People, the council did not VOTE DOWN the stimulus money! It required 6 votes to get the bill for passage. Let's see, there are 8 council members and the mayor, which make 9 potential votes.

Two members were absent, so 7 voted. Again, the bill needed 6 votes to pass. 5 voted yes and 2 voted no.

So, the REAL issue is WHERE were the other two council members (Baker and Boyer)????????

Take your questions to them!

I totally agree with stjoelocalguy. If your going to run for these positions at least show the voters you care enough to BE AT VOTING MEETINGS!!! Their phones should be ringing off the wall.No shows in the working place GET FIRED!! Get with it or get out.

So, if someone gave the 'no' voting council members thousands of dollars but told them that they had to use it to improve their kitchen but not some other part of their house, they would turn it down? Not very likely in my opinion.
Just another example of individuals in leadership positions in St. Joe and from St. Joe having no idea how the outside (and real) world works. City-Nepotism at its best (i.e. worst).

OK, so if I read correctly, the city knew about the money in mid-March . . . that left then 8 weeks to at least talk it up to the council before dropping the ordinance in their laps.

it is a good point that the plan has been forming since mid-march and city hall had not given any input to the council. that might have made a little more sense. barbara labass is just pretty much impossible to bring around about anything to do with downtown, as are many of her most vocal constituents.

i think bill falkner is trying to be reasonable. he is an at large member. since we have representatives in washington who voted for the gross giveaway of stimulus funds while openly admitting they never even opened the behemoth bill, i find the need to examine issues refreshing! this is not that much money, really, and diluting it throughout the city might make it nearly invisible. also, the council has renewal of downtown on its list of priorities.

i sure would like to hear the council press for more details on the application process for these start up businesses, and to ask for some oversight in it.

Henry, your insulting bass here. They are good fish. Please stop these insults.

ROTLMAO!!!

Get the money then bicker about where to spend it. Just another classic sign how idiotic this city is. Even if it does not go where you wish it is still helping something and hopefully freeing up money that can go to other places.

The collective IQ and foresight of our community leaders is embarrassing.

The bottom line here is that those who voted against it did not have a good reason to do so. Even if they don't like that it will be earmarked for downtown development, how can they not understand that using this money downtown could free up other money that might have been spent there? Councilwoman LaBass should be embarassed. She voted no because she is suspicious? That makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that she didn't even understand if it passed or not after the vote shows that she should not be on the council.

The roads in the industrial park absolutely need to be fixed. Refusing to take free money to revitalize downtown won't get that accomplished. Now we have bad roads and an empty downtown. Congrats City Council.

By the way kw, what does this have to do with nepotism? Don't understand where you are getting that.

In the past few weeks the city council and city manager told the city employees that they didnt have money for raises, and then gives the developer of the fountains half of a million dollars, and turned down $475.000.00 dollars. What is going on at City Hall?? Same old spin!!! When can we vote on new council members, this is UNBELIEVEABLE!!!!

i agree we need to get rid of the current bunch and get some new ones in that know what they are doing. There was no sense in turning down that money. it would have freed up money to be used elsewhere. i still can't believe they did that.

A couple of basic points; city officials were aware of the availability of these funds since "March" and it is now "June". When the city noted the potential of receiving nearly one half million dollars it seems reasonable to expect the subject would have been given greater attention.
As for the council; some of the questions and concerns by the 3 members voting against this are understandable. Not acceptable is the fact that no council member made a motion to delay the vote so as to continue the debate and resolve any doubt or questions existing.
The subject of these funds were not some inconsequential topic that could be resolved at the convenience of the council. It was a matter having a real deadline deserving of appropriate action.
Fortunately this subject received enough attention to undo a big "oops" before it was too late for the community.

APM, I agree with you 100% on this. If they were unsure about what they were voting on they should not have voted until they were. And clearly the administration needs to do a better job communicating to the council to avoid this type of situation in the future.

The vote was 4-3.

I believe that council members should have a good attendance record. However, I do not feel that they should have a 100% attendance rate.

