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                                                                                               March 7, 2005

Council Chambers                                                                                 7:00 p.m.

 

The Mayor led with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

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

 

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

 

Absent:None.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2005

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of March 7, 2005.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, 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 OF FEBRUARY 7, 2005

 

Correction:

Page 5, second paragraph should read, “. . . patrons are not supposed to bring open alcoholic beverages outside . . . ”

 

Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen meeting of February 7, 2005 as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

BIDS – 2005 ONE TON DUMP & PLOW TRUCK

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that bids were opened on Tuesday, February 22nd for the purpose of purchasing a new one-ton dump and plow truck.  The following bids were received: 

 

            F&C Truck Sales & Service, Inc.                                         $38,024.00

            Feld Chevrolet                                                                     $32,720.00

            Bo Beuckman West County                                                    $31,851.00

            Reuther Ford, Inc.                                                                     $30,952.00

            Pundmann Ford                                                                      $34,717.13

            Broadway Ford                                                                     $35,733.85

 

Mayor Kelly stated the bids would be referred to the Public Works Committee for discussion.

 

HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF ANY PERSON PRESENT – None

 

INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

Continued Public Hearing – ARB/Amending Chapter 25

 

Mayor Kelly announced the public hearing would now be continued for the ARB/Bill No. 5270. 

 

Al Cross – 9409 White Avenue came before the Board and stated he is formerly a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and is a member of the ARB in its current form.  He favors the Cross/Kramer ARB proposal.  It is well designed to respond to the concerns that arise from homeowners in the area.  Based on the assumption that the Board has described in the Cross/Kramer proposal they can talk to the Board of Aldermen and the Board can guide it.  It has the potential to avoid the various fears that have been listed along the way.  The current ARB has met twice since the bill was introduced and has started the process.  The two applicants that have faced the ARB under its current form were treated fairly and he thought the process was efficient and both were approved unanimously, without a great deal of negative comments.  He believes the Cross/Kramer bill offers the possibility of an even more efficient process.

 

Brett Tatko – 1926 Parkridge Avenue came before the Board and encouraged the Board to strongly consider the Cross/Kramer proposal.  He supports Mr. Cross in his opinion that it offers a more efficient process and it also offers better protection for the residents in the community in having some control over the type of construction that is going to be occurring in their neighborhoods.

 

Mayor Kelly stated he appreciates the comments and looks forward to the Board’s passage of Bill No. 5270.  It is a start in reassuring the residents that the City has concerns.   Builders are willing to invest in the community and improve the housing stock, which is vital to the future of this community, but at the same time they want to make sure they take into account the concerns of the residents. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Golfin to give Bills No. 5270, 5271, 5272, 5273 and 5274 first and second readings.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Bill No. 5270 – Architectural Review Board

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5270, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-63 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-63; BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-118 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-118 ALL OF WHICH DEALS WITH THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first reading.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that some of the sections that were mentioned need to be amended.  Section 25-63 and Sections 25-116 through 25-118 does not exist.  They are reserved sections. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Cross to amend Bill No. 5270 by changing the section numbers to read Section 25-58 through 25-62 and 25-113 through 25-115.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Second Reading of Bill No. 5270 as Amended

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5270, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-62 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-62; BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-115 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-115 ALL OF WHICH DEALS WITH THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its second reading.    

 

Alderman Leahy stated page 3, Section 25-59 establishes who makes up the committee members of the ARB, but it also establishes that the three members would be required to be licensed architects and the building commissioner.  In Section 25-63 they establish that two members shall constitute a quorum.   He asked for clarification whether the two architectural members plus the building commissioner or the building commissioner and one architect constitute a quorum to have a meeting.

 

Alderman Kramer stated under Section 25-59, paragraph (a) it states that the building commissioner shall be a member for his tenure as building commissioner but shall only be authorized to vote on matters before the ARB to resolve a tie vote. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated when you are calling for a quorum in the way of a meeting being held, that member would not have to be a mandatory member being there. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated in Section 25-63 as a point of clarification it would be advisable to make the clarification that two members plus the building commissioner shall constitute a quorum.

