Go To Search
Emergency Alert
 

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

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING

 

 

City Hall                                                                                                           July 19, 2004

Council Chambers                                                                                             7:00 p.m.

 

The Mayor led with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Present:            Mayor Kelly, Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Marshall, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Kramer, Alderman Robertson, Alderman Wynn, Alderman Cross.

 

                        City Attorney Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Zoning Administrator Wolf, Director of Economic Development Shelton, Treasurer Reynders and Executive Secretary Williams.

 

Absent:            Alderman Golfin.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF JULY 19, 2004

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to amend and approve the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of July 19, 2004 by adding a discussion about the Economic Development Council under New Business.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2004

 

Corrections:

Page 11 - the fourth paragraph should read, “Alderman Leahy asked would this help the City in recouping some of the cost of running that facility if necessary.”

 

Page 11 - add the response to Alderman Leahy’s question to read as follows: “City Administrator Seemayer stated that they would not be able to recoup any of the expenses”.

 

Page 15 – third paragraph that establishes there is a $1 million liability policy on the usage of the machine is incorrect.  It should read, “He is personally carrying a $1 million liability policy to cover the scouting program and thus the usage of the machine under the program for the scouts is being covered.”

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Kramer to approve the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of June 21, 2004 as amended.  All in favor none opposed.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF JULY 7, 2004

 

Correction:

Page 2 – last paragraph should read, “It is Face and Body’s belief that it is not a true conference room in that they would not be holding regular meetings in there.”

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Marshall to approve the Minutes of the Special Board of Aldermen Meeting of July 7, 2004 as amended.  All in favor none opposed.

 

BIDS – None

 

HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF ANY PERSON PRESENT

 

Bonnie Rasmussen – Pendleton and Collier came before the Board and stated that she has been a member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee for the last year.  At the last meeting on June 30th the Committee voted after interviewing seven different planning firms.  They chose Woolpert by a seven to three vote.  The Committee will be writing the scope of work and Mr. Shelton will put together the contract. They have all worked together as a group of citizens to help with this effort.  Her report is attached to the minutes.

 

Barbara Dorries – 2610 Helen came before the Board and stated that she has been a resident of Brentwood for 31 years.  She directed her comments to issues pertaining to storm water and sewer problems.  They have sewer back up in their basement, storm water flooding in their yard and neighbors yards, serious problems resulting from storm water that runs in a storm sewer underneath their home, foundation and floor cracks, and sewer water causing the floor to rise during flooding.  They are looking to the City to take action and get those problems corrected.   

 

Steven Ownby – 2600 Helen came before the Board and stated the storm sewer has backed up twice in the last two weeks.  Cleaning that up is unbelievable.  Brentwood staff came out and fixed the problem some time back, which worked for a while.  Something should be done about it.   

 

Mayor Kelly stated that the City is determined to prove the storm sewer is MSD’s sewer.  Obviously if sewage is backing up into people’s basements it is the sanitation line which is MSD’s responsibility and they are accepting responsibility for that.  MSD is now paying up to $2,400 for each instance.  People need to contact an engineer at MSD who can help start the process of trying to relieve the situation of the sanitation lines backing up in residential homes, either through back wash valves, stand pipes or a grinder pump system.  The grinder pump system is installed on the outside of the house, which alleviates back up through the sanitation lines.  It is a top priority of the City to eliminate the problems of sanitation backing up in residents’ basements.  The City has been in contact with Mark Birchler, CDG Engineering and is waiting on his report.  They will then get together and see how this problem can be resolved either through MSD or through the City.

 

Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit – 3139 South Brentwood

 

Mayor Kelly announced a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for 3139 South Brentwood would now be heard at 7:20 p.m. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf came before the Board and stated the site is located at the far southwest corner of the City on the other side of Deer Creek, the home of Country Squire Cleaners.  The owner of Country Squire Cleaners wants to move his dry cleaning equipment in the building, which calls for a dry cleaning plant and requires a Conditional Use Permit.  It went through appropriate steps of the Planning and Zoning Commission and received their recommendation.  Since it is a Conditional Use Permit, it requires a public hearing. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked what is the property currently zoned and what is the Board putting in place by voting.

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that it is zoned general commercial “GC” that authorizes a dry cleaning pickup station.  However it does not authorize a dry cleaning plant.  It is authorized in that district but only as a Conditional Use Permit. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if that property floods. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that it is not in the flood plain.  It meets all of the City’s flood hazard regulations.

 

Mayor Kelly asked if there were any comments from the audience. 

 

There were none.

 

Mayor Kelly announced the Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for 3139 South Brentwood closed at 7:25 p.m.

 

Public Comment Continued

 

Dave Emas – 2614 Helen came before the Board and stated that they get about 3 ½ feet of water between the Dories house and his fence, but he has backup insurance.  MSD is requiring residents to itemize and turn in receipts. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that some people do not have the backup coverage.   In these last instances with flooding, MSD has been giving people the authority to contact a cleaning company. People are then turning the bill in to MSD for reimbursement.  MSD is mandated by the EPA to do the sewer separation projects and to take care of situations like sewer back ups. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if he is correct that the City would like the residents that are having the sewer problems, not only to contact MSD, but also to notify the City of Brentwood.  The intent here is to get as much visibility with MSD. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the City should keep track of people that are in contact with MSD.

