View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version




City Hall                                                                                                           May 3, 2004

Council Chambers                                                                                            7:00 p.m.


The Mayor led with the Pledge of Allegiance.


Present:            Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Golfin, Alderman Kramer, Alderman Robertson, Alderman Wynn, Alderman Cross.


City Attorney Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Economic Development Director Shelton and Executive Secretary Williams.


Absent:Alderman Marshall, Zoning Administrator Wolf and Treasurer Reynders.




Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of May 3, 2004.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.




Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of April 19, 2004.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.


PROCLAMATION – Rock Hill Baptist Church


Mayor Kelly stated that a proclamation is before the Board to be presented to the Rock Hill Baptist Church for their 75th Anniversary. 


Alderman Wynn read the proclamation into record.  It is attached to the minutes.


Mayor Kelly presented the proclamation to the representative from Rock Hill Baptist Church. 


Bids – None




Tom Curran – 8150 Whitburn Drive/63105 came before the Board and stated that St. Louis County has been in contact with members of the Hanley Industrial Court Association.  They understand their concerns in terms of preserving the Court as a job base in the future.  St. Louis County, RCGA and the Economic Council are also concerned about not only redevelopment, but also about job preservation.  The City of Brentwood has been a wonderful partner in a lot of projects they have participated in.  They are currently party to the agreement in regard to the TDD for Strassner Road.  They ask that the City carefully consider the concerns of the existing businesses in the area as deliberations are made.  Manufacturing, distribution and production jobs are particularly important.   They fully realize the need of the City to undertake redevelopment efforts but they hope the City will carefully consider the needs of the existing businesses when making decisions in regard to MLP.


John Kraska – President of the Hanley Industrial Court Association came before the Board and stated that he is objecting to the proposed MLP redevelopment agreement with the City of Brentwood.  With the forthcoming Sam’s and Wal-Mart along with other retail facilities off of Hanley Road, and continued development of the east side of Brentwood Boulevard between Eager Road and Clayton Road the area is presently over saturated with retail.  Its chance for survival is very slim.  To further compound the problem traffic flow in this area is already a major problem and with the pending additional development it will be worse.  Why not adhere to the statement of goals and objectives of the Brentwood Economic Development Council, which is to maintain existing commercial and industrial development, attract new commercial and industrial development to Brentwood which will increase the local tax base, provide local employment and business opportunities and facilitate community access to goods and services.  Vote against the proposal.


Karen Smith – 8930 Harrison came before the Board and stated that she is responding to the recent RFP issued by the City of Brentwood on the Hanley Industrial Court area and the subsequent proposal from MLP.  She is opposed to the Hanley Industrial proposal because it is destabilizing the neighborhoods.  What does this proposal represent for us?  What value is it going to add to the community?  What are the goals for this project?  If it is for commercial/retail development there are several empty boxes currently in Brentwood.  There are more box type retail establishments coming around Brentwood.   Another reason that has been proposed for redevelopment in Brentwood is to improve the residential stock, to provide more family friendly homes to fill the schools.  The proposal for this project was for high density housing which does not provide the type of housing for children.  A number of businesses have indicated they do not want to sell.  She has not heard anyone in support of the project, so why is the City proceeding with the proposal against opposition from viable businesses.  Developers commented that previous developments that they have worked on have been in the outer rings of the suburb and that they have examined the ethics behind this type of development.  She asks the developers as well as the City to examine the ethics behind taking private property away from businesses and residents to give them to another private developer.


Andy Truss – 2825 Brazeau came before the Board and stated that he is a member of the MTTA Corporation and they have had the use of eminent domain hung over their heads on a piece of property known as suburban tracks.  That property is legally theirs as of March 30th.   In order for the MTTA to move forward with a site plan, they have to know what the position of the Board is. 


Mayor Kelly suggested the Board hold an executive session at the next meeting to discuss that situation. 


Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting


Mayor Kelly stated that the City has very dedicated employees who take the responsibilities of handling the residents’ funds and making sure that they are allocated and kept track of in the proper manner.  The accounting office has received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.  Mayor Kelly asked Susan Zimmer, Finance Officer to come forward and accept the certificate for the accounting department, which include Karen Mosby, Jackie Radovich and Dottie Higginbotham.   He cannot stress enough how fortunate they are to have a dedicated staff that does a great job for the City.