 

Alderman Leahy stated in Section 25-113, no distinction is made on the construction or work on a building in this case residential.  If you are doing regular maintenance to your home, in this bill, you could end up being required to submit sealed plans to do that work, if it requires a building permit, i.e. third roof on the house or replacing windows.  He asked if they should put that extensive of a requirement of sealed architectural drawing plans for what could be constituted as routine maintenance of the home. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated the schematic site plan as itemized in Section 25-113 (a)(1) is all that is required.  This kicks in only if there is a change to the exterior of the building that requires building permit.  If you were just doing maintenance on your building that would not require a building permit.

 

Alderman Leahy stated if you were replacing the windows in this bill you end up now requiring a building permit according to the housing authority here.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the way it was explained from the zoning administrator’s standpoint was only if you were changing the size of the windows then you would have to have a building permit.

 

Alderman Robertson asked how far do they go in looking into things like siding replacement or painting, etc.

 

Mayor Kelly stated those issues were talked about extensively in the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.  Once this is established and the ARB is appointed and in place they are going to make recommendations to make some of those adjustments to what may or may not need their approval.  At the moment he does not think it is the intent of the bill to pick out the color of siding and so forth when someone is replacing siding on the home. 

 

Alderman Wynn stated he is not an architect.  He has an education degree and taught school.  He has learned a lot in the two meetings they have had.  He has a concern about all the members having to be architects.  It would not be too bad to have a citizen serve on that board that knows what he wants out of his community.  It would be good to have someone on the ARB to bring a different view and something fresh. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated she too shares the concern that all three members must be architects and also the two alternate members.  She does not know enough about population statistics to know that the City has five registered architects and at all times will.  People have been talking to her about this issue and they think that this will stop infill housing.  There is nothing in the bill that will stop infill housing.  She asked if the word “quorum” in Section 25-62 should be deleted and placed in Section 25-63 in “Meetings”.

 

Alderman Kramer stated that change would be advisable.

 

 Alderwoman Jepsen stated she has the highest respect for Aldermen Cross/Kramer but she feels they are treading dangerously close to a constitutional issue.   Someone who owns their land should be the controlling factor.  When she reads Section 25-114 Consideration, it is her fear that should this board become a battleground of some sort, builders will be blocked from proceeding.  With no hard, fast guidelines, she feels this is like posting a sign that says speed limit enforced but you never put up the speed limit.  As the board changes and building styles change, why would you feel comfortable leaving it without the specific guidelines?

 

Alderman Kramer stated that through their efforts to review the other communities that have used an ARB successfully they have patterned in great part this bill after two particular communities, which is Webster Groves and Ladue.  All their members are architects.  Some communities have a great substantial amount of architectural input.  What their particular proposal does is allow for notification to the neighbors of a proposed development.  It allows residents to have input in the development that they were not notified of before into the process.  Residents are then knowledgeable about where the development is proposed and can be a part of the process.  The architect component of the bill allows for a more efficient handling of the matter and perhaps a way for the procedure to be helpful to the builders as well as the community.

 

As far as stopping infill development, the ARB process in general does a great deal to help and protect the residents who live in the community and take away the fear of them coming home wondering what’s going to happen to the home that just got knocked down next door to them.  They will already be aware of it and have had input into the process.  This bill will allow the builders to see that not anything goes.  They are going to be working with architects who speak the same language so they could have a good interaction.  The communities that have used this successfully have an appeal process in place much the same that Brentwood is proposing.  If the process did not work or was not a good fit for those communities they would have had an extended amount of appeals against that process.  It allows for an inclusive process with regards to the neighbors, members of the community that would be either directly or indirectly across the street or around the corner within a specified number of feet would have an idea about what’s going on and be able to offer input into the project. 

 

Alderman Wynn stated they have to remember to be flexible because what they need on Parkridge may not be what they need on a street in Ward 2 or 3. 