 

Kate Dorries – 2610 Helen came before the Board and stated that she knows they need to call in every time the basement floods.  They have called in and written letters.  It is almost like when this happens people do not believe them.  When they call it is very hard to keep calm because there is three to five inches of water in their basement and they are hysterical trying to get belongings up off the floor, which is cracking beneath them.  She understands it takes time and is not going to happen overnight.  It would be nice to know that something is being done and that it is being worked on, so that they have some hope.  It is scary when you feel like your house is falling apart.  They are looking for answers and want to be kept informed, so they know that they are being heard and are not a waste of time. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that they are proceeding with this and trying to come up with some type of plan to present to MSD or to the Board of Aldermen to try to resolve the issue. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that her heart goes out to people.  Many of the people are in her ward.  When she campaigned she said this is an issue she would address.  She requested to be put her on the Storm Water Committee.  She talked to someone on the Committee within the last week that informed her that before the City handed the sewers over to MSD they were supposed to separate the sewers and it was never done.  Now when she hears it is MSD’s problem, she does not think that all the blame falls on their side of the fence. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that he would dispute the statement that the City was supposed to separate sewers.  He has no documentation that states the City was supposed to do that.  The sewers were turned over to MSD in 1958 when MSD was formed in St. Louis County.  He does not know that the City had a choice of maintaining the sewers.  At that time MSD started collecting money from all of them on a monthly basis to take care of the sewers.  This is not a situation that is unique to the City of Brentwood.  Combination sewers are the most common sewers in St. Louis County.  It is an issue that is being faced by a number of municipalities.  It is MSD’s responsibility and they are accepting responsibility for that.  If they do not have the sewer separations done they are going to be penalized by the EPA because of the concern of the sanitation, not only in people’s basements, but the overflow discharges going into the stream systems throughout St. Louis County.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that there are many people in this town that feel it is wrong that the parks budget is sucking up all the money.  She knows the parks have a budget of around $1.7 million.  They have the usage of parks while other people are cleaning out their basements.  That is morally wrong.  When it comes to sewers they should all be on the same level playing field. 

 

Otto Lickenbrock – 2302 St. Clair came before the Board and stated he has been a member of the Storm Water Committee for ten years and they worked very hard on getting the ½ cent sales tax passed to help finance sewer improvements in the City.  He does not know if the Storm Water Committee exists anymore because they do not meet.  All their funding was pulled.  He read a partial letter he had written to Mayor Kelly with copies to the Board members in 2003 regarding the flooding issue.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that MSD does have a program for alleviating the back ups.  The City is working with them and is expending funds doing that.  The agreement they have with MSD to accelerate that process is they are supplying the equipment for the grinder pump system and the City is taking care of the installation.  The City of Brentwood does not have millions of dollars to do sewer separation projects. The Harrison sewer project that was done in the mid 1990s by MSD was a $4 million sewer separation project.  Those are the kind of projects MSD is going to be required to do in order to have the sewers separated.  In the past with many of the projects the goal of the City was to use matching funds.  Now MSD has to fully fund the projects.  The ½ cent sales tax, which is designated as Parks/Storm Water tax has not been used in the last few years for any major sewer projects because of the economy.  They have used most of that money for the Parks Department, which is legal, and something that they needed to do in order to maintain the quality of the parks.  The issue for the Board is do they want to cut some of those services in order to do the projects.  When the Storm Water tax was passed, the first 1/8-cent in 1995, the City eliminated the property taxes from the residents.  The City eliminated 9 cents of property taxes that the residents were paying into the City revenue to help support the parks.  In 1997 when the other ¼ cent sales tax was added the City eliminated the utility taxes.  Brentwood is the only municipality in St. Louis County that does not have any utility taxes.  If the residents want them to do those projects they could reinstate those taxes, which would free up those funds. 

 

Mr. Lickenbrock stated that a big draw back with the grinder pumps is the sewers are electric.  When the electric goes off there is no sewer. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if it is possible for the City to accomplish doing any of those projects and billing MSD for the cost of the work done.

 

Mayor Kelly stated they have entered into a couple of agreements with MSD in the past where the City did projects when MSD did not have the money.  In those instances they did not reimburse the City, but on future projects they eliminated some of the matching funds or took on the projects entirely in order to reimburse the City in some way.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated if the City did a COP based on the tax revenues how long is the COP and what would be the payment per year.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated the COP is whatever length you make it.  In general something like that would be a 20-year repayment.  You could set it shorter than that but your payments would be higher.  On a 20-year basis when you borrow $1 million with current interest rates you are generally paying back about $100,000 per year. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated that this has come up before.  Part of the problem is that you cannot use the sewers to collateralize the loan. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that you would be taking a $1 million sewer project and end up spending five fold on interest and limiting yourself to other projects or things that you could do in the future.  Those are the things Ways and Means need to evaluate.

 

Christine Ownby – 2600 Helen came before the Board and stated that considering most of their homes become water parks while it is raining, can they use parks funds for that.  Her belongings are being ruined from the flooding.  These are things that she will never be able to get back, things that there is no price for.  Since the Board is elected, their elected officials should start representing them.  They are doing everything they can and will support the Board every step of the way. 

