Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-09MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ALDERMEN RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI Tuesday, February 9, 2010 6:00 p.m. The Board of Aldermen for the City of Riverside, Missouri, met in special session in the Board of Aldermen Chambers at City Hall, 2950 NW Vivion Road, Riverside, Missouri, on Tuesday, February 9, 2010. Mayor Rose called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those in attendance were Mayor Kathy Rose, Aldermen Ron Super, Aaron Thatcher, Bernie Bruns, Brad Cope, David Hurt, and Mike Fuller. Also present were David Blackburn, City Administrator, Tom Wooddell, Director of Public Works, Robin Littrell, City Clerk, Sarah Wagner, Deputy City Clerk, Mike Duffy, Community Development Director, Meredith Hauck, Director of Communications, Donna Resz, Finance Director, Greg Mills, Public Safety Director and Travis Hoover, Capital Projects Engineer. Swearing in of City Clerk Sarah Wagner, Deputy City Clerk swore in Robin Littrell as the new City Clerk for the City of Riverside. Branding Initiative Presentation Meredith Hauck, Director of Communication introduced Erin Curtin and John Ratliff with Trozzolo Communications to give a presentation of the City's new branding initiative. Curtin explained that this has been a year long process. The City wanted to create something memorable and unique. Curtin recapped the process for creating the new brand, the timeline and strategic plan. Ratliff explained the philosophy behind the new brand. He said that is it more than just some colors and a logo. It has its own personality. The four characteristics of a good brand include difference, relevance, esteem and knowledge. Curtin went on to explain that the strategic marketing plan for the new brand will be included with the new Master Plan. Mayor Rose commented that the new tag line "upstream from ordinary" plays to different people in different ways. She has gotten a lot of feedback from people. Alderman Thatcher asked if there were any plans to set up a place on the City's website so that citizens could order merchandise with the new logo on it. Hauck replied that nothing was set up at this time, but she would look into it. Recess @ 6:21. p.m. Alderman Thatcher moved to recess, seconded by Alderman Fuller. The vote was: Alderman Fuller, Super, Thatcher, Bruns, Cope and Hurt. Page 1 Motion Carried Reconvene @ 6:27 p.m. Mayor Rose called the meeting back to order at 6:27 p.m. Those in attendance were: Alderman Fuller, Cope, Hurt, Bruns, Super and Thatcher. CIP Presentation Donna Resz, Finance Director gave a presentation to the Board of some proposed changes to the Capital Improvement Plan. She explained that the last time the Board discussed the CIP the ending fund balance for 2015 was just under $24 million. Since then some Board members have voiced some concerns about the ending fund balance so staff is proposing some changes which will move some project costs just out of the five year plan. The proposed changes include moving $3 million for a recreation complex, $2 million for a new Public Works facility and $1.5 million for city signage into 2015-16 CIP. It also includes increasing funding for community development projects by $5 million over the next five years. This is the fund that is used to help partner with developments for the City. Mike Duffy, Director of Community Development, explained to the Board that in addition to those proposed changes staff looked into getting a better idea of the cost for the Line Creek Bridge project. This project is essentially two separate projects. The first is a new bridge over Line Creek on Vivion Road. The other is a new entrance to Homestead off of NW Gateway. The original estimate for just replacing the bridge was done three years ago. When staff began looking at this project again they came up with two options. Option 1 is the new bridge with access to Homestead off of Vivion Road. The pro for this is that it is the least costly option. The cons are that this location would require a wider, more costly bridge, it would require right-of--way acquisition in Riverside and Northmore, the access would remain in the floodplain and access from Homestead to Vivion road would be more difficult due to the high traffic volume. Vivion Road sees about 9,000 cars per day at that location. Option 2 is a new bridge with access to Homestead off of NW Gateway. The pros for this include safer access by moving the entrance out of the floodplain, easier access from Homestead on to NW Gateway because the traffic volume on NW Gateway is only about 4,000 cars per day and the line of sight is better. It also improves long-term development potential and NW Gateway has the capacity for additional traffic coming from Homestead. The cons are that this plan is more expensive overall, it will have a steeper grade of 11% and it would require some right-of--way acquisition in Riverside from two property owners. The City is receiving STIP funds in the amount of $1.125 million and $400,000 from MoDOT. The total cost to the City for Option 1 would be $700,000 and Option 2 would be $890,000. Both of