 

Alderman Golfin stated they have been debating this issue for several months.  The character of the infill housing has not been appropriate to the neighborhood in some cases.  He sees where a three-story frame house goes up next to a series of bungalows and ranch houses, which is not at all suitable.  They had nothing to address that at that time.  He felt pretty helpless in responding to those residents because there was nothing in the ordinances that could be used to enforce some constructive action on that.  He has indicated that he is opposing Bill No. 5271, which is the bill that applied stringent standards, which in his mind they really do not know at this time.  It would be a mistake to go into stringent standards because it would do exactly what some of the alderpersons here have expressed, that it would discourage infill building, which they certainly do not want.  They want more residential. On the other hand he feels that they must take some action to move forward.  In his mind it is like going down the road on a path that they have never taken before.  There is no doubt in his mind that as they proceed they will develop the standards as they see necessary.  Those standards may have to be characteristics of sections of the City, so they have to look at those very carefully and deliberately.  He strongly supports Bill No. 5270 and encourages its passage.

 

Alderman Leahy stated Section 25-62 is establishing that the ARB has the right to establish a cost for their planned review.  At what time will this cost be established by the ARB if the bill is approved?  Are there any guidelines that the City wishes to give this board as to what would make that fee reasonable versus unreasonable? 

 

Alderman Kramer stated that particular item in terms of the amount of the cost or the type of fee schedule would be right at the top of the agenda for one of the first meetings of the ARB.  As far as the actual cost, he does not believe that the language is such that they are giving the members a blank check to charge something unreasonable to the community.  The other communities that have used this same framework have the same language in the process and have used it successfully. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the idea is to cover the City’s cost associated with the process, not necessarily charge a fee to be charging a fee. 

 

Alderman Robertson stated it is important that they pass the bill tonight so they could get the process started for the protection of the neighborhoods.  This does not have a lower limit on many things that would be excessive to run through ARB and put builders through the delay and cost.  He does not think the ARB has any business looking at some things, so he would like to establish that as soon as possible.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Cross to amend Bill No. 5270 by deleting the word “quorum” from Sec. 25-62 and adding it to Sec. 25-63, clarify the paragraph in Sec. 25-63 to read “Two members plus the building commissioner shall constitute a quorum . . .” Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that as the process moves forward the builders that want to invest in the community need to understand that it is the City’s goal to work with them and to promote new housing in the community.   

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5270 which is attached to the minutes.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Cross to approve and adopt Bill No. 5270 as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, 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. 5270 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3968.

 

Alderman Robertson stated his position has been that they need to move forward with more clarity and set standards.  Something that could benefit to all neighborhoods to make sure that there is consistency maintained or to encourage consistency where there is none now.  This bill is more in that direction but they will have to go a long way to get to that point.

 

Alderman Kramer stated the process the City has undertaken quite expensively with the comprehensive plan, is going to take some time.  There are some good opportunities for the residents to have input into the comprehensive plan.  Some of that input as it is disseminated may impact the types of choices that are made.  That the ARB or the Planning and Zoning Commission may make in helping to formulate those various line items or standards for an ARB.  The process that they have fortunately now begun will get them to the point where they could work those in there.  He applauded the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sheri Bilderbach and John Nornbuerger and some other members who struggled at great length with that particular concept and acknowledged efforts knowing that the process will continue.  They will be looking for more of their input as well as the newly formatted ARB to get them to standards that are voiced from the residents as well as from the elected officials to make them as good as they can be going forward.

 

Alderman Wynn stated he has found that over the years it is very difficult to change legislation once it is in place because the Board changes, and people’s ideas changes. 

 

Alderman Golfin stated in passing this bill he does not feel that they have indicated that they are not going to support standards, certainly they are.  They do not know what those are in specificity until they have some indication of where the comprehensive plan is going and until they have some experience with the new ARB.  They are kind of in unchartered waters if they have no standards to go by.  He is confident that because there is a final appeal to the Board of Aldermen with any question that comes up in the interim they can review that and go forward with no impediment to the infill residential construction. 

 

Continued Public Hearing – ARB Standards/Amending Chapter 25

 

Mayor Kelly announced the public hearing would now be continued for the ARB Standards/Bill No. 5271. 

 

Scott Stinson – 8624 Eulalie came before the Board and encouraged them to pass something to protect the integrity of the neighborhood.

 

With no further comments from the audience, Mayor Kelly announced both public hearings for the ARB would now be closed at 7:30 p.m.

 

Bill No. 5271 – Architectural Review Board Standards

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5271, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY AMENDING SECTION 25-115(a); BY ADDING NEW SUB-SECTIONS 25-253(d)(8) AND 25-254(d)(8); PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.

