Administrator Kuntz said three years.  Tinsley previously was used, but Miller has provided the lowest bid in the past three years. 

Alderman Harder asked, “Is the fireworks contract being picked up by a business this year like it was last year?”  Director of Parks & Recreation Bruer said that she believes that it is.  City Administrator Kuntz said that all costs run through the City of Ballwin.  We try to have the sponsors with the revenue offset at the end of the day, the expenses, but because it’s a city festival, we have to run it through the city’s books.  That’s why this was bid out.  In this case, it’s not the lowest and best, it’s the most bang for the money. 

A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Kerlagon to accept the Consent Items.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.
MAYOR’S REPORT

Liquor License Transfer:  Mayor Pogue said this is a Liquor License transfer from the Lone Wolf Coffee Company to Wolf Public House, due to a change of ownership.  Police Chief Schicker has done the background check and recommends approval. 
A motion was made by Alderman Harder and seconded by Alderman Boerner to approve this Liquor License transfer.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

Ameren Rate Increase:  Mayor Pogue said that last week, the St. Louis County Municipal League met and unanimously passed a Resolution regarding the Ameren Rate Increase like the one that this Board passed.  They are sending a letter of opposition to the PSC.

Closed Session:  At the end of business at this meeting, a Closed Session will be held for the City Administrator’s annual evaluation, under State Statute 610.021 3. 

2012 Building Code:  Mayor Pogue said that staff met with representatives from the Home Builder’s Association, along with Aldermen Terbrock, Boerner, Assistant City Administrator Tom Aiken, Code Enforcement Supervisor Jerry Klein and Plan Reviewer Mike Roberts to discuss the recommendations for amendments or deletions to specific sections to meet the main construction practices of this area.  The International Code is formed by representatives that don’t all build like we do in the mid-west.  For example, very few construct basements. 

Alderman Boerner said, “The code is revised every three years.  Missouri is the only state that has adopted the 2012 International Residential Code.  Twenty-three states have adopted the 2009 code, thirteen are still using the 2006 code, four are using the 2003, and two are still using 2000.  Some have left it up to the individual municipalities and have developed some of their own codes.” 

“The developers of the codes are concerned about the health and safety of the residents of the houses.  The Energy Conservation Code has been adopted by three states, including Missouri.  The 2009 code has been adopted by 31 states; eight are using the 2006, and two are using the 2003 code.”

“The Federal government agencies that are represented on the committees are the New Buildings Institute, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership, National Institute of Building Sciences, and the U.S. Fire Administration, which is part of FEMA.  There are a lot of overlapping standards and responsibilities.”

“The Government Consensus process leaves the final determination of code provisions in the hands of public officials, who with no vested financial interest, can legitimately represent the public interest.” 

Alderman Boerner said, “I think that governments can represent the public interest.  Institutionalization is evidenced by the books that Ann Florsek displayed at this meeting under Citizen Comments.  All of the overlapping agencies continue to come up with more and more provisions.  In the meeting, eleven people spent about 15 minutes talking about how to construct a home dryer vent.  The code states that the packing be secured together with three screws.  The screws would project out of the other side of the pipe, and would catch lint, and perhaps catch fire.  This is a fire hazard.  One out of eight fires in a home are caused by stopped up dryer vents.  In that meeting, our personnel did a great job of defending the code and had a reasonable application of the code.  The HBA representatives had a well-reasoned approach regarding their concerns.  As a business owner, I found this insulting, that a government can have more of a legitimate interest.  It should be discussed what impact the new code has on existing projects.  I believe existing projects should be exempt from some of the codes.  It’s not appropriate or fair for us to tell the builders that requirements have changed.  They will have to re-submit their plans for approval.” 

Mayor Pogue said, “Right now, whichever code that they build under, depends on when they acquired the permit for that specific house.”  Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “In the case of a subdivision, this would allow them to complete the subdivision using any standard plans that were already on file prior to the adoption of the new code.  New plans that are submitted after the new code is approved, would have to comply with the new code.  As long as they are building under the standard plan, if it was originally approved under the previous code, the subdivision could be completed using those plans.  Right now, if someone has already submitted plans and has a permit, we’re not making them comply with the new code.” 