As far as I can recall, each member has missed a meeting. A council member probably will miss a couple meetings over the course of four years due to any number of reasons: illness/hospitalization of themselves or family, funerals, weddings, vacations, work, etc...

Usually a person can figure out what will be on the agenda and plan accordingly, but sometimes that isn't possible. And when something is brought up on an "emergency" status, there is even less notice.

I do question why this was known about in "mid-March" and several on the council seemed shocked by this. Either some council members are not doing their homework, or there was a failure to communicate in a timely fashion.

No matter how you look at it the city just passed up free money to use in St Joseph, but to continue to pump money into downtown when its been dead for years just does not make any sence either. If this money could have been used elsewhere in the city to help create some jobs ( as if we don not need jobs look around)our city goverment is just plain Stupid for voting not to take the money. Way to go St Joe city council people will remember election time and replace you.

MM The city council hasn't passed up anything yet. The department heads are the ones to blame (ie: Clint Tompson)for not notifiying the council earlier. The council will end up approving this money. Personally I would rather see this money get dumped into the "Money Pit" that is downtown rather than budget money or other local tax dollars.

If there are "strings attached, what are they?
Have our leaders not learned that money directed to one area will "free up" other money for other areas? Can this money be applied to the down town portion of the greater sewer improvement project? Saying no to progress just because you aren't happy with the President is foolish, Take the money and run.

all anyone who wants to make their point need do is to attend the 4:30 meeting tomorrow, which has been moved to the council chambers.

i believe there are probably two sides to this story.........

i would like to know if this money could be used for a boat dock in the vicinty of downtown ? i understand a indivdual is attempting to get one built with fed. money. it would be useful and would bring more money to the downtown area for gasolene sales and food and such. it is a shame a little town like atchinson,kansas can have a nice dock and a metropolis like st. joe. cant,wont, or whatever.just an idea, i dont ever expect it to happen, it sure would bennifit the city,s charm.

Hi heritage -
Like ?

hmmmmm a 4:30 meeting. Is this so the 'working' public can't attend?

apm, check your email.......

EXPLANATION TO COUNCIL BILL

ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Development

PURPOSE: To submit to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a Substantial
Amendment to the Consolidated Plan 2008 Action Plan, for the Community Development Block Grant
funding available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (CDBG-R).

REMARKS: The Council annually adopts a Consolidated Annual Plan that describes how the City plans to
use its entitlement of Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds to
implement the objectives set out in The Community Partnership Strategy and Consolidated Plan, 2005-2010.
The CDBG-R funds were authorized by Congress effective March 19, 2009, as part of the stimulus package.

St. Joseph is entitled to $475,429.00 of CDBG-R funds that HUD strongly urges be used for hard
development costs associated with infrastructure activities that provide basic services to residents or activities
that promote energy efficiency and conservation through rehabilitation or retrofitting of existing buildings.

In order to receive the funds, we must submit a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan 2008 Action
Plan by June 5, 2009. The City of St. Joseph will be soliciting requests from developers and entrepreneurs for
activities that maximize job creation and economic benefits by (a) preserving and creating jobs and promoting
economic recovery; (b) assisting those most impacted by the recession; (c) providing investment needed to
increase economic efficiency. The City of St. Joseph’s first priority is to assist with the redevelopment of
Downtown St. Joseph which has slowed due to the recession. Preference will be given to activities that can be
started and completed expeditiously.

The required public comment period began on May 18, 2009. The proposed amendment was posted on the
City’s website, with a public announcement that a hearing would be held on June 1, 2009.

WHEREAS, Title XII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 makes $475,429.00
of Community Development Block Grant Program funds available to the City of St. Joseph for
activities that maximize job creation and economic benefits by (a) preserving and creating jobs and
promoting economic recovery; (b) assisting those most impacted by the recession; and (c) providing
investment needed to increase economic efficiency.