 

Alderman Cross requested that her name be removed as sponsorship from the bill. 

 

Alderman Golfin stated as he understands it because the bill must come forward whether it is going to be approved or not by the Board, it is generally the convention to list all aldermen on the bill, not necessarily sponsoring it or supporting it but in order to bring it to the Board.  He would like his name removed from the bill if it infers that he does support it.

 

Alderman Marshall requested his name be removed as well.

 

Alderman Leahy stated Bill No. 5271 has in it the repeal of all conflicting ordinances.  He would like to point out that this bill and Bill No. 5270 have different appeal processes from the same ARB decisions.  That puts the two bills in conflict with each other.  He asked City Attorney Murphy if both bills are passed which bill presides. 

 

City Attorney Murphy stated whichever one is going to be repealed with what is inconsistent, so it does not make a whole lot of difference. 

 

To clarify his question, Alderman Leahy stated both bills give different appeal methods from the ARB decisions that go to different bodies for a final resolve which he doesn’t think is in their best interest but because they are in conflict with each other it says that you would repeal the conflict.  Which bill would end up being the correct process for an appeal through an ARB decision?

 

City Attorney Murphy stated since Bill No. 5271 was not recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission it is going to require a ¾ vote to pass, so there is going to be an academic discussion.

 

Alderman Kramer stated following up with Alderman Golfin’s comments earlier he understands that it is their fiduciary responsibility to take those measures that are brought to them from the Planning and Zoning Commission and act upon them.  However it would appear that just based on the language, introduced by, at the top of the bill may not be completely accurate in this case as well.  He requested his name be removed from sponsorship of the bill.

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5271 which is attached to the minutes.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Wynn to consider approval of Bill No. 5271.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Marshall, no; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Golfin, no; Alderman Kramer, no; Alderman Robertson, no; Alderman Wynn, no; Alderman Cross, no.

 

Bill No. 5271 failed.

 

Bill No. 5272 – No Parking Except by Permit

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5272, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3965 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY AMENDING THE TWO NEW PARAGRAPHS ADDED TO SECTION 14-1038, SCHEDULE LL, NO PARKING EXCEPT BY PERMIT; 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 Cross stated this bill was passed at the last meeting.  The ordinance should have read from Thursday through Sunday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and they passed it reading from Thursday through Saturday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5272 which is attached to the minutes.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5272.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5272 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3967.

 

Presentation by U.S. Postal Service

 

Leonard Stevens – 4925 Fairview Avenue, IL came before the Board and stated he is a real estate specialist with the U.S. Postal Service.  In conformance with their community relation procedures they have been making presentations in communities where some action needs to be taken with the current postal facility.  The present post office was occupied on a temporary basis due to an emergency situation.  They must now seek a permanent solution to provide quality service to the City of Brentwood.  After consulting with the Post Master they will need approximately 8,000 square feet of an interior space.  To meet this requirement they will consider relocating to another building or constructing a new building on a site that is approximately 74,000 square feet.  In identifying a building or site every effort will be made to maintain it within the business area of the City of Brentwood.  They will wait 15 days for comments for this action from officials or the public.  Any comments should be addressed to him at the Great Lakes Facility Service Office in Blommingdale, IL.

 

Mayor Kelly asked if the 74,000 square feet breaks down to about 1¼ acre.

 

Mr. Stevens stated yes.

 

Alderman Kramer stated there was talk when the post office departed the City that if they came back they were going to come back as a store front only and not a sort facility.  Has that changed?

 

 Mr. Stevens stated at the moment they are looking for a whole post office, which would include retail and carriers as well.  After the 15-day comment period, a letter will be sent to Mayor Kelly explaining to him their procedure in going ahead with the project.  That will be posted for 30 days at the post office and at City Hall, after which time he will be advertising for the proposed building or site and that will take 30 days.  Once that is finished and it is determined that there are sites available a letter is again sent to the Mayor explaining their options for selection which is posted for 30 days for the public and governmental comments.  After that time they will have their site specific and the U.S. Postal Service will choose a site, which will be announced to the Mayor. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated like every City their tax base is what keeps them afloat.  Is it not a consideration to split the store front from the processing?

