With plenty of debate and discussion, the Trenton City Council voted down the three main items on Monday night’s agenda, giving a “thumbs down” to an ordinance designating the boundaries of a downtown historic district, an increase in the base electric rate and a $10 fee to have a key to the city reservoir.
Downtown Historic District
While electric rates might have seemed like the issue that would draw the most members of the public to the meeting, it was actually the ordinance that would have set the boundaries of a downtown historic district that brought out both those for and against the designation. The discussion began with Second Ward City Councilman Danny Brewer telling the council that “lots of people don’t like it” and asking what the benefit of it would be. Cathie Smith, who worked with the committee that has been tasked with creating the district, setting the rules and regulations, etc., said the intent of the ordinance is to keep the “historic flavor” of downtown.
“Keep in mind I said ‘flavor’,” she said, telling the group that if a building is falling down, it’s falling down, but if it is replaced, the hope is that it would follow the same type – or similar type – of facade as other downtown buildings.
Mrs. Smith said there are financial advantages to the creation of a district, which would allow property owners located within it to apply for grants and other assistance to help repair and restore buildings. As has been said at previous meetings, the district would have mainly been located in the downtown area but was also enlarged to include Crowder Road, where a house with historical significance is located, and a portion of the west side of town where a structure on land owned by Sarah and the late Tom Brown may be an original log cabin.
Another issue that has been brought up multiple times was discussed, with First Ward Councilman Lance Otto asking what might happen five or 10 years from now when a different board that is more restrictive than those serving at the moment is in charge of making decisions about what can and can’t be done to a privately-owned building. Mrs. Smith replied that it’s no different than what might happen when there is a different city council in five or 10 years.
Second Ward Councilman Marvin Humphreys said the entire college would be located in the district and no one has contacted him in support of the district. It was later noted that if the ordinance passed, all college buildings would have to be approved by the historic preservation commission. He pointed out that there is more to the ordinance than what is included in the ordinance that was being considered Monday night as the city has actually had an ordinance governing a historic district for some time, but without the ordinance to lay out the boundaries, there’s really no district.
Third Ward Councilman Robert Romesburg said he had discussed the issue with downtown business owners, with seven out of the nine he spoke with saying they were not in favor. He noted many of them are worried about how a future board might make decisions.
Otto said he has had multiple people reach out to him and while he feels the “intent” of the ordinance is good, he feels the wording of the ordinance is “very restrictive.” He noted that he has seen that in some communities where an historic district exists, only the “upper income” level people can afford to own property in it due to the cost of maintaining buildings and residences to the standard of the district. Mrs. Smith said she disagreed and again said there are funds that are made available to help with such maintenance.
“I’m for making it look nice. I’m just not sure this is the way to do it,” replied Otto.
Mrs. Smith said she would be glad to hear other suggestions that would protect the integrity of downtown.
Randy Kinnison and Bill Zang, who own property in the area just outside the proposed district, were at the meeting, with Kinnison saying he feels the restrictions would make someone who might have been interested in buying property in the district and build on it, not want to do that if the building has to be constructed in a historical fashion. Zang said he felt like he got the “soft shoe” dance when first approached about the district and now feels like it is “a railroad deal” that is being “force-fed” to those with property in the district. He said he believes the district would actually devalue the property located within its boundaries.
Sena Arnold, who owns a business and buildings in the proposed district, said that while she is actually in favor of an historic preservation district and ordinance, she has many questions about signage, scale, windows, doors, etc. She said having just restored a building in the downtown area she knows there are things she would have had to do differently if the ordinance had been in place. She agreed with others that the verbiage is “restrictive” and said if a large corporation that is required to have its logo on the window wanted to locate a storefront within the district, it would probably not meet the restrictions. That would likely mean it would locate its storefront in another part of town.
Fourth Ward Councilman John Dolan said he was in favor of the ordinance, believing it could open some opportunities in the downtown area.
“I’m looking for some way we can come together,” he said, asking if the ordinance could be revised.
There was discussion about that possibility, with City Attorney Tara Walker saying that this has been a long process (approximately eight years, according to Mrs. Smith) with multiple hearings, meetings and opportunities for discussion. Phyllis Jackson asked if the district could be established and set aside, but the rest of the ordinance be looked at for some alterations. Mrs. Walker said the basic ordinance is in place, but without a district, there is no ordinance.
“This is specific to the district,” she said.
After the lengthy discussion, Brewer called for the vote, which received a unanimous “no” vote, with First Ward Councilman Kevin Klinginsmith absent.
Electric Base Rate
A proposed ordinance that would increase the electric base rate from $14 to $21 per month also got voted down, but the vote was 3-4 against. Those voting in favor were Dolan, Urich and Romesburg, while Brewer, Humphreys, Otto and Mlika voted no.
