Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Tonight's meeting to order, if you would, please stand and join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Sue, would you do a roll call, please?

Alderman Dobbs. I'm here today. Alderman Fahey.

Here.

Alderman Donovan.

Here.

Alderman Newey.

Here.

Alderman Eidman. Here. Alderman Steiger. Here. Alderman Prince. Here. Alderman Ross.

Here.

And there we have a form.

Thank you very much. At this time, I will look for approval of tonight's agenda. Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. First up tonight, we do have a small presentation. Don Pritchard's here joining us tonight, and we'd like to recognize him. It's my honor this evening to recognize someone whose voice has become a familiar and trusted part of life in St. Genevieve and throughout our region, Don Pritchard. For many years, Don has done far more than report the news. He has told the stories of our community, celebrated our successes, shared our challenges, and helped keep our citizens informed about the events that shape our daily lives. Throughout his work in local radio and journalism, he has become a respected source of information and a true ambassador for St. Genevieve. Many of us also know Don as the voice behind countless local commercials, promoting our businesses, organizations, community events, and the city of St. Genevieve itself. His unmistakable voice has invited visitors to discover all that our historic community has to offer, while reminding those of us who call it home just how special this place truly is. In many ways, Don hasn't simply reported on Saint Genevieve. He has helped promote it, celebrate it, and share its story with audiences throughout the region. The impact of his work extends well beyond the microphone. Don has helped strengthen the sense of community that makes Saint Genevieve such a special place to call home. His efforts have ensured that the stories of our city and its people are remembered and shared. On behalf of the city of St. Genevieve, I want to express our sincere appreciation for Don's many years of dedicated service, his commitment to excellence, his passion for local journalism, and his unwavering support for our community have left a lasting legacy that will be remembered for years to come. Don, thank you for being a trusted voice, a dedicated journalist, and a true friend of our community. Your work has informed us, connected us, and reminded us of the importance of local news and local storytelling. Please join me in congratulating and thanking Don Pritchard for his outstanding service to our community.

Hold on, we're going to get one more.

Oh, we got one more.

I don't know if I... Okay.

Did I knock you down first? No. Oh, okay. Thank you, Don. Thanks, Don.

All right. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. And ladies, thank you so much. Thank you, John. I don't know if you really know that you're appreciated until you leave.

I'm not moving. I'm staying home.

I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm sure Linda has things for me to do. You know how that goes. Amen.

she probably deserves that she probably deserves a lot of that award right there too yeah i was gonna say i don't want to set up any alarms all right i always love starting out a meeting that way um and then next up tonight we do have uh state representative brian wolfen here to give us a legislative update one after the next right yeah

You need to follow up Don with the positive and going into the negatives. All right, well, thanks for having me. So this was kind of talked about between myself and Mr. Bova for a while now. And then I think it took Mr. Donovan to reach out to me to finally kind of make things happen. So my apologies. It kind of took so long to get here. Hopefully in the future, we can make it a little bit closer to the end of session. So what I'm going to do is the list here that I have, we're just going to go over bills that kind of affect municipalities in general. and particularly those that admittedly dave kind of helped me that were um create the list that i'm going to present to you tonight the things that were on his watch watch list and then things that did pass that will be affecting municipalities in general So I'm going to start off with some legislation that may have not, or this legislation did not make it to the governor's desk, but it did gain some traction, and it is something that will likely come up in the next legislative session, or if not, a couple down the line. So to start off with Senate Bill 1065. So Senate Bill 1065 was basically utilities relocation. mainly having to do with AT&T, charter, telecommunications, and things along those lines. And so what the bill did was changes who pays when telecommunications, broadband, cable, or video service facilities, when they're forced to relocate for road maintenance or construction in cities, towns, villages, counties, or even MoDOT, which normally would be reimbursed by municipalities and things along those lines. Well, this bill is trying to kind of shift that burden from, excuse me, it would normally be reimbursed by the company, excuse me, currently. This is trying to shift that burden to the municipalities. So if you have a construction job that were to come afoot and a charter would have to move a line, the city would be on basically uh, responsible for those construction costs for moving those lines. So essentially it's going to create a new direct expense that must include, uh, you know, that must be included in the municipal street and road project budgets. So that's going to increase any, any construction plan that requires utilities to be relocated. Uh, even private requires the city to notify effective providers within 90 days after a project is placed on its schedule, uh, It does not require reimbursement for facilities placed, facilities meaning the lines. When I say facilities, that's what the term is being used. Placed in the right-of-way in violation of state or local permitting requirements and applies primarily to telecommunications, broadband, cable, video providers, like I said. So, yeah, essentially, if this did not pass, but we voted on it twice... Both years. Once in the House. So in my first year in 2025, we passed it through the House. And the Senate passed it through the Senate in 2026. So I would likely see that coming down the pipeline again next year. So it should be on the radar. Reach out to your local representatives if you have any issues. It's a joke. Senate Bill 1586.

That one's being pushed by Cal Comm and the utility. 100%.