Alderman Boerner said, “In the same subdivision, if the homeowner says he would like the plan that is being used in a different subdivision, the new code would have to be used.  I propose that the old code should be used to finish out a subdivision, regardless of the plans.  This is the fair thing to do.  If the ground has been purchased and they are in the process of planning, the old code should be used because that was the assumption when the purchase was made.” 

Alderman Harder asked, “An estimate, based on the cost impact to someone building a home, would cost about $67,000 if this is not adopted.  Is that accurate?”

Emily Wineland, Staff Vice President for Public Policies for the Home Builders Association, said, “For every thousand dollars increases the cost of a home; 1,687 citizens within St. Louis County can no longer qualify for that mortgage.  That was in 2009 and bank standards have become more stringent since then.  The good news is that it was determined that for every home built in just one year, an average of 3.3 jobs is created for a full year.  $15,000 in state and local tax revenue is generated, and $210,000 in local income is generated.  The HBA is proud of its code committee.  We have a standing 25-member committee that meets monthly, and there were over 60 volunteers involved in the code review in the past four months.  There are 535 sections changed in the code.  We were fine with all of them, except 74.  In working with the city, we have come to an agreement on about 30.  Of those costs, if you take the whole 74, it would be about $88,000.  We’re working with about $67,000 with good progress in the right direction, especially considering what your neighboring communities are in codes ranging from 2000 to 2009.  Most are using the 2009 IRC.  We submitted a cost estimate with just about every code proposal, based on local bids.  This is just the cost to the home builder.”

Alderman Fleming asked, “Many of the municipalities around us and St. Louis County are using the 2009 code.  Did any of them modify the 2009 based on your recommendations?”  Ms. Wineland said, “Yes, quite heavily.  I attended over 150 meetings with St. Louis County to vet its mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and residential codes.  In that process, the architects, engineers, fire marshals are all involved.  We went through the code chapter by chapter.  Chesterfield, Manchester, and unincorporated St. Louis County are using a product of the negotiations of that code.  It goes through a building code review committee that is open to the public.  It then goes through a building commission and then the County council.  This lasts about eight months.” 

Mayor Pogue said, “If we adopt the 2009 code, there would be 19 sections that the HBA would like for us to amend if we adopt the 2009.” 

City Attorney Jones asked, “Is the staff recommendation to replace Chapter 11 of the 2012 code with Chapter 11 of the 2009 code?”  Mayor Pogue said that’s correct.  City Attorney Jones said, “There are no specific recommendations in Chapter 11.”  Mayor Pogue said, “There are eight that are listed in the packet of amendments. 

Alderman Fleming said, “The reason we got to where we are now, having adopted the 2012 code as it was published, is because the insurance services organization came to us and said that we need to be on one of the last two versions of the code; 2009 or 2012.  We have five options.  We can take the code as is, 2006, 2009, or 2012, or we can take modified 2009 or 2012.  The 2006 is what we went away from.  The ISO said we have to be using one of the most recent versions.  We’re not going back to the 2006 code.  How does the ISO feel about organizations modifying the code?” 
Code Enforcement Supervisor Jerry Klein said, “It will slightly decrease our rating for residential.”  Alderman Fleming said, “So, it’s not without some risk to modify it.  The conclusion we’re coming to after hearing from the Home Builder’s Association and other people is that the 2012, as is, runs up cost and doesn’t make anybody very happy.  I’m suggesting that we at least dial it back to the 2009 as is, or the 2009 modified, and limit our choices to those two things.  This was based on modifying the 2012.  We’ll be here all night talking about the 31 different items in the code.  I don’t have the expertise in the building field to dig into these and say why one is better than another or what we should be doing.  I think we should accept the 2009 as modified or the 2009 as is.” 

Mayor Pogue said asked Ms. Wineland about her discussion with the ISO representative, Tom Gibble.  Ms. Wineland said, “Mr. Gibble is in charge of the ISO review.  Mr. Gibble said that the ISO is an optional insurance review agent.  They review all of the municipalities and fire districts and provide a rating scale for insurance companies to use if they desire.  At most, if you make a perfect score, you have an optional homeowner’s insurance decrease of 4.5%.  If you have the lowest rate, you still get 1.5% discount.  That rate is only for homes constructed under that code.  If you do that, it won’t affect any of your current construction.  It won’t benefit them at all.  They are beginning to move away from the 4.5% decrease because the insurance companies provide a number of different packages.  The 4.5% won’t necessarily apply because if you bundle your auto, life insurance, or if you have an umbrella or some other rider, it may not be a benefit at all.  I said to Mr. Gibble, if the Home Builder’s Association was looking at the codes and modifications and amendments to the code, what would that mean?  For example tamper resistant receptacles; do you care if this is in a home?  Is that the kind of amendment to the code that would cause a decrease in a city for the rating?  He said no.  They are looking at it from a home insurance standpoint.  They consider things that are structural to the home.  How will this play in the event of a tornado, or hale damage, or anything that would affect the insurance companies?  They don’t care about the life and safety of the occupant of that home.  It’s all about the structure.  If you’re in the top three classes, you still qualify for the 4.5% optional discount.  The ISO doesn’t always equate to a benefit for constituents.” 

