Board of Aldermen

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING OF MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017 AT 200 HIGHLANDS BOULEVARD DRIVE REGARDING A REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 825 SULPHUR SPRING Mayor David L. Willson called the Public Hearing of the Board of Aldermen to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call showed those present were Alderman Clement, Alderman Stevens, Alderman Hamill, Alderman Ottenad, Alderman Baumann, Alderman Diehl, Mayor Willson and Attorney Gunn. A quorum was present. The following notice of the public hearing was then read: “The City of Manchester Board of Aldermen shall hold a public hearing on Monday, March 6, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Manchester Police Facility, 200 Highlands Boulevard Drive, to consider the following: CASE #17-REZ-001 – A request by Sean Flower, Flower & Fendler Homes, on behalf of James and Janice Digirolamo, owners, to rezone a property located at 825 Sulphur Springs Road from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-4 Single Family Residential District.” Mayor Willson stated that we would hear from the proponents, the opponents, comments from the public, comments from the Board of Aldermen, and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Sean Flower stated he is with Flower and Fendler homes, this is a rezoning hearing, the piece of land in question is 825 Sulphur Spring Road, and he has a development project for that location. There are several parcels, and he is trying to develop them all as one package. Mr. Flower stated in his opinion it is a classic example of spot zoning, where there is one parcel that is different from the other contiguous parcels. He said this is a limited example of something that really wouldn’t have a big impact as far as zoning. He said the utilities and water are available. There will be disruption while the project is being done, but there will better access from Oklahoma to Sulphur Spring. The homes will have bigger square footage lots than Royal Oaks, and the price would be around $350,000 and up. He showed an aerial view of the road layout. He said that St. Louis County, as far as road access is involved, the Fire District, and Metropolitan Sewer District find the design acceptable. He said this does comply with the City’s Master Plan for zoning. Public Hearing –Rezoning 825 Sulphur Spring 03/06/2017 Page 1  Alderman Baumann asked where the Kindercare is located, and Mr. Flower showed the location on the aerial. Alderman Diehl asked if these are all single-family homes. Mr. Flower stated they will be all single-family detached. They will start off at 1,800 square feet. Alderman Baumann asked if neighbors have been notified. Director of Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Melanie Rippetoe stated that the neighbors are notified of the public hearings, but not once the construction begins. Mr. Chris Winters, 510 Cardinal Lane, spoke as an opponent. Mr. Winters stated he is opposed to this development, because of the historic aspect of it. He stated that the original house was built in 1832, and it is a beautiful structure. He expressed concern about the curve right there, and at 35 miles an hour, it looks to him as though that would be a dangerous curve when pulling out onto the road. There were no more opponents, comments from the public, or questions from the members of the Board of Aldermen or staff. Alderman Clement stated the Planning and Zoning Commission gave unanimous recommendation for approval. He said there were neighbors at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting who asked questions and looked at the drawings. Mayor Willson closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Baker, MMC/MPCC City Clerk Note: This is a journal of the Public Hearing held March 6, 2017 regarding a Request for rezoning of 825 Sulphur Spring, (summary); not a verbatim transcript. If a recording of the public hearing is desired, please contact City Hall. Public Hearing –Rezoning 825 Sulphur Spring 03/06/2017 Page 2  MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017 AT 200 HIGHLANDS BOULEVARD DRIVE 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor David L. Willson called the Regular Board of Aldermen meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL AND STATEMENT OF QUORUM Roll call showed those present were Alderman Clement, Alderman Stevens, Alderman Hamill, Alderman Ottenad, Alderman Baumann, Alderman Diehl, Mayor Willson and Attorney Gunn. A quorum was present. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen meeting of Tuesday, February 11, 2017 Alderman Clement made the motion to approve the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen meeting of Tuesday, February 21, 2017. The motion was seconded by Alderman Hamill and carried unanimously, without objection. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Alderman Hamill made the motion to approve the Order of Items on the Agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Alderman Clement and carried unanimously, without objection. 5. CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC a. Comments from the Public Ms. Kim Smith, # 2 Calder Court, Manchester, Missouri stated that last week she had the unfortunate pleasure of attending the farewell party of officer Dave Ebert, who was a 27-year veteran of the Manchester Police Department, and yet another officer of our fair City has moved on to greener pastures because of the Board’s continued refusal to pay a competitive living wage and benefits. She said that while attending the party, she spoke to other officers who confirmed that morale is low and frustration is running high, not just among their ranks, but throughout the other City departments. Ms. Smith said that while at the party, she bumped into yet another former Manchester Police Officer who stated he left because, although he loved working in our City, he Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 1 chose to leave the force because he felt undervalued and underappreciated. She said this officer was a popular and dedicated member of the force and he is gone. Ms. Smith said Dave Ebert is gone, Tony Davis is gone, and several other officers have recently left. In fact since 2001, 61 officers and 10 clerks are gone. Ms. Smith said that the City can’t fill jobs in the Public Works Department, the City can’t fill jobs in the Police Department. She said employees in other departments are stretched thin, and they’re told that if they don’t like it, they should go find work elsewhere. She said that is actually what is happening here in Manchester. They are leaving in droves because we expect them to suck it up and like it or leave it. She said she is using the word “we”, but who she really means is this Board of Aldermen. She said she is continually baffled as to why the members of this Board, all of them who reside in Manchester, have decided they want to continue to force loyal and dedicated City employees to flee and search for fair and competitive wages and benefits to support themselves and their families. She said the blatant disregard for the people who really run our City infuriates her. She no longer feels that the current Board represents the best interest of her City; it is trashy, it’s tacky and needs to stop. Ms. Smith stated while speaking of trash, she did a little research, she has a friend a couple blocks away in unincorporated St. Louis County. She said her friend sent her a copy of her bill, and she pays $11.24 per month for trash and recycling services. She said that seniors over the age of 65 catch a break, and pay $10.12 a month for the same services. Another friend in Ballwin pays $55 every two months for yard waste and recycling. She said she asked both of them if they ever considered moving out of their homes because they had to pay for these services and they both laughed at her and said it was ridiculous. Ms. Smith said that despite our Board’s oppositions to residents paying for their own trash pickup, and the belief that residents would flee to other municipalities, she thinks our residents are smarter than that. Ms. Smith said that approximately seven percent of Manchester’s residents are over the age of 65, but that doesn’t mean that they are all on fixed incomes and can’t pay. If they truly can’t pay, there is paperwork that they can file with the City to claim hardship and the City will help their bills. Ms. Smith said that instead of asking residents to share the cost of doing business in the City, the Board expects the 70 plus City employees to pick up the tab in the form of lower salaries, less benefits and skyrocketing health insurance costs. She said she doesn’t know what kind of tactics are going on in regard to the City employees’ health insurance, but she is sure the truth will come out, and in fact, she is looking forward to that trash hitting the fan. Ms. Smith said she would like the Board to imagine, being incorporated back into St. Louis County, because if this doesn’t stop, that is where we are headed. Ms. Smith said spring storms are coming in tonight, so enjoy cleaning up the street when a tree blows over and there is no Public Works Department to help, or enjoy sliding to work in the winter when no one has plowed your street, enjoy going to Ballwin Days or free concerts in Ellisville’s Bluebird Park because you won’t have that in the former City of Manchester, and no Arts Council either. Consider if you need special or personalized help from City Hall, to just enjoy searching for a parking spot in Clayton, and that personal service you will receive. Good luck trying to get timely response from St. Louis County Police if you have a problem. They are spread too thin, and we will all be nothing special, just anonymous county residents whose needs aren’t any more important than the thousands of other county residents. She said to say goodbye to having special perks, like aldermanic meeting packages delivered to homes or elsewhere, and on second thought, there won’t be a Board of Aldermen, and no one in our former town will have any more power than the rest of the residents. She said with this nonsense over residents paying for trash pickup, she wanted to know if they think the County is going to give it to them for free. She said all residents will be be paying for it, and we just won’t be part of a special town with personal services and wonderful hard-working employees. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 2  Ms. Smith said no department in this City is more important than the other and it is reprehensible that the suggestion was made to address the needs of only the Police Department while putting the other departments on the back burner. It is insulting to all the employees, and she can’t even believe that suggestion was made. She is tired of the back stabbing, she is tired of the pettiness and the meanness that this Board has to come to exemplify. She said this Board excels telling the employees that if they don’t like it they should leave. She suggests that they use that particular talent when it comes to telling residents the same thing about trash pickup and use that revenue to treat the employees fairly, decently and pay them a competitive wage. Otherwise the last one out the door at City Hall can turn out the lights; enough is enough. Ms. Lori Winters, 510 Cardinal Lane, said she only has attended two Board of Aldermen meetings, and what she witnessed in December and then again at the last