In today’s letters to the editor, there is a letter from Hosea Bilyeu where he apologizes to Roger Ray for taking him to task about one of Roger’s columns where he appeared to have a very condescending attitude toward his readers. Hosea took issue with Roger’s statements lamenting poor sales of his book in the first letter and apologizes in the second letter for taking what Roger called a joke “out of context.” (Now, my gut says that “joke” wasn’t entirely without the attitude that Mr. Bilyeu discussed but if he spoke with Mr. Ray and says that it was a joke then I believe Mr. Bilyeu. And no, I don’t go to his church. My opinion of Hosea Bilyeu is based on what I saw of him from being at events around him and his church staff.)

However, I can see where Mr. Bilyeu could have easily thought Mr. Ray was not joking and where I had that gut feeling that I’m trying to shake in light of Mr. Bilyeu’s comments in today’s newspaper. At the end of the same paragraph where Mr. Ray referenced the poor sales of his book he also wrote “We are a nation faced with serious issues and we need to break our addiction to the literature of diversion and be willing to pick up texts which both challenge and inform us.” Now, taking that statement in the context of being in the same paragraph with a reference to poor sales of his book, it’s understandable that someone could believe Mr. Ray was not kidding in his comments and that he was linking his poor sales to people being addicted to “literature of diversion.”

However, when Mr. Bilyeu said in his first letter that I wonder if his condescending remark is not indicative of the lameness of the left” I don’t believe he was very far off the truth. In fact, I first raised the issue of Mr. Ray’s condescending attitude in a blog entry dated November 8 entitled “Look Closer At Roger Ray.” I pointed out using examples of Mr. Ray’s column where he was being very partisan in his remarks and how his analogy was flawed. I also took issue with his apparent stance that he cannot be friends with someone who is a strong conservative and/or was or is a supporter of President Bush. I really felt there was an underlying hate toward conservatives in Mr. Ray’s writings and I believe that this incident with Mr. Bilyeu has raised some serious questions on top of the previous questions.

Read DrRogerRay’s responses in the comments to the first letter from Mr. Bilyeu. Look at how Mr. Ray responds to criticism from Hosea Bilyeu’s son:

DrRogerRay: “However, I avoid personal insults, especially of non-elected or local figures whose children might also read the editorial page and whose neighbors will certainly have those insults in mind when they see you out cutting the grass. ” (Relevant snippet taken from much larger post.)

WillBilyeu: “Dr. Ray, If you are trying to insinuate that Hosea Bilyeu is a hateful person hiding behind religion then you are wrong. Please do not complain about a perceived, vicious, personal attack and then immediately begin making inflammatory personal statements. Don’t forget, someones kids might be reading. ” (Note: Mr. Ray had earlier in the thread had said “Is it any wonder that most people assume that religious conservatives are really just hateful people hiding behind religion?” in reference to Hosea Bilyeu.)

So, we had a son of Hosea Bilyeu pointing out that Mr. Ray did exactly what he said he avoided: personal insults of non-elected or local figures whose children might also read the editorial page. Well, it’s not the editorial page but the blog connected to the newspaper that prints his editorials.  Does that really make a difference?  Here was Mr. Ray’s response to Will Bilyeu:

“Let’s see if I get this right, Will: You believe that your father should be able to call me arrogant, lame and irresponsible in a publication which goes to 40,000 readers and I shouldn’t be able to object to that, even in a blog read by a few dozen people? Does malignant narcissism run in your family?”

So now it wasn’t enough for Mr. Ray to go after Hosea Bilyeu but now his son and his family.

The next post was the son explaining he wasn’t attacking Mr. Ray but rather taking exception to a statement about his father. Mr. Ray then responded that he was going to stop this and his post included: “ Hosea and I have just spoken on the phone and reconciled our differences privately. He regrets writing about me in the letters to the editor and I regret writing about him here. Christians need to work out their differences in private in loving and respectful language and we have pledged to one another to do that. ”

I noticed that he did not apologize to Mr. Bilyeu in any public manner in the way he made his public comments. He said he regrets writing the comments but that doesn’t mean he thinks he was wrong to do it. Mr. Ray didn’t apologize to Will Bilyeu for his public insults toward him. (Now, I’m open to the possibility that occurred within the call to Hosea Bilyeu but Mr. Ray didn’t mention that happened when he mentioned the call.)