Bill No. 5171 will remain on hold.


Bill No. 5229 – Construction Regulations Applicable to New Houses


City Administrator Seemayer stated that a memo is before the Board from City Attorney Murphy concerning Bill No. 5229.


Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5229 into the record.  The synopsis is attached to the minutes.  This Bill would amend Chapter Six of the Building Code by enacting new regulations relating to construction of new homes. This Bill does not affect remodeling or improvement to existing homes. The intention of this Bill is to improve the relationship between new home construction and the existing neighbors. The Bill has a Sunset Clause of December 31st, 2004. It is felt that this will provide time to see if the provisions in the bill are adequate to achieve harmony between existing homeowners and new construction.


Mayor Kelly stated that while this bill would be on a temporary basis until the end of the year, the City needs some tools to use while people are tearing down and building new homes, this could still go through the process of the Planning and Zoning Commission to be evaluated and be adopted into chapter 25 of the zoning code. Because the City is dealing with land use, the bill will require a public hearing with at least a fifteen-day notice. 


Alderman Golfin requested his name be added as one of the sponsors.


Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to place Bill No. 5229 on hold.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.


Bill No. 5230 – First Amendment Redevelopment Agreement MLP Hanley Station, LLC.


Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Kramer to give Bill No. 5230 first and second readings.  All in favor none opposed.




Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of the bill, which is attached to the minutes. This Bill provides for two amendments to the previously approved redevelopment agreement between the City of Brentwood and MLP Hanley Station, LLC, the developer authorized to redevelop two vacant parcels on Hanley Road as well as construct the extension for Strassner Road from Hanley Road to Hanley Ind. Ct. The first amendment grants an extension to the Developer for his closing date on the property for RPA 2 from June 1st, 2004 to July 15th, 2004. The second amendment changes the timing when the Developer releases two million dollars to the City for public improvements, which may include the Strassner Road overpass, a metro link station in the new MLP development and the relocation of the Public Works facility. With the amendment, the Developer must release the funds once the City receives Notice of Acquisition for RPA I which is part of the proposed project within Hanley Industrial Court. The original agreement required the Developer to release the funds when Notice of Acquisition was received for RPA 2, which is the portion of the MLP project that has already been approved by the City on Hanley Road.


Alderman Leahy asked what is in the City’s best interest for delaying the $2 million payment for the bridge by backing up the timing to acquisition of all property in RPA 1 when this is an agreement for the RPA 2.


Mayor Kelly stated that the $2 million was to go originally for the construction of the Metro link stop.  When Costco pulled out, the language was changed to indicate it was going towards the bridge.  The TDD was not in place at that time.  It is reducing the TIF obligation on RPA 2, which is the approved project.  These were $2 million in subordinate TIF notes.  


Alderman Leahy stated on the second page, # 2 “Funding Provision”, states that the Metro bridge could be at grade/grade separated.  Can they establish that this is a grade-separated bridge?


Mayor Kelly said yes.  When the original redevelopment agreement was put in place they were not sure which one they were going to be funding. 


Alderman Leahy stated that within the same paragraph, “Funding Provision” it states “. . . (b) at the option of the City, other capital improvements within or benefiting the Redevelopment Area as determined by the City”, he is not sure what that is referring to. 


Mark Grimm – Gilmore & Bell came before the Board and stated that in paragraph 2 “Funding Provision” of the revised draft states “Notwithstanding the foregoing” . . . recognizes that they envision that by the time this would occur the City’s obligation to Metro will have been satisfied by the issuance of bonds by the TDD.  This provides that the $2 million payment would be made to the TDD and used to make permitted transportation project improvements which were the same improvements that were approved by the voters that can be carried out by the TDD.


Alderman Leahy asked if he is correct that if they pass Bill No. 5230 and the developer does not close on all the properties in RPA 1 the $2 million commitment would not ever come due.


Mr. Grimm stated yes.


Alderman Leahy said thus they are taking a $2 million commitment that they already have established in place for RPA 2 and possibly putting it out and not going to collect it.  He does not see where that is a financial benefit as a City to waive that right.