 

Karen Smith – 8930 Harrison came before the Board and stated she has been involved with the sewers for close to 15 years.  Residents are experiencing raw sewage in their basements.  She can empathize with those people because when she first moved into Brentwood she had raw sewage in her basement a number of times before the Harrison project was done.  She has worked diligently for the City trying to keep the sewers in the forefront as has others on the Task Force.  MSD did not build the sewers that are causing these problems in Brentwood.  When she called with her problem back in the early 1990s they did not even acknowledge her sewer system because it was a combined sewer system.  She was told that when MSD took over, the municipalities were responsible for separating the sewers.  That MSD would only take accountability and responsibility if the sewers were separated.  Since that time a lot has changed.  MSD has stepped up to the plate and said they are responsible for maintaining the sewers and trying to fix them, but they are not funded to get them all fixed.  They cannot possibly fix all of the sewers in Brentwood.  The Committee lobbied hard to get that ½ cent sales tax passed.  The voters approved it.  Unfortunately very little of the funds have been used in the recent years to go towards sewers.  She hopes that they will be able to start allocating the funds that was voted in to help the people. 

 

Public Hearing Continued – Construction Regulations

 

Mayor Kelly announced that the public hearing concerning the bill for construction regulations would now continue. 

 

Mayor Kelly asked if there were any comments from the audience.

 

There were none.

 

Mayor Kelly announced the public hearing closed at 7:53 p.m.

 

INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

1st and 2nd  Readings

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to give Bills No. 5229, 5243, 5244 and 5245 first and second readings.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Bill No. 5229 – Rev. #2 – Construction Regulations

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5229, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY ENACTING NEW SECTIONS 6-1 THROUGH 6-9; ADOPTING CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSES; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that some changes were made to the bill on page 3, Section 6.5 and 6.7. 

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5229 as follows:  This bill would amend Chapter 6 of the Building Code by enacting new regulations relating to construction of new homes.  This bill does not affect remodeling or improvements to existing homes.  The intention of this bill is to improve the relationship between the new home construction and the existing neighbors.  The bill does have 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.  This bill was reviewed extensively by the Public Works Committee and received a positive recommendation on a 2-1 vote with Alderman Leahy absent.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that the fourth whereas establishes that a public hearing was held on June 21st.  He would like it to reflect that the public hearing was carried over to July 19th.  Page 2, Section 6.2 (b) establishes the allowance of putting portable bathrooms and construction trailers on the building site.  Is there any relationship to setback of these facilities being placed on the site?  He does not want to see a construction trailer placed on the property line, five feet from the adjacent neighbor if the City has an ordinance that says houses have to be five feet off the line. This is not mentioned in the bill.  He is wondering if they could put something in there or if that may cause a problem for the construction.

 

Alderman Kramer stated the genesis of that paragraph was to include some of the lots that are very much smaller, perhaps a 45 foot wide frontage lot versus the ones that are perhaps 50 foot or the ones that have much less frontage in front of the building line than a zoned “A” residential lot would have.  Sometimes it is not always possible to keep everything on the site as it is.  They are requiring the builders or the construction agents to keep them within the building site itself, which is the fenced area.  Ideally during this temporary period until December, maybe with comments from the construction community and some input from the Planning and Zoning Commission that may be revised towards Alderman Leahy’s comments.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that page 2, Section 6.3 (g) establishes the use of straw bales or other approved screening devices, it does not qualify who authorizes those approvals as acceptable.

 

Alderman Kramer stated when they went through item (g) in the Public Works Committee conversation some of the wording was borrowed from Zoning Administrator Wolf at his recommendation, so they used the wording “approved screening devices” because it is referred to in the Code so that he could enforce it. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that he authorizes those approvals as acceptable.

 

Alderman Leahy stated Section 6.3 (h) asks for a 4-day prior commitment to doing salvage operations.  Do they require, when salvage operations are being done on properties, a permit from the City in order to accomplish this task. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated it depends upon the definition of salvaging.  In the context of this ordinance there is no permit required for salvage. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that if the construction crew wishes to salvage parts from a house before they destroy it, they send a letter according to this section, that is the extent of it.  They have no real say back from the City that it is authorized or not.  The City does not have a vehicle or way of preventing them from proceeding forward because they do not ask for a permit or an approval prior.  They ask for a simple notification. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated they could issue a stop work order under the BOCA Code.   

 

Alderman Leahy stated in Section 6.3 (i) and (k) they decided in the bill that they are looking for one house to give them a defined period of time but construction periods of greater than one house the time limits are extended even further.  The extended times are extremely generous and would like to see these two sections reduced to the same clauses as to the housing time for one house.  He would like to see all references to larger scale housing developments eliminated and only refer to the construction site time frame as the one site development.

 

Alderman Kramer stated the genesis for that calendar day or the time frame for the larger scale development came from the two test cases they have had to date in Brentwood.  The first test case being the three or less housing structures that would potentially have been torn down on Cecelia by the developer.  It was one structure but it could have been three torn down.  Going back to the Villas at Brentwood you have a large scale salvaging operation there that logistically if you talked to the developer to have completed that in a short time period as for just one, two or three houses would almost had been impossible to have the operation take place and have it all hauled away.  This is only a temporary restriction. They have to get some feedback from the developers, the City and the neighbors that will say they did not have anything before and 25 days is just about right or could you make it 15 days.  To do that in less than 25 days would be difficult. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that you could not comply with County demolition regulations on 47 homes in that period of time.  It takes two days to schedule an inspection with the County. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated from the reading of this bill it is not the time of tearing down, it is the time that you could have things sit idle and do nothing between activities.  As Alderman Kramer pointed out this is a Sunshine arrangement.  Since nothing has been brought forward to the City, those larger housing development arrangements probably will not be invoked at all.  He would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at it instead of just mirroring what is there. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that he does not believe Section 6.3 (k) is needed. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated he believes that was further clarified in (k) to be congruent with the rest of the bill so that there was no question as to the demolition time for the smaller three or less versus the larger scale, which may require a longer amount of time.  It was not meant for any other reason than that. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated the last title reading asks for the providing for the repeal of all conflicting ordinances.  It is his understanding that Chapter 6 would be in conflict with current planning requirements.  He asked City Attorney Murphy if he is correct.  If he is correct how does this take precedent over what they are going to be doing?