Yep. Yep. That was a very heavily lobbied bill to say the least. So I remember when that bill was coming to the floor in the house, sometimes you get called out from your desk and, you know, this lobbyist will all be kind of on the third floor in the rotunda area and then security comes and grabs us. And yeah, it was being pulled left and right on that bill for sure. So Senate Bill 1586 is the next one. So this has to deal with solid waste management. This was very heavily debated and talked about bill. There was traction for both the House bill and the Senate version. I brought the Senate version here because it got a little bit more traction in the House. And so I'm going to go through how it was introduced, which is what I'm concerned will come back to how it was perfected in the Senate. But the introduced version is really would be drastic changes for solid waste management districts in the entire state. So as it was introduced, the original bill would dissolve all solid waste managements across the entire state. All gone. And then they would transfer the oversight for the existing grants for these waste management system or solid waste management to the Department of Natural Resources. So everything goes away locally and it all gets shifted to the state level. And it would be replaced by a regional grant process with grants awarded directly by the DNR or by Department of Natural Resources. And it would have, like I said, eliminated the district councils, executive boards, and much of the regional planning structure as it is. This was something that it was really cool to see because you kind of see a grassroots effort from the RPCs around the state, regional planning commissions across the state really come to the Capitol, talk to a bunch of different leadership and legislators, and it really slowed down the process, which is good. But this also, it was so negatively talked about by constituents that They had to basically change it, which is where the perfected version came in. So the perfected version removes the proposed dissolution that I spoke of and preserves the regional district structure, the district planning, and the district grant process, but it instead reduces the portion of the solid waste management fund revenue allocated to the districts from 61% down to 51%, while directing 10% to the DNR for assessment, investigation, testing, remediation, and management of the abandoned disposal sites. And this has to deal with a lot of landfills that are becoming really bad across the state. I think one particularly in Franklin County was the main reason why this bill was brought to the senator from Franklin County. And then one of the house reps from Franklin County were the ones that ran with this or trying to pass this bill. So my concern, I don't think the productive version is terrible. But my concern is if it comes back, it becomes its introduced version, which would dissolve the waste management system. And I think that would be detrimental for local governments across the state. So once again, did not pass this year, but something to look out for. House Bill 3230, so this has to deal with zoning for modular and manufactured homes. Essentially, this will limit how local governments can regulate modular homes and qualified manufactured homes. A qualifying manufactured home generally must be no more than five years old when installed, contain at least 900 square feet, and must be at least 20 feet wide or two stories tall. and be placed on a permanent foundation meet federal construction standards. So what this bill is going to basically create for municipal restrictions is that a city could not ban qualifying modular or manufactured homes in residential zones, whether it's a single family home or where single family homes are allowed. A city could not impose stricter lot sizes, setbacks, Appearance, foundation, age, permits, anything that's along those lines. And the city could not reasonably restrict replacement of an existing manufactured home. So, essentially, it's taken a lot of the local government control and aspect out of it. And, you know, obviously, a lot of these are well-intended things. But you see this often at the state level where we have... pretty good grip on a lot of our municipalities. A lot of these like preemption laws, as I like to call them, are kind of going after your bigger cities that may be a little bit more strenuous on things like this. And so it's trying to punish local governments as a whole. So once again, I didn't gain a whole lot of traction this year, but I do see this coming up again in the future. The next bill is Senate Bill 916. Now we're going to start getting into the legislation that has passed and went to the governor's desk, which at this point he has signed all of these. Senate Bill 916 has to do with sovereign immunity and liability insurance. Primarily, this has to do with MoDOT. but there are some things that could funnel down the pipeline to municipalities. Primarily, it changes liability rules for private contractors, subcontractors, contractors, excuse me, engineers, and employees working as agents of MoDOT. During the specified periods before construction begins and after MoDOT accepts a completed work, MoDOT would be solely liable for certain personal injury or death claims arising from the project. The contractor exceptions, the protection does not apply when work creates an imminent danger, a defect was concealed, the contractor knowingly failed to disclose a dangerous condition, or the plans were so improper that the contractor should have recognized unsafe results. how this could affect municipalities. As I said, most of the provisions apply directly with MoDOT's project. They should have little direct effect on municipalities. But the municipal provision clarifies that the political subdivision purchases liability insurance only when its governing body directly obtains coverage, requiring a contractor or another party to name the city as an additional insured is not itself treated as a city purchasing insurance. Um... All right. And then moving on to House Bill 1871. So this has to do with elections and municipal elections were in this bill. And so it does make a lot of change or numerous changes to the state and local laws. But municipality wise, it includes municipal candidate filing changes, election notices, bond elections. polling place rules, provisional voting, voter eligibility, and campaign finance practices. So the most relevant changes would be candidate filing. When no different deadline is set by law or charter, the filing opens the 16th Tuesday before the election and closes the 13th Tuesday, which is one week later than current law. Election notices, both required publications, may occur within six weeks before the election. Election authorities may mail notices to active voters instead of publishing twice, but must still publish once in a county newspaper. Bond elections, if no contest is filed within 30 days of the official result, state election law requirements are deemed satisfied for the purposes of issuing the bond. Polling locations, this will be a big one for electioneering. Election authorities may, after public notice, expand most electioneering and petitioning restrictions from 25 to 50 feet. And the rules also apply at in-person absentee voting buildings. Excuse me. Provisional ballots, provisional voting procedures would apply to every public election, including municipal elections. And there's some lobbyist language in there as well that says a registered lobbyist may contain a committee for municipal office as long as the person is not registered to lobby for that municipality. So if Mr. Prince wants to become a lobbyist, he's more than welcome to do so. It's House Bill 2641, so this has to deal with intoxicating hemp and cannabis. This creates the intoxicating cannabinoid control act. It covers hemp-derived cannabinoid products that would be treated as marijuana and their production, testing, transportation, and retail sale. would generally be limited to entities licensed throughout Missouri's constitutional marijuana program. I don't know if this is going to be an issue here in town, but generally what this is going to do is if... If you have a hemp product facility that's selling hemp product here in the city, I don't know if you guys do or not, but if they are not licensed with the state, all hemp-derived products have to be sold from someone who is licensed. So I'll give you an example down... Oh, shoot. I forget where they're at. My apologies. But I'll just go down my list so I don't get out of... Generally prevents an unlicensed business selling hemp, CBD, cannabinoids, and related products from using a dispensary in its business name. Creates criminal penalties and a $5,000 fine per transaction for violations of the intoxicating cannabinoid. Restrictions restricts disclosure of medical marijuana patient information and limits dispensaries from retaining recreational consumers identifying information and gives employees of cannabis-related business collective bargaining rights under the state law. So... Essentially, like I said, where this could affect municipalities is if you do have a facility that is selling hemp-derived products, but they are not licensed with the state, they can no longer sell those products. And then the last one on the list here, Senate Bill 907. So this has to do with abusive website accessibility litigation. So essentially what this is going to do is a Missouri resident, the state, or even a political subdivision facing a website accessibility claim may seek a court determination that the action was filed primarily to obtain a payment because defending the case would be expensive rather than to correct a legitimate accessibility problem. So what was happening is you have these attorneys across really all of America right now that are pinpointing websites that were not ADA compliant. and essentially starting a suit against them with the intention of hopefully that whether it's a person or a small business or a municipality just settles rather than defend it because of the cost of the defense. And so what this does is this will allow the political subdivisions to use basically the acts and the protections and the remedies in the bill. It allows courts to award attorney fees and costs in appropriate cases, punitive damages or sanctions up to three times the attorney fee award if the municipality or the defense wins. And it doesn't eliminate legitimate accessibility duties or prevent valid enforcement actions under disability access laws. That's, I think, kind of covers all the basis of the bills that I think Mr. Boba had on his list and concerns that will come up next year as well. As everyone knows, I am as accessible as I possibly can be. email through phone calls. I think almost everybody here has my number. If there's any concerns about legislation coming down the pipeline, you let me know. And if I see stuff soon enough, obviously we'll reach out and email your, like anything, I'll email Dave or the mayor and see if there's anything or any opinions that is necessary for making a legitimate decision when I go to vote. And I can take any questions, or that's the legislation, as I said, that came down the pipeline over the last few years. Can we talk about proposed amendments?

I don't see one there.

You know, the big debate, you know, Amendment 4 and Amendment 5, I hear the most questions about being in a local business. As several of the people on the board, I get asked, you know, in particular, I watched a couple of debates on them. Probably more confused now than past, but... I don't understand the income tax thing and placing it with sales tax. Being a business owner to face 16%, 17% sales tax, it just seems like a big hurdle. But when I got on and did a little research and stuff, I found there's 41 states still charge income tax. And all the states surrounding Missouri do. So we're going to take and be a little island in amongst all these other states. There's only a few other states that do and stuff. I mean, I don't see the impact. And one of the arguments was to control state spending. I couldn't make the coalition between the two. So where does... How is that going to control spending and stuff when, I mean, everybody knows in the last six years our state budget has doubled?

