St. Louis Building Division Ignores 1968 Surface Parking Lot Regulation Meant To Ensure Proper Maintenance

After posting about the deteriorated condition of the surface parking lot next door at the end of August, see Generic Form Letters Mailed To Owners Of Poorly Maintained Surface Parking Lot Notifying Them Of Code Violations, the building department was very defensive about their complete lack of results. An inspector told me they couldn’t do anything about the poor condition of the for-profit parking lot — just send more letters.

“You can’t block off access?”, I asked. “No, that would be illegal”, he replied. I decided to research the law myself.

Naturally, I started with the St. Louis, Missouri – Code of Ordinances and Chapter 8.70 — Parking Stations.

The 2nd subsection defines a parking station as a parking lot. the 3rd discusses a permit:

No person, firm or corporation shall operate, maintain or conduct a parking station in the City without first obtaining a parking station permit from the Building Commissioner. A permit must be obtained for each parking station and no permit shall be transferable from one person to another nor transferable from one lot to another. 

The Building Commissioner may order barricades for any or all parking stations not in full compliance within one hundred and eighty days from the date of original notification.

Here are three later sections:

8.70.070 – Permit—Suspension or revocation—Hearing.
The building commissioner may refer any permit heretofore issued to the board of public service with the recommendation that a hearing be held to determine whether the permit should be suspended or revoked. The board shall designate a day for the hearing, and after considering the evidence and arguments submitted, may suspend or revoke the permit and license heretofore issued, upon proof of any of the following: 

A. The operator has knowingly made any false or materially incorrect statement in his application; 

B. The operator has made any charge for parking in excess of the rate posted on the required sign; 

C. The operator fails to keep an attendant on duty during the times specified in his application; and 

D. The operator has knowingly violated or knowingly permitted or countenanced the violation of any provision of this chapter. 

(Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.150 (part).)

See also §§ 8.70.090, 8.70.110
8.70.080 – Permit—Suspension or revocation—Barricading lot.
 
Upon suspension or revocation by the board of public service the police department shall upon notice by the building commissioner barricade the parking lot until further notice. No lot barricaded as herein provided shall be used for the purposes of a parking station. 

(Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.150 (part).)
8.70.090 – Annual inspection fee.
 
The building commissioner shall make or cause to be made an inspection at least once a year of every parking station within the city to ascertain whether the station is operated within the provisions of this chapter. An annual inspection fee shall be payable on the first day of January each year in accordance with the capacity of the parking station as follows: 

A. Under ten cars, seven dollars;

B. Ten to fifty cars, fifteen dollars;

C. All over fifty cars, twenty dollars;

Except these fees shall not be deemed to apply or be applicable to parking lots or parking stations operated by a church solely and exclusively for church parking. 

All inspection fees shall be paid within thirty days of billing date after which time they shall become delinquent, which shall because for revocation of the parking station permit. 

(Ord. 55932 § 2, 1971: prior Ord. 55080 § 2, 1968: Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.040.)

So I did a Sunshine Request asking for a copy of the most recent permit. The response?  “We don’t do that anymore.” Really? Can a city department just decide not to follow city ordinances?

All the ordinances listed in the various subsections of 8.70 were enacted prior to them being online, 1963-1979. So I went to the 3rd floor of the central library and looked up each and every ordinance. Fascinating documents up there! Anyway, in 1968 the original 1963 section was repealed & replaced. After changes were minor, dealing with the amount of the permit fee. The first such change came months after being enacted.

In another sunshine request I asked who made the decision to ignore this law, and when. The city didn’t have an answer. I suspect it was in the 1980s, which would explain how the owner of the parking lot at 1101 Locust got away with using public right-of-way (PROW) for years.

The URL for this section includes the word PAST after the chapter number (https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st._louis/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8BUTALIRE_CH8.70PAST), but it’s still listed. I wasn’t able to locate an ordinance repealing it. It looks like a valid regulation that has simply been ignored by the building division for years, possibly longer than anyone currently working there. Did a past administration direct the building division to ignore this ordinance to make St. Louis more friendly to parking lot businesses?

I just don’t know. What I do know is that my inquires finally got long-needed action next door. Again, on August 30th, I published the awful generic letters the city sent the out of town owners for the last couple of years.

Again, on August 30th I published the awful generic letters the city sent the out of town owners for the last couple of years. Right after that I had phone conversations & emails with a defensive building department. I began digging and submitting sunshine requests.

Meanwhile, I continued emailing with the building department because no permit was listed online. Permit isn’t required for maintenance, they say.  I email David Newburger, commissioner on the disabled, to make sure he’s reviewed the plan, disabled spaces, signs, etc. He has nothing to review.