 

Mr. Stevens stated that he does not have an answer to that question at this time. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked when you advertise for a site if nothing is forthcoming given that you are a government entity how would you normally proceed.

 

Mr. Stevens stated he would address that if and when that situation arises.

 

Alderman Leahy asked if the post office would be more inclined to purchase the property or lease it.

 

Mr. Stevens stated they would probably lease the property but would weigh both options.

 

Alderman Robertson asked if he is correct in that the post office has a one-year lease with a one-year option at its present site.

 

Mr. Stevens stated the increments are a little different but it is a short-term lease. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated there is a lot of support in the Brentwood community for bringing the post office back.  The City looks forward to working with the post office and having them open up as soon as possible.

 

Presentation by Parks Department

 

Mayor Kelly introduced Dana Lewis, Recreation Superintendent, George Kroenung, Parks Superintendent and Craig Strohbeck, Ice Arena Superintendent of the Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department.  He thanked them for managing the Parks Department as a team since the parks director resigned about eight months ago.  He stated that they have been doing a very good job and the City appreciates it.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated last fall at the Ways and Means Committee meeting they started looking at the future of the recreational facility because of some major repairs that need to be done to the building because of its age which is 30 years old. 

 

Dana Lewis, Craig Strohbeck and George Kroenung came before the Board and gave an overview of the facilities they manage as a team, the parks department accomplishments, the parks department system in 1991 vs. 2005 and beyond, responsibilities and functions of the parks department and residents desires, etc.  They also touched on the importance of committing funds to the parks department, the needs of the community as it relates to recreation, why upgrading the recreation complex and ice arena is the most cost effective alternative to meet the needs of the community, and future parks needs.  The entire presentation is attached to the minutes.

 

Alderman Kramer stated he and Mr. Strohbeck had a conversation some time back about smaller blocks of time for renting of the rooms to generate some more revenue.  He asked how was that working out?

 

Mrs. Lewis stated they were working on an eight-hour time span.  This year their residents and non-residents are able to do a four-hour minimum, which has been working very well.  They have been getting more people into the facility with that change.   

 

Alderman Kramer asked how would Brentwood’s ice time be rated versus other communities or rinks that are leasing.

 

Mr. Strohbeck stated those prices would be going up effective May 31st at the start of the new hockey season.   The rink is currently very low in pricing.  St. Louis County is the only facility lower than Brentwood on indoor rentals.  Outdoor rentals tend to be a little less expensive. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated there was a question when the needs study came out as far as resident uses of the ice rink versus non-resident uses.  The main reason that he is aware of that many of the residents go to the Heights is the ability to work out.  If they have one of the meeting rooms at the complex dedicated as a workout room maybe they wouldn’t have to send so many of the residents over to the Heights. 

 

Mr. Strohbeck stated it would be expensive to go with commercialized equipment, which is what they would need to provide a quality experience for the residents.  However, they could introduce a few select items.  He has looked into using the party room at down times with some equipment.  With that alternative storage becomes an issue because they have a lack of storage at the community center. 

 

Alderman Golfin stated that he agrees that the  unique feature of the recreational complex is the ice rink.  Certainly there is one thing that they want to have that is unique and not readily available elsewhere, but he is concerned about the improvements and upkeep as well.  In the needs of the Brentwood Recreational Complex a number of major improvements are listed with some broad estimates for the cost.  Some of those items appear to be fairly large but there is no number.   What would a new ice arena compressor and overall system and a new roof entail?

 

Mr. Kroenung stated he is still working on the numbers but it would probably be around ½ million dollars.   A new roof is probably about $100,000.

 

Alderman Marshall stated when the needs assessment survey came out one of the major things that residents wanted was more walking trails.  He remembers sitting down with the previous director and looking for areas throughout the City to put more trails.    He asked where on the west side of Brentwood would you put more parks.  When you look at the map there is nowhere on the west side to go. 

 

Mr. Strohbeck stated that if they work with the overall parks system for the St. Louis community there is a potential that those costs could be shared.  They are looking at coming out of Lorraine Davis’ Park in Webster Groves and wind behind what is now the new Webster Groves public works facility, potentially crossing over into Brentwood Park on either the east or west side.  That would address all the residents south of Manchester on the west side of town.  To reach the rest of the residents on the west side they could do street trails, and designate a bikeway or walkway along the street.  There are certain areas they could cross and then connect eventually into Tilles Park.  There is hope in working as a larger regional capacity to expand trails throughout St. Louis. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated one of the concerns he has with going through residential neighborhoods is they have parking problems and if you take away one side of the street you would have people very upset. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked when does the 1993 bond issue expire.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated in 2012.