I will be waiting to see if there is a public apology on the part of Mr. Ray to Hosea and Will Bilyeu along the lines of the letter from Mr. Bilyeu who showed yet again he is a man of strong integrity.

I hope that we will see that apology. However, that will not fade away questions I’ve raised and issues regarding the statements that Mr. Ray has made within his column. I hope that some day he will answer some of those questions and we can have an actual discussion about the issues Mr. Ray raises that are in need of all our attention.

Congratulations to Louise Whall of the city of Springfield’s public information office on her marriage this past weekend!   I hope that you and your husband have a wonderful, blessed life together!

Mr. Zippy’s Express Wash at the corner of Kansas Expressway and West Sunshine is giving free car washes today.  (I know it’s legit because I had one.)

Their sign didn’t say when the cut off would be for the free car washes so I’ll have to believe it’s happening all day.

I had an e-mail from someone who asked me why I kept making references to the “peanut gallery” in my live blogs from City Council and about them not being present at the most recent meetings.  They went on to say that they were “surprised that [I am] not in favor of people being vigilant about their local government.  You seem to be all about that.”

Well, yes I am all about that.  That’s the reason I’m critical of the “peanut gallery” and their self-appointed leader who took a dislike to me when I held him as accountable for his actions as I hold any other public figure.  This “peanut gallery” and their leader are practicing a selective vigilance that is really not fitting with the definition of vigilance.

If you are going to declare that you are going to be vigilant when it comes to things like the city and county government then you need to be watching more than when someone tells you that you need to show up and cause a scene.  Vigilance means that you show up to the council meetings when the most controversial item on the agenda is an increase in the sewer rate cap.  It means that you make the commitment to make as many of the City Council meetings or other public sessions of our elected leaders as possible to show that you are concerned about what they choose to do with our tax dollars.

If you are going to announce in a public manner that you are part of a group holding our elected leaders to account then you have a responsibility to live up to that declaration.  If you’re going to send letters to the newspaper or call into local radio talk shows and say that you are going to be watching what our officials do then you are putting yourself in a place where you have to be active beyond just being upset when someone tells you that you need to be upset.

This is even more true if you are going to claim that our local newspapers and our local television stations are biased and not reporting what is actually happening in our local and state government.  If you distrust the media then you need to be there in person so you know what is really said and what is really done by our local government.  How can you say you’re keeping tabs on our officials if you don’t believe the source of the information upon which you’re basing your views?

The “peanut gallery” and their leader are not doing this.  These people are only being vigilant on certain items which usually is based on the whim of their leader.  Based on what I have seen from the “gallery” they are wrong about their fury at least a third of the time.  (This could be because of incomplete information or incorrect information but it does not mean it was done with false intent.)

When I start to see this “peanut gallery” showing up at the council meetings without their leader being present I’ll start to let up on them.  When I start to see the “peanut gallery” making an effort to be involved when they won’t be getting everyone to pay attention to them then I’ll start to let up on them.  When the “peanut gallery” starts to live up to their claim they are going to be vigilant then I’ll really let up on them.

Until then, I can’t take seriously their claim that they are going to be vigilant about our government and making sure that our leaders are held accountable for their actions.  (Heck, the leader of the peanut gallery has a problem with me holding him accountable for his actions.  How can I believe he’s concerned about accountability when he’s upset that someone holds him accountable?)

There are people who are holding our government accountable in the news media and in the blogosphere.  I may not agree with their political slant or how they frame a story but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there and they aren’t putting in their time to hold the government accountable.  If they stop being vigilant while claiming that they’re still holding our government to the fire then I’ll call them out like the “peanut gallery.”

I am not a big fan of Christmas decorations and the overblown displays that some people choose to put out every December. My kids like them so I go and see them but they’re not exactly what I would call a night out destination if left to my own devices. However, I know they bring joy to many people and it’s a tradition in many families to get together to hang the lights. It’s not something that is going to cause irreparable harm to anyone or anything.

But it’s 2007, so anything that has tradition or respect for neighbors is fair game to be criticized and belittled by those with socio-political agendas.  That means that you have environmental extremists who come out of the woodwork to try and ruin the fun of others by condemning them for their Christmas displays. However, that’s not enough. Now we have extremists who are attacking those who speak favorably about people who take the time and effort to create something that so many people in our communities enjoy during the Christmas season.