I complained again and the short spaces were removed…again. The last few years trying to get this parking lot maintained has been eye opening. I naively thought reporting it to the Citizen’s Service Bureau a few years ago would get it resolved fairly quickly — boy was I wrong! I thought the main obstacle was the owner and/or operator. Turned out it was the Building Division,, who seem to defend the operators and fight tax paying property owners.

The city has many departments/divisions. I assume some are worse, most better. The next mayor needs to clean it up, fixing the existing culture. Unless repealed, the permit process for parking lots needs to be upheld.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 12/16/2016 (207-228)

The following twenty-two (22)Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen  — their last meeting before winter break, Review today’s agenda here.

• B.B.#207 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to vacate travel in Rutger from Grand westwardly to a point in the City.
• B.B.#208 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to vacate travel in 1. The 15 foot wide alley in City Block 2181-N as bounded by LaSalle, Motard, Hickory and Spring 2. The remaining 30 foot section of Motard from Hickory to the northline of the alley in City Block 2181-N; 3. Hickory from Spring eastwardly to a point in the City.
• B.B.#209 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to vacate travel in the 15 foot wide alley in City Block 2181-S as bounded by Hickory, Grand, Rutger and Spring.
• B.B.#210 – Coatar – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in 15 foot wide east/west alley in City Block 441 as bounded by Papin, Tucker, Chouteau and 13th St. in the City.
• B.B.#211 – Coatar – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in remaining 50.35 feet of the 15 foot wide north/south alley in City Block 74 as bounded by Lombard, 3rd, Chouteau and 4th in the City.
• B.B.#212 – Vollmer – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in Kemper from Hereford westwardly 82.34 feet to a point previously vacated by Ordinance 69720 in the City.
• B.B.#213 – Krewson – An ordinance recommended and approved by the Airport Commission, the Comptroller and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, making certain findings with respect to the transfer of up to Thirteen Million Seven Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Nine Dollars of excess moneys that The City of St. Louis, intends to transfer from the Debt Service Stabilization Fund to the Airport Revenue Fund; authorizing a transfer in an amount not to exceed Thirteen Million Seven Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty-Nine Dollars from the DSSF into the Revenue Fund during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#214 – Krewson – An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the Director of Airports and the Comptroller to enter into and execute the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Cargo City Lease Agreement No. AL-030, between the City and Southwest Airlines Company; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#215 – Vollmer – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map, from “J” Industrial District to the “D” Multiple- Family Dwelling District, in City Block 4085 (5006-30 Daggett), and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#216 – Kennedy – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, to change the zoning of property as indicated on the District Map and in City Block 2513, from “C” Multiple- Family Dwelling District to the “G” Local Commercial and Office District, at 3869, 3871, 3873, 3881, 3883-85 & 3887 Bell Avenue and 3870, 3974, 3878-82, 3884, 3886 & 3888 Windsor Place; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#217 – Williamson – An Ordinance pertaining to applicants seeking employment with the City of St. Louis in positions in the civil service system; adding new provisions that establish a City resident hiring preference system; containing definitions; and scoring system.
• B.B.#218 – Moore – An Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission revising and amending the Greater Ville Special Use District created by Ordinance 68619 to prohibit motor fuel pumping stations and convenience stores and confectionaries within the boundaries of the district; and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause.
• B.B.#219 – Williamson – An Ordinance requiring collective bargaining contracts signed by the City to include a clause in which the parties agree to support Affirmative Action efforts of the City by ensuring that employees and employers reflect the diversity of the City.
• B.B.#220 – Williamson – An Ordinance to be known as the City of St. Louis Whistleblower Law, pertaining to reporting improper governmental action and providing protection from retaliatory action for reporting and cooperating in the investigation and/or prosecution of improper governmental action; containing definitions, procedures for reporting improper governmental action and retaliation, and penalties; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#221 – Kennedy – An ordinance establishing the North Central Special Business District pursuant to Sections 71.790 through 71.808 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, setting its boundaries, tax rate, initial rate of levy subject to the approval of the qualified voters, bonding authority, and uses to which tax revenue may be put; creating a board of commissioners; and containing severability, effectiveness, and emergency clauses.
• B.B.#222 – Kennedy – An ordinance submitting to the qualified voters residing in the North Central Special Business District as designated in Ordinance No.____, approved the _____ day of ________, 2017, (Board Bill No. __) a proposal to establish the levy of a tax on the real property located in said district; submitting said proposal to the voters of said district at an Election on April 4, 2017; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#223 – Davis – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in irregular width “L” shaped alley City Block 1044 as bounded by Samuel
  Shepard Dr., Leonard, Washington and Josephine Baker Blvd. in the City.
• B.B.#224 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to vacate travel in the eastern 25 foot wide section of Sublette from Wise southwardly to a point previously vacated by Ordinance 56551 in the City.
• B.B.#225 – Williamson – An ordinance enacted pursuant to Section 56.540, Revised Statutes of Missouri to repeal Ordinance
  No. 70056 relating to the Office of the Circuit Attorney, allocating the positions established by Section 56.540, R.S.Mo. to classes with grades and a schedule setting minimum and maximum salaries for such grades by repealing Section Two and replacing said Section with provisions of this ordinance, providing that such salaries be paid bi-weekly; providing for payment of overtime wages on an hourly basis at the bi-weekly rate when such overtime is authorized as necessary by the Circuit Attorney and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#226 – Ingrassia – An Ordinance relating to the proceeds from an increase of one half of one percent in the rate of the local use tax levied by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 65609, which increase corresponds to a proposed one half of one percent local sales tax for economic development purposes; calling and providing for the holding of an election in the City on April 4, 2017, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City a proposal to use the proceeds of such one half of one percent increase in the local use tax levied by the City for the purpose of providing funding for minority job training and business development programs and a multipurpose stadium for soccer, local amateur sports, concerts, and community events; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#227 – Ingrassia – An ordinance calling and providing for the holding of an election in the City on April 4, 2017, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City a proposal to impose a one half of one percent sales tax on all retail sales made in the City which are subject to taxation under Chapter 144 RSMo. for economic development purposes, including (1) North/South Metrolink, (2) neighborhood development, (3) workforce development; (4) anti-crime infrastructure, including security cameras as well as a monitoring system, and (5) to upgrade the city’s infrastructure, with annual public audits.
• B.B.#228 – Vollmer – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 5006-5030 Daggett.