 

Bills No. 5273 and 5274

 

Mayor Kelly requested after Bills No. 5273 and 5274 regarding the MLP project is given the first readings they be placed on hold.  In talks with MLP, since they closed on the final piece of property a week or so ago there needed to be some adjustments with the redevelopment agreement to set some timetables in place for construction and so forth and the issuance of the TIF notes.  One of the biggest changes to the redevelopment agreement is that MLP is withdrawing as the preferred developer for RPA 1 and 3.  This lifted any cloud for redevelopment in Hanley Industrial Court.  Part of the reason for that is because of the private investment they have begun to see in that area over the last year or so.  The bills need to be placed on hold because there is still some fine tuning being done between the attorneys as well as the aldermen who need the information in plenty of time to go through it before passage. 

 

1st Reading of Bill No. 5273

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5273, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND MLP HANLEY STATION, LLC., its first reading.

 

1st Reading of Bill No. 5274

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5274, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES (HANLEY/STRASSNER REDEVELOPMENT AREA – RPA 2), SERIES A AND B, OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI, AND APPROVING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTES, its first reading.

 

Alderman Marshall requested the changes being made to the redevelopment agreement be highlighted. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the changes are not dealing with any substantive changes to the actual agreement.  It is setting up a new timetable for the future construction. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated by separating all three areas and independently leaving area 2 to stand alone, will the City have to go back and redo a blight evaluation for those two pieces of property?

 

Mr. Shelton stated they do not believe they will, but he will check with the planning consultant.

 

Mayor Kelly stated those areas were done as part of the other study.  He does not know why that would need to be done again.

 

Alderman Leahy stated because they are now looking at only making it one area versus developing the entire area.

 

Mayor Kelly stated except the original RFP was for this site alone.  The other areas were added afterwards because of some concerns that were happening from outside pressures in Hanley Industrial Court. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated they had in the agreement of the site development plan the possibility of adding an extra floor on two parking garages to help bring the parking quantity up.  It was contingent upon MLP having a need to do this at a later time.  He asked if the banking arrangements establish that this might need to be done now as construction is being done in a whole versus coming in later after the development. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated that is an issue with MLP and their financing and demonstrating that they need that parking.

 

Alderman Leahy stated so at this point the additional parking levels are still an option that may be injected later into the project. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Ho to give a brief update on the tenant lineup that they did not have before.  Is there anything from areas 1 and 3 that is now going to be going into area 2?

 

Mr. Ho stated the tenant lineup is pretty much the same as before.  The interest that they had in RPA 1 and 3 cannot be placed in RPA 2.  There has not been any change to the tenant makeup or the project itself.  They are under contract negotiations with a number of possible tenants. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Marshall to place Bills No. 5273 and 5274 on hold.  All in favor none opposed.

 

ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Golfin to adopt the warrant list dated 3/7/05.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Alderman Leahy asked about a CDG Engineering expense for $2,500.  Can they identify that this money was spent for a study that was done on Annalee and not part of the sewer problem.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated that is correct.

 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:

 

Mayor’s Report

 

April 5th Election

 

Mayor Kelly encouraged everyone to vote on April 5th.

 

Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters

 

Mayor Kelly stated they have an executive session scheduled for after the meeting but he does not know where that stands at the moment.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated he is not sure either.  He sent Alderwoman Jepsen an email this afternoon.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated what was not clear was having such a limited scope of what they can call an executive session for.  They need to be very careful and know what they are going in there for.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the issue is legal and personnel matters, which falls under the scope of an executive session.  They will have an executive session following the close of this meeting for a legal/personnel matter.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated the pending legal matter, which many people know is against her is a matter of public record.

 

Alderman Marshall asked if they are allowed to speak about previous executive session meetings.

 

Mayor Kelly stated no not in open session.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated there was public correspondence.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated if the parties consent to open discussion there would be no problem.