Alderman Fleming said, “I still suggest that we use the 2009 code.  The 2012 code can adversely affect people wanting to build in the near future.” 

Alderman Boerner said, “There is a bill that has been presented that all municipalities would have to adopt one of the latest two versions of the code.  This was introduced by Representative Meadows, of north county.” 

Alderman Harder said, “I agree with Alderman Fleming.  We could work on the modifications of the 2009 code.”  Mayor Pogue said, “The builders are looking for a quick resolution to this issue.  Some have foundations poured and are waiting to see what happens with the code.  The longer we postpone a decision, the longer they have to wait.  I’m sure their customers would like to see their houses start being built.”  Alderman Harder said, “I see the logic of this suggestion, but the 2009 code is what we need to be using, perhaps with modifications.” 

Ms. Wineland said, “Why re-invent the wheel?  Can you do what St. Louis County is doing, Manchester, and Chesterfield, and use that modified version of the code?  They are using the modified 2009 code.  St. Louis County has a checklist that outlines the changes.”  Alderman Harder said, “If we use the 2009 code, the whole issue that started this discussion was the fire protection of floors.  That would go away.”  Ms. Wineland said yes.  “St. Louis County veted that issue also.  We discussed this with a number of fire marshals, fire chiefs, architects, and engineers involved in the discussion.  They considered it and voted it down because that’s not a concern or problem.” 

Mayor Pogue said, “We agreed to have staff meet with the HBA and come up with a resolution.  We’ve got 12 – 15 hours of staff time tied up in this, and now we’re going to throw it all out the window?  The HBA is satisfied with the amendments to the 2012 code.  I hate to see us step backwards.  I think we will look poorly to the public if suddenly we are back tracking from what we’ve done.”  Alderman Harder said he doesn’t think we are backtracking.  Mayor Pogue said, “We absolutely are.  We adopted the 2012 code and there are multiple cities reviewing it now.”  Alderman Harder said, “There are seven states that that haven’t even adopted the 2002 code.”  Mayor Pogue said most of the states don’t adopt them.  Did Missouri pass the 2012 IRC?  Alderman Boerner said they passed it.  Mayor Pogue said they don’t adopt a residential building code at all.  Ms. Wineland said they do not.  Alderman Boerner said the ICC website shows that the State of Missouri has adopted this.” 

Alderman Fleming said, “I understood our citizen presenter earlier say that it would be easier on architects and others if the codes matched.  She said that St. Louis County is using the 2009 code.  There is a benefit to using the 2009 code.  This will make it easier to closely parallel ourselves with St. Louis County.” 

Code Enforcement Supervisor Klein said, “The County heavily amends their code.  We would like an opportunity to review this until a decision is made.  One of the things we’ve been enforcing for about 12 years is the stair geometry which is a much safer situation.  The County keeps adopting something from the 1980s on that.  We should review this before we adopt all of the County’s amendments.” 

Alderman Boerner said, “I would like to get a resolution to this tonight, and I favor going back to the 2009 code.  An electrical contractor told me that what bugs him is when officials come out with things that are not in their approved code.  You can do this if it’s a matter of public safety and health.  I think there should be some standardization.  If we disagree with something in the County code, we can change it later.  We approved the 2012 code without knowing anything about it.  We were told that there were not any significant changes, when actually there were 300 pages of annotated changes.  I favor resolving this tonight.  I make a motion that we should adopt the 2009 County code, as amended.”  City Attorney Jones said we will need to repeal the 2012 code that we’ve already adopted.  We will have to make the 2009 code available for 60 days before we adopt it.  We made the 2012 code available in August and was available for public review.