Yeah, so let me, I came prepared just in case that came up. So essentially... What I can do is I'll try to, with this being a public setting, if you will, I'll try to give the non-biased what the bill says and what it's going to do, the proposal that it was, the amendment. And I will answer your question on is this going to control spending. I do not see it controlling spending because it doesn't – It doesn't decrease funding that the state is going to get. It's only going to more than likely increase funding, in my opinion. And so in regards to that claim that you brought up, I do not think that this would hone in on state spending, in my opinion. So, all right. So Amendment 5, I think it's the most important fact is it does not immediately eliminate or reduce the income tax. So- What it says, instead, it directs the General Assembly to pass future legislation that will gradually reduce the income tax rate based on revenue growth until the tax reaches zero. So what the amendment doesn't specify is any kind of date when we're supposed to do that. It doesn't give a final deadline for elimination. It doesn't amount to what, it doesn't state reductions. We don't know what those look like yet. The exact revenue growth formula, we don't know. Which current untaxed goods and services would become taxable. Future sales tax rates, we don't know any of this. That's kind of the, you're going to see the theme on that is it is very vague. And it's purposely vague, I guess, if you will. But those decisions would have to come after it were passed, if it were to be passed. So current revenue context during the fiscal year 2026, Missouri collected approximately $9.14 billion in gross revenue from individual income tax and $3.4 billion in gross sales and use tax. So the reason I have these figures is to illustrate the scale of the revenue source that would eventually be eliminated and replaced. So essentially, you're looking at about $6 billion that would have to be shifted from income taxes to sales tax. use tax, things along those lines. All right, so the elimination of the individual income tax, the General Assembly would be constitutionally required to enact legislation reducing the top individual income tax base on revenue growth until the tax is eliminated. Once the individual income tax reaches zero, the Constitution does prohibit it from coming back. The amendment applies to state individual income tax only, so corporate income tax will not be touched. Local earnings tax, property tax, and sales tax, none of those are touched. The next part, so expanded sales and use tax. Missouri Constitution currently prohibits state and local government from extending sales and use taxes to services or transactions that were not taxed as of January 1, 2015. Amendment 5 creates an exception. It would allow the General Assembly to expand state and local income sales and use taxes or similar transactions based taxes to transactions involving any goods, any new goods or services when legislation is declared for eliminating the individual income tax and reducing total different tax rates. So essentially we will be able to change and the General Assembly, that is, will be able to change and rewrite the tax code as long as for the sake of eliminating the income tax. But this does not automatically tax every service. It does give the legislature the authority to decide which goods and services or transactions should be added to the tax base. So I always like to refer to that as the special interest favorite part of the bill because they'll be the first ones at the seat of the table. Required state offsets. If the legislature expands on the sales tax base or increases the state sales tax rate, the same legislation must reduce the top individual income tax rate. The estimated reduction in income tax revenue must be substantially equal to to the estimated new sales tax revenue. So what that's saying is if we do pass legislation that is to decrease the income tax, it has to be based off of what we think our growth and revenue will be. So if we think our growth and revenue will be $100 million, we are going to decrease the income tax $100 million. But once again, it is an estimation. So we are guessing. The five-year constitutional exemptions for legislation enacted within the next five years, if this were to take effect, new sales tax revenue would be excluded from the calculation of Article 10, Section E, which is typically associated as the Hancock Amendment. Normally, Section 18E does require voter approval when legislative tax and fee increases exceed constitutionally calculated thresholds. So basically, the people would get to vote on tax increases. And Amendment 5 would exempt that for the next five years. So the General Assembly would have full authority to increase revenue and taxes as long as it remains essentially net neutral, substantially equal to whatever the language, substantially equal. Then we could basically change the tax code however we wanted within this confines here. Legislation would also be exempted from Article 4, Sections 30B, 30C, and 30D, which contain constitutional requirements concerning the allocation and protection of transported related revenues. So a perfect example like toll roads are in these. So those would be exempted if we wanted to do toll roads and stuff like that. Okay. So this is a municipality side of things, required local tax reductions, municipalities and counties, political subdivisions in general. Expanding the sales tax base would automatically increase local sales tax collections. So as the state increases our base, localities would be able to increase their base as well. and essentially beginning 12 months after that expansion, a local municipality receiving an additional revenue would be required to make a one-time tax adjustment equal to the approximate of 97% of your additional revenue that you were to bring in off of that tax expansion, essentially. The reduction could involve one or more of the following. local sales or use tax rate, personal property taxes, residential real property taxes, general real property tax, or local earnings taxes. What I don't know, from my understanding, is this would be what you would have to change would be determined by the General Assembly. However, I've been told that per someone else's reading of it, they think the locals would be able to make those decisions of where that tax relief would come from if afforded that opportunity. But I do not know. There's a little bit of mix and match on that. There is a public school protection in there. Essentially, a political subdivision could not make its required local tax adjustments. So this would more be the county in a manner that reduces funding for public schools. And then part seven, and we're almost rounding this out here, if the state expands the sales tax base, sales tax rates imposed directly by the Missouri Constitution would also have to be adjusted to offset additional revenue generated from the broader base. the state auditor would calculate those adjusted rates. So what this does, a yes vote directs the legislature to phase out the income tax, permanently prohibits the tax once it reaches zero to come back, allows sales and use tax to be extended to additional goods and services and transactions, requires approximately offsetting The state income tax reduction, so substantially equal, requires local tax rate adjustments when local sales tax revenue increases and creates a five-year exemption from certain existing constitutional tax restrictions. And obviously, a no would be, you know, it just stays the same where we're currently at. So once again, the pro side of things are saying you get rid of the income tax would bring in new business, bring in growth. That way there'd be a natural growth. And there's also a moral side of the income tax side of things as well. But then the no side is basically saying, well, this is not a tax decrease. This is a tax shift, which ultimately I think it is. And so there is no honing in on spending. There is no, the only thing that this could potentially do is increase taxes on classes that are not currently paying it now. So I think that is the crux of Amendment 5. I think I went over every part without getting into the actual language. Which, you know, I certainly am willing to do with anybody. I mean, we'd be here all night if you got me talking on specifics of the language on Amendment 5, that is. So, and then, go ahead, Bob.

You know, the one thing I see in this, it's the legislature is asking us to trust me. You know, we're voting in something here that they can do whatever. They have the authority now to reduce income tax. They already did five or six years ago. I mean, we were paying 6%. Now it's 4.6%. Why does this have to be a constitutional amendment? This doesn't seem like a constitutional amendment thing. But that bothers me. And two, when you look at the structure of the state, you know, we're a border state. We border... you know, a direct county like, I think there's 40 some counties out of 140 in the state of Missouri that are all border, you know, other states and stuff where there's direct access. You know, we already are at a disadvantage here not having a use tax in the county, which I don't understand why that has to be passed county by county, but just have a problem with that, trust me, when they can do the income tax already. And two, to burden people, I mean, what percentage of that income tax is coming from what age group of people? You know, that would be an interesting subject to see and stuff, but that sales tax is going to apply to every age group. You know, and it just doesn't seem like, you know, they put this thing in there, they know what the sales tax revenue is. You know, it's at $9.6 billion and stuff. Why can't they assess that for several years and come up and say, this is what the sales tax is going to be? They know what the income tax is. I mean, I just don't understand their philosophy behind this, but...

well you you and i are on the same boat there bob because i don't either and yeah i mean you hit the nail on the head we can get rid of income tax today if we wanted to or during legislative session that we do not have to ask the the voters for that uh the main ask is uh the reason it has to go to the voters and is because they want to have the exemptions for not having to ask the voters to raise taxes in other places. So right now, if we wanted to increase, let's just say to keep it easy, sales tax 1%, obviously under the current protections of Hancock, we would have to go to the voters. Under this, over the next five years, we would not have to do so. So it is their way of basically guaranteeing that they're going to increase revenue. because if you increase taxes, you're going to increase revenue. But, and I will say this, like the state is not growing. We're down revenue this year. So the only way to decrease the income tax basically would, without, excuse me, basing it off of growth. So, because that's what they want to do is they keep, you keep hearing like, oh, we want to raise it off of revenue growth. Like, or we want to eliminate income tax based off revenue growth. Well, how are you going to get that growth? Well, there's two ways. You can grow it by getting businesses here, you know, creating more economic development, getting more tax revenue that way, kind of like naturally, or you can increase taxes in other places. And that's essentially what's going to happen because we are down across the board. So-

Again, I just have a problem saying trust me when that same legislature has doubled the revenue spending in what, five or six years?

Since COVID, yeah. Well, and you know how I am on a budget hawk. So our budget at the state levels and... quite despair, to say the least. We're spending up our surplus, and the state auditor is saying that. He warned us, and yet we still were unable to make the cuts necessary this year as well. This could also, in my opinion, I guess I'm getting a little bit unbiased if you can't tell where I'm at yet, but I don't trust the government any farther than I could throw it. Many of You guys, former colleagues of mine, I think probably remember that in this building as well. So I think that applies here too. There's other ways that we could do it. And I don't know, I don't wanna, I tried to be as middle of the road as I could with this presentation, but I will generally speaking, I think the majority of our district, I think is overwhelmingly has the same consternations that you do, Bob, so. Yeah, any other? I know we're going really long, so I can sit here and talk to anyone afterwards as well. I'll wait around if anyone wants to know about 4, 2, 1. Any other questions right now? All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

Thanks, Brian.

Thanks, Brian. All right.

Next up tonight, we will move to our city administrator's report. David, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, sir. You have an updated report at your seat. I just want to point out some of these. The first three there kind of give you an update on the projects going on around town. If you jump down to four, I'm going to combine that with number eight. We close with McBride on the 50 acres next week on the 29th. After we close... They'll be working to schedule a groundbreaking on the property to begin after they begin site work, so it won't be immediately, but only after they begin site work, and then talk with their director of purchasing. They're planning to schedule a contractor meeting at the end of August, beginning of September, and we will share that out with the public once it's finalized. Number five, the Sarah's Garden project downtown at Merchant, Maine is basically complete. I'll be adding some lighting and then we'll schedule a ribbon cutting down there. There were a lot of organizations that helped make that happen, so we'll try to get them all there. I will be out of the office next week, but I'm not leaving town, so I'll have my phone with me if you have any need to call me. Number seven, I wanted to let you know our surplus public works trucks sold this week. I told you there that the surplus PD vehicles will be listed on Purple Wave next week, but actually they're listed right now. So I shared that out on our news feed earlier today. And then lastly, I just want to let you know, next month we'll be selling the remaining $150,000 worth of bonds. If you don't remember, we sold $9.85 million worth of bonds last year, so we'll be selling the remaining $150,000 next month. That's all I got.

