Aldermen voted down a proposal to expand the city's current Careless and Imprudent ordinance to include private parking lots that are accessible or open to the public, e.g. Walmart, HyVee, Lowe's, etc. But their decision didn't come without a lot of consternation and discussion.

The Osage Beach Board of Aldermen last week back-tracked on two issues that have generated a considerable amount of discussion and public input.
Aldermen voted down a proposal to expand the city's current Careless and Imprudent ordinance to include private parking lots that are accessible or open to the public, e.g. Walmart, HyVee, Lowe's, etc. But their decision didn't come without a lot of consternation and discussion.
The board also voted to rescind a previous decision to buy a jet fuel truck for Lee C. Fine Airport at a cost of $171,645 after it was decided to pursue the idea of leasing a jet fuel truck or buying a used vehicle for far less money.

C&I Ordinance
City officials have heard from a handful of residents opposed to a proposal to include commercial parking lots on private property as part of the city's Careless and Imprudent driving laws. Two people spoke against the idea during the Public Comment portion of the July 20 meeting, and also at the July 6 meeting.
The board of aldermen approved first reading of the ordinance July 6, and was set to consider second and final reading last week. However, a clerical error in the language of the second reading and apparent public opposition eventually led to aldermen voting the issue down.
The prospects of expanding the ordinance came from the Osage Beach Police Department because officers did not have the authority to process Careless & Imprudent tickets for fender benders or other types of minor traffic violations on privately owned, commercial parking lots since the commercial parking lots are on private property.
The originally proposed ordinance was broad based and included the possibility of C&I infractions on private property such as pastures, back yards, driveways, etc. However, that option was replaced with language that pertained to commercial parking lots only.
At last week's meeting, one of the Public Comment speakers pointed out that the ordinance under consideration at that meeting for second reading was different from the ordinance that received first-round approval July 6. City Attorney Ed Rucker said that because of a clerical error aldermen were, in fact, being asked to consider second reading of an ordinance that did not match the first-reading ordinance.
Aldermen Kevin Rucker opposed moving forward with consideration of the second reading because of the inconsistent language.
"My concern is that we're going to vote on something when we don't know exactly what we're voting on," he argued. "We should have a second reading that is consistent with the first reading."
City Attorney Rucker suggested he correct the ordinance and bring it back for second-reading at the next meeting.
Alderman Phyllis Marose said she didn't favor the ordinance at all.
"This is getting so involved, and we want to appease our residents and we thought we were doing something in accordance with commercial property. This has become so intricately complicated that I'm not in favor."
Alderman Rucker said he is aware that some members of the community are in favor of allowing police officers to enforce C&I driving on commercial parking lots.
"You have people that are for this. I've talked to people who are in favor of us having the ability on parking lots to enforce C&I," he said. "Let's not think that just because these people in the audience are against it that everybody is against it, because there are not. I'm saying I want to know what I'm looking at before I vote, and what's in the packet isn't right."
After more discussion, Mayor John Olivarri took a show of hands among aldermen who wanted to move forward with voting on the second reading of the ordinance, even though it did not exactly match the first reading. A majority favored that approach, and aldermen voted 5-1 against second reading of the ordinance.
But Aldermen Rucker wasn't satisfied.
"What about second reading of original ordinance, which was not presented accurately tonight?" he asked. "I'm probably against it, but now we have an older ordinance out there that had first reading and we took a second reading on an ordinance that was incorrect and not the same as the first ordinance."
Mayor Olviarri ended the discussion.
"I think that the action the board has taken represents the decision of the board and we'll move on," he declared.