Today is likely the last day to introduce new bills this session, full meetings resume on January 6, 2017 but the last this session is February 10, 2017. The session is officially closed out on April 17, 2017 — after the general election.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 12/9/2016 (204-206)

The following three four Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, review the agenda here.

B.B.#204 – Vollmer – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 5006-5030 Daggett.

B.B.#205 – Coatar – An ordinance entitled “Building Energy Awareness”; the purpose of this ordinance is to establish an energy benchmarking and reporting requirement for certain buildings.

B.B.#206 – Vaccaro – An Ordinance establishing a stop site for all eastbound traffic traveling on Mardel, (a one-way street) at Clifton and all northbound and southbound traffic traveling on Clifton at Mardel, causing it to be a three-way stop site at the intersection of Mardel and Clifton, and containing an emergency clause.

B.B.#207 – Ortmann – An Ordinance establishing a four-way stop site at the intersection of Indiana and Pestalozzi by regulating all northbound and southbound traffic traveling on Indiana at Pestalozzi and regulating all eastbound and westbound traffic traveling on Pestalozzi at Indiana, and containing an emergency clause.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 12/2/2016 (198-203)

The following six Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, review today’s agenda here.

• B.B.#198 – Roddy – An Ordinance designating a portion of the City as a redevelopment area known as The City Foundry Saint Louis Redevelopment Area pursuant to the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#199 – Roddy – An Ordinance affirming adoption of a redevelopment plan, redevelopment area, and redevelopment project; authorizing the execution of redevelopment agreement between The City and FoPa Partners, LLC; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#200 – Davis – An ordinance repealing Ordinance 69589 and in lieu thereof enacting a new ordinance prohibiting the issuance of any package or drink liquor licenses for any currently non-licensed premises within the boundaries of the Nineteenth Ward Liquor Control District, and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#201 – Davis – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 2800 block of Cool Papa Bell Avenue as Pastor Jerry Hodges Street.
• B.B.#202 – Davis – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 3600 Block of Finney as Rev. Dr. Jimmy L. Brown Street.
• B.B.#203 – Green/Ingrassia/Spencer/Arnowitz/Cohn – An ordinance amending the antidiscrimination law of the City to add pregnancy and reproductive health decisions as protected classes by amending Sections One, Five, Seven, Eight, and Nine of Ordinance 67119; and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: No Revote on Reducing Board of Aldermen

Writing this post on my iPad Monday morning while from the juror lounge at Civil Courts

The recent Sunday Poll was about the size of our legislative body. Four years ago we voted to cut the size in half — from 28 to 14. The change is still more than four years away, but some want voters to reconsider

There are lots of pros & cons either way. Here are the non-scientific poll results:

Q: Agree or disagree: We should vote again on reducing board of aldermen from 28 to 14, voters approved this in 11/2012

• Strongly agree 13 [24.53%]
• Agree 1 [1.89%]
• Somewhat agree 2 [3.77%]
• Neither agree or disagree 2 [3.77%]
• Somewhat disagree 1 [1.89%]
• Disagree 6 [11.32%]
• Strongly disagree 26 [49.06%]
• Unsure/No Answer 2 [3.77%]

As you can see above, more than half don’t think we should vote again. While I agree, I also acknowledge we need to do a significantly better job addressing perceived & real voter disenfranchisement.

I don’t think reducing to 14 is a magic bullet, no more than staying at 28.

— Steve Patterson