Mayor Kelly stated that they are reducing the TIF by $2 million because these were subordinate TIF notes that would have to be paid out of the TIF. They are lowering the finance on the TIF notes on the first phase of the project in hopes of by having it on the second phase there would be additional funds to build the Metro link stop.  MLP will contribute $2 million by issuance of $2 million in subordinate TIF notes.  Why would the City want to have TIF notes floating if they do not need them for that project?  Now that the bridge is paid for by the TDD, they do not need those additional funds. 


Alderman Leahy asked where in the agreement does it establish that their TIF obligation is reduced by $2 million other than they do not have an obligation to submit $2 million to the City for payment but it does not say they cannot float the full TIF bonds out there.


Mayor Kelly stated that they can, but the City is not requiring them to do it.


Mr. Grimm stated that was included as a reimbursable project cost.  They will not have evidence of that as a reimbursable project cost when they submit their initial request.  They will not be able to submit a certificate saying they incurred a cost under this category.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated in regards to the $2 million that they won’t be submitting for reimbursement, how is this going to end up on RPA 1.


Mayor Kelly stated if they move forward on project area 1 they would have to issue a $2 million note to the City on notice of property acquisition, meaning that they have closed on the project and it is moving forward. 


Alderwoman Jepsen stated that in addition to the $18 million for areas 1 & 3, they are bumping it to $20 million. 


Chris Ho stated that the $2 million is in the $18 million amount. 


Alderwoman Jepsen asked if the Metro link stop would be built there and who will eventually pay for it?   


Mayor Kelly stated that it is not in the budget for this project.  Metro link has made it known that if the City wants a stop there the City will have to fund it.  Their goal with RPA 2, which is the project that was approved, was not to build a Metro link stop.  Their goal with approving the MLP project on Hanley Road was using that project to fund a new road going from Hanley Industrial Court out to Hanley Road.  That is the main benefit of that project to the City. 


Mayor Kelly stated the other thing that is in this bill is extending the closing date from June 1st until July 15th because the developer has run into mines underneath the site.  They want to take some more samples to determine if that is going to be a major increase in cost of their project before they close on the property.  They have asked that the City extend their closing date until July so they could get all that testing done and run their numbers again to make sure it still fits into their projected cost.  If they don’t move forward with the closing of the property by July 15, the City would issue another RFP for the Hanley Road site, the Walsh and Serta properties, with the goal of using whatever is built there as the funding source for the new roadway from Hanley Road to Hanley Industrial Court Drive.


Alderman Golfin stated as he see it the voters have approved the Strassner TDD as financing and funding for these improvements.  That is an additional motivation to use that sort of funding for the project as they are heading in that direction.


Alderman Leahy stated that the difference being is that one sales tax is based strictly for the TDD where they have no other obligations of diminishing the financial return to cover the school and the City. 


Mayor Kelly stated that the TDD is a new sales tax generated specifically for that use.


Alderman Leahy stated that the person paying the tax is the person buying the merchandise with the retail shops. 


Mayor Kelly stated that the City is not obligated by TIF notes but it is City revenues that are paying those TIF notes.  It is the school district and the other taxing districts’ property taxes that are paying back those TIF notes as well. 


Alderman Leahy requested that line 3, paragraph 2, be changed to read “grade separated crossing”. 


Mr. Grimm indicated that would be changed. 


Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Bill No. 5230 as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.


The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5230 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3932.


Resolution No. 907 – Preferred Developer and Preliminary Funding Agreement


Mayor Kelly stated it is important for everyone to understand that by approving the preferred developer’s status with the resolution it would put into place a funding agreement so the City can evaluate the residents and business owners concerns about Hanley Industrial Court.  The next step would be to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the developer, which would be the main document that would move the project forward.  Mayor Kelly asked Chris Ho with MLP to come forward with the revised site plan.


Mayor Kelly stated that it would not be in the best interest of the City to have any kind of project move forward that is going to hinder not only the existing businesses but also the future of the community.  One of the things that are very important is relocation. They would like to relocate most of those businesses back in Brentwood.


Chris Ho – MLP Hanley Station LLC came before the Board and stated he is here to present the revised project for RPA 1 & 3.  The concept has stayed the same throughout this process.  They are proposing a mixed-use project within this redevelopment area that is a combination of retail on the ground floor, residential above and an entertainment center that is the heart of RPA 1 area, which was the old Costco site.