Any questions for David regarding his report?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Next up, staff reports tonight. First up, Cory Litteris, Lyons Water.

Good evening.

You have a copy of my report.

A few things. We replaced the hydrant on Walnut that was leaking. And there was, at the firehouse, that was also leaking. It's replaced. 6th Street water line, the water project's done. Voting's scheduled to be up here Tuesday. And we're hoping to pay it on Thursday. The street sweeper is back up and running. We've replaced the head, and it's working really well. It's picking up good-sized rocks than it did before. And then the tank is swapped on a new cabin chassis

I just want to add one thing to Corey's report. He brought me a sample of a piece of cast iron piping that we cut out on 6th Street. It's over here. The reason I have it over here, if you want to take a look at it, is you can see what has happened. That was probably 50 years old. It's got some nodules in it and I wanted to show you that's what happens when we get the extreme heat or extreme cold. Those things break off. They're probably the size, and that turns the water brown. But it's from buildup inside the pipe.

It's kept for action with water, oxygen, and iron in it. And then pipes are raw material on the inside, so it adheres to it. Temperature change breaks loose. That stuff there, you just break it up, and it's just brown. So that's why when we go back, we're doing PVC. C factors last, so that doesn't stick to it.

Yes, sir. Is my understanding when you get done with this project that you're going to Oakwood for your next project?

I'm already talking about the water line? Yeah. Yes. That would be Jokers, Spooner, but yes.

That's street tearout, new water line, and street quarterback, yes.

David, I guess because on 9th Street that was such a kind of a project of mine and stuff, I've noticed numerous people mowing not only there but around town and clippings out in the streets and stuff. Where do we publish that? I've seen one in an adjoining town they sent out on the utility bill that said, just a reminder, no

uh because i know i've had corey clean some of them out up there and stuff but it's something we shouldn't have to do so last week court brought that to my attention and we published it out on the website and on facebook uh you cannot you can throw your grass clippings into the street if it's necessary and then you should go back and blow them back into your yard but we can put that on try and put that on water bills also yeah thank you you're welcome

Any other questions for Corey regarding his report? Okay. Thank you, sir. And filling in for Chief Alec tonight, Lieutenant Pollack's here with us. Good evening, everybody.

You guys have a copy of our report from our last month's stats. You guys have any questions about that?

Well, are you aware of any new developments or trends or things that surprised you since the last report?

No, but things seem to be going pretty consistent from the previous month.

Any other questions for Lieutenant Fowler regarding the report?

Yeah, the request for a calendar that the police department's doing, I guess that's legit and you're going to do it for the K-9s?

Yes, we had a company, a guy came in, he was going around selling positions on this calendar for a benefit to the department. Raised a little percentage, some money for... Get some T-bones for the canines?

Get them something. You know, whatever could help.

I mean, we don't play with the dogs too much, you know. They look mean. All right. Thank you very much.

at this time we will open up the floor for public comment just a reminder to please state your name for the record and please try to keep any comments to five minutes or less any public comment okay

my size more the i don't even have a block from here um let's come to our attention to a lot of people that live here in saint gen about the uh trash pickup one would bring it down to like one company well we're totally against that a lot of us are uh the thing is uh The company I have now, they give military discount. If I go on vacation, they suspend my service and don't charge me for it until I return. And the thing is, I see a lot of big trucks coming through here. I mean, you got food trucks, you got beer trucks, I mean, semis coming through here from time to time. I get what you're trying to do, but the thing is, the impression I also got was, is that if you were to pass it and go down to one company, it'll be attached to our water bill. And even if I don't use the trash service, I'll still be charged for it, which I totally disagree with to begin with. So this is some of the impressions I'm getting from people around our city. I think we should have a right to choose who picks up our trash. and not be designated and say, oh, by the way, you're going to use this company whether you like it or not. That's not very democratic. And in my opinion, I think we should be able to choose where our trash is picked up, who picks it up, and the cost. I mean, I get a discount because, one, I'm a retired military, plus a senior. But the company I'm with now takes that all into consideration. The big thing is if it went down to one company and say you froze it for like three years, five years, whatever, who's to say three to five years down the road they're not going to raise the price? And if it winds up being more than I'm already spending now, how's that fair to me if I don't have a right to choose somebody else? So in my opinion, I'm totally against it. But if you're going to vote for this, I think you should put the vote out to the public, not just a personal vote. Thanks. Thank you.

Any other public comment at this time?

Mr. Sizemore, we are actually having a discussion on that tonight after this meeting. We have a work session, and some of that is going to be talked about with the trash service. So if you want to stay, you're more than welcome to stay and listen.

I just wanted to voice my opinion on the people I've talked to around the city. Yes, sir.

Okay, if there's no other public comment at this time, I will go ahead and close that out, and we will move along to tonight's consent agenda. I believe Alderwoman Dobbs has one adjustment she would like to make.

I'd like to make a motion to pull 2026-47 from the consent agenda for discussion.

Okay, approval otherwise known. Motion to approve with that change.

Yes.

So a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda while also pulling out resolution 2026-47. Second. Okay, I believe I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? okay thank you all very much and let's talk about resolution 2026-47 this is a resolution appointing guy ed latrell to the saint genevieve planning and zoning commission would you want a 46 out yeah

Now we're talking about 47. Okay. Do I have a motion? I read it. Is there a motion to approve resolution 2026-47 or discussion?

How about just a straight across vote on it? Well, we've got to have a motion.

It's like anything else. I just need a motion and then a second and then we'll vote. Let's do it.

I'll move to approve.

Okay. I'll second. Okay. I have a motion and a second for Resolution 2026-47. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed.

Opposed. Two noes. I got two noes.

All opposed, too.

Three noes.

Three noes. Everybody else voted in favor, correct? Yeah. Okay. Correct. Okay. 5-3.

Motion carried. So motion carried. Yep. So once again, we had talked before on appointments like that not being part of the consent agenda.

Just so that we can, if there is discussion. Moving forward.

If we can try to keep those out of the consent agenda, that would solve a little bit of the problem. Okay.

Okay. Thank you all for that. That motion does carry. Thank you. We do have a little bit of old business tonight. We have a second reading of bill number 4732. This is an ordinance amending chapter 210, offenses of the St. Genevieve Code of Ordinances as set forth below.

Just some discussion on this. It makes sense, but was there something that prompted this?

Yeah, Aaron has had some businesses reaching out to use our logo to sell T-shirts, hats, things like that, and we'd like to control that.

Move to approve.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. Sue, would you do a roll call, please?

Alderman Dow? Yes. Alderman Fahey?

Yes.

Alderman Dunlap? Yes. Alderman Ely? Yes. Alderman Eidman? Yes. Alderman Steiger? Yes. Alderman Prince? Yes. Alderman Ross? Yes. We have eight yes votes. Bill number 4732 now becomes ordinance number 4653.

Thank you very much. We do not have any new business to discuss at this time. Is there any other business to bring forth right now before we move into work session?

I've got one compliment for City Hall. There was kind of a disgruntled citizen that came to City Hall today about some various topics and I think Dave was able to kind of explain to him a little bit about the situation and I was impressed with, you know, he actually called me back and thanked me and wanted to let me know to thank Dave for helping him and kind of giving the information because I think he was I'm not looking for a fight, but I think he was, you know, and Dave Hanneman, I think, really well, apparently. He called me back and said, good job. So kudos to you for handling citizens like that.

Thank you. Wonderful.

Anything else to discuss at this time?

Okay. If not, then we will adjourn and we'll move into work session shortly after.

Thank you all very much.