 

City Attorney Murphy stated that it would repeal anything that is conflicting with it. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if the current planning ordinances would become obsolete.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated that it is only dealing with new houses.  Whatever refers to new house construction conflicting with this would be repealed. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if they are creating an ordinance issue in which they are changing what they already have fully in effect because they are doing this on a Sunshine arrangement to the point that they are creating more confusion than help. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that all ordinances could be a problem to enforce because someone would not be doing it if he did not think it was his right.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that as he understands it Chapter 6 is the administrative ordinances basically thrown in by the Board of Aldermen.  Chapter 25 is the building ordinances established by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that Chapter 25 is zoning and land use.  It does not have anything to do with buildings.  They put this into buildings because that is where they felt it would be best served.  Demolishing a house and rebuilding it within 45 days is not a zoning issue.  It is a building issue because it deals with the safety of the public on that site. 

 

 Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Cross to approve and adopt Bill No. 5229 – Rev.#2 as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5229 – Rev.#2 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3943.

 

Alderman Marshall stated there is more building going on in Ward 2 than any other ward in the City.  Many of the concerns that the Board brought up are things that came directly from the residents.  They have done a great job of addressing the residents’ issues and coming up with some laws to take care of them. 

 

Bill No. 5241 – Site Development Plan

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Cross to give Bill No. 5241 second readings.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5241, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3923 FOR PROPERTY NUMBERED 2515-2521 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD; PROVIDING THE CONDITIONS TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its second reading.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that the main issue to be resolved in the bill is the entrance and exit from the site.  He could not think of where another driveway was like this one where you pass up the first driveway and enter at the second one.  It was pointed out to him last week that City Hall parking lot is that way.  The old exit from the Essen Hardware site was just like that and directly south of that was the entrance to the post office for the drop-off of mail.  He does not think there was any conflict in that area directly relating to the left and right turns.  Mary and Dorothy exit onto Manchester Road less than 40 feet apart.  You have both in and out on both streets and it is creating the same type of situation this parking lot would be creating but it has not created an unsafe situation from the respect of trying to maintain the integrity of those operations to get in or out.

 

Brandon Harp – Civil Engineering Design Consultants came before the Board to discuss the Brentwood Center project regarding ingress and egress from the site.  The plan that was submitted at the last meeting is the plan they are moving forward with.  The plan has been approved by St. Louis County with the new ingress, egress orientation.  It was also recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the last meeting and was also approved by the owners of the development, Frontenac Engineering, Farnforth Group and himself.  The reason for their main modification was safety.  They have an ingress proposed in the center of the site, an egress out to Brentwood Boulevard on the north side of the site and an exit at the southern end of the site which is an exit for the drive through banking and the ATM use which has restricted left turns during 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked if there was a traffic study done.

 

Mr. Harp stated that they did a traffic letter report, which talked about the switching of the ingress/egress as being an improvement to the development.

 

Alderman Kramer asked if they did an onsite traffic flow study of the actual development or was it for the ingress and egress.

 

Mr. Harp stated it was for internal circulation, which also includes the ingress/egress. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated that after hearing the comments he has a fundamental issue with the usage of the curb cuts as it relates to traffic that is traveling southbound on Brentwood Boulevard.  The original plan was more reflective of the way that building was used for many years and it did not cause to his knowledge any accidents on Brentwood Boulevard or any issues with ingress/egress onto the site or the post office.  He asked Mr. Harp to address the southbound traffic issue.

 

Mr. Harp stated that cars traveling southbound on Brentwood Boulevard that would be turning into the development would make a right into the development.  They have addressed it by increasing the radius, the weight of the entrances apart and just the timing nature of the traffic with the timing of the cars entering and leaving. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Harp to explain the conversation with St. Louis County as it relates to the curb cuts they requested. 

 

Mr. Harp stated that St. Louis County Highway Department and Traffic has two phases.  One is the site development plan phase and the second is for improvement plans.  You do not proceed with improvement plans until you get a concept plan finalized.  They submitted the original plan to St. Louis County and it came back with 27 comments; 26 of those comments were plan related regarding adding additional signage whether it be stop sign, one-way driveway and do not enter signs, etc.  They also had comments regarding reducing the weight of the southern exit out of the site to delineate the traffic and bring it together for defined left and right turns but also asked that they make both of the entrances 18 feet.  It also required that they construct a sidewalk in front and increase the radiuses and then make sure they had proper distance between the ATM drive-thru and the first parking space in the lane.  The other item that they came back with was the dedication of additional right of away along the front, which Frontenac Engineering and Summit Development had worked out with St. Louis County and the dedication is going to be just behind the proposed sidewalk.

 

Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Harp if it is his opinion that St. Louis County preferred their revised ingress and egress locations or did they agree with what was proposed. 

 

Mr. Harp stated that he talked to Rich Beckman who is in planning with St. Louis County Highway and Traffic and he stated that it was a better plan.  It works better with the way the site is laid out.      