 

Mr. Elkin Kistner, counsel for Kevin McCarthy stated that Alderwoman Jepsen has alluded to some correspondence that he offered on behalf of Mr. McCarthy.  Therefore, Mr. McCarthy would have no objections to any open discussion tonight of what took place in any previous closed session. 

 

Alderman Wynn stated when the executive session was held they were told that they could not discuss what was brought up, and now if they open the discussion to the public, what do they tell the next person.  You have downgraded what you stated to them as a Board.

 

Mr. Kistner stated that the Board of Aldermen has its own legal counsel.  His opinion is that the intent of the closed session statute as it pertains to personnel is intended to protect in large part the person who is affected and could be harmed in their reputation by some sort of open discourse in front of the public about matters that are sensitive involving personal issues to them.  To the extent that there was a closed session previously which the Board discussed Kevin McCarthy he cannot imagine that anybody would have any standing to complain about the public discourse concerning that closed session. 

 

Alderman Wynn stated the next person that comes in in some kind of situation like this and you tell them that the discussion has to stay here and in a week or two it has not stayed here, it is now in the public, you may not get as good a response.  He would not respond as good if he thought that it was not going to stay quiet. 

 

Mr. Kistner stated if the concern of the Board is that the comments members of the Board might have made in the course of the closed session under the assumption that there was some sanctity that they enjoyed in some confidentially that would never be breached, the distinction is that the person who is the subject of the discussion, at least one of them, is openly stating through his legal counsel that he has no objection.  Mr. McCarthy is saying please discuss this in open session because it is exactly what he wants.  In the scenario Alderman Wynn described you do not have the confidence that the subject would want an open discourse.  Until such time as somebody comes forward who is the subject of a closed session involving a personnel matter and states what he has just stated then the more circumspect or lawful position to take would be to maintain confidentiality. 

 

City Attorney Murphy stated he does not disagree with anything Mr. Kistner has said.  They would not be in violation of the Sunshine Law if both parties meaning the City and the employee agree to it.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked City Attorney Murphy if public discussion of the matter would give either aggrieved party at this point the chance to say that they talked about it in public and it really hurt their reputation.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated it does not extinguish any cause of action a party may have. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if they could claim further damage by them discussing it in the public session instead of the closed session.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated anything is possible.

 

Mayor Kelly stated it is his understanding that Mr. Seemayer received an email from Alderwoman Jepsen stating that she wanted it discussed in open session.  Mr. McCarthy through his attorney has made it clear that they do not object to that.  The question is does Alderwoman Jepsen want to discuss it in open session or will it be discussed in executive session.

 

Alderman Leahy stated as a point of order before they make any ruling from the Board he would request that they go into executive session and get legal counsel from City Attorney Murphy as a Board independently before any decisions are made.

 

Mr. Kistner asked given that unique circumstance and combination, does the Board anticipate that Mr. McCarthy would be entitled to attend the closed session?

 

Mayor Kelly stated he could.  The reason for the executive session at that point would be more of a legal aspect to find out what ramification the City would have by discussing it in open session not necessarily the actual issue. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that it is her understanding that a personnel issue is when someone is being chastised, fired, laid off or disciplined in some manner.  The legal side of it is a lawsuit that the City is involved with.  In this case she is not being sued yet but is continuing to be threatened.  She gets letters delivered to her home that are opened by anyone.  She gets letters delivered to City Hall.  She will bow out of the executive session because she is not being sued yet.   She does not understand how in an executive session, legal/personnel matter the person is there.  She will let Mr. McCarthy have his say and she will excuse herself. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated that Alderwoman Jepsen made a comment that this is a lawsuit between the City and Kevin McCarthy.  As far as he knows, it is a lawsuit between Alderwoman Jepsen and Mr. McCarthy.

 

Mayor Kelly stated there has been no lawsuit filed. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated the disagreement is between Alderwoman Jepsen and Mr. McCarthy.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated it was her bringing a residential concern forward that resulted in this situation.  She has contacted the insurance company and they will seek full indemnification.  

 

Mayor Kelly announced they would hold an executive session legal and personnel matters following the meeting.