these figures are substantially lower than the original $1 million put in the CIP. Alderman Thatcher asked why the cost for land acquisition was included in professional fees in Option 1 and in construction for Option 2. Duffy replied that Option 1 and Option 2 go through different processes so the actuations fees are in different categories. Mayor Rose commented that the amount of money that the City is getting from MoDOT is more then what was expected. Duffy said that David Blackburn, Travis Hoover and Sabin Yanez spoke with Page 2 MoDOT earlier today and got them to commit the $400,000 that was due to the City in another project. Alderman Super asked if the road construction cost in Option 1 just included the turn into Homestead off of Vivion Road. Duffy replied that it also included the cost of raising the road and constructing a retaining wall. Alderman Super asked how much property would have to be taken from the library in Option 1. Duffy replied about 40 feet. Property would also have to be acquired from Don Alexander and Kurt Eckard. Alderman Super asked about the cost of land acquisition for Option 2. Duffy explained that $120,000 is for acquisition of the front property and $170,000 is for acquisition of the back property. The city is also purchasing the property adjacent to the back property that was needed because the property owner wanted to sell the two pieces together. The additional $170,000 for the extra Homestead property will be taken out of the Community Development fund. Alderman Super asked if the entrance to Homestead from NW Gateway would align with any other road to create a four way intersection. Duffy said that it would not align with any other road. Mayor Rose asked what would happen if someone wanted to develop in the Homestead area and the floodplain. Duffy replied that they would have to build food proof buildings or raise the area out of the floodplain. Alderman Super asked if this was a 100 year floodplain. Duffy replied that it was. He said that when the City got a lot of rain this past May water got onto the road at the entrance to Homestead. Alderman Super said that the City spent a lot on improving the drainage in that area. Duffy said they did and it is better, however, Line Creek makes two ninety degree bends in that area and that slows down the flow of water and causes it to back up when there is a lot of rain. Alderman Bruns asked how these two options were related to the project changes in the CIP. Resz replied that this is a separate issue. Alderman Bruns commented that he thought the Board had already agreed to move the entrance to Homestead off of NW Gateway. Page 3 Duffy replied that this is more for clarification of the cost. Mayor Rose said that it was discussed when the Board talked about acquiring the properly in Homestead. Alderman Fuller commented that he thought this project was getting more and more expensive to relocate the entrance to Homestead onto NW Gateway, but the two options are pretty comparable. He asked if staff thought the costs would stay closed to the estimate given here. Duffy replied that if the project is bid this year it should stay the same. Alderman Super commented that the entrance to Homestead would have to be done this year because it would have to be moved before construction on the bridge beings. He also asked what the timetable was to acquire the final property. Duffy replied that the final letter would go out next week and then the City could proceed with condemnation. Alderman Hurt asked what value the additional property acquired in Homestead would bring the City. Duffy replied that some of it will be used for right-of way and some of it could be sold to adjoining property owners or it could be used for future development. Alderman Fuller asked if the City was in jeopardy of losing any of the funding for this project. Duffy replied that as long as the City keeps making progress on the projects the funding will remain. Alderman Thatcher commented that it is just under a $200,000 difference between the two options. It is worth the extra cost to move the entrance. Resz went on to explain that the last slid represents the difference between the end funding balance for the original CIP that was presented and what it would be if the proposed changes were adopted as well as the reduction in the cost of the Line Creek bridge project. Alderman Bruns asked if staff could talk a little about the projects that they have proposed to moved out further on the CIP. Resz replied that the recreation complex started about three or four years ago and has been left in the CIP as the City looks for the appropriate land to put in on. Mayor Rose added that it was also something that the Park Board had requested staff and the Board to look into. Alderman Bruns said that the recreation complex is something that has been discussed in his Townhome meetings. Page 4 Alderman Thatcher said that the Master Planning process will bring about different ideas and many of these projects will have to be updated again. He commented that he is comfortable with moving the projects further out. Alderman Hurt asked about the Public Works complex. Resz replied that it