Alderman Boerner asked, “Why wasn’t this brought up before the Board that it was being made available for viewing if it was being considered?”  City Attorney Jones said, “It was available on the computer in the Government Center.  If anyone wanted to look at it, they could have done so.”  Alderman Boerner asked, “Why weren’t we informed that we were considering this?  The first time I heard about the 2012 code was when it was presented at the Board meeting.  I asked if there were any significant changes, and was told that there were none.” 

Assistant City Administrator Aiken said, “We had it in-house and we were looking at it.  Staff was not ready to bring it to the Board in the time frame that it came.  That was a result of the evaluation from the ISO.  That pushed us to a faster time frame.  It was available and met the technical requirement of the State law because we had it here and it was available if anyone wanted to look at it.  We’re not actually required to advertise it, just have it available.  We met the requirement when it was adopted, but we didn’t notify the Board that we were proposing it because at the time we got it in-house, we weren’t looking to d that.  We only pushed it up because of the evaluation.” 

Mayor Pogue said, “I strongly recommend that be done in the future.  Monarch recently advertised that they were doing this; Springfield, Missouri is currently reviewing the 2012 IRC and is posted on their website with the proposed changes that staff has recommended, as well as the recommendations that the HBA made to the staff, and a link to staff regarding the review.  On the ICC website, it shows the last adoption that Missouri did was the 2000 residential code.”  Alderman Terbrock said, “It was updated on 3/13/12.  It says that Missouri has state-wide adoptions with limitations of the 2000 edition.” 

Alderman Harder said, “I remember the conversation about the ISO ratings that Tom brought up, and it was almost like a sidebar like, oh, by the way, we need to adopt the 2012 in order for us to get a better rating.  It was pushed through at that meeting.  We rushed on this.  Alderman Boerner asked Assistant City Administrator Aiken at that time if there were any significant changes, and you said no not really, but there may be this thing with the floor joist.  It was pushed through.  We approved it and the Board didn’t get a 60-day notice.  It may have been available to you, but we didn’t know it was going to be on the agenda because we were talking about a whole different topic, and we wound up voting for this.  We rushed to judgment on this and I’ve taken that position from the beginning.  I take all of the creditability out of that whole discussion at this point.  I think we should accept the 2009 code and then modify it as necessary.” 

Mayor Pogue said, “By doing so, it would push back being able to adopt the code for two months.”  City Attorney Jones said, “Unless we have the 2009 code available, and we have had it available on the city’s computers.  The genesis of this requirement is in the State Statute.  It says that if you’re going to adopt building code revisions by reference, as opposed to putting all of the three books that the architect showed us, into our ordinances, you have to make it available for 60 days.  The penalty provisions have to be in it specifically.  This is in the State law.  I don’t know if we’ve had the 2009 available or the County’s amended version available.  If we have, we could entertain legislation at the next meeting.  If not, we need to make sure that we pay attention to those deadlines.” 

Code Enforcement Supervisor Klein said, “We’ve had the basic code for over 60 days, none of the County amendments.”  City Attorney Jones said, “The County amendments would not be a standardized code that we are adopting by reference.  We would adopt them specifically.  That would not be a requirement under the statute.  If we’ve had the 2009 code available for 60 days in its standardized form, that would satisfy the statute.” 

Mayor Pogue asked, “Has that been available to the public?”  Code Enforcement Supervisor Klein said, “If anybody would come in and wanted to look at it, we would have given it to them to look at.” 

City Attorney Jones said, “If we are going to adopt some of the County’s changes to the standardized code, I will want to put those in the legislation specifically, as opposed to just incorporating by reference.  As a drafting mechanism, I would show this Board adopting the 2009 code with the following changes.  If you remember the ones that you adopted in the 2012 had five or six specific changes.  We would do the same thing.  The changes would be the County’s variations on the code.”  Alderman Boerner asked if the County code could be adopted as amended.  City Attorney Jones said no, “I would not suggest doing it that way.  That’s not an effective way to do this.  It would be the 2009 ICC codes.  We adopted six of them.”  Mayor Pogue said, “We’re looking at the IRC version of it.”  City Attorney Jones asked, “Are we not going to do anything with the other five?”  Mayor Pogue said that nothing has been proposed.

