June 7, 2023 Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

I attended the June 7, 2023 Camden County Commission meeting at 10:00 a.m.

All commissioners were present.

The first agenda item was Shawnee Bend #6 – Joe Roeger.

Roeger and another gentleman came before the Commission to discuss this item that was previously discussed at the May 30, 2023 Commission meeting. There were other property owners present at the meeting to support them. The developers weren’t present which seemed a little unfair since they never got to tell their side of the story.

The two speakers said that the developers of the property near them have not met the requirements to proceed with development of their property. They both explained that the plat should never have been recorded because the Planning Commission’s approval of the plat was conditional and those conditions (road requirements and minimum lot size) had not been met. They also felt the bond for the project was not sufficient to meet the standards of the Missouri statutes or the Unified Land Use Code. According to them, the Planning and Zoning Administrator should never have signed off on the recording of this plat. Since the Commission supervises that department, it was the Commission’s responsibility to correct this mistake.

There was also some confusion because the citizens and even the commissioners were quoting from sections of the Missouri statutes that cover non-charter first class counties and alternative planning commissions which don’t apply to Camden County for reasons I’ll explain below.

(As a quick Gadfly historical side-note, there seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty about which parts of Chapter 64 (County Planning) apply to Camden County. The Camden County Planning and Zoning District was established by RSMo 64.005. In typical Missouri statute fashion, the statute was obviously written to specifically allow the Lake of the Ozarks to develop a planning district without just coming out and saying it. It even refers specifically to the low level water mark of 645 feet.

This was passed by ballot in 1997. In RSMo 64.007, it states that the district planning commission will be established in accordance with the statutes (64.510 to 64.695) that guide the planning commissions of second and third class counties. This makes sense because at the time, Camden County was not a first class county. Unfortunately, in that same year, on January 1, 1997, Camden County’s assessed value qualified it for first class classification and it officially became a first class county. As a result, today’s Camden County is a first class county that has a planning and zoning district that is organized as if it’s a second class county.)

I hope that makes things clearer?

(Extra credit history detail: Camden County moved up from 3rd Class to 2nd Class on January 1, 1991. Drop that fact at cocktail parties and impress your friends.)

Commissioner Williams agreed that the width of the lots on the plat may be too small, but wasn’t sure the Commission had the authority to overturn the recording of the plat.

Roeger felt the Commission should send it back to the Planning Commission for a review of their decision.

County Attorney Jeff Green stated that the issue with the plat is that it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Kim Willey, and she had the authority to approve it. The property owners needed to file an appeal and there has been no appeal filed by them. According to Green, there is no process that would allow the Planning and Zoning Administrator to send it back to the Planning Commission for a “second look.” Green wouldn’t opine on whether it was right or wrong for Willey to approve the plat. Regardless of the time requirement, the aggrieved parties still had not filed any appeal with the Board of Adjustment. He did not feel the County Commission had any authority to intervene in the decisions made in this matter.

He advised them to seek a resolution from the Planning and Zoning Board and file a complaint with them.

Roeger felt that Kim Willey may have broken the law when she signed off on the plat.

County Attorney Green told Roeger that it was their (the aggrieved parties’) job to go to the Board of Adjustment and bring the issue to them.

(Article 600 of the ULUC states that an appeal of any final order or decision of the Planning Administrator must be taken up with the Board of Adjustment within 30 days.)

Roeger wanted to know if it was the official position of the Commission that they should take this issue to the Board of Adjustment?

Presiding Commissioner Skelton said that they should take it to the Board of Adjustment.

Roeger wanted to clarify if the Commission would agree that this was not an appeal, but instead that an error had been made?

No commissioners would state that an error had been made. County Attorney Green reaffirmed that the ULUC states that an appeal should go to the Board of Adjustment.

It sounded like Roeger was concerned that the appeal time period described in the ULUC had already expired.

That was the end of the discussion and it looks like the matter will either go to the Board of Adjustment or to the circuit court for resolution.

The second agenda item was Citizen Request for Surplus Money ($34,121.65).

This was approved unanimously.

The third agenda item was HVAC Maintenance Agreement-Assessor.

This item was for a quarterly maintenance contract on the HVAC unit at the Assessor’s new offices.

It was tabled so the Assessor could review it.

The fourth agenda item was Road & Bridge – Cintas Proposal Review.

According to the Commission, Cintas has a $45,000 annual uniform contract for Road and Bridge uniforms until 2025. Commissioners Gohagan and Skelton talked about ending the contract early after a minimum required period of 10 weeks. There was discussion about a possible clothing allowance for Road and Bridge because it sounded like the guys over there didn’t really like wearing uniforms that much anyway.

The Commission voted unanimously to end the contract with Cintas after 10 weeks.

The final agenda item was Release of Closed Session Meeting Minutes.

According to Commissioner Skelton, there were a lot of minutes from past closed sessions that had never been released. Some of them went as far back as May 2013, but they had never been seen by the public. They will be stored at the County Clerk’s Office if anyone wants to review them.

In Old Business, a couple of issues were discussed.

As mentioned above, the Assessor’s Office will be staying in their new location and not moving back to the courthouse. The Sheriff’s Office needs more space to store evidence and there is a plan to convert the old post office into an evidence storage facility. Commissioner Williams said that the roof of the building needs to be repaired before it can be used for evidence. It will also lose its front parking with the MODOT lane expansion.

Plans continue for auctioning off the county parking lot near the Ozark Amphitheater and the three parcels on Horseshoe Bend. The parcels will be auctioned separately and not as a group of three.

Regarding the washed away graveyard near Bollinger Creek, the county is almost done with site design plans. They have submitted them to the Corps of Engineers and are modifying the plans to meet their suggestions (commands).

And that was that.