The latest example comes from Michael Brown who decided that the Springfield News-Leader needed to be condemned for “encouraging excess energy usage” by giving some attention to the people who have made large Christmas light displays. Mr. Brown wants to tell his neighbors how they should live their lives because of “dire predictions regarding the cost of energy fuels.”

Now, these light displays aren’t going to effect Mr. Brown’s electric bill at all. That doesn’t stop Mr. Brown from trying to play Scrooge and try to shame others into being a “conservationist.” It’s that kind of extremist attitude that takes those of us who aren’t necessarily against conservation and makes us a little less likely to support an environmentally friendly cause. It’s about balance and that includes environmentally oriented situations. This is not a time to blow the environmental whistle while dancing on the panic button, Mr. Brown.

So, News-Leader and Jan Peterson, thank you for taking the time to promote those making the effort to make the holidays a little better for everyone else. Don’t worry about the “thorn” that was given to you by someone who spends time apparently growing thorn bushes.

It’s not a story with glitz and glamour but it is a story that could end up hitting Springfield residents in the pocketbook.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that cities can force companies who collect garbage within their city limits to send that trash to city-owned landfills. This results in higher fees being charged to the garbage companies for disposal of the trash and more revenue being brought into the cities. According to the Springfield News-Leader, the companies serving Springfield can either take the trash to city landfills or to their own private landfills.

While Mark Thornsberry, Springfield Public Works Director, said the increased trash flow could mean the city lowers it’s “tipping fee” (or cost to dump a load of trash) he also said that the increase in revenues could significantly improve recycling programs. Which do you think will be the first choice?

On the surface it doesn’t seem like a bad idea until you realize that the trash companies aren’t going to just whistle a happy tune and pay the higher fees without passing it on to their customers. So these increased costs to trash collection companies…offset by the consumer/landowner/city resident in higher rates…is going to be funding city recycling services. In a roundabout way, this is similar to a tax increase on the citizens to fund recycling programs without city council having to say they are raising your taxes. After all, the burden for this will be falling on Joe Taxpayer.

The Council is apparently going to create a “Citizens Solid Waste Task Force” to look at restructuring city trash collection and expand recycling efforts. What that statement by the city implies is that the decision has already been made to keep all trash within city landfills and the cost is going to be passed onto the citizens. (Hence the “expand recycling efforts.” If they were going to discuss if the trash should be kept in the city and changes made at all there would be no need to announce you’re going to start out with discussions to expand recycling efforts.) There would not be as much as a single public hearing or serious discussion with local residents about whether this would really be a benefit to the residents because the increase would come through their private trash companies instead of the city itself. It’s a classic bait and switch.

I’m not against expanded recycling efforts. I’m not necessarily against the idea of keeping all trash within the city system for the increased revenue to the city. I’m just wondering if we need to rush into this avenue of revenue now or if it’s something that we as a city need to keep on the back burner for times that get tough. How much could this bring in and could it off-set an increase in property taxes on the residents in the future? Is there a way to keep this arrow in the quiver to slay a dragon a year from now instead of a rabbit right now?

I hope the Council allows the Citizens Solid Waste Task Force to have the option to come back and tell the city it would be a wiser move not to undertake any restructuring of city trash collection at this time. The Task Force may come back and say its necessary and outline it’s reasons for that position but they need to go into the investigation of the process with all options on the table and that includes keeping the status quo.

Breaking news from Jefferson City:  Governor Matt Blunt replaces Ed Martin with Patricia Vincent.

I guess perhaps those who were saying there was nothing at all to the accusations being made by former Blunt staffer Scott Eckersley might have to think twice.  If Martin was completely clean in this we wouldn’t be seeing this happening in a manner to try and keep the news cycle spinning through a major holiday when many voters are more distracted than usual.

WOOHOO!

Future Hall of Fame shortstop Jimmy Rollins of America’s Team, the Philadelphia Phillies, picked up the National League MVP award.  At least this year I won’t have to listen to Cardinals fans whining on and on about how their beloved Albert should have won the award.

Following up on something I mentioned in last night’s council meeting blog, Council members Cindy Rushefsky & John Wylie will be holding a town hall meeting for Zones 2 and 4. The meeting will happen on Thursday November 29th from 7 to 9pm at the Brentwood Branch Library Community Room (2214 Brentwood Blvd.) While the meeting is intended for residents of those zones it is open to anyone.