Board meeting has left her quite exasperated. As everyone is well aware, many Manchester employees have been seeking employment elsewhere for good reason, salary and benefits. Last month, the Police Chief, along with other City Department Heads, addressed the issue with the Board. The main agenda of that evening should not have been a surprise to any of the Aldermen, but out of all of them, only Alderman Baumann and the Mayor had done their homework and had data to address the long ongoing issue. Ms. Winters stated she thinks the Mayor said that Manchester at one time was on top in providing employees with pay and benefits compared to other surrounding municipalities, but now our City is on the bottom of this list. She asked “Where did this issue start this downward spiral and why? It didn’t just happen overnight.” Ms. Winters said if she heard correctly at the last Board of Aldermen meeting, information regarding this matter had been provided to aldermen almost a year ago. She said she believes last fall the discussions were started about a citizen advisory board before them to work on this matter, yet as of the last meeting, still nothing has happened. She asked “Do you not find this issue a serious matter with serious consequences for our City and its residents?” She said she does, and she is not the only angry constituent. There is a long line behind her and she is going to do her best to make it longer. She said the Board was elected for a reason, so she asked that they please do their job. Mr. Chris Winters, 510 Cardinal Lane, Manchester, Missouri, stated: “I waited for 10 days for some answers and only got a letter from the City Attorney asking for more information so the City Staff could accurately answer my questions. No questions were answered, no other responses from aldermen. He asked if a copy of those questions was given to the aldermen. City Attorney Gunn answered affirmatively, and then asked if Mr. Winters had answers to give him. Mr. Winters asked “Who is considered City Staff? The Mayor, administrator, attorney?” City Attorney Gunn answered it is not the elected officials. Mr. Winters stated that there is really only one question directed at City Staff, and that is: “Did we give SLAIT the opportunity to bid on our behalf for health insurance in 2016? This is just a “yes” or “no” answer. If we did not give them the opportunity to bid, at no cost to the City, then why wouldn’t we give them the chance?” Mr. Winters stated that all other questions were directed to the aldermen, and these are very simple questions that only require a “yes” or “no” answer. There is no middle or gray area here. Just Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 3 a yes or a no. Or, he said he supposes, there could be the popular political answer… “I don’t recall”. Mr. Winters said if all of these questions cannot easily be answered with a “no” then it appears that none of the aldermen are confident in answering any of these questions. Mr. Winters said he will disregard the questions that cannot be answered due to “closed door meetings” concerning personnel, unless, they want to bring them back up, so he asked that they concentrate on the questions directed to the aldermen that were not closed-door meetings and were more recent. Mr. Winters said he knows this might be difficult to remember because we’ve had so many City Administrators that it’s very hard to figure out which ones he is speaking of, but hopefully the actual meeting locations will be helpful in determining which city administrators he’s talking about. Mr. Winters said he can’t figure out the difficulty in determining which administrative employees were requested to show up at Alderman Hamill’s law office unless there are just numerous private meetings going on there and it’s too difficult to remember. Mr. Winters asked again if it is true that in the past Alderman Clement and Alderman Hamill called upon two city administrative employees to come to the office of Hockensmith, McKinnis and Hamill at which the Aldermen Clement and Hamill, Tom Beattie and other Beattie associates were present, and these administrative employees were told that Beattie and Associates will be the City of Manchester’s health insurance broker and that is that. He asked if these employees were told that “this meeting never took place”? Mr. Winters said he had a simple question that can easily be answered, “Does Hockinsmith, McKinnis and Hamill represent Beattie and Associates for legal issues?” Also, he added this question, “Does Beattie and Associates broker insurance for Hockinsmith, McKinnis and Hamill?” Mr. Winters then addressed questions to Alderman Clement, because he felt certain he was present. He asked “Is it true that in the past you and other Board members (or staff) called upon a former city administrator to come to your home on a Friday and tell this individual you no longer wanted him to be city administrator and that that person was being demoted with less pay? Then you told him you wanted an answer by Monday? Was the hope that he would resign the ultimate goal? Mr. Winters addressed Alderman Ottenad and Alderman Diehl, asking if they had anything to do with either of these past discussions. Mr. Winters said that in a letter received by Attorney Gunn, he states that the questions being posed suggest that he has received considerable inaccurate information, and that is exactly what he is trying to determine. Mr. Winters said his reasons for asking these questions are that he is a taxpayer and a citizen of Manchester, and all he is trying to do here is ask simple “yes” or “no” questions so that he can make some logical sense of what has been going on in the City. He said it seems puzzling to him that three separate people on three separate discussions all gave him the same type of scenario of them being scrutinized by the aldermen. City Attorney Gunn asked if Mr. Winters is not prepared to give staff any further perimeters, no time frame. He said he asked him last meeting if it was necessary to go back to 1976 when the City adopted the city administrator form of government, and it was communicated that it was not, but Mr. Winters refused to give particulars. He said this allows him, tonight, to criticize the Board without answering questions when if more information had been given, maybe they could have gotten answers. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 4  Mr. Winters stated he was waiting to see if the aldermen were going to answer. He said if an administrator is not invited to a meeting, it is probably because of him. City Attorney Gunn asked if Mr. Winters could give any type of timeframe. He would like to answer his questions, but Mr. Winters is being evasive and questions are a little challenging and Mr. Winters is refusing to give more background. Mr. Winters answered it is beyond the Missouri Ethics Commission Statute of Limitations, so he can’t do anything with the Ethics Commission. He said he will not give names, but by simply telling where these meetings were held, with these questions, he doesn’t understand why this can’t be figured out. City Attorney Gunn stated he believes it is unfair to suggest that the staff has to guess about what information he is talking. He said he wants to give Mr. Winters an answer to his questions. Mr. Winters stated a timeframe being with Alderman Hamill’s law office would have to be within the past three to four years. With the meeting that was held at Alderman Clement’s home, it would probably have to be within about six or seven years. He can give a more definite answer on timing if necessary. He said that Attorney Gunn is considered City staff, and a letter was sent, and his letter also stated that he was thinking that maybe the aldermen might answer some of the questions. City Attorney Gunn stated he has been to Aldermen Hamill’s office on many occasions talking about a lot of things. He is making some assumptions here. There are isolated instances and he doesn’t know if that is the case or not, but without being more specific nobody can answer. Alderman Ottenad then read a prepared statement: “For months, we as a Board have listened to the many concerns raised regarding salaries during the “Comments from the Public” portion of our meetings. It should be noted that we do value and respect the constructive comments and input we receive from the public on this and other topics at our meetings, which is one of the reasons we changed our agendas years ago to add two “Comments from the Public” sessions during each Board meeting. We continue to believe it is very important to hear from residents and take those viewpoints into account when conducting City business. Now, we thought, might be a good time for a summary of comments from the Board regarding the employee salary issue that have been exchanged in e-emails between Board members within the last week or so, since during Board meetings, we are normally encouraged just to listen and not respond. We feel it is important that the public know the “rest of the story”, so to speak, since many of these factors are not really being presented in the comments so far on the salary issue. First, it is important to understand that we, as a Board, have been asking for recommendations regarding rebalancing staff salaries for quite some time. City Staff (Finance, City Administrator and Mayor) have been asked to provide a recommendation to the Board for rebalancing staff salaries since October, 2015. That’s when the Chief sat down at a Y2016 budget meeting and stated he needed more money for his police officers. We were told that we would have the recommendation by the end of February, 2016. We never received that recommendation. At the end of April, 2016, we finally received a series of charts from the City showing how Manchester’s salaries compared to other cities, but still no recommendation for salary changes was Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 5 given to the Board. In May, 2016, again, the Board asked City staff for recommendations for salary adjustments and no such recommendations were immediately provided. Finally, in the cover letter that accompanied our 2017 budget notebook, our City Administrator, at the time, wrote, “While the City strives to provide the most competitive salary package for its employees, in order to accomplish the aforementioned goals, it is my opinion that 2017 is not an appropriate year to address salary adjustments.” Given that all Department Heads have input into the creation of the budget, and given that they all were provided with a copy of that letter, when we received this recommendation from the City Administrator, we understood that all departments were at least aware of, if not involved in, the creation of the recommendation we received. Accordingly, we approved as a part of the budget, exactly what the City staff proposed for salary and benefits. In light of this history of asking for a recommendation, receiving a recommendation and providing exactly what was asked for by the City staff, we are confounded by the ongoing derogatory remarks aimed at the Board on this issue. That is not to say that something more may not need to be done. However, we authorized everything on salaries and benefits that was asked of us by the City staff as part of the budget this year, and yet, the innuendos, name calling and snarky comments continue meeting after meeting. Secondly, it has come to our attention that an across-the-board salary adjustment to a “mid- range level” has been determined by City staff analysis to