 

Alderman Leahy stated that the 18 feet is St. Louis County’s recommendation for the entrance and exit and the ordinances for the City of Brentwood calls for 20 feet.  Is some type of variance necessary to get that approved?  The second issue is the whole site is treated as one site, yet he sees three egresses where the ordinance says two.  As far as bringing in the lane near the building he will conceive that that is probably a better way to proceed in order to make it a circular route and accommodate the traffic flow. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that Section 25-414 establishes that there must be a 50-foot radius curve for right hand traffic.  According to the minutes of the special meeting, it was established that it was a 40-foot distance.  He is not seeing any variance for that.

 

Mayor Kelly stated with respect to the variances, curb cuts, and so forth, this is a “PD” district, which gives the Board the right to look at the site and make those evaluations and decisions. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated he concurs with Mayor Kelly but he did not notice Section 25-414. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated St. Louis County has the overriding authority with respect to any curb cuts on Brentwood Boulevard and if they are requiring them to be 18 feet in weight they override City ordinances.

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that would be his opinion.  It is their street.  The City would have no reason to enforce 20 feet if they want 18 feet.

 

Alderman Marshall stated one of the questions the alderman brought up was the fact that it went through the Planning and Zoning Commission as one development.  It is two properties being developed by one developer, so the ingress/egress would conform to what the Code states. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that he was always under the impression that it is one development, owned by one owner and whatever they do with their cost breakdowns and such is their business.  The issue is can you have three curb cuts or must you only have two.  He believes that the Board has the power to vary that in a planned development “PD” district.  That is why it is called a planned development.  They come in with a plan.  You accept it or you do not.  The Board does not have to accept it.  The Board makes that final determination.  Personally he does not see anything wrong with the three, given that site layout because one of them is egress only. 

 

Alderman Kramer pointed out on the amended plan there would be no access to the ATM machine if they were coming from Litzsinger Road, Walgreen’s or TGI Fridays.

 

Mr. Harp stated when they looked at the positives and negatives on the scenario they came up with what they thought was the safest design.  You would have to go out of the development and come back in to access the ATM machine. 

 

Alderman Cross asked under the amended drawing if the ingress is in the middle and you enter the development and turn left to go back to Face and Body, is there a stop sign at that point.

 

Mr. Harp stated there is not one proposed there but it would not be a problem to add it.  On internal parking lots, it is an imposed condition that where driveways hit driveways you are supposed to stop. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that if you have been to the spa and you are heading north and crossing over the traffic going to the drive-thru she would recommend putting a stop sign at that point. 

 

Alderman Leahy recommended the parking bumpers be eliminated down the center of the parking lot.  They cause problems with snow removal and more damage.     

 

Alderman Kramer read into record a synopsis of Bill No. 5241.  This bill would approve a revised site plan for the development at 2515-2521 South Brentwood Boulevard.  This is the former location of the Essen Hardware Store and the Post Office.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt Bill No. 5241, by adding the two additional stops signs where noted and eliminate the parking bumpers from the center lane only on the site on the front parking lot as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, no; Alderman Robertson, abstain; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Bill No. 5241 failed.

 

Bill No. 5243 – Amending Chapter 6

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5243, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY AMENDING SECTIONS 6-16, 6-126 AND 6-152; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that his basic contention with this bill is that they are starting to open Pandora’s box and he would recommend they not do that.  This is an issue that should be treated like a neighborhood trustee indenture and should be handled within the Brentwood Forest Association and not added to the Code for enforcement by the City.  He would strongly recommend not approving this bill.

 

Alderman Marshall stated that this bill is important.  The person living below someone with a broken hose sustains the bulk of the damage. This would affect condominiums and not apartment buildings. This was addressed by Brentwood Forest but unfortunately the way their by-laws are written they would need 100% approval of the residents.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that the wording of the motion talked about in the Public Works Committee meeting is not exactly what they have before them in the bill.  They were trying to make it so that it would be specific to housing units that had laundry systems within the living space, not just multi-family, which is what this bill basically talks about.  Brentwood Forest by-laws preclude them from the right of inspection for an instance like this.  They are seeking for the City to add to the predication list for occupancy inspection this additional item that for Brentwood Forest Association employees they have no way to inspect.  This would only be done at change of occupancy.  It does create thousands of dollars of damages and hardship on multiple residents at a time.  Usually after this incident takes place there is sometimes a health issue involved as well.  It was originally intended for those living spaces that had laundry units within the living space versus an apartment building where the laundry system was in the basement. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that the Villas is a multi-family dwelling situation and each unit has a washing machine.  They also have them above because there are three floors there.  If you want to make it just condominiums, you are going to have to say just condominium.  If you want to make it multi-family it has to apply to all multi-family.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that the original wording was laundry facilities within the living space, so the Villas and Brentwood Forest has a laundry facility in the living space. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated he would be glad to add that.

 

Alderman Marshall stated that the issue with liability came up.  The City would not have any liability if the inspector missed it and the hose broke and flooded the resident below.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that the City does take on a liability for doing the inspection and failing to enforce the Code.  If the City fails to do so that is negligence on the City’s part.  The person receiving the damage has a right to sue.  It is not something they are doing lightly.  It is a hardship that has been on Brentwood Forest but the City is helping them out. 