They are underway with RPA 2 in terms of doing geo-technical and environmental investigations on that site and moving forward with that project.  RPA 3 which is immediately west to RPA 2 is a continuation of that concept of RPA 2 which is a mixed-use situation predesigned to take advantage of what will be a future Metro link station.  It encourages pedestrian friendly activities with retail and activity on the ground and very importantly reintroduces more residential within this area.  It enhances residences that bring stability to the City.  RPA 3 will be timed in such a way that it will be staggered after RPA 2.  RPA 1 will be tenant driven.  Since this project is an entertainment center, they have had a number of interested movie theater operators.  The movie theater aspect has been very positive and supports entertainment-based retail that has been designed within that area.  The changes that you see on the actual project as opposed to the initial project are within RPA 3 the project area is from Strassner Drive north only.  There are no inclusions of any properties to the south of Strassner Drive.  They have refined some aspects within RPA 1 by creating another urban street that comes down and allows for drop off for the movie theater.  They have been able to put retail shops along the front of the parking structure.  The movie theater has been reorganized.  They are up top and the lobby is on grade.  The theater venues are raised.  There is parking structures immediately behind and the overflow surface parking is behind.  Because of the strength of the movie theater interest they have been able to speak to the movie theater operators and all of them on a preliminary basis have been agreeable to an additional 50-cent ticket tax.  The revenues from the 50-cent ticket tax which is estimated to be about $500,000 a year will go to the Brentwood School District. 


Jim Lahay – Stifel Nicolaus came before the Board and stated that projects of this nature normally require some type of public assistance.  In this case they are talking about TIF and TDD.  They try to look at these projects at this stage as to what is being proposed and make a determination based on that project once it is built out what revenues would likely be generated from it and what it could support. Development Strategies makes a projection as to what the incremental revenues would be from a TIF standpoint and if a transportation development sales tax was imposed what it would support.  They are generally in agreement at this stage that both the TIF and TDD would support about $18 million, approximately $12 million would be TIF and the balance which is the $6 million would be TDD.  TIFs have a 23-year statutory life in Missouri, so you have 23 years to pay off those obligations.  When they analyze it they want to make sure it can be paid off in 15 years.  They have sales tax and real estate taxes.  Half of the new sales taxes that are generated by this development go to pay off TIF obligations and the other half go to the municipality.  In this case, they are assuming that the municipality will keep its half of those sales taxes and would only use the statutory portion to pay off the TIF obligations.  If it turns out that the project changes, market changes and interest rates are higher and the TIF and TDD would only support for instance $16 million then the City would only issue TIF bonds for $16 million not $18 million.  The City would never be in a position of issuing bonds for more than it can support. 


Alderman Robertson asked what is the proposed tax rate.  Would it be the same as the rest of the surrounding shopping areas?


Mayor Kelly stated the sales tax would be the same as Brentwood Pointe.


Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Lahay to go through the brief mental gymnastics for the residents to help them understand the difference of the existing tax base and how that tax preservation will stay in place going forward.

Mr. Lahay stated that when they do a TIF there is a “base” established, based upon certain value (of tax revenues already established), for a property.  Once this project is completed, the (new) value will be much greater than what the base is right now.  The difference between the two, the increment, is captured by the TIF, both in the way of sales taxes and in the way of real estate taxes.  So, the base taxes and the new increment taxes are all still being paid.  Up to the point of where the base is they are going to the various taxing districts.  They are capturing that difference, the ‘increment’.  That difference is what is used to pay off TIF obligations.


Alderman Kramer stated so the existing base stays in place and goes to the various taxing districts as they always have been.  In this particular case you are talking about a unique component, which would separate out some revenue from the movie theater that would send it additionally to one of the taxing districts.


Mr. Lahay stated that there would be an amount that they have agreed to pay that would simply be passed on directly to the school district. 


Mr. Lahay stated that he has been doing this for 15 years and he has worked with a lot of municipalities throughout the state of Missouri, counties and Brentwood has gone to great lengths to try to recognize the impact TIFs and TDD have on other taxing districts.  In order to get these TIFs paid off as quickly as possible, so that all taxing districts could start realizing the full potential, the City has agreed to use its municipal sales taxes to pay off the debt quicker.  They try to keep track of how they are paying off.  They and the City monitors it monthly and they are all paying off very well, either slightly ahead of schedule or on schedule.