Now, if it wasn’t enough fun to be able to have at it on two of our council members you can also pepper questions to City Manager Bob Cumley, Police Chief Lynn Rowe, Traffic Engineer Earl Newman, Parks Director Jodie Adams, Economic Development Director Mary Lilly Smith, City Utilities Associate General Manager Scott Miller and Public Information Director Louise Whall. If you can’t find someone there to gripe to about something then you aren’t looking hard enough.

So get your questions ready and make plans to attend. This is a great chance if you’re someone who thinks the city is going in the wrong direction to talk to the movers and shakers of the city.

OK…we’re live! We’ve actually been here since 6pm but we’ve been wrapping up our examination of another site for a previous blog entry.

John Wylie showed up at 6:30 and Denny Whayne & Ralph Manley were close behind. All of them are making the handshaking rounds.

6:45pm … Where’s the peanut gallery?

6:46pm … In comes Cindy Rushefsky.

6:49pm … Mary Collette makes her entrance.

6:52pm … Hello Mr. Burlison and Mr. Chiles.

6:55pm … I inform Councilman Whayne of some bad news that the house I bought is in his zone and he will have to deal with me more than just on this blog. He smiled and said he thought it was great I was moving to that part of town.

6:58pm … Mayor Carlson arrives and strikes up a debate among the members about how quickly they’ll be done tonight.

7:00pm … Meeting is called to order with the pledge and a prayer by Councilman Wylie.

7:02pm … Basic opening meeting events like the roll call and the Mayor’s reminder that citizens need to turn in topic cards if they wish to speak on an issue. They voted 9-0 to pass the consent agenda.

7:04pm … Robert L. Jones sworn into the Traffic Advisory Board & Kristoffer Barefield to the Cable Advisory Commission. The Mayor thanked both for their willingness to serve their fellow citizens on these boards. The Mayor also gave thanks to everyone who serves on the 30+ boards in the city.

7:06pm … Bob Cumley reported that all questions from the council from the last meeting were answered. City employees raised 101% of their goal for the United Way (just over $110,000.) The contract agreement for Jordan Valley Community Health Center is progressing and he hopes to bring it to council by the next meeting on December 17th. They have successfully closed on the Heer’s building. Proceeds went to pay off the loan and the city is done with that part of the Heer’s tower. The legislative priority committee is sending a list to the council at the next meeting. (Cumley commented the December 17th meeting will be a big meeting.)

7:10pm … John Wylie announced that a week from Thanksgiving night Cindy Rushefsky and John Wylie will be having a joint town hall meeting for zone 2 and zone 4 at the Brentwood Library.

7:11pm … Council Bill 2007-363 and Council Bill 2007-364. The first council bill amends the rules to allow park rangers to be appointed conservators and the second gives the park rangers the right to enforce the laws. Councilman Burlison asked about the ranger qualifications. The answer was that these rangers are given the same training as other officers and are certified the same way as Sheriff’s deputies are certified. John Wylie announced he asked Jodie Adams of the Park Board to talk about the issue. Adams said that right now the rangers can give parking violations but this bill will allow the rangers to deal with conduct within the park, opening and closing hours and the ability to arrest. Adams said that the rangers have met 750 hours of training and are certified deputies that have been certified by Sheriff Jack Merritt. They are legal officers within Greene County.

Adams stated the parks system is more than three times the size it was over a decade ago. Adams says this gives them one more step of authority needed to help enforce the rules and reduce the need to pull officers away to help deal with issues within the parks. Councilman Chiles asked if the rangers were on the trunk system and can interact with other officers. Adams said yes. Chiles then asked about general safety of the parks. Adams said the parks are very safe and that they have been putting patrols out. They have also hired more part-time rangers to cover the growing system and they have also used Midwest Security to help with security issues.

Councilman Deaver asked for a short tutorial about how park rules and regulations are enacted. Adams gave the example that they close a park at 11pm and they have to go through and make sure people are out of the parks. They also go through and have to remove someone who is consuming alcohol in city parks against code. Deaver asked if park board sets policies and if council approves them and Adams said yes. Matt Coates, supervisor of Park Rangers, was present and pointed out by Deaver and Adams.

Councilwoman Rushefsky asked where people can find out what park regulations are and Adams replied they are available on the city’s website. Chapter 82 of the city code. Will be voted on in two weeks.