depends on how the downtown area develops. When that happens something will have to be done with the current location of Public Works. Alderman Super commented about moving the signage back. He said that is one of the last things to happen once we know what is going to be developed. Alderman Cope commented that we are just moving these projects back, not deciding not to do them. Were just pushing them back to a later date. Resz explained that the CIP is updated twice a year and that it is just a plan. As things come up projects can be moved. The CIP will come back before the Board in May or June with the budget. She explained that the nice thing about leaving some of the projects in the CIP and just moving them outside of the five years is that it still keeps them as a priority it just means they can't be funded in the next five years. Duffy explained the changes to the city signage totals. The original plan was around $2 million because the Streetscape Committee identified other areas where signs are needed. The new CIP proposal still leaves in $500,000 for the design of a sign at the north entrance and two smaller signs at the east and west of the City. Construction of the north sign and design and construction of the south sign have been moved out until the City has a better idea of development in those areas. Alderman Bruns asked how the proposed changes to the CIP came about. Duffy replied that staff received some feedback from some Board members after the last meeting and was asked to look into some other alternatives. Alderman Bruns said that he feels that members of the Board need to bring any questions or other items back before the entire Board so they can be discussed and not to individual staff members. Resz said that there was a Resolution on the agenda to adopt the CIP. It can be adopted as previously present or with any or all of the proposed changes. Alderman Fuller commented that the idea for the CIP changes were brought to staff as an agenda item to be researched and brought back to the entire Board to discuss. Alderman Bruns said that he feels that the concerns should be brought up in a meeting with everyone so that one board members its getting more attention from staff than another. Mayor Rose asked the Board what they thought about the options presented to them. Page 5 Alderman Thatcher said that he like Option 2 better for the bridge and the he is more comfortable with the final numbers for the CIP with the proposed changes. Economic Development Policy The Board was in agreement. Duffy explained that the Board received another copy of the Economic Development Policy. He said that it is the same plan that was present in December. There is a Resolution asking the Board to formally adopt this policy so that staff can begin using it as they talk with developers Alderman Thatcher asked if there were any changes made. Duffy replied that he didn't receive any comments back so no changes were made. Alderman Super commented that as part of the Economic Development Committee that worked on this document one of the key components was sustainability. Projects need to eventually be able to pay the City back. Alderman Thatcher commented that his is very excited to have this document in place. Resolution 2010-002 Alderman Thatcher moved to approve Resolution 2010-002, adopting the Adopting CIP Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2012 for the City of Riverside, Missouri Approved with the proposed changes for the recreation complex, public works facility, and signage and with Option 2 for the Line Creek bridge project, seconded by Alderman Cope. The vote was: Yes: Alderman Fuller, Super, Thatcher, Cope, Hurt and Bruns. Motion Carried. Resolution 2010-003 Alderman Thatcher moved to approve Resolution 2010-0023, adopting an Adopting Economic Economic Development Policy for the City of Riverside, Missouri, seconded Development Policy by Alderman Hurt. The vote was: Approved Yes: Alderman Hurt, Cope, Super, Bruns, Thatcher and Fuller. Motion Carried. Recess @ 7:25 p.m. Alderman Hurt moved to take a recess, seconded by Alderman Super. The vote was: Yes: Alderman Cope, Thatcher, Bruns, Fuller, Hurt and Super. Motion Carried. Reconvene to Open Session @ Mayor Rose called the meeting back to order at 7:36 p.m. Those in attendance 7:36 p.m. were Alderman Fuller, Cope, Super, Hurt, Thatcher and Bruns. Page 6 Motion to Enter into Closed Alderman Thatcher moved that the meeting go into closed session, pursuant to Session @ 7:36 p.m. RSMo 610.021(1) Legal and RSMo 610.021 (2) Real Estate, seconded by Alderman Super, the vote was: Yes: Alderman Bruns, Super, Hurt, Cope, Fuller and Thatcher Motion Carried. Motion to Enter into Open Alderman Bruns moved that the meeting go into open session, seconded by Session a@ 9:56 p.m. Alderman Thatcher, the vote was: Yes: Alderman Hurt, Cope, Thatcher, Bruns, Fuller and Super Motion Carried. Adjournment Alderman Bruns moved to adjourn the meeting and Alderman Thatcher 9:56 p.m. seconded, the vote was: Yes: Aldermen Thatcher, Bruns, Fuller, Cope, Hurt and Super _- Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m j w 3 : ~ ~ ,. Sarah Wagner, Depu City Clerk Page 7