Alderman Leahy asked what is the time frame to get something moving on RPA 1.


Mr. Ho stated that they would finish with RPA 2, assess how the project did in terms of the market conditions, if it were positive they would then begin RPA 3.  RPA 3 would be a subsequent phase to RPA 2. Their initial response from the tenants has been very positive.  If that continues to be positive they would move on it immediately.  As long as they have interest from the tenants they will move on that project right away, so it is not reliant on what happens with RPA 2 or 3 but exists on its own depending on tenant response. 


Alderman Leahy asked what is the cost to the City of Brentwood while they go through these exercises to the current businesses that are there.


Alderman Golfin stated as this TIF financing is now conceived with the 50 cent ticket charge at the movie theater which they hope will proceed on tenant demand, is it correct that the immediate impact on City current budget will be practically none and the immediate impact on the school district budget will be a plus $500,000 to $700,000.


Mayor Kelly stated that the City would see an increase of 50% of the new sales tax revenue.  The agreement that was put in place with the past TIFs has been that the City only $300,000 of new sales tax revenue from those projects.  Everything else went to pay back the TIF earlier.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated that the term “will support this” was used and they have done those projections and figured out how much risk they do not have to assume.


Mr. Lahay stated that when he said what it would support, he meant that the project would generate a certain amount of TDD and TIF revenues.  Based on that flow of revenues it would support paying off TIF and TDD notes.  You have a certain cost of this development and the public assistance part of it is a reasonable and acceptable part of it. 


Mayor Kelly stated that the developer’s TIF request will have to go through the TIF process.  A TIF Commission will have to be formed.  The developer will have to make his presentation and his request for the TIF amount to the TIF Commission, which will go through an evaluation of what it can support and what is eligible.  They would evaluate the amount and make a recommendation to the City. 


Alderwoman Jepsen stated that the designers involved have made a point in this meeting and in earlier meetings that they are moving the land requirements north and no longer breathing down the necks of Access Courier and Southside Roofing.  Both of them said they would love to eventually take over the whole Court. She does not think those people should feel they have dodged a bullet.


Mayor Kelly stated that he does not think anybody heard them say that they would love to take over the whole Court.


Alderwoman Jepsen stated that they said there was definitely the development potential.  She has the feeling that they have excluded two of the biggest property owners to get this thing going, but they have made no secret they think the whole Court would make wonderful single-family development.


Richard Ward – Development Strategies came before the Board and stated that he never said they would love to take over the whole Court.  This is a comprehensive development for an urban street.  He does not know where the future may lie for the rest of the Court.  They will be asked to evaluate that to some degree with the funds that will be made available through the funding agreement.  They have to do a cost benefit analysis, which is required by law under the TIF.  This is more complex than most of them because it does raise issues like how will this affect the other businesses in the area and how will it affect the businesses that are in RPA 1, 2, and 3.  What is the City gaining and losing in this process.  He is impressed with what MLP is doing with the nature of the project.  It is a credit to the City.  It is a major benefit in terms of Strassner Drive being improved.  It offsets some of the complexities on Eager Road.  It also opens the door for the prospect of a light rail station there.  It sets a new tone for the community with a mixed-use development.  He has to beg the question a bit as to what might happen next.  What the impacts and benefits might be to the City and the surrounding area in terms of this project and its multiplier affect over time? 


Alderman Leahy said referring to the preliminary funding agreement in the paragraph addressing “advance of funds” it establishes a $20,000 initial payment with an additional $20,000 to be available.  Is there any set limit as to how much funds the City can continue requesting?


Mr. Grimm stated that there is no limit.  If at any time the City’s cost exceed the amount set forth in the estimate the developer would be required to advance additional funds or the City could stop the process.


Alderman Leahy asked if the funds stated on page 2, paragraph 4 (a) “repayment of preliminary funds expended”, and are subject to being covered by the TIF notes that would eventually be issued out.


Mr. Grimm stated yes.


Alderman Leahy stated on page 3, letter (c) no dollar amount is established.  Is this point open for discussion with MLP?


Mayor Kelly stated that still has to go through the process of the TIF Commission.