Tonight's work session to order. At this time I will look for approval of tonight's work session agenda. Motion to approve. Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you very much. First item up tonight is the solid waste services single carrier discussion.

So I'm going to give you a little bit of information and we'll go from there. You see here the Solid Waste Services Committee that we established back in May asked staff to gather some information from local citizens and haulers on the possibility of contracting with a single hauler. After speaking with, it's more like 30 citizens now within the city, their monthly trash bills ranged from $25 a month to $66 a month. So that's the first bit of information. Additionally, the following information was gathered. We put a Survey Monkey out for approximately four weeks, had 111 responses. First question was, would you support the city contracting with a single hauler if residential trash bills were $27 per month or less? That was a 76.58% yes, 23.42% no. Second question was, if the city were to contract with a single residential hauler, how important is it to you that a trash service include recycling pickup at no additional cost? That was 37.84%, very important. 34.2 somewhat important and 27.9 not important at all. Question three was if the city were to contract with a single trash hauler, would you value having biannual large item pickup included in your service at no additional cost? That was 73.87% yes, 10.8% no, 15.3% unsure. Question four was, if the city were to contract with a single residential trash hauler, would you favor having trash service billed along with your monthly water and sewer bill? That was 55.86% yes, 24.3% no, 19.8% unsure. And the final question was, overall, should the City of St. Genevieve Board of Alderman explore the possibility of contracting with a single residential trash collection provider which would service all city residents That, similar to the first question, was 73.87% yes, 26.13% no. The second handout you have is a summary of similarly sized municipalities within the state of Missouri, populations ranging from 3,250 to 6,500 who have contracted trash service, their satisfaction with that trash service, and their current residential rate. So those range from $14.28 per month to $25 per month across about a dozen different cities of similar population. You also have the Missouri State Statute there. I want to provide that to you along with the steps that would be taken in the process. The only other thing I want to share with you before just having a conversation amongst yourselves is that I've also spoken with Republic Waste Management, top tier. I've reached out to Woody's multiple times but not gotten a response and I've asked them my questions and they've asked questions of me so They should all be aware that at least this discussion is happening tonight. There are representatives from Republic and Waste Management in the audience. If you have questions for them, they're both willing to answer. I hope I don't butcher your names, but it's Robin Modlin from Republic and Todd Hinderleiter from Waste Management. They are also here if you have questions for them. More questions for me?

Dave, in your questionnaire, starting with question two, the first thing I see in all these questions is if, if, if. So what controls do we have over these what ifs? I don't know what that question means. I'm sorry. Okay, start with question two. If the city were to contract with a single trash hauler, how important is it to have a recycling? I mean, are you saying if we contract with a single person, we would have recycling? No, I'm saying if we go down this path and we select a hauler, how important is it for that to include recycling? But it's not saying just because if we do go to a single hauler, we will have recycling. No, that's just the question.

That's up to us if we want to include that as a service that they have to provide.

Which, I mean, our two representatives could answer this also, but to include the recycling will make it more expensive.

So these towns that you've got on your survey here, or your form here, the ones that are having the 14, the 18-odd, those are Well, assume they don't have recycling.

The only two that do not have recycling are Lamar and Arango at $14.28, $14.98. All the rest of them offer recycling. Wow. Which is, I apologize, on the back. Oh, okay.

And the vast majority of them also offer a month pickup.

Yes, sir.

Once or twice a year?

Actually, it varies. Once a month. once every couple months. Some do a bulk item pickup, some have a dumpster that they drop near City Hall where people can put their bulk items. I am not a favor of that whatsoever, but multiple options.

I can tell you a neighboring town did away with that a couple years ago because they were getting you name it in there and done away with the whole recycling bit. I guess I'd like to ask a couple questions of the two. representatives here. You know, the biggest problem I've had, and I've been opposed to this from day one, I'll shoot you straight and stuff, was one, the size of the trucks. The smaller companies that are here now have smaller trucks. We just spent millions of dollars on our streets. We're trying to upgrade. There's nothing in the questionnaire and really relaying to the public Where is the size of these trucks going to end? We've asked and it's come up that we can't limit the size of those trucks or monitor the size of those trucks. If that can't be done, I mean... You know, we've spent our money for a number of years to pick up the streets and stuff. I'm not interested, and I can imagine the taxpayers aren't interested either in tearing these streets up with tandem axle trucks with a third axle that they can drop down when they get up in that 50,000-pound range. So where's our insurance that we won't have these giant trucks? We have them now, some of them. So if we go to a single hauler, that means we're going to have them doing every pickup everywhere in town on every street. So what's your plan to work with us on that? Is there a plan, or are we just going to have to put up with the big trucks?

So I'll go ahead and take that question. So the actual situation, the science actually supports having more actions on a truck. So the more axles you have to disperse that weight of that load across, that's a less pain point, a less sort of ball point, if you will, that's just carrying all of that load. So the science actually supports having a tandem or even a triplicate axle truck. Some of these smaller trucks that are super small and they don't even have the capacity to carry what we can carry, your rate is going to be higher because they have to make more trips to dispose. So it's I mean, the science supports the double axle trucks versus your rate is going to be a lot higher because they have to make several trips to dispose. They can't haul what we can haul. And the trucks, I'm assuming Waste Management also uses an ASL truck. They're similar sized. Both huge companies. Waste Management is the number one company in the nation. We're number two. And the science and the studies that have gone into these trucks to reduce the impact to the roads and to be able to carry what they carry has been Thoroughly exhausted. If we were just going through tearing up streets all over the place, we would not be the number one and two companies.

I have a question on that. My name is Sam Hilliard, and I'm retired heavy haul over the road, 150, 200,000 pounds. Are those tag axles steerable on those trucks, or are they rigid?

That, don't get me to lie to you, because I don't drive trucks.

Because trust me, I've torn up my share of asphalt. And the triple-axle truck is very bad. I understand your weight. Trust me, I've sat on every scale between the Gulf and the Great Lakes. That's fine, but you have that third axle. When you turn, you have that scrub. And asphalt's made to be driven on, not slid on. You can see that apparently when you watch the trucks. When they leave black marks when they make that turn, you've got that abrasion on that asphalt. And as I say, it's made to be driven on. not skidded on. So you damage the surface of that asphalt. Once you damage that top surface of that asphalt, then you've got water infiltration. There's why Mr. Donovan and myself are opposed to the three-axle trucks. Like I say, I'm very familiar with that because I ran multiple nine, ten axles.

We only have ten an axle. I don't know about waste management. And if you want, for a future session, I can bring our mechanic and our operations manager that can answer any question about a truck that you may have.

right and i understand too there again i've got a lot of experience in heavy haul you guys run excessive weights on those solid waste trucks you can haul more weight on those per axle than the standard truck can you can haul up to 20 000 pounds per axle right and you have the tires which i know you do so you're already running heavier on your tandem truck than we're running than the guy driving the semi through town you're heavier than him

DOT regulates how heavy our loads can be. They have to be weighed every time they come in and out, and they cannot be overweight. They cannot.

Up to 40,000.

I don't believe we're picking up to that much in town. I think we pick up maybe 350 homes here in town, and there's no way it would reach that limit. And the transfer station is here in town, so it's not like we're picking it up on the way back from gathering another town's trash. It's leaving the transfer station, servicing the residents, and going back.

I'll argue, Sam, they're already doing it. So it doesn't change, it doesn't negate the idea of having a single carrier because they're already doing this and we can't stop them from doing what they're doing now.

They're running essentially the truck routes, handling commercial.

No, they're doing it residential.

Well, I know, but not a lot of the smaller town back in here.

Well, they're coming down my dead end street. Yeah.

But I'll follow one around and see what's going on with that. I have, and I noticed none of your triple axles or steer axles are ready. You know, and that scrubbing is a definite, like I said, you know, the big concern here, we just spent how many millions of dollars?

They're going to be doing it no matter what, though. If we don't do a single carrier, they're still going to be doing exactly what you're complaining about.