 

Alderman Robertson stated that it should be considered as a public safety issue. It is not something to support somebody’s home value and investment in the architecture or the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  This is a direct problem that occurred primarily in Brentwood Forest but applies to many properties in the City of Brentwood.  The way it is written is the proper way it should be approached. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that including single-family homes should be considered.  Many people are now putting their laundry facilities on the first and second floors of their homes.  When a water hose breaks there is a terrible amount of damage, which is a safety issue. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated that came up in Committee discussion.  They did not want to enforce it on homeowners who make the conscious decision to use the rubber hose as opposed to a reinforced hose.  They are trying to protect somebody who does not have that choice.  Somebody who is living below a resident that chose to take the cheaper way out.

 

Alderman Wynn stated that you have to be careful when a bill is brought to the Board and they begin expanding it with no research.  Not that they should not make amendments but they should be careful about amendments when they have not had time to do research.

 

Alderman Marshall asked City Attorney Murphy what happens if an ordinance like this is in place and homeowners choose to use the rubber hose, it splits and causes property damage, how does that affect the homeowners insurance.  Now it is not a liability issue.  When it is in the condominium it is a liability issue because of the condominium above them. 

 

City Attorney Murphy stated that he would be reluctant to give an opinion in open session.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that Section 4, second line states, “No dwelling unit is to be occupied unless and until the hoses connecting automatic clothes washers are in full conformance with the codes referenced above”.  He is reading that “no dwelling” means all residential property in the City of Brentwood whether it be individual owner, condo or apartment complex. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that it specifies above what areas are to be changed.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked Alderman Kramer to clarify why it could not be enforced by Brentwood Forest. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated that Brentwood Forest Condominium declaration and by-laws preclude any interference with the quiet enjoyment of the premises unless there is an emergency at hand.  For them to be able to go and inspect on a regular basis is not allowable.  The question of changing the by-laws came up.  The by-laws authors thought of that and there is a 75% threshold of all of the owners that would have to agree to the amendment of the by-laws and laundry system.  The other threshold is you would have to get 50% of the mortgage holders of the properties in Brentwood Forest.  The logistics of getting all those people to say they are in agreement on anything is pretty slim.  Therefore since this hardship has been in existence for quite some time and had come up they are taking the opportunity if allowable by the aldermen, to do something that has been unofficially done to make it officially done.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if this could be judiciously explained.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that Brentwood Forest has a monthly publication called the Forest Line.  They have subsidized a much-discounted reinforced steel supply line purchased through their office for those who voluntarily wanted to do it.  However despite all their efforts they still have the problem because there is no way for them to inspect and enforce it. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5243 as amended to include where the laundry facility is located within the living space.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5243 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3944. 

 

Bill No. 5244 – Conditional Use Permit – 3139 South Brentwood Blvd.

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5244, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PEARL INVESTMENTS, LLC WHICH PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE USE OF 3139 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD FOR OPERATION OF A DRY CLEANING PLANT; PROVIDING THE CONDITIONS OF SUCH USAGE; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second readings.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt Bill No. 5244.   Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5244 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3945.

 

Bill No. 5245 – Prohibiting Court Parking

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5245, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 14-1022.1 SCHEDULE V-1 RELATING TO PROHIBITING COURT PARKING; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.

 

Alderman Leahy stated that according to this bill if the four parking spaces were established for library use how would the police be able to identify if people are actually in the library versus the court.  Secondly you have established that as summons are issued for improper traffic usage and parking, etc., and are inviting people to come to court you are now telling them that they can’t use the spaces designed to meet the needs of parking around the building.   Of the four spaces, are any of them handicapped spaces? 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that they are not handicapped spaces.  The signs would read “no court parking allowed” and that would cover anytime when the court is in session.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that as they discussed it in the Public Safety Committee meeting, the spaces are the southern most spaces in the center section of east parking lot.  They are spaces that are head to head.  He does not know if they have to be specific about the location or is the bill good enough as written. 

 

Alderman Robertson stated that when they discussed it in the Public Safety Committee meeting they did not want to create a mess for the police officers.  It is very difficult to enforce and they are just looking for an honor system to discourage people. 

 

Alderman Cross requested her name be added to bill sponsorship. 

 

Mayor Kelly asked City Attorney Murphy if they have to designate in the bill those specific spaces.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated no.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt Bill No. 5245.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5245 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3946.

 

Resolution No. 910 – Endorsing and Supporting Tax Increase

 

Mayor Kelly stated that Chief Niemeyer, Chief Knight and Asst. Chief Kurtz are in attendance to show their support for the tax increase for the police and firemen’s pension fund, which would be on the November ballot.  It will be Proposition listed as “A”.  It is needed for the public safety employees because it is the only retirement fund they have.  They do not get social security. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated that it has been a number of years since anything like this has come up for the Board to include as part of a resolution. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that it is her understanding based on the Hancock Amendment that if investments pick up and the fund become fully funded this could be rolled back.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that it has nothing to do with the funding of the pension plan itself.  The rollback is mandated as values of the properties go up the tax has to rollback so it does not generate anymore revenue than it was originally intended, other than the rate of inflation that’s allowed.  The pension fund could become funded to a point where the pension board would seek maybe to voluntarily roll it back but it is only mandated when the values of the community goes to such a level that it has to be rolled back to generate what it previously did.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that the Brentwood residents have approved 38 cents for the pension fund over the years.  Currently because of the Hancock Amendment the City could only charge 22.5 cent because of the rollbacks.  The 15 cents increase brings it back up to 38 cents but that is what the actuarial say to carry the plan forward for the next 20 to 25 years.  It would not take place until 2006 tax year because of when it will be on the ballot. 