7:20pm … Council Bill 2007-365. A new lease with the Springfield R-12 School District regarding operation of the skate park. Councilman Chiles asked about rumors that the skate park was closing but he was assured that the park would remain open. Chiles asked if the bill was a change in management and the answer was this was just the rental agreement for the land. Councilman Burlison said that he had feedback from citizens and that there was a conflict with management under the old agreement and that he wanted to be more informed regarding the agreement. The answer was that the deal with the city and the school is for the land rental and that the Skate Park Association runs the park and the city is in confidential negotiations with them on that matter.

7:23pm … Council Bill 2007-366. This is taking the settlement with Sprint/NEXTEL and putting money into various items funded from the city general funds. $500,000 to overtime in the fire department, $250,000 to debt service (building funds for crime lab loan), $500,000 to the police/fire pension plan and the remaining $293,000 to an additional 1% salary increase for all employees to make their total increase in January 2008 a 3% increase. Councilman Burlison asked about the fire overtime money and said that he understood this action was because of the minimum wage law passed by voters. He said he knows “as a city we do not want to pay the overtime that this law requires.” He wants to know if they can take steps to avoid putting this money in reserve and take other steps if they can work with the firefighters who are not in favor of the overtime law as currently written. He wanted to know if this money could be put to something more productive. Bob Cumley said the short answer was no. Their legal team said that members of a fire department cannot be bound under any agreement that conflicts with the Federal Fair Labor laws. They cannot waive their own overtime if the law says they have to get it. Councilman Burlison said “so even if we came to an agreement with a majority of the firefighters it would not be binding with all the firefighters and therefore the settlement would be invalid.” The answer was yes.

Councilman Deaver said that the money is in escrow and if the city is successful in their lawsuit that they will have the funds available later and the answer was yes.

Robert Pitts spoke on the issue. He’s a Sergeant with the Springfield Police Department and spoke on behalf of the officers in attendance to thank them for their efforts in working with them and working hard for them. He said they appreciate the money they put in earlier this year and this money as well.

Tony Kelly, the President of the local Firefighters union, spoke in favor of the bill. He said they supported the 1% increase to city staff because 72% of city staff members ranked in the lowest third of pay when Springfield is compared to other cities of equal size. He felt that the $500,000 in escrow for the minimum wage law overtime agreement is unnecessary because it does not conflict with collective bargaining agreements and the law specifically says that they can collectively bargain already in regards to overtime. He said that once an agreement is reached then a member of their group could not sue individually for overtime because they are part of the group.

He wants to push the city into settling with the firefighters over the situation instead of waiting to see the outcome of the lawsuit.

Councilman Burlison asked if all members of the fire department were part of the bargaining unit. Kelly responded that right now all members are and would be in the future even if they were not part of the union.

Shawn Martin spoke to thank city management for their hard work on the telecom and thanked Mr. Cumley for his efforts to stand up against Sprint/NEXTEL. Mr. Martin strongly agreed that an employee cannot forgo their Fair Standards Act rights and that this overtime is at the state level and not the federal level so that they can set aside the state level and measure by the federal level. He wants the money now instead of waiting for a settlement later when it might cost more. He said the city should want to consider investing in the employees in a collective bargaining agreement. “We’re not asking for the right to be our own boss. We’re not asking for the right to call our own shots.”

Martin said it’s a million dollar problem with a thousand dollar solution. Councilman Burlison asked if they have to go “full-blown collective bargaining” to do this and if they need to create a memorandum of understanding for the deal. “How involved do we have to get here?” He asked if negotiations would last weeks or months and what the impediments would be for this. Martin said it would be as difficult or as simple as they want to make it. He said that if a rule wants to be changed they’re wanting to be consulted “and not necessarily veto it.” (Meaning they would have the power and not the city?) He said this would force mediation if there was an impasse. Burlison asked if we came to a memorandum of understanding what it does to the city in terms of the law. City attorney’s representative said they would have to get back to him on that.

Wylie asked if an agreement would give the rights they’re asking for and Bob Cumley said the firefighters already have that right under state law and that they already confer with the city. Cumley said that right now the council has the right to make changes to firefighters rules and the firefighters want to take that away from them and have it done via a mediator and the city council essentially loses their control of the fire department.

Cumley said true negotiations could take a year and not just months as suggested by the speakers.