And I don't disagree with you. We still need to be able to limit the weights on these trucks and stuff, but you're talking about spreading, what, seven feet from the front axle to the center of the or not from the front axle from the back axle to the center of the tag axle you're talking about spreading seven feet and you're talking about 25 was it 25 or 27 000 pounds more that that truck can haul you know i i i mean i understand the philosophy behind more axles more weight uh

But I just don't think on our unproven streets here where... And if we're not hauling that much, if we're that close to the transfer station, if we're not hauling that much, why are we even needing a triple active truck? Because the tear weight on that truck at the beginning, the empty weight of that truck is probably 10,000 pounds heavier than a stand-up tandem axle truck. Ask me why I know that.

But the argument that more axles disperses the weight is true. if the size of the truck remains the same. But when you're increasing the size of the truck tenfold over the size of the other truck and putting it over those extra axles, I mean, it's still carrying more weight across our streets. So the argument that the more axles is better That's only if I'm using the same size truck.

Gentlemen, this is a moot point. They're going to still operate just like they are now. So we can argue about this, but it's still going to happen. So this is not a good argument of not having a single carrier.

That's all I'm saying. I do. I think it's a valid argument of protecting our streets and stuff.

No, we're trying to get down to one carrier so there's not three or four different trucks doing the same thing. And we're also trying to reduce our pricing, get more services.

You know, and I think everybody here, once we introduced some of the smaller trucks, got better pricing. Why did that happen? Everybody I've talked to about it, once we had a third carrier in here, got better pricing. Why did that drive the pricing down? It's called competition.

But that's what they're doing now. They're going to bid on it and compete on it for a three-year contract. And then you don't get any raises during that three years. Have you not raised prices for three years at your business? Now we're going to lock it in for three years. We're getting competition. We're getting more competition than what we would even when you had three or four carriers.

But you don't have the small trucks.

We could maybe demand, I think we could set that in the contract. If we thought that really was valid, we could potentially put that in the contract that you have to have single axle trucks. If you guys really think that that's going to make a big difference, that's something that we could put in the contract. It might change the pricing. I don't know what that would do.

The tandem axle truck, I'm not so much against. If you add that extra weight of the triple axle truck to begin with, and then you add that side scrub on that there, especially not being a steerable pusher.

That makes sense.

So when they dumped that terrible pusher to turn, all of a sudden now you've got 30,000 pounds.

So gentlemen, what I say is, a single carrier, we can now mandate that in the contract, whereas now, we cannot do that now. But if we go to a single carrier, we can take up your ID.

The DOT will allow us to mandate weight limits on our streets.

No, but in our contract, we can decide what size of truck they're allowed to do. You think that?

You can't on residential streets. on residential street, we can limit.

We can't tell them how much they can go on a highway. We can limit, but we have no way of weighing those trucks or enforcing them. So that leaves a gray area. It leaves no enforcement. A very gray area.

I got a question on number five. When you read it, it says this service will include all city residents so so you're saying that every person living in the city will have to participate in this that'll be up to you all okay do we know how many households today actually use a carrier i don't know a specific number but i've got numbers from three of the four carriers and i would anticipate we have about

1,200 to 1,500 residential trash accounts in the city amongst four carriers.

And I don't think anybody on the board wants to mandate that everyone has trash service. It is currently written into the ordinance that we have to have that, but I don't think anybody wants to mandate that in the contract that everyone would have to have service. If you are a senior citizen and you have one little bag and you give it to your son, if you have a business with a dumpster and you take your trash to your commercial dumpster, I don't think anybody on this board would probably push to have mandatory service at every residence.

Well, you're doing it now with this. This will produce mandatory.

Well, this was a question. This was a question, should we? But I don't think anybody on this board wants to mandate service for every residence.

That's the thing I've been getting from Mike's team. I think, and I would be opposed to that.

I'm 100% opposed to that. If somebody has another way to get rid of their trash, all four of them, I think that would be the worst thing to mandate that they have to have a service that they don't have.

That's the breaking point I've been getting from my people.

I'm 100% opposed to mandatory service.

Yes.

I see both sides and I agree with both sides. I see pros and cons on both sides. However, with the mandate, let's go on that little board there. I agree with the mandating to a certain extent. This may be the other side of it. I'm looking at both sides here again. I'm not saying I'm for or against either one. However, there's a lot of people in town and we live in town. We're in city limits. You should not be burning trash in town. There's a lot of people that choose, especially on my street, to burn their trash. Now that sucks when it's really nice outside and you're trying to enjoy some fresh air coming in your home and you've got to smell somebody's plastic. So that would help in that sense. Also, you have a lot of people that fail to pay for the trash service and they pile up trash. That creates rats. It creates animals getting into trash. Ask me how I know. I see it.

We already have ordinances that address that. What? We already have ordinances that address that.

I understand that. But that is... in with this whole deal. I mean, that's another issue. And honestly, we don't really address that until somebody complains. That's my two cents.

So if somebody comes along and stuff and signs up for the trash service and still burns their trash, I mean, it's still an enforcement thing. Yeah, it is. I don't see where this is going to eliminate that.

But why would they burn their trash if they're mandated to have trash service and they're paying for it?

I have one neighbor that does that.

I think it would help with that.

mean I I personally I have a problem with the survey basically you know the results there don't really fall in line with all the comments that you know Don Pritchard put his post out and they were mostly negative not in favor of it another problem I got with the survey is it wasn't limited to city residents and I know a couple people from the county said, well, let me see if it works, and they went in there. So, you know, I just, I don't, we had 111 responses. I forget how many comments, you know, Pritchard's post was up to, but the majority of those comments were, they were against it, and I've been against it all along.

We don't know if those were city residents either. They could have been county residents commenting.

And counties are relevant.

Right, but the survey wasn't limited, so we don't know if those numbers are accurate or not. And I've been involved with this before, and like I've said before, I've been against this from the beginning. I don't think it's government's role to dictate, if I want a better trash rate, I can contact all of them. Just like that man there gets discounts for being a veteran, he can go out and negotiate his own rate. I don't need city or county or state telling me who I need to do business with. That's my job to go negotiate that contract.

Well, some people will pay a cheaper rate. However, you also have a lot of your senior citizens and stuff that only maybe have one bag a week that it's not going to be pretty for them. So there's both sides of that. I mean, there's just so many... pros and cons of the whole deal. But I've seen it work very well in Perryville. I lived in Perryville for years and I've seen it work very well in Perryville. They've been doing this for 30 years plus, so.

Well, I don't see anything changing. They've got all these concrete streets in Perryville. They do. We have a bunch of streets that we don't know about. We're paving over the top of them. Most of them we're kind of checking and stuff. But, you know, the whole idea of this thing is, I guess, to get a better price. There's no guarantees in there that we're going to get a better price. There's no guarantee we're going to get any of these ifs. Just one thing there. All the streets we've paved, we've cored. Right.

Okay. And we would get a better rate. We don't have to accept the contract, right? So we would put it out for bid. We would know what the, let's say it's a three-year contract we decide to go with. We would absolutely know if we're going to get a better rate. If they come back with higher rates, we don't accept the contract and we move on with the way it is.

I mean, the status now in the city is we don't know how many households actually use a trash service. We don't know how many people out there that don't use it. So we're just going to pick up the people that are using the trash service. So all these different carriers, I mean, like you said, how many was there, like 1,200 or something like that? Approximately. Okay.

They know, like they've given me their numbers. So they're going to add up to about 1,200.

Okay. We need some kind of exemption. of people that do not want to use a single-carrier trash service. Let them sign a paper or do something, some kind of a process, that they will not use a different carrier or they will not use or they will dispose of their trash properly.

And not earn.

So if they're a city resident and we sign a single contract, we're telling those people they can't use anybody else? Yes.

It would have to be correct. I even have one.

All right, I'm going to interject real quick here, hold that thought, Mr. Sizemore from the audience that have a comment or question.

I'm actually going to defend the big companies here because I actually use one of them. My bill went up a little bit because of increasing gas. And that's going to happen if you have a small company or you have a big company. And interjecting, you guys were saying, I know people that have their own businesses. And some of these small trucks don't have the capability to pick up a dumpster. They do. But these other ones running around town, the small companies, do not have that capability. So are we going to hire somebody to get a bigger truck to get a lower price to pick up the dumpsters at these businesses? And that includes out there on 55, Our businesses out there, which is not in the city limits, but they're still going to have to pay for trash pickup. They've got dumpsters. These would just be residential.