 

Chief Niemeyer – 2201 St. Clair came before the Board and stated that they have only gone for one tax increase the first 35 years.  The pension was established in 1950 and they did not go for a tax increase until 1985, which was approved by the residents.  Now it has been almost 20 years and their actuarary pointed out that the increase is needed for the younger employees in the department.  If they go for the 15 cents now the fund should be funded for another 20 to 25 years.  This will be the second tax increase in 54 years.  The funds have been managed wisely with Asst. Chief Kurtz and several other members of the pension board in the past. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer pointed out that on a $100,000 home the increase would be $28.50. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked upon a policeman or fireman retiring and drawing against the pension program do they retire with health benefits from the City. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated they do not. 

 

Alderman Robertson stated that the Public Safety Committee unanimously voted for this tax increase, which is well deserved and required.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman Cross to adopt Resolution No. 910.  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Wynn to approve the warrant list dated 7/19/04.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the first item on the warrant list in the amount of $15,338.74.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that in 1992 and 1993 the City approved a $5 million street bond issue and $1 million park bond issue that the residents approved and were assessed a tax for a year.  Since that time the City has waived that tax and paid it.   For the $1 million park bond issue, the $15,338.74 is the semi-annual interest only payment due in August.  Every February the principle and interest payment is due.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked how much is the February payment.

 

City Administrator Seemayer responded it is $85,000.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated so it is $100,000 a year in paying it off.  Is that coming out of the sales tax?

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that it comes out of the capital improvement sales tax that is in place.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that the bond issues were approved by the voters of the City of Brentwood, which have not been assessed against them.  Currently the City has no property taxes coming to the City for general revenue.

 

Alderman Marshall stated that there are several things like this that the City pays and does not levy it against the property owners. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked when would this bond be paid off.

 

City Administrator Seemayer responded in 2012.

 

Alderman Kramer asked about the bids for the police vehicle.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that those vehicles are bought through the State of Missouri’s cooperative purchasing program.  It is a new vehicle that was budgeted for that due to the late ordering it did not come in until now. 

 

REPORT OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:

 

Mayor’s Report

 

Mayor Kelly announced that an executive session would not be needed this evening.

 

MLP

 

Mayor Kelly stated that MLP representatives are here to answer any questions from the Board.  They had hoped that MLP was going to close on the property for the project on Hanley Road, which are the Murphy and Serta Properties.  The project has been approved and is moving forward.  They were to close on that property by last Thursday.  The property is under contract and the owners want to move forward with MLP.  The reason they did not act to close on the property is on the first initial meeting with St. Louis County they had concerns about their requirements with respect to the entrances into their out lots off of the new roadway that they will be constructing on Strassner Road.  Their concern is if they close on the project and are unable to get approval they will be sitting with $8 million worth of property and they will have no development to build.  They are still moving forward and can demonstrate that their financing is in place.  They are going to submit their plans to the Planning and Zoning Commission for next month’s review.  They are scheduling a meeting with St. Louis County Highway Department to try to resolve those issues.  With respect to City approvals in the initial plans they meet all City requirements, but obviously they need to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission and Site Plan Review and get their comments.

 

Alderman Leahy expressed his unhappiness with the postponement.  He would strongly recommend that they go out for another RFP and if MLP feels that their project is worthy of the merits they could resubmit and compete with what is currently interest shown by other developers. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked if there is a force majeure implication here.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated that he does not recall.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that there are other things that come into play if they were to allow force majeure on a situation like this.  It would be in the best interest of the City to see if they could move through this process with St. Louis County and see which direction they would go in to try to get that approval.  Once the approvals are done they can close within a two-week period.  This project was greatly complicated by the issue of Metro and the Metrolink Bridge, etc.  His concern is getting the roadway through there and having a mixed use project.  The other developers that are interested are strictly retail in nature.  The City wants to focus more on developments with a mixed-use component. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated he does not think that a couple of months are going to make a big difference.  He too is disappointed that it is being postponed again.  If they go back to the drawing board and start all over again they are talking two years minimum which is going to affect all those people in Hanley Industrial Court that have been asking the City to move forward with this. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that his argument is the lack of the professionalism.  He is not comfortable with delaying things. 

 

Alderman Robertson stated that this is a superior plan and they are unlikely to see anything commensurate with it. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated that the original plans that were submitted for site area 2 that allowed them to select MLP as preferred developer has physically changed.  The submittal of those changes has not been submitted to the Board for review.  MLP is asking for an extension of time and he does not see site area 2 changed plans in front of him.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that they have not approved any plans for this project.  The next step is for them to submit their plans.  The concept was approved by the City. The plans don’t come to the Board first they go to the Planning and Zoning Commission which is what they are going to submit in the next week or so to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission.

 

Chris Ho – MLP came before the Board and stated they will be submitting for site plan approval at the end of this month.  There were revisions to the project because the initial proposal was an at grade situation.  The bridge came in and the station was in and out.  They had long discussions with Metro, which set them back.  When those things were organized they got into contract with the property owners, which took some time.  Then they discovered the mine shaft issue which set them back a full three months because the issue when it was first discovered was an issue of such magnitude that the project may have stopped.  Through subsequent investigations and additional drilling they were able to ascertain that it is now a manageable situation.  In complex projects like this there is a natural progression of what has to happen before the next thing happens.  Unfortunately through a combination of these issues things have been pushed back.  Now they are at one critical junction, which is the approval of the site plan that they have designed by St. Louis County.