WHEREAS, in order to receive these funds, the City of St. Joseph must submit a substantial
amendment to the Consolidated Plan 2008 Action Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH,
MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the City Manager of the City of St. Joseph be, and hereby is, authorized to file
with the appropriate Federal authorities, a Substantial Amendment to the
Consolidated Plan 2008 Action Plan, for the Community Development Block Grant
Program funds available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(CDBG-R), a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. That the City Manager of the City of St. Joseph be, and hereby is, designated as the
authorized representative of the Applicant to act in connection with said Amendment
and to provide such additional information as may be required.

this does not specify that the government is saying the money must be used downtown. that is a choice for the community/council. did the council direct the CM to prioritize the money downtown? will section 2 hand over all appropriations to the CM? should/can the council direct the CM to submit all applications to them for approval?

For the record, later today they get a chance to re-consider this. Before taking shots, I reccommend we all wait and see how it plays out. And those in the community who can make the time period this will occur, I strongly recommend they show up if they have a real interest in this, for or against. Apple, you are vocal about this, you should be there and state your case from the public standpoint. This is your chance to be heard in my view, take advantage of it.

Council members need to be voted out. This towns political structure is broken, We need to sweep the board of all the good ol boys. Especially those who are lazy and dont show up.

ww, I think most on this list find this repeated lack of understanding by Labass and Faulkner inexcusable rather than being just this one vote (even with a do-over). LaBass in particular has repeatedly stated to the media and in council meetings that she did not know what they were voting on and has asked to be informed AFTER she voted. This is inexcusable.

heritage - Good homework! and valid question with one answer.
Whom does city manager report to?
The council sets policy through consensus of vote and as stated on several occasions it is their responsibility to direct all activity and decisions associated to such fiscal matters.

If the council votes to accept the money, who will decide how/ to whom the funds are disbursed/awarded?

lamplight, that is the 64,000 dollar question. i asked it above. there is no restriction that this money must be spent downtown. as apm states, the council could/should have directed the CM as to where precisely they wanted to have this money targeted. hopefully this will be fully addressed and resolved this afternoon.

the council is doing well IMO, as a whole. they do leave loose ends which get taken up by administration and sometimes that solution is not to the council's liking. this is a pretty common problem from what i have seen, and i think that both sides are partially responsible. i would hate to condemn either group for doing their jobs, and definitely don't want to see an entire new council as we had in the last election.

Heritage,

I find it interesting, given your stated intent to run for the City Council during the next election cycle, that you don’t feel like a wholesale replacement of the current council is necessary. Having said that, to put a point on it, who do you think you need to replace?

238er, I completely understand, believe me, there is no excuse, they should all know what they are voting on or they delay the process until they figure it out. Thecitizen, soon, that opportunity will arise when terms expire. Apple, make yourself heard regardless if you cannot make it. shoot them off a letter, a cordial one, they all have email.

I wouldn't say the Council is doing a bad job, but not good enough either. In this case, they should have figured out exactly what they are voting on and what potential options they had before voting in the first place. Voting no just because it is going to be used downtown or because you have an unsubtantiated suspicion that there might be strings attached aren't valid reasons. We don't even know why the other no vote was given or why the other two councilmembers weren't there.

If you want to be on the city council then you need to step up and do things the right way. Demand more information instead of complaining you didn't recieve it. They need to be directing the City Manager in more positive ways then a no vote, just because you feel you weren't given enough information. If you don't know what your vote means or how many votes are needed to pass then you should find out before you vote.

Councilwoman LaBass appears to be playing both sides of the issue. Was she just voting no to look good to her own area because she thought it had enough votes to pass?

"The City of St. Joseph’s first priority is to assist with the redevelopment of Downtown St. Joseph"
Can someone tell me how this line is relevant to this ordinance? If that is the 1st priority then someones priorities are a little off kilter. The 1st priority should be Industrial growth, not an entertainment district that will provide low paying service orientated jobs. I have seen 3 downtown redevelopments in my time and none have worked so far. As I stated earlier though better to waste Federal taxes than local dollars on this. However if I had my choice the Downtown line would be throw out so we could be free to use the money where it was deemed necessary.