require at least $650,000.00 for year one (not included the continued and growing increases in future years once the raise is provided). There has been a suggestion that we merely deplete our reserves to immediately provide for this adjustment, but we cannot consider this magnitude of a salary adjustment in a vacuum. Depleting our reserves in one year without providing a long-term funding source is not realistic or financially prudent for the City, especially with other major ongoing expenditures that we have recently learned we will also have to cover in the coming months. For instance, for those who attended our last Board meeting on February 21, we appropriated an additional $17,000 over budget for the new Parks Building, which is far from completed. Who knows what additional expenses will be needed to complete that project? We also found out at that meeting that in addition to the balcony being replaced on the front of the City Hall, additional issues exist under the siding. It sounds like major renovations to the exterior of the building will have to be undertaken and we don’t know the cost or extent yet. Thirdly, we need to proceed with caution since we recently learned from the 2016 financial statement, that we are $500,000 down, thus far, in revenue from the 2016 estimate we were given by City staff, which formed part of the foundation for the budget we authorized last year. In other words, City staff, as a part of the budget process last year, projected that we would have $500,000 more than we actually have received, meaning that the budget that was created using that higher number may already require us to dip into our reserves to meet our obligations. Markedly lower revenue will obviously affect the projected amount we actually have in reserves that will be available for other uses, like salaries. Fourth, we must be cognizant of annual cost increases for insurance. Last year, we learned that if we did nothing to lower the cost, our insurance would go up another $350,000. So combined with the previously stated cost of one year of increases to salaries, any new source of funding for salary and benefits would need to be at least $1 million a year in annual new revenue, just to cover these two items, much less normal increases in costs for the balance of the City services we provide. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 6  Finally, months ago, the City staff was asked by Board members to consider conducting a salary survey from an outside firm. It doesn’t hurt to have another set of eyes looking at this, much like the City of Chesterfield determined was necessary. While residents and staff may question the expenses for such a survey, the cost is small compared to spending an addition $1 million a year for multiple years, without having as much information as possible in front of us when we make these decisions. We look forward to the City staff, hopefully moving forward with the outside salary survey as soon as possible, and to any other recommendations that the City staff or the working committee on benefits and salaries may present on this issue.” Director of Parks, Recreation, and Arts Eileen Collins said the department directors were not privy to the cover memo referred to in Alderman Ottenad’s statement from the former City Administrator in regard to the budget. She reiterated that department heads did not see that memo. Since that time, Mr. Hixson is no longer here anymore, making lots more money with better benefits. Alderman Ottenad stated she is just going by what one department head told her. Mayor Willson asked the Board what they want to do if an outside firm does a study, and the study comes back and says “You are deficient in salaries and you are deficient in your benefits, and you are deficient in insurance, which you provide for the employees”. He said he wonders what they want to do. Alderman Clement stated that is the whole point of a working committee. He said they do need to find a new revenue source and it has to be annual. He said if they are going to be looking at $1 million a year, then they are going to have to find some ways, whether that is asking people to pay for trash or raising taxes at some point. He said that decision is large enough that it needs to go to the public and they should have a say in this. Mr. Wayne Hartman, 415 Cardiff Lane, stated with the comment and the problems with revenue, he questioned if the fire departments went through the same thing and they got together with other districts and use the tax revenue for all of them. Alderman Ottenad answered she has no idea. Mr. Hartman suggested that the police departments could all get together and do the same thing. 6. REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR a. Mayoral Report Mayor Willson reported on February 22 he attended the construction meeting at the Park; on February 23 he attended the West County Chamber of Commerce luncheon and took the City Clerk; he then attended the Planning and Zoning Commission dinner that evening, this year they combined the Planning and Zoning and the Board of Adjustment dinners; he attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 27; on February 28 he attended the opening of bids for Henry Avenue, on March 2 he attended the staff meeting, and on March 3 he attended Dave Ebert’s farewell/ going away party. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 7  Mayor Willson stated that Aldermen Clement agreed to be on the task force team, so they are going to be meeting this week. The Circle of Concern 50th anniversary celebration is going to be held tomorrow night. Mayor Willson stated that Director Bob Ruck was presented a Proclamation from Representative Jean Evans on Friday for his 45 years of outstanding service to the City of Manchester. 