Wylie said that he is the only union member on council and that when a mediator is brought in it’s not usually a good thing. He said the labor board in DC is not conducive to people in unions right now. Wylie said as a past union president and vice-president he was going to take his past experience into account while respecting Mr. Martin’s comments. Councilwoman Rushefsky asked if Mr. Martin was advocating a very limited agreement for mediation and Mr. Martin said that he was not sure if that was a collective bargaining agreement. Bob Cumley said that they would be open to an agreement maintaining the status quo if it would be a collective bargaining agreement.

Councilman Burlison asked what steps need to be taken to add this to their tool kit in regards to the lawsuit. Burlison said he was tempted to move to remove overtime from this bill because if both sides are in agreement. Cumley said that their legal advisor said it was not possible.

Mayor Carlson thanked the police and fire department who were present and said they’re working hard to fix issues. The Mayor said he was against collective bargaining with binding arbitration. He said the city spends 75% of the city’s budget on wages and benefits. The potential could be that the city proposes a 3% increase and the labor union says 6%. If they don’t agree, the mediator comes in and listens and then flies in and imposes a tax increase on the city by saying they have to put in a 4.5% increase. The citizens have a tax increase imposed by someone who does not live in the community and overrides their votes and their elected officials by saying “this is what you have to pay. Figure out how you can do it.”

The Mayor said once you’ve done that the power of the purse is gone and the council is reduced to a few zoning issues because how tax dollars are spent is given to someone not elected to serve the city. “The voters didn’t elect the arbitrator who came to town and decided how to spend their tax dollars,” Carlson said. “We need to go into [collective bargaining] with our eyes open as to what’s going on here.”

The Mayor doesn’t feel the taxpayers of Springfield would be in favor of a mediator telling them how their tax dollars were spent.

7:58pm … Mayor Carlson leaves and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver takes over.

7:59pm … Council Bill 2007-372.   Two houses are going to be built on the property and this provides easement.  Councilman Burlison said he moved it from the consent agenda because he wanted a public display of this bill.

8:01pm … Council Bill 2007-379.   This bill extends the rules and regulations for parking garages on the Jordan Valley car park to the other new parking garages in the city.  Councilman Burlison said he moved it from the consent agenda because he wanted an explanation of the bill.

8:02pm … Mayor Carlson returns.   All the previous bills are going to be brought up at the December 17th meeting.

8:03pm … Council Bill 2007-345.  Annexation of property generally at 3810 E. Sunshine Street.  The Mayor said they have had complaints from residents regarding the zoning of the land but they have to annex before they can zone something and that how they vote on annexation has nothing to do with the actual annexation of property.  The Mayor said he feels no obligation for a zoning change even though he is voting for annexation because it is consistent with city policies.   Councilman Deaver said that the city has had to do annexation in a peace-meal way because of the conservative city budget.  He said this was a relatively common small annexation because “we can’t afford to do it any other way.”

Councilwoman Rushefsky wanted to note that she discovered that they have annexed 1,100 acres of property since January 2005.  She pointed out the potential for additional services for those areas in a time where we are pressed to fulfill the needs of the community that we already serve.   Rushefsky said that she sees no benefit to annexing this land to the city unless the rezoning is done to a commercial center that adds taxes.  She said there are good reasons to not annex.  First is that the land is surrounded by Greene County.  Second is the “checkerboard” manner of annexation that can impact services.  Third is the annexation is part of a bigger picture where the landowner wants to bring it in the city to raise value to sell to commercial development.  She said the land has drainage issues that effect surrounding property.  She said that the road is not equipped to handle additional traffic.  She was also upset that only three of five Planning and Zoning members voted in favor.  She said that she is not against annexation and development in general when it benefits the city but she is against it when it “devastates established neighborhoods and strains city resources.”

Councilwoman Collette said she tends to support the annexation.  She said there has been problems in the past with Blackman Road being part city and part county.  She said while she agrees with a lot of the sentiments of Councilwoman Rushefsky she thinks annexation could allow protect the land.  Collette said she would vote against rezoning and the redevelopment of that property due to the complaints of the residents.

The vote was 7-2 with Burlison and Rushefsky voting no on the annexation.

8:14pm … An announcement of reappointments to boards.  John Wylie moves for the council to have a closed session.  Passed with a voice vote.  Public session of the meeting was closed.