Hello Henry - Somewhat off topic but since you bring up the subject a repeated lack of focus and control could seen well opens the door for more than one.

Mr. Mastrangelo,

I only ask since she commented on the composition of the council, although to be completely candid, I’ve been dying to pose the question.

Are you speaking as her campaign representative?

actually, mr. allison, since i have not told that many people of my consideration of that option..........

when, or if, i decide to throw my self into public service, i promise i will send you an engraved invitation. all i need is a name and address.

back to the discussion. the meeting was pretty much as expected. a few professional downtown supporters, staff, and perhaps a half dozen citizens. the issue passed as presented. one of the main sticking points in comprehension was that although the obama administration has a inch thick manual on the stimulus funds, each of the subchapters ( energy, transportation HUD) all have different guidelines which have to be followed beneath the larger generalized umbrella.

although "downtown" is still in the language, the funds are not limited to downtown. the mandate is that the money has to be spent within HUD guidelines, and the ultimate result has to provide Permanent new jobs. the Permanent is the "hook". even though money could be applied, for example, to HUD neighborhoods to repair sewers or roads, the entity performing the jobs has to be able to document creation of Permanent new jobs.
mr. mccush did a fine job of explaining this, and i "think" i got it?

the council will have the final say on who receives the funding, just as they have final say on the distribution of the HUD cdbg funds. the city will begin to advertise immediately as to the availability of the money, and the city does not have a shovel ready project of their own ready to plug into the formula.

only a few tetanus shots were needed at gavel.

Henry - You should realize by now I represent but one and only.

heritage - No surprises from the results of the session and so long as the funding does not end up going toward a lifetime of Winston cigarettes all is just fine.

Apple,

Since you asked, I’ll tell you what I think is up with Ms. LaBass. I strongly suspect she is under a lot of pressure from her district. Specifically, I believe some of her constituents, [the strong kind; the kind that can draw voters to or from a candidate] have come to her and said something like: We don’t want to see another nickel spent on Downtown until our roads are fixed. Who can blame them since the roads in the Eastside Business Park are crazy messed up? Barbara’s duty is to the 5th district, so there you go.

Sadly, there are two important points some people are missing. These CDBG funds must be spent on projects in a certain demographical area [middle to low income] and must be used to create new permanent job or to keep existing jobs. It is incredibly unlikely HUD would see street repair in a business park on the nicest part of town as fulfilling those criteria. The second critical point people are missing, even if this CDBG money is used in another part of town, it could conceivably free up other monies for street repair in the 5th district.

Mostly it is a Can’t see the Forest for the Trees deal.

pasted from today's article......

the citizens must understand the same thing the council failed to grasp. this particular stimulus package is a HUD initiative. that means that all projects have to be directed towards HUD ( translated very simplistically ...POOR) guidelines.

streets/sewers/infrastructure May be eligible If the work is done in HUD qualified areas of the city And the project creates Permanent Jobs. there are stimulus areas which target all manner of varying areas..... some are transportation, some infrastructure...... etc.

the mayor was so outrageously out of line last night it was truly a seminal moment for me. i have been willing to overlook this man's outbursts,( even supported him in his constant criticism of Vince Cappel) but this behavior was totally unacceptable. the mayor is a fool , cannot control himself, and therefor the council finds itself in disarray. last night ken shearin should have had his mouth washed out with a bar of soap as the five year old he behaved like. anything which "got done" was achieved IN SPITE of shearin, not because of him.

as one who has been a vocal critic of mr. cappel, allow me to say that i actually felt sorry for this man as he endured the onslaught thrown at him by shearin. if this council would learn to direct the manager as to what THEY actually want, then the staff would not have to fill in the void created by council's inactivity. yes, as suggested by mr. falkner, there should have been a meeting to direct this money...... and the COUNCIL should have called for that meeting. cappel is caught between a fledgling council which takes too little initiave and when he moves forward on the behalf of the citizens, the CM is accused of being duplicitous.

the mayor is supposed to run the meetings. since he did not the entire council should have stood up and chastised their brainless leader. enough is enough.