7. REPORTS FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR a. List of Paid Bills (Warrant dates of February 19 – March 4, 2017) Mayor Willson stated that the list of paid bills was included in the Agenda Packet. There were no questions. 8. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES a. Planning and Zoning Commission Aldermen Clement stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had a site plan approval for a large home on Connie Lane, it was unanimously recommended to the Board. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission will meet a week from tonight. b. Homecoming Committee Alderman Ottenad stated there was no meeting held, and there won’t be a meeting until April 12 at 6:30 p.m. c. Manchester Arts Alderman Stevens stated the upcoming event is the FOCUS photo exhibition. The entries can be dropped off until March 20. There will be a reception on March 24 from 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 9. ACTION ON OLD BILLS a. There were none. 10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BILLS a. BILL APPROVING REZONING OF 825 SULPHUR SPRING Alderman Baumann introduced Bill # 17-2293, entitled: “AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MANCHESTER FROM "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO "R-4" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT”, by title only. There being no questions, there was no further action at this time. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 8  b. BILL ADDING A NEW SECTION TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT Alderman Stevens introduced Bill # 17-2294, entitled: “AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW SECTION 210.770 TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER, RELATING TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT”, by title only. Alderman Baumann asked if other Cities are having similar ordinances. City Attorney Gunn responded that they are similar, and he would like to believe many other cities are considering the same type of legislation. There being no additional questions, there was no further action at this time. c. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONCRETE STREET SLAB REPLACEMENT PROJECT Alderman Clement introduced proposed Resolution # 17-0586, entitled: “A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH J. M. MARSCHUETZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINE DOLLARS ($507,709.00) FOR THE CONCRETE STREET SLAB REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MANCHESTER”, by title only. Alderman Clement made the motion to approve Resolution # 17-0586. The motion was seconded by Alderman Hamill and carried without objection. 11. MISCELLANEOUS a. Comments from the Public Mr. Jerome Meyer, 620 Applecross Court, stated that on the salary issue, it comes down to the fact that the City of Manchester needs essentially $1 million to get the City competitive with the other places so we can fill our staff vacancies. He said he hears they are considering little sources here and there, but it is going to take a lot of little sources to get a million dollars; we are looking at something big and the only thing he sees that is big is trash. He said we can raise our utility tax and that will help a little bit on it, plus a little bit here and there, but all those little bits together does not come up to a million dollars. He doesn’t see where this is going, having committees talking about options, and it comes down to trash. We can say we explored everything else, but that is what we’re doing, and what it came down to is having residents pay for trash. He said he doesn’t know if this is so the Board can go out there during election time and say “I didn’t take your trash away” because people are going to be upset, but they are going to be upset when we don’t have a police force, and we are down to ten people. Then County will come in and say they can take care of their problems. Mr. Meyer said come on folks, look at this and see this. There is only one true alternative to take care of this problem being looked at, and it can be put off another six months and have committees and everything else and it is going to come down to this. He said that we all know this, we are all hoping for a “pie in the sky” that some committee comes up with “Hey we found a million dollars”, but it is not going to happen. He said this is being put off, and if he was an employee here, he would see it as the City is just putting it off. He said this all started five months Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 9 ago. He wondered where the City is today, and whether we have gotten any closer to taking care of the problem, but no, it is put off for five more months. He said the six aldermen are elected to take care of problems, but we are in crisis mode in this City. If you haven’t seen the West County Magazine, once again, it made us look like fools. He said we looked like the “cheap skates” of West County. He said we are going to lose more officers; we are going to lose more public service and then where were you when everything falls apart and then you will have a room full of people screaming at you? Mr. Mark Belpulsi, 120 Brookside Lane, the Public Works Superintendent, stated he has worked for the City of Manchester for 39 years, which is over half his life. A lot of his guys that work for him have been here over 30 years. He knows that they sit and look and question why employees are still here. He said they would question “’Are you not thinking correctly?’ No, I don’t think people understand that we chose this job because we love to serve the citizens of Manchester. When we go to bed at night, he can say this and it might make some of the Board upset but it is a reality. You are not the City of Manchester, we are the City of Manchester. When the phone calls come in, when his guys go out, they repair the streets, when the people call, he doesn’t think any of the Board go out and mow grass, he doesn’t think any of the Board runs the parks programs; the Parks Department does.” Mr. Belpulsi stated he thinks they need to get out of the mode that we are enemies. He just wants one person to answer him. He said he is man enough to sit there and take it, so he is asking “What did the employees do to draw the line in the sand?” He continued “You drew the line in the sand, but what did the employees do to make the Board do that? He can tell them over 20 years ago, our retirement was seven percent of our yearly salary. The aldermen, which none of them were aldermen back then, but you can look back in the records, and it is a matter of fact, and he thinks Attorney Gunn could maybe remember this, but employees were asked by the Board of the Aldermen ‘Can you cut that back to 5 percent? We are in dire straits and we need the money’. The employees had a meeting at City Hall, which they were pretty small in number then and we said yes.” He questioned whether they know where they are today, 5 percent still. Mr. Belpulsi continued “We were told we were going to be getting it back in a couple years, don’t worry about it. We trusted you, the City’s aldermen, not you, but the aldermen at the time. He goes to work every day and keeps his guys heads up, he tries to do the best he can, and he is still going to serve the citizens of Manchester. He received a couple emails this week about things that his guys went above and beyond to do because it needed to be done. He doesn’t think they realize what we really do. You just look at the employees like a dollar amount. We are human beings with families. We love our jobs that is why we are here. He is not stupid because he has been here 39 years; he loves what he does. What employees do is make the aldermen look good. You don’t make us look good, we make you guys look good. He is sorry if they don’t want to hear it, but it is a fact, we are the heart and soul. They make decisions but when he goes out and talks to the people daily, they ask ‘Why aren’t my streets fixed’?” Mr. Belpulsi stated “One thing he can suggest is the aldermen in all three wards get in their vehicles and go drive in the other two wards. If you think your streets are bad you haven’t seen anything. You live in your neighborhood and you talk to your neighbors and talk about your streets being so horrible. It is like that all over, everywhere. He said the City just did a huge project on Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 10 Mautenne on sidewalks and when walking and looking at it, he was asked if it looks this way everywhere. Yes it does. He suggests if they really believe they are working hard for the citizens of the City of Manchester. He suggested the aldermen go drive the other two wards and look at their roads and sidewalks. It is horrible. He isn’t ashamed to say that, it is a fact. He hates going out every day and driving the streets. He wishes he was a horse with blinders because he looks everywhere and there are other bad ones.” Mr. Belpulsi stated: “I understand everything costs money, but the problem is that we are running into employees looking for other jobs. Why should they work here, what do they have? The younger guys, especially, those are the guys who are leaving. He plans on hopefully being here another two or three years, and when he is gone, not that he isn’t irreplaceable, but you are not going to find anyone with talent and years of ability to walk in here and do this job walking in off the street. They are going to look at what he gets paid and say why should I go there? There is no need to go there. He is just asking them, when he sat in the budget meetings and he doesn’t think everyone here knows, but in order to get our budget balanced, we were proposed a five percent increase. In order to keep our insurance the same for our families, all the employees gave up two percent of their raise to help bring our insurance back to where it should never have been touched. It is ridiculous. He said look at us and look down on us or think we aren’t very bright because we are here, but he can say that we give a lot. If the Board wants to think of something, it only snows at night and on the weekends, when all of them are in bed and with your families, and having a cup of coffee and you guys are saying how beautiful it is, but his guys are out there busting their butts. Same with the Parks Department, same with the Administration, same with everyone. Administration is there every day and taking all the complaints, taking the people screaming at them. The Board doesn’t listen to that.” Mr. Belpulsi stated he thinks the Board needs to look in their hearts and really look at who is the City of Manchester. He said “It is the employees, and we fight every day to make this a great place. That is why he is here.” Ms. Ramona Diane Ryder, 314 Jamboree Drive, said she has seen the officers and public works work so hard and do their jobs very well, but the barricades in subdivisions need to be taken down so emergency vehicles can get access. 12. ADJOURNMENT At 8:11 p.m., there being no further business, Alderman Hamill made the motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Alderman Clement and carried unanimously, without objection. The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Baker, MMC/MPCC City Clerk Note: This is a journal of the Board of Aldermen meeting held Monday, March 6, 2017 (summary); not a verbatim transcript. If a recording of the meeting is desired, please contact City Hall. Regular Board of Aldermen meeting 03/06/2017 Page 11