Mayor Pogue asked, “Would there be any ramifications of adopting the 2009 IRC, since we’ve adopted the 2012 multiple versions of the different mechanical codes?”  Code Enforcement Supervisor Klein said, “It references other codes.”  Plan Review Mike Roberts said, “That’s correct.  A lot of the codes are built almost like blocks in a wall.  They all inter-connect.  If you pull one section out, you’re going to affect another section.  That’s one of the bigger problems with the 2009 code, why we originally didn’t want to adopt it.  There was a fire sprinkler provision that was put in the 2009 code that the State of Missouri has now taken out.  In the 2012 code, there’s a section where they’ve made it so that you can either have the sprinkler or not have the sprinkler.  They’ve given different ways to do the code with the sprinkler’s or without.  In the 2009, it’s strictly everything with the sprinklers.  We would have to try to find out where they gave the home builders different options to lessen the fire safety because there’s a sprinkler.  That was the biggest problem with the 2009 and why we didn’t want to adopt it.  The 2012 had already corrected those problems, and stated that this is with the sprinklers and without the sprinklers.  We will have to find where the safety items were pulled out and redo it.  The County codes are really different than what we’re looking at here.  They are basically the IRC in name only.  They are so full of amendments that it’s not really IRC anymore.” 

Ms. Wineland said, “Regarding the fire sprinkler, this was also a concern for the Home Builder’s Association.  The firewall separation between multi-family structures and family dwellings.  Those issues have been addressed by every municipality that has adopted the 2009 IRC, which includes St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and Jefferson County.  I will be happy to provide those reference points.  Regarding the amendments, there are a number of ways to do things as far as amending the code, if the concern is not to delete things from the code, since this is a minimum code.  A number of the provisions, especially from St. Louis County, are an option.  You could not delete things unless it protects change.  For example, simplified wall bracing, to St. Louis County, it does.  You could add it to the code as an additional section.  The builder, engineer, or architect would then have the option of choosing what’s most appropriate for the homeowner and home site.  I asked the ISO, if you were just adding things to the code, would it be okay to add amendments and not delete structural issues.  They said that would be fine as long as there was engineering backup, signed and sealed.” 

Alderman Fleming asked for a clearer explanation.  City Attorney Jones said, “These are minimum standards.  If we want to enhance those standards, we will simply add a new section, rather than delete the standard language.  We will leave whatever those minimum standards are already existing in the model code, and add additional sections that are appropriate.”

Ms. Wineland said, “R303, that’s being considered at this meeting, is an example for venting for bathrooms.  That would be an example where you would change the text, remove the restriction, and allow the venting to be dumped into a soffit or a gabled structure.  This is an example where a straight-on amendment wouldn’t work, but for issues that would be of concern, such as foundation, bracing, or anything like that, you could add separate amendments. 

Alderman Fleming said, “I’m not any more clear on this subject now than when I walked into the room tonight.  What I’ve just heard from them is that with the 2009 code, our Inspectors are not going to be very pleased with it.  They are the ones applying the code every day.  The moratorium is in effect until July 31.  Anyone getting permits at this time, will be under the 2012 code, with the exception of Section 501.3.  In an effort to comply with the ISO, we didn’t talk this through sufficiently.  Is there any desire to move the moratorium further back for all parts of it while we work on this?  I feel like we’re shooting from the hip on this issue.”  Mayor Pogue said that Chapter 11 is another big concern of the builders as they try to negotiate contracts with customers.  If we did this, and a builder came in for a permit tomorrow, they would still have to comply with 2012, Chapter 11, which is an estimated $9,000 on the high end, if we did not accept any of the amendments.”

Alderman Boerner said, “I think we should rescind the ordinance adopting the 2012 code.  That will take us back to the 2006.  That’s not where we want to be, but we can later decide if we should adopt the 2009 County code, the ICC as amended, or use the 2012 with amendments.  Right now, we are at a point where no one is happy with this.  The builders could then finish their project under the 2006 code, which would bring clarity for the builders.” 

Alderman Fleming said, “At the November 28, 2011 meeting, we passed the 2012 Residential Code, 2012 International Building Code, 2012 International Plumbing Code, 2012 International Mechanical Code, the 2011 National Electric Code, and the 2012 International Fuel Gas Code.  Right now, we’re only talking about one.”  Mayor Pogue asked, “Are you suggesting going back to the 2006 IRC, or the 2006 version of all of the codes?  If we go back to 2009, there could be some things in the 2012 code that would still be an impact.”  Alderman Boerner said, “I’m suggesting that we go back to 2006, where we were before, and then move forward from there.”  Mayor Pogue said, “Go back to 2006 version of all of the codes?”  Alderman Boerner said yes. 