 

John Geppert – Planning and Zoning Commission Chair came before the Board and stated when these things are looked at in concept there is movement from concept to the final site plan.  It is not at all unusual that as a concept plan comes forward it goes through some dramatic changes. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked Mr. Ho how did they come up with an ending contingency date for the property negotiation for the two pieces of properties.

 

Mr. Ho stated that they use a standard contract that allows them to, for a certain amount of money, extend periods of up to 60 days.  As they do these mixed-use projects these types of issues always come up.  

 

Mayor Kelly stated no action is necessary for the Board to take on this issue tonight. 

 

MSD

 

Mayor Kelly stated if any residents have problems with flooding, he has the contact for MSD.  He also pointed out that they need to keep track of those residents to make sure they are on MSD’s list. 

 

Clean up of Storm Debris

 

Mayor Kelly stated that our Public Works Department has done an outstanding job with the cleanup from the storm.  He knows that some residents are frustrated but they appreciate their patience. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated that most municipalities would only pick up storm damage from the tree lawn, the strip by the street.  The City of Brentwood picks up any storm damage that is brought out to the street.

 

Alderman Robertson commended the Public Works Department on their efforts and the City for taking care of its residents.

 

Comprehensive Plan

 

Mayor Kelly stated that the Comprehensive Plan Committee has done an outstanding job in interviewing consultants and coming up with a good consultant to move this process forward.  It is important to understand that the steering committee is exactly that.  Their main job is over in that they hired the consultant that is going to go out and collect the information from the residents. Once the consultant formulates the plan he will give them the document and they will present that document to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Look for that direction through the input from the residents on what goes in the next comprehensive plan. The last comprehensive plan was put together by the Board of Aldermen and the Planning and Zoning Commission.  They got together and selected interviewed consultants and they then selected that urban planner to put the previous plan together.  On this plan he wants to get residents involved.  He does not want it to be directed by the Board of Aldermen.  It is something that needs to be directed by the residents of the City of Brentwood and they are going to do that through their input as the process moves forward.   

 

Alderman Leahy asked if the steering committee would be the project committee that the consultant is referring to on how he wishes to proceed.

 

Director of Economic Development Shelton stated that it would be a benefit to the City to have some group stay together that moves these public engagement processes forward.  They have a good group assembled.   

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if the meeting with the steering committee and Woolpert would be advertised and open to the public. 

 

Economic Development Director Shelton stated yes.  They have laid out the scope and sent it to the Board.  One of the big things the majority of the steering committee liked with Woolpert was the public engagement.  Woolpert was bringing in Vector Communications and went in depth.  They will go out and get public input.  Mr. Shelton stated that if there are any comments to the memo or if anybody wants to see the full presentation from Woolpert he would be glad to get that to them.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that Alderman Cross had made a suggestion that in keeping the initial members intact may be some additional members could be brought in from the wards.

 

Economic Development Director Shelton stated at this point it is an excellent suggestion.   They should begin to open it up to others.  They will also have a meeting to review the scope of work with the steering committee.

 

Bonnie Rasmussen stated that the committee should be involved in writing the scope of work, not just reviewing something that the chair of the committee and Mr. Shelton create. 

 

Public Safety Committee

 

A Public Safety Committee meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 p.m.

 

Public Works Committee

 

Alderman Cross stated that a Public Works Committee meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, July 22nd at 3:45 p.m.

 

Alderman Cross thanked the Public Works Department for a fine job that they have done and continue to do with cleaning up the storm debris.  She also want to thank the residents for their patience and the many compliments she has received about the nice job the Public Works Department has done.

 

City Engineer – No report

 

Parks – No report

 

Zoning Administrator – No report

 

Ways and Means Committee – No report

 

Planning and Zoning – No report

 

City Attorney

 

City Attorney Murphy stated that the City has received an adverse judgment in the case of Carron vs. Brentwood and the City has a liability of approximately $135,000. 

 

City Clerk/Administrator – No report

 

Director of Economic Development – No further report

 

Excise Commissioner

 

Temporary Liquor License Request – OB Clark

 

Alderman Cross stated that OB Clark is requesting a temporary liquor license for Brentwood Days on September 17 and 18. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Robertson to grant the temporary liquor license to OB Clark for Brentwood Days.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, no; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Library – No report

 

Municipal League – No report

 

Waste Management Commission – No report

 

Storm Water Management – No report

 

Communication – No further report

 

Insurance Committee – No report

 

Historical Society – No report

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Economic Development Council

 

Alderman Leahy stated that some information was brought to his attention that the Economic Development Council was established by the City of Brentwood.  That their objectives, statements and goals were approved by the Board of Aldermen.  He is being asked if it is a City committee and if so are the meetings published and are complying with the Sunshine Laws.  Who is on the committee? 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that the Brentwood Economic Development Council is not a committee of the City.  The City helped to establish it.  The staff does from time to time attend their meetings but not as voting member of that.  They do not have to comply with the same state laws, etc. that the City does.  He does not know what their by-laws require them to do.

 

 Mayor Kelly stated that the members are mainly business owners.  They had some residents that started the committee.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that he would get a set of their by-laws and a list of their members from Bob Shelton.

 

Ward 3 Meeting

 

Alderman Leahy stated a Ward 3 meeting would be held on Tuesday, July 27 at 7:00 p.m.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman Marshall to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                    Pat Kelly, Mayor

 

Attest:

 

                                               

Chris Seemayer, City Clerk