Generally speaking, I find most public meetings to be pretty boring. I think most people would agree with me. That's probably why there were only 8 people at tonight's Board of Aldermen meeting and 5 of those were on the agenda to speak. Two of those were city employees who were required to be there.
It was pretty much a boring, routine meeting. They passed a resolution to sign a cooperative agreement with the city of Springfield for pictometry for sectors of Greene and Christian Counties. That's fancy talk that means the city of Springfield is paying for aerial photos of the area and the city of Ozark is gonna pay them for our part. It's $5200, which seems like a bargain to me. And I guess it's precise enough to see if you've put in a swimming pool or a new deck on the back of your house so they can up your tax assessment. Of course I'm sure that's not the reason they're doing it.
They passed a couple of bills changing some language in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ozark. That's when it got interesting, at least to me. Not because of the language changes...all they were doing was striking some old paragraphs and replacing them with some new paragraphs and changing "Mayor and Board of Aldermen" to "Board of Aldermen meetings." No, what interested me is that one of the aldermen, the Mayor Pro-Tem, according to his name plate, was ready to throw out the entire ordinance because there were a couple of amendments. The amendments were pretty minor. They had to do with whether absent aldermen could participate in meetings via electronic means and/or vote either by electronic means or by proxy.
My opinion of that is that there are very few times something must be acted on immediately. If they have a quorum they should do business as usual. If they don't have a quorum, really, what can't wait two weeks? I'm sure there are times when something can't wait, but I seriously can't think of any off the top of my head. Certainly members should not be proxy voting or voting by text, e-mail or fax except in extreme emergencies. The whole point of a public meeting is to hear discussion about an issue. If you're voting on it without hearing the discussion, what is the point of the discussion?
Finally they passed the amendments and eventually the ordinance. But I was surprised at the Mayor Pro-Tem's lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. Maybe they don't often amend ordinances or amend amendments to ordinances. Why not? Do they normally just rubber stamp everything as it comes from the city attorney and city administrator's recommendations? Surely not! I hope not anyway! A ordinance that comes before the board should be well thought out but the board has a responsibility to study the proposal and make changes as they discuss it and think about it. If they throw it out and start over every time there are amendments they are wasting a lot of time.
I recommend the Mayor Pro-Tem visit and get his very own copy of RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief) and brush up on parliamentary procedure. It's too bad he's not a PTA mom, he could have joined us in Columbia last weekend and saw excellent parliamentary procedure in action.
They plowed through lots of other business, approved buying a new zero turn lawnmower, got an update on the new utility billing cycles that start next month and then moved on to the most interesting part of the meeting.
A resident came and asked the city to fix the sidewalk in front of his house because he has been having drainage problems. He had already come before the Board of Aldermen two years ago asking for the same thing, and his request had been denied. But apparently, over the course of the time this guy has been seeking out assistance with this problem, he's been told yes the city will fix it, no the city will not fix it, yes they will, no they won't. And on and on. Certainly all involved will agree he's gotten the runaround.
But...and to me this is a VERY BIG BUT...he freely admits he has drainage problems both in his front yard and in the back. He's already obtained an easement across his neighbor's property so he can put in some drainage to tie into the city's storm drains. He's been having water problems with big rains for close to five years. I know in five years the Finley River has overflowed its banks and flooded the park at least once a year so I imagine he's had a lot of water over at his place multiple times as well. And he still hasn't done anything about it.
He's waiting for the city to lower the sidewalk in front of his house by anywhere from 1.2 inches to 3.6 inches before he puts in drains. Seriously? What if the city spends the time and money to do this and it still doesn't fix his drainage problems? Seems to me he should be a responsible landowner and do his part first. If he still has problems in the front yard, then he should approach the city.
He and the president of his homeowner's association seem to think because the city's building inspectors approved the sidewalk, they should fix it. However, the city did not build it, the contractor did. I guess if the contractor did it wrong and the city approved it, they are both in the wrong. I believe the reality is that this place was built when there was a construction boom in the area and I'm sure some things maybe slipped through the cracks. It's certainly possible there has been some erosion or settling in his yard, causing the sidewalk to be higher than the surrounding ground. Wouldn't you want the sidewalk higher? I honestly don't know. We don't even have sidewalks in my neighborhood. I'm not sure I've ever lived anywhere where there were sidewalks.
In any case, it's his property flooding! It's his property getting water damage! Is the city of Ozark going to come over here if my basement floods after a big rain and fix it? I highly doubt it. Oh, by the way, my basement is dry as a bone. If it wasn't, I'd fix it. OK well I wouldn't but I would pay someone who knows what they are doing to do it.
Two of the aldermen, one from Ward III and one from Ward I, both mentioned the idea of personal responsibility and gave examples of what they had themselves done to deal with stormwater problems. Ward III even went so far as to ask why Ozark taxpayers should have to pay for this. The Mayor also cited personal responsibility.
However, in the end, they decided to take it under advisement and come to a decision at the next meeting. I really hope they stick to their guns. To me it sets a dangerous precedent to for the city to go around paying for stormwater problems, especially when a landowner hasn't even made an effort to fix the part of the problem all agree is his responsibility.
I've lived here for eight years and this was my first Board of Aldermen's meeting. It won't be my last. I'm awake. I'm paying attention. And I'm not going away.
No comments:
Post a Comment