Alderman Fleming asked, “Is there any concern about going back to the 2006 version of the building code and leaving everything else at 2012?”  Plan Reviewer Mike Robert said, “The 2011 Electrical code is more stringent than the 2006 International Residential code.  We would tend to go off of the residential sections in the 2011 code.  Some of the electrical codes would be different.  The 2008 is more stringent than the 2006, on the electrical only.”

Alderman Fleming asked, “If we left everything else the same and just took this one back to 2006, will it be an unbearable mess?”  Plan Reviewer Mike Robert said, “I don’t think it would affect it very much.”  Code Enforcement Supervisor Jerry Klein said, “The other codes are mainly for commercial buildings.”

Alderman Harder said, “For easy clarification, why don’t we just go back to the code we were using in October, 2011, and then take time to go forward after that.  It worked in October, and it hasn’t worked since because of these issues.”  City Attorney Jones said that is what Alderman Boerner was suggesting.

Alderman Terbrock said, “I think at this time we should go back to the 2006 code.  We didn’t understand all we were getting into when we did this last November.  The 2012 edition of the code seems to be ruffling a lot of feathers.  We probably should have looked at it more thoroughly. I don’t like going backwards, and a lot of time has already been spent on this.  The only issue I have about going back to the 2006 code is that takes out of the 1.4% insurance element.  If we go back to the 2006 code, it will give us more time to consider the 2009 with the County amendments, and to determine if this will work for us.  There’s obviously a lot more work to be done.” 

Alderman Fleming asked, “Does the ISO care about all of the other codes being the most recent that we use?”  Code Enforcement Supervisor Klein said, “We have to be within 5 years with all of the codes of the year that we are evaluated.” 

Alderman Boerner said, “Most of the municipalities in the United States are not even on the 2009 code.  If there’s such a negative impact, why are there so many municipalities that are still using the 2000, 2003, and 2006 code?” 

City Administrator Kuntz asked, “For clarification, did you say that the other code variations primarily involve commercial application?”  Plan Reviewer Robert said, “The other ones are only going to be commercial.  The only thing that’s going to be different is that the Electrical code does cross over into some residential.”  Mayor Pogue said, “So, essentially, we would just need the Residential code and the Electrical code.”  Plan Reviewer Roberts said, “That would affect what we are talking about tonight and what the home builders are discussing.  The National Electrical Code and the International Residential Code are the two codes that will affect the home builders the most.” 

City Administrator Kuntz said, “All the other codes that were adopted to the higher standard, can remain in place and are not affected, from your standpoint, on the day-to-day operation.  I just want to make sure everyone understands what they are voting on.”  Plan Reviewer Roberts said, “It does affect the commercial end, but it’s not going to affect the residential.”  City Administrator Kuntz said, “The two codes to be changed are the electrical and residential, and everything else could stand without any crossover application.”  Plan Review Roberts said yes. 

Alderman Leahy asked, “Will this be where we were on October 1 before we did all of this?”  City Attorney Jones said yes, for residential, not commercial.  Commercial is different.  Alderman Leahy said, “For residential which we are proposing tonight, is to basically do that Alderman Harder said, which is to go back to October 1.”  Alderman Harder said yes.

Alderman Boerner said, “If we rescind that ordinance, why do we need a new ordinance to adopt the 2006?”  Mayor Pogue said, “This will all take place at the same meeting.  Since we have to draft legislation to repeal, we might as well have legislation to re-adopt.” 

A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Leahy to draft legislation to repeal Ordinance 11-55 which is the 2012 International Residential Code, and Ordinance 11-59 which is the 2011 National Electrical Code, and draft legislation to reinstate the 2006 International Residential Code and the 2008 National Electrical Code.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

Alderman Boerner asked, “As a result of this, can the builders go out and assume….”  Mayor Pogue said, “Not until the vote has been taken and passed on the new legislation.  That will be in two weeks.  Right now if plans are submitted, it will be under the current approved code.  All the plans will have to meet the 2012 code until this legislation is approved.” 