 

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

 

Special Use Permit/McCarthy Building Company

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated McCarthy Building Company has requested a Special Use Permit to serve beer at their Charity Softball Tournament.  This is something they have requested in the past and received.  The Charity Softball Tournament will be held at Brentwood Park on May 21st

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Cross to grant the Special Use Permit to McCarthy Building Company for their annual Charity Softball Tournament.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, no; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Director of Economic Development

 

Comprehensive Plan

 

Director of Economic Development Shelton came before the Board and stated the Board has in front of them the monthly report from the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee.  There will be a visioning session held on March 22nd from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Recreation Center.  They encourage the Board and any interested residents to attend.  In this visioning session they will begin to focus on the community and its future.  They have received back 506 surveys.  The goal was 10% and they are at 13%.  All surveys will be counted and all responses recorded.  They will be discussing the survey results at the next regular meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, which is schedule for next Wednesday, March 16th from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at City Hall.  They will also be holding the resident focus group meetings.  They will begin contacting the individual names that were submitted by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee in the next couple of week checking their availability. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Shelton to clarify who can attend the visioning sessions.

 

Mr. Shelton stated the visioning sessions are opened to all residents and businesses.  It is the next step beyond an open house where they will begin to look at design issues and things you think the City ought to have. 

 

 Alderman Kramer asked if the data from the surveys will be available in raw form or will it be complied and cross-sectioned in terms of the result.

 

Director of Economic Development Shelton stated they would discuss that on Wednesday.  He has not seen a report.  The general consensus of the consultants was if you list every single comment of the 506 comments, 400 might say do something about traffic, so they may have to read many comments, which may be repetitive.  Every issue that is brought out will be defined.

 

Grant Application and MoDOT

 

They were able to talk to all of their state representatives and senators about the grant application for close to $1 million to SEMA, which is now being forwarded to FEMA.  All of their representatives sent letters after they met with them, which was very successful.  They also met with the individuals from the governor’s office on the MoDOT maintenance yard.  It has continued to fall into disrepair.  They took some photos and the representatives were appalled at the condition.  The Mayor has scheduled some follow up meetings with highway commission members.  They have been contacted by MoDOT.  They emphasized that they needed to sell the property.  It is at a valuable corner and it is not a good site for a staging area, which is their plan when they do the I-64 improvements.

 

Excise Commissioner – No report

 

Library – No further report

 

Municipal League – No report

 

Waste Management Commission

 

A Waste Management Commission meeting will be held on Thursday, March 10th at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.

 

Storm Water Management

 

A Storm Water Management meeting will be held on Friday, March 18th at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.

 

Communication – No further report

 

Insurance Committee – No report

 

Historical Society

 

Alderman Wynn stated the Brentwood Historical Society now has portable equipment for the recording of oral histories for its archives.  These recordings will be indexed and available at the Historical Society facility for information and research.  Members can conduct an interview at its location at 8764 Rosalie or at the interviewee’s location.  The recording equipment can also be signed out to interested citizens who wish to conduct an interview of friends or neighbors who can contribute historical information.  The Historical Society would also appreciate receiving names of anyone who might be an interesting person for such interview.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Review of 9325 White

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated the ARB met on February 3rd and reviewed plans for 9325 White Avenue.  The meeting was attended by Alderman Wynn and Al Cross.  They reviewed a great plan for a house at the corner of White and Patton.  The house will be expanding and will be quite the improvement.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

A Ward 3 meeting will be held on March 29th at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. 

 

Recess

 

The meeting was recessed at 9:25 p.m. for an Executive Session legal/personnel matter.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen excused herself from the Executive Session. 

 

Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to go into Executive Session on a legal/personnel matter at 9:31 p.m.  Roll call:  Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Also in attendance were Kevin McCarthy and his legal counsel, City Administrator Seemayer and City Attorney Murphy.  Discussion was held and Kevin McCarthy and his legal counsel left at 9:49 p.m.   The Board continued in discussion.

 

After discussion on legal/personnel matter, Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Leahy to return to open session at 10:25 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Vote to Approve ARB Plans for 9325 White Avenue

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve the ARB plans for 9325 White Avenue.  Roll call:  Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Golfin to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                    Pat Kelly, Mayor

Attest:

 

 

                                                           

Chris Seemayer, City Clerk