Yeah, this is not a commercial carrier, just the residential.

Who's going to pick up the dumpsters? That's going to be the thing. And if you limit this to one small vehicle because you're worried about the roads, I get that part. I understand that. But who's going to pick up all these residential dumpsters in this town?

The commercial dumpsters.

Right, the commercial dumpsters. that capability.

Most of them are Republic. Most of the commercial dumpsters are Republic.

I know.

Yeah. And they would still be able, any entity, business entity, could hire any dumpster that they want. It wouldn't change that. I have a trash can.

And my sister-in-law and people I know, they have one bag.

And they bring it to me.

And the thing is, I might have my trash picked up twice a month, even though I'm paying for the entire month. But like I said earlier, if you pass this one bill or ordinance or whatever you want to call it and go to a smaller company, are you going to guarantee me when I'm gone for three months that they're not going to charge me because I'm putting on a seasonal hold? They do. I'll get charged for it.

We can write that into the contract that they would be required to be able to have that option.

You do have an answer. And discounts for seniors, sit-downs for veterans. He's got an answer back there, I guess.

No, I just want to clarify. We don't charge you for those three months. I know, that's why I just said it. I thought we did.

Public service doesn't either. But the thing is, the only reason my bill went up the last few months is because the price of gas went up. And we all know that problem. We all know why we have that problem, but that's another story for another time. Just the thing is, it's like, I know, like I said, I know people that have professional, I mean, the big dumpsters and stuff, because they have their big business. I mean, out on H Road, M Road, big facilities out there.

That wouldn't change for them. They could continue to do what they're doing now.

But who's going to pick them up? We went to a smaller company.

and their current their current carriers would you know stay but they're going to be driving on the streets too yes but there's not as many dumpsters what there is households i mean you don't have every house have a dumpster so you got to really think about that but see now but we're doing residential not commercial here the uh well you know what the legion's at with that a row of apartments that are there

They have a single dumpster that's utilized by everyone in the apartments. So the trucks have to go into the apartment complexes to pick it up, just like anywhere else that has apartment complexes. So, yeah, I mean, where do you draw the line?

I think you could answer a lot. Can you go through the sequence of how this is going to go? I think a lot of people think that we're going to vote on this tomorrow or something.

I do want to throw one more thing out at you. There are cities out there our size that go through this process and then they decide to pay the bill. In other words, let's say there's 1200 accounts let's say one carrier would win those 1200 um at 15 a month then that we would pay that cost and then pass it on or not to now that's going to be a huge expense for us i say huge It's going to be a big expense, but it's also a way to make sure absolutely every residence has a trash can and a trash pickup. But now it's a cost on us. So that's something to think about.

That's something to think about.

So how do they get that back, David? Do they put it in the water bill or whatever?

There are cities that simply offer it as a service. It's like water and sewer. I mean, you pay for your water and sewer. There are cities that it's $10 a month on everybody's bill. So I would tell you in that instance, and please correct me if I'm wrong, in that instance, the city is supplementing. They're probably paying a little bit more than that. So something to think about. The steps. On the back page that has the state statute confirm legal authority, we've done that. This is legally able to be done. Board resolution to begin research process and deliver two-year notices. So this is kind of what I'm asking for tonight is do you want to move forward? And if so, then we'll bring a resolution to you next meeting to vote on that says we would like to pursue this two-year process. It is not a commitment to do anything besides go down the process. At that point we would send letters to the carriers saying we're going to begin the two-year process. Does not mean you have to select someone in the end.

We have done this before. We have went out and stated that we are going to do a single carrier, and the board at two years or three years, whatever the statute was back then, chose not to go forward with a single carrier. So just because we agreed to go to a single carrier and start the process, we don't vote on this until two years from now after we get contracts back and look at them and then decide. So this is not committing the city to very much. Yes, ma'am.

I have a lot of experience with cities that are currently open market.

You can come up to the mic.

I feel like it's my duty to make sure you guys are prepared for what's going to happen or what could happen. I'm not here to convince you either way, but it will get ugly. It will get very ugly. I've seen super small, charming towns, low crime rate, tires get slashed. Kids are getting beat up at schools. People are getting dressed. It's going to get ugly. I want you to be prepared for that if you choose to try to franchise. I want you to be prepared. However, I've not seen a city that did franchise that regretted it. But those were the cities where it didn't get terribly ugly. This gentleman has been super polite about his opposition. That's not an ordinary thing in these discussions. It's just not. I recommend... For any city that's thinking about it, put your notice out. You don't have to do anything. Just put your notice out in case. If you want me to be honest about what my company would like, we would like it to stay open market. That way there's no potential loss of business. You can look at the science on the trucks. I can bring mechanics and operations managers that can answer any questions about that. But I need you to know that this could get very, very ugly. And you're going to have a lot more citizen engagement.

You already have more citizens than a typical city hall meeting in southeast Missouri.

It's going to get full in here. I've seen KFS 12 come and cover it because citizens are so out of sorts. I've seen entire boards change because of how they voted on a franchise provision. If you franchise, of course we want your business. That is my job. I love getting new contracts. It makes me happy. It makes me look good to my boss. Any new opportunity is a great opportunity for me personally, but also need cities to trust me. And if I'm not completely honest about what this is going to look like, you're not gonna trust me. So I need you to know if you're going to do this, it could get terrible or you could not hear a peep. I don't believe that's what's gonna happen. But it's going to rile people up when you take their choice away or you mandate that somebody has to pay for a service they weren't previously paying for. Even though it's trash and it's a small fee, people are going to be very upset.

Hello, Robin.

Yes.

Where do you live?

Where do I live? I live in Campbell. That's in the Booth Hill.

Okay. You don't know this city?

I have family who live here.

Oh, really?

Mm-hmm.

Oh. I take a little offense in what you're telling me about it can get so nasty and terrible here. This is a good city.

People talk to each other. I'm not saying anything disparaging about the city. I'm saying just based on what I've seen in every city, wonderful places.

Anything can happen. I'm telling you that this city works together.

I'm not disparaging the city. I promise I'm not. Okay.

i've got one question before you leave uh you know we've talked about the different size trucks uh i haven't seen many small trucks from republic i mean we have three locations you do all of them they're all big triple axle so if we put this together and we decide smaller trucks uh is that something republic would accommodate

so that is something that i would have to discuss with my manager in our area office um if a con usually if a contract is super sizable like a huge city they might accommodate that request in other smaller cities where it may not be as profitable we may just not bid on it uh one other question and stuff i've seen in the past and stuff when it came to recycling

They pick that up in the same trucks that they pick up trash in at different times. So that recycling stuff comes in to a contaminated truck. It's not washed out?

No, it does get washed out. If we get caught having regular solid waste in our truck, it's game over. And I encourage you to search it. We've had news companies put trackers in bottles and things and put it in recycling just to see if we're really recycling. We're recycling. The only time that it's not going to go to a recycling facility is when contamination is too high. If your load is too contaminated, say it's got a bunch of food scraps in it or it's just got regular trash mixed in, the recycling facility is going to, first of all, we'll get a contamination fee that we have to pay. We don't collect that from the city. We just have to pay it out of pocket. And then we also have to pick it up and take it to a solid waste facility because the recycling facility is not going to continue to process it. We don't have a special designated, this is only a recycling truck.

Correct.

But we cannot mix trash and recycling.

Yeah, because that contamination is a huge issue when it goes to the sorting facility.

If it's a recycling route, it's only on a recycling route for that period. Good info.

One more question, man. I think he wants to...

Yes.

Are the peaches all done?

Yes, peaches are coming off and we've got people coming in from everywhere.

I might be down there this week. Good question.

Here's my two cents.