Alderman Leahy stated that paragraph 6, “MLP’s right to termination” is based solely on their discretion of whether or not they wish to continue forward.  Is there a way of putting in a recoupable fee for whatever the City has done towards the Court?


Mr. Ward stated that if anything a lot of this would cause property values to go up rather than go down which can be detrimental to some of the people who operate businesses there now.  There is no question that when there is an issue like this hanging out there it does freeze everything up.  People stop making decisions.


Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Resolution No. 907.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes. 


Mayor Kelly stated he has prepared a resolution, which is important for property owners in Hanley Industrial Court as well as the rest of the City.  He is asking the Board to consider putting a moratorium on the City issuing RFPs until the Comprehensive Plan is completed.  The only exception would be that if the MLP project for RPA 2 did not move forward they would issue an RFP for that site because the City is committed to building that road.  It is in the best interest of the City that the Board considers this resolution unless the property owners initiate it with written request to the City; the City would not initiate any RFPs until after the Comprehensive Plan is completed.  He would like the resolution considered for the next meeting.


The other resolution deals with MSD and their flood buyout for Hanley Industrial Court area.  MSD has designated funds for buyout in the flood way.  The initial funds allocated were $4 million.  They have already spent a significant amount of this money in Maplewood with buying out areas in the flood way.  They understand by making improvements there is no way they are going to be able to bring it out of the flood way so it is cheaper to buy the properties out.  The resolution is supporting MSD with their buyout efforts for properties they have designated as being in the flood area. He requested the resolution go to committee for evaluation.




Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Cross to approve the revised warrant list dated 5/3/04. All in favor none opposed.


Alderman Leahy stated they have seen scanning charges for City Hall documents on the warrant list.  How far along are they at getting those documents completed?


City Administrator Seemayer stated that they are almost finished. They are just working on some drawings, etc. 




Mayor’s Report


Mayor Kelly stated National Day of Prayer is Thursday, May 6th.  There will be an event at City Hall at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday. 


Mayor Kelly stated that they have met with engineers with respect to the Strassner Road TDD.  That project will start to move forward.  It is estimated that Eager Road improvements would not take place until next spring.  It would take about 90 to 120 days to get the plans drawn and approved by St. Louis County.


The improvements to Wrenwood will be completed this summer.  If they could get the engineering done and depending on the time it takes to order the bridge, they could see some trail work done in the parks as part of that TDD.


Mayor Kelly stated that Maplewood has an ordinance in place where they inspect the inside and outside of all rental property once a year.  That would be a good ordinance to look at and potentially adopt in the City of Brentwood. 


Public Safety Committee – No report


Public Works Committee – No report


City Engineer – No report


Parks – No report


Zoning Administrator – No report


Ways and Means Committee – No report


Planning and Zoning – No report


City Attorney – No report


City Clerk/Administrator – No report


Director of Economic Development


Excise Commissioner


Consumption of Intoxicating Liquor License – Time for Dinner, LLC/8506 Manchester Road


City Administrator Seemayer stated that this liquor license needs to be removed from the agenda.  If the business wants to pursue the liquor license, it would require a conditional use permit.  Zoning Administrator Wolf will be notifying them of that.


Library – No report


Municipal League – No report 


Waste Management Commission – No further report


Storm Water Management – No report


Communication – No report


Insurance Committee – No report


Historical Society – No report




Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee


Alderman Kramer stated that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee had a vote.  He asked Economic Development Director Shelton to go over some of the things of the meeting.


Mr. Shelton stated that they have narrowed their list to three consultants to ask to submit specific RFPs.  There would be further interviews after they submit written proposals and specific fee proposals. 


Mr. Shelton stated that the Post Office is scheduled to move around May 15th.  Drop off boxes will be located outside of the Recreation Center. 






Alderman Leahy stated that a Ward 3 meeting would be held Tuesday night May 26th at 7:00 p.m. 




The City of Brentwood received a grant from the St. Louis Health Department for the Boy Scouts to start pushing aluminum can recycling.  They have put two recycle collection stations at St. Mary Magdalen, YMCA, and Walgreens to help increase the aluminum can recycle.  The money that is raised from the recycling of cans goes to fund the Boys Scouts Troop 361 at St. Mary Magdalen program. 




Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Leahy to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.




                                                                                                Pat Kelly, Mayor





Chris Seemayer, City Clerk