Alderman Harder asked, “Do we need to also rescind the moratorium?”  City Attorney Jones said, “Since it is part of the 2012 code, it will be gone.  I’ll make sure that section is repealed so that the moratorium will be gone.” 

Ad Hoc Committee:  Mayor Pogue recommended the establishment an ad hoc committee to work with City Administrator Kuntz and the potential architects to go over the design of redoing the Board room and the Government Center.  He also recommended that Aldermen Terbrock, Kerlagon, Fleming to sit in on those committees. 
A motion was made by Alderman Terbrock and seconded by Alderman Leahy to establish the ad hoc committee including the recommended Aldermen.  A voice vote was taken with a unanimous affirmative result and the motion passed.

CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
None.

STAFF REPORTS
None.

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Case Law Highlight:  City Attorney Jones said, “Missouri’s Excessive Unemployment Law was declared unconstitutional by the United States District Court.  The provision that the City now includes in its Public Works contracts requiring only Missouri workers to be employed, and not allowing workers from restricted states, like the State of Illinois, is no longer going to be necessary in our contract.  We’ve been in a state of excessive unemployment for 3½ years, anything over 5%.  That law has now been declared unconstitutional.  When we start considering Public Works contracts, we don’t need to include that language.” 

74 Breezeview:  City Attorney Jones said, “With the direction that we were provided at the last meeting, we met with the demolition contractor, spoke with the property owner’s attorney, and we have proposed a cost structure to recover as much as possible for the City while achieving both the exterior and interior repairs for an occupancy inspection.  I have not yet received formal response to that demand.  I passed that on on Friday.”  Alderman Harder asked, “You submitted something to be negotiated with them in that regard?”  City Attorney Jones said yes.  City Administrator Kuntz said, “In a worse case scenario, we will be following your direction to its conclusion.  That would be to initiate whatever appropriate legal action is necessary to come to an agreement.  We’re very sensitive to the spirit of your direction.  You want this problem resolved.  If there’s no compromise or something different, please instruct City Attorney Jones in either open or closed session.  We will take the appropriate legal steps to go through to get it done.”  Mayor Pogue said, “The yard of the resident across the street was excavated for a utility disconnect.  We got the yard restored for them and has been completed.” 

ALDERMANIC COMMENTS

National Day of Prayer:  Alderman Finley said, “I appreciated the presentation by Ms. Linton and Ms. Botts.  I’d like to see us adopt a resolution in this regard.” 

Ballwin Athletic Association:  Alderman Terbrock said, “This week is the first week of BAA’s Friday night game of the week, which will be Parkway North vs. Marquette, and fish will be served.”

Adjourn to Closed Session:  A motion was made by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Boerner to adjourn to closed session to discuss the annual review of the City Administrator, according to Missouri Statute 610.302.3.  A roll call vote was taken with the following results: 
Ayes:  Aldermen Boerner, Kerlagon, Fleming, Leahy, Dogan, Harder, Terbrock, Finley.  Nays:  None.  The motion passed to adjourn to closed session at 8:45 p.m. 

Closed Session:  The Board convened in closed session at 8:55 p.m.

A motion was made by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Boerner to give City Administrator Bob Kuntz a 3% salary increase in conjunction with his annual review.  A voice vote was taken with the following result:  Ayes:  Terbrock, Finley, Harder, Dogan, Fleming, Leahy, Boerner, Kerlagon.         Nays- none.  The motion passed unanimously.

Adjourn Closed Session:  A motion was made by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Fleming to adjourn the closed session.  A roll call vote was taken with the following result:  Ayes- Terbrock, Finley, Harder, Dogan, Fleming, Leahy, Boerner, Kerlagon.  Nays- none.  The closed session adjourned at 9:24 p.m.

The Board reconvened in open session at 9:25 p.m. 

A motion was made at 9:25 by Alderman Leahy and seconded by Alderman Fleming to go back to open session.  Ayes- Terbrock, Finley, Harder, Dogan, Fleming, Leahy, Boerner, Kerlagon.  Nays- none.

Adjourn:  A motion was made by Alderman Fleming and seconded by Alderman Leahy to adjourn the open session.   A roll call vote was taken with the following result:  Ayes- Terbrock, Finley, Harder, Dogan, Fleming, Leahy, Boerner, Kerlagon.  Nays- none.  The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

TIM POGUE, MAYOR

ATTEST:
ROBERT A. KUNTZ, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

MC