Here's my two cents to all this. You've already alluded to it. Matter of fact, this process is all about creating a request for a proposal. You can put out whatever you want within those requests, right? Whatever pricing you want, whatever services you want. Those are all things you can put within that RFP. So you could have, for example, what is our price for trash and recycling? What is our price for trash and recycling? was our price for trash recycling and yard waste. So you have all those options for different pricing so you can see what the pricing scale is for all those services. The beauty of having it managed by the city, and the city may not feel this way, but the beauty of it being managed by the city is that ensures that every cart that is assigned to a house gets picked up. To your point earlier, when it's direct bill, when you're using multiple carriers and somebody doesn't pay their bill, what happens to that trash?

Sits there.

What else happens?

Rodents.

Okay. When you have a city contract, this even goes with Republic, same thing. They're no different. When you have a city contract, that guarantees that every car gets picked up. We are no longer in charge of whether you've paid your bill or not paid your bill. The city is. Cities that I deal with that do this tend to be a little more lenient with their residents, right? We as big companies, you get 60 days late, we're starting to not service you. As a city, you've got means and ways to say, hey, look, we can help you out. We'll carry it, but you've got to explain to us why you haven't paid your trash bill. Does that make sense? Yes? So the moral of the story here is this. Whether you use one provider or not, That's up to you. You can do an RFP for all of us to be a one provider and come to the conclusion that no, you want to stay the way you currently are. That's the beauty of putting out an RFP. It's exactly what it's designed to do. Establish what the parameters are and you can set them. What the parameters are, what the expectations are, And if you don't like them, then you stay with what you're currently doing. Last part of it is you have four contractors in town now. All four charge a different pricing. I'm going to have to look that up to know that. And it varies, I heard. Supply and demand. If you go to one carrier, what does that mean?

Just locked in for that amount of time.

Prices lower. Prices lower. You're locked in for the contract. And, again, depending on the terms that this gentleman brought up, so the town is what we call open market right now, right? So all four contractors, you use a V1, right? You're getting your discounts and all that. He just spoke about a fuel increase, right? When you do contracts with cities, you can put in the language that says no extra charges. This is our locked in rate for this year. This is our locked in rate for this year. So that takes away all the extra charges, fuel charges and increases that you get as an independent buyer. Does that help? Any other questions for me?

I have one other concern I just thought about, and this is not necessarily a question for either one of you two, but we have a very nice recycling center here now that's county operated. I'm wondering what happens to that, because I have a pretty good idea that most of the people that use it are city residents. It's right here next to the city. It's staffed by a local sheltered workshop. That would be terrible to lose that facility and those opportunities for the people working there. I don't know if I could get past that. If we award a single and recycling is part of it, I guess that's a lot of what-ifs and stuff, but I... I don't know if I can take that. There's that recycling center and those people who are special needs, that is a big deal. I use it all the time and stuff. And part of it's just out of it gives them a job. But anyhow, that's a big concern.

That's a great point. Respect that completely. Again, my understanding is that the point of this is going to one vendor Maybe it's trash only. Maybe it's trash and recycling. Maybe it's trash, recycling, and garbage. Right? To that point, for both of us, in terms of recycling, if you go that route, residential recycling, there are restrictions of the type of items you can recycle. The reason why I bring that up is I deal with other cities that have recycling centers just like that. None of them have shut down. None of them laid people off, even though they have recycling, because there are other things that get recycled that can't go into your trash for your recycling. Fair enough? Anything else?

Great discussion.

Thank you.

I didn't go through all the steps but they're listed there. So the third step would be for the first year we gather more information and develop an RFP. Then we post the RFP. That's step four. We'd get the bids and during that second year we would examine the bids and you all would decide whether you want to pursue it. So what I'm looking for tonight is a vote of whether or a straw poll or something of whether you would like us to bring the resolution to the board next month where you would vote yes or no.

I had a question for Alderman Prince. He's a senior member on the board here. I guess I'm right behind him. How many times have we debated this? This will be our third time since I've been on the board.

And the results? It failed each time for the same reasons. The last time we were supposed to try to limit the size of the trucks and HAPI was going to work on it, but we don't have a way to enforce that.

I will say I might not have as many years, but I think I'm close to as many years. And we did approve to move forward before, so it hasn't failed every time. We've had a time where it has moved forward.

And it didn't go anywhere after that.

We didn't have new streets either.

Well, that's a new board, and as far as I'm concerned, I want to move forward with it.

I would like to move forward with it.

I would like to move forward with it as well.

I want to move forward with it. That's four.

I think that's enough to move forward with an ordinance. Would this be a resolution?

This would be a resolution. I can bring the resolution to the next meeting and then you'd have to have a motion, a second, and a vote.

I think that's what we're looking for.

I'm still a no.

I mean, this is a long, drawn-out process. It's not going to happen right now. There's no hurt in moving forward with it and just see where it goes. If we don't like it, then we don't like it in the end.

So, there's another question? I'm sorry.

So, this may be very blunt, and I apologize if it is. What do you have to lose?

Mm-hmm. Okay.

Resolution?

Yes, please.

I agree. Resolution.

Okay. Let's do it then. All right.

So I assume that people didn't want to go with it or no votes?

We'll find out next meeting.

We're not going to. Yeah.

Next meeting.

Is that anybody else got any other questions? Thank you very much. Mike, thank you also.

Ladies and gentlemen, have a good evening.

Thank you all for that discussion. I thought it was really good. I would like to pay any one of those monthly amounts. It's quite a bit less than my current one. In fact, I added up all the monthly amounts and it's barely a little bit more than what I paid for.

So that's pretty good.

Negotiate your rent then. You have that power. Yeah. Maybe I need to have Mr. Sizemore negotiate.

I don't have as many accolades as he does. I'm $29.17 a month.

It's a little, but I got great service. Yeah. You got what? Great service. I forget to put it out, they go and get it, and put it back.

Who is it? Well, I've tried the smaller ones, and waste management keeps buying up the smaller ones, so then I end up starting with waste management.

We got to go down the road and figure it out. I like paying one time $350. We got the trash truck going down and getting trashed. We don't have to worry about it. We got a new cycle truck coming down and getting trashed. How do you know you're on the right side?

And I'll pay $4 or $5.

You don't know?

Just so I can say I'm on the right side.

You have to go down that road and figure it out.

There's a lot of money here, right?

I am. I'm not. I'm in the wrong.

Okay. I think, I know Alderman Steiger's grabbing a glass of water. I am going to move us along though, if everybody's okay. We're going to move along to work session agenda item number two. This is a review of the five-year capital plan.

Are you on? Thank you. So at your seat, you also have this document. It was included in the packet. It's for you to take and examine, look over. We're not approving anything that's on here tonight. What I'm looking for as we do the budget process is that we also approve a capital plan, which is basically kind of like a comprehensive plan. These are the things that we need over the next five years. These are things we'll try to budget for over the next five years. But not unlike a comprehensive plan, things change. Things get added. Things get taken off. But this gives staff guidance on what we are looking to spend on capital. I do want to point out that not every single item on here is a capital item. Some of these are like four and five year items. contracts that we have for tasers or some of it is actually planning for debt service so that you know where some of the larger sums of money are going. But I wanted to get it in your hands, let you know what it is, let you know I'd like to adopt it as part of the budget process and just have you ask any questions you have whether they be tonight or over the next month as we get into the budget approval. I think it covers a lot of things. Yes, sir. Good plan. Thank you. That's staff put that together, not just me.

Good job, staff. Everybody kind of know their marching orders with that then? Okay. All right. So get a review of that as we enter budget season here. Lots to look over. Okay, on to agenda item three, and this is regarding real estate, and there is an option to close this. Motion to go into closed session. Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second to move into closed session. Sue, would you do a roll call, please?

Other woman dies? Yes. Alderman Fahey?

Yes.

Alderman Donovan?

Yes.

Alderman Newey?

Yes.

Alderman Heidman? Yes. Alderman Steiger? Yes. Alderman Prince? Yes. Alderman Ross?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. 🎵 🎵 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Waiting for a roll call.

Okay, back out of closed session now. Anything else to discuss at this time? Nope. Already had enough? Cool. All right, we will adjourn.