According to City Administrator/Utility Director Ron Urton and Trenton Municipal Utilities Comptroller Rosetta Marsh, there is a two-fold problem at the moment: the reserves in the electric fund are dropping (from $4.8 million to $4 million in the past year) while the fixed costs for operating the systems (poles, loan payments, etc.) are increasing.
Again, there was ample discussion about what some consider to be a hardship on TMU customers and others feel is just being proactive, rather than reactive, to rising costs.
Third Ward Councilman Dave Mlika indicated he was against raising the rate, saying he has received calls about the possibility and feels that it would be a hardship for some residents, especially those living on Social Security benefits. Humphreys said he feels that situations such as having to pay on the loan the city incurred following last February’s “polar vortex” is why the city has a reserve fund.
Mrs. Marsh said it is up to the council how proactive or reactive they want to be. Urton went on to say that a rate study indicated the city cannot afford any more rate decreases such as the two 5 percent decreases that were taken in recent years and said increasing the rate a little when needed is more palatable to customers.
“No one likes double-digit increases. That’s why we do a little at a time. We need to get a little bit of this back,” he said, referring to the $4 per meter it is costing the utility to pay back the loan it took out to cover the $785,000 bill it incurred during the winter storm.
Otto said he hears “all the time” about TMU bills and asked if a $7 increase was the right amount. Mrs. Marsh said that with 3,000 meters, it is known that a $4 increase is needed to cover the $12,000 monthly payment toward that 0 percent interest loan for last winter’s bill. It was noted that the $800,000 decrease in reserves was not including the loan payment. Mrs. Marsh encouraged the council to not wait until the reserves are low to implement a 10 to 20 percent increase. It was discussed that the cost of supplies has increased in the past year, and will likely continue to increase for awhile. An example was given that the city was paying 53 cents a foot last year for PVC pipe, something that now costs $2.50 per foot.
Dolan and the other Fourth Ward Councilman, Duane Urich, expressed their opinion that this “kick the can down the road” mentality is what has caused problems in the past – both for the city and for customers. Otto said he would be more in favor of “a smaller nibble” and in fact stated that he would be more willing to vote for a $4 increase. When asked to make a motion to that effect, he started to make the motion and then stopped, saying he would be willing to vote yes, but would not make the motion for a $4 increase. Dolan then made a motion to increase the base rate to $21 as proposed. Romesburg seconded the motion, which then failed. Following the vote, Urich said he feels the council just pushed a “double-digit” increase down the road for a future council to deal with.
“Easing it up is a more effective way to do it rather than do a 20 percent increase. But whatever,” he said.
City Reservoir Access
What one might have thought was a pretty cut-and-dried issue on access to the city reservoir also brought discussion and a split vote. The Utility Committee, at its meeting on July 20, voted to ask the council to place a gate at the reservoir with a $10 fee to be paid by those who wanted a key to the reservoir for fishing. The issue has been vandalism and trash at the reservoir and it was hoped that by restricting access to those who have paid a fee, the problem might end. Councilmembers had opinions on both ends of the spectrum, with Humphreys saying that he feels the fee would punish the people who aren’t causing problems and asking to have it left open as it has been in recent years.
Dolan said the reservoir is the city’s water source, with Humphreys warning him to “not go down that road.” Dolan indicated the $10 cost is not enough, and said he spoke to some who use the reservoir who indicated they would be willing to pay $50 per year for access to the reservoir. Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Steve Reid said Trenton would not be the only water source that charges a fee and he said those using the reservoir are in favor of the fee so they can utilize the reservoir without having the “riff-raff” that has been causing the problems.
Scott Sharp, who was attending the meeting as the new director of the North Central Missouri Development Alliance, asked if a camera could be placed at the entrance to have some idea who is going into the reservoir at times when the vandalism, trash, etc., are occurring. Trenton Police Chief Rex Ross said the quality of cameras depend on how much you spend.
The idea of putting a gate at the road was discussed, but it was noted that some of those who use the reservoir could not walk from the road and in fact, one fishes from a walker.
Otto made the motion to have the gate open Monday through Friday from the time the employee gets there in the morning until they leave at 3 p.m., saying “That’s how the world works. Some people ruin it for everyone else.”
That motion passed with Otto, Romesburg, Urich and Mlika voting yes and Humphreys, Dolan and Brewer voting no.
Other Business
In other business, the council voted to purchase five pumps and three panels for the wastewater system from Enviro-Line Co., Inc. at a cost of $59,026. That amount was slightly more (around $4,000) than was budgeted, but councilmembers felt it made more sense to move forward with the replacement.
The council also approved an ordinance revising the “Table of Permissable Uses” in the city code, and held a closed session to discuss a legal matter, with no announcement made.
The council’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, Aug. 9.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
