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 21, 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, City Treasurer Reynders and Executive Secretary Williams.

 

Absent:None.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2005

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of March 21, 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 MARCH 7, 2005

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Kramer to approve and adopt the Minutes 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.

 

PROCLAMATION – Brentwood Evening Optimist Club

 

Mayor Kelly stated they were honored to have representatives in the audience from the Brentwood Evening Optimist Club to receive a 50th anniversary proclamation.

 

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

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to adopt the proclamation for the Brentwood Evening Optimist Club 50th anniversary.  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 Brentwood Evening Optimist Club members in attendance came before the Board, introduced themselves, and accepted the proclamation honoring them on their 50th anniversary. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated they greatly appreciate the work they do for the City of Brentwood.

 

BIDS – None

 

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

 

Maureen Saunders – 2326 Parkridge Avenue came before the Board and stated the visioning session for the Comprehensive Plan will be held on Tuesday, March 22nd.  The visioning session is a portion of the planning process where they look to the future and dream about what they want for the City.  From the onset of the planning process it was stated by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that community input was an important part of the plan.  When Woolpert and Vector Communications submitted their proposal they talked about how they would promote public involvement.  At the last Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, March 16th, she suggested that the committee send out a reminder postcard about the upcoming visioning session.  They were told that the ad was in the Pulse and the newsletter.  She felt a solid campaign would still send a reminder postcard to all residents but the committee disagreed.  The committee felt there was not enough time and it was not in the budget per Vector Communications.  The committee decided to send postcards only to those who attended the open house.  There was no mention of the visioning session in the March newsletter or an update of the Comprehensive Plan.  Alderman Cross as well as Alderman Marshall agreed that the postcards needed to go out.  They asked the City to do whatever it took.  The postcards were never sent out.  She asked the Board if they believe promoting public involvement is a priority of the plan and do they think the goal is being achieved in the best possible manner.  She attended the Vox Populi forum on Saturday.  At the end of the forum they opened up the floor for public comments and questions.  A couple of residents were very worried as to whether their property would be marked for redevelopment.  They felt they were living in limbo as to whether they should do any improvement or not.  The response was that if developers were buying up the surrounding houses there was little the City could do once the developers or investors gain more than 50% of the homes.    That the developers could go to the City for help in acquiring the remaining properties.  She responded that the developers and speculators would not be buying up those properties if the City would not use eminent domain because they would not be able acquire 100% of the needed properties, even if there was a single holdout.  She asked each Alderman to state their stance on eminent domain with regards to using it to build office, shopping centers, and apartments, not hospitals. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated any notice they could get out to the public on the Comprehensive Plan is important.   He is not looking to tear down neighborhoods.  People are showing huge investments in the neighborhoods with infill housing.  There are many things they need to address with that and they have been doing a good job with it. 

 

Tom Finnegan – resident of St. Louis City came before the Board to register a complaint against Alderwoman Jepsen.  Last Monday evening at approximately 6:30 p.m. he and a worker were in the 2300 block Patton engaged in business.  He was not aware of the fact that on certain streets in Brentwood there was not parking on both sides of the street, it was dark and they did not see the signs.  They had a box truck that even though it was pulled somewhat away from the side of the road left ample room for anyone to go through if they chose to.  Alderwoman Jepsen was riding in a pickup truck.  She stopped in the middle of the road, began to berate his driver, and was using many vulgarities.  The “F” word in particular was featured prominently in her language at that time.   She proceeded to tell him that they were guests in the City of Brentwood and that they were parked illegally.  His driver proceeded to tell her that if she would just speak to them in a civil manner that they would be glad to move their truck.  She continued to curse and was very loud and confrontational on a public street, in the middle of the road.  When he tried to speak to her to defuse the situation, her response to him was . . . a very course vulgarity was used towards him.  She then left after trying to write down information regarding their vehicle.  All she needed to do was say in a polite manner, could you please move your truck, as any person would behave towards someone else.  As someone who is in public office and is speaking to someone else he was very taken aback by her language and her demeanor.  They then went back to their store and the next morning he tried to call Alderwoman Jepsen at a number that was provided to him by the League of Women Voters, just to defuse the situation and give her an avenue to offer up an apology.  She not only did not apologize to him, but she continued to be abrasive, patronizing and spoke to him in a very sophomoric manner.  When it was obvious to him that she was not going to apologize for the incident the preceding evening, he told her that he would very likely be pursuing all legal avenues to address the situation and to hold her accountable for her behavior and her response was woo.   Not at all what he would expect from a public official when addressing someone who is calling raising a concern.  To compound the situation and to make matters worse, she then proceeded to call his boss on his cell phone and told him, and he has this conversation recorded and would very gladly produce it if necessary, that if he were to show up at the meeting this evening that she would sue both his company as well as him.  She also told him that she had numerous instances that were kept on her caller ID of him calling her both from his residence as well as his work, none of which were true.  He asked Alderwoman Jepsen to produce the records if she had them. 

 

He has never, in 41 years of life, been berated by anyone in such a manner, let alone a public official who aspires to higher political office.  Her behavior was disturbing to both he and the gentlemen who works for him.  He was so taken aback at the time that he could not sleep that night.  He stated to the citizens that if Alderwoman Jepsen is the type of person who is held in popular regard as one that is qualified to be mayor, that they have some serious reconsidering to do on that issue.  He has had the pleasure to know a number of politicians throughout his life.  Politicians are ambassadors to their community.   They are meant to help people and serve the public interest.  He and his family have recently begun house hunting in Brentwood, Kirkwood and Webster Groves, neighborhoods that they have been considering.  If the way he was treated in the “City of Warmth” is indicative of the way that the average citizen is treated in Brentwood, then they will be searching elsewhere. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that she would be brief. Her attorney is present.  The gentleman was parked on the west side of Patton Avenue where you are not allowed to park.  He was standing in a front yard with two other gentlemen.  There was no delivery.   The delivery had happened.  It was over.  And there was a car on the other shoulder.  She drives a truck with the extended mirrors and could not get through.  She came down the street, stopped, flashed her lights, waited and waited, and honked her horn.  She was trying to get her son to his Boy Scout Court of Honor.  She opened her door and said move your truck and she was met with a response that if she would just be nice they might consider it.  He was illegally parked.  She could not see any license plates.  She was going to call the police at that time.  They finally moved the truck.  She has a Tom Finnegan on her caller ID at home from the night before. 

 

Mr. Finnegan stated he would like to see the record of the caller ID.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated given the way Mr. Finnegan talked to her she would not be inviting him over.   She stated Mr. Finnegan called her the night before and started berating her.  She was very polite and said she was not talking to him and hung up.  She called the district manager.  He had told her he had contacted Chief Knight and was filing harassment charges against her.  She had had one contact with him at that point.  He called her at home and has shown up here.  She would think if someone were being harassed it would be her.   She has talked with Mr. Finnegan’s senior legal counsel.  This was a traffic incident and Mr. Finnegan was illegally parked blocking the road.  Her initial request to get him to move was met with confrontation.  He has called her at home and showed up here. 

 

Otto Lickenbrock – 2302 St. Clair came before the Board and stated he is a member of the Storm Water Committee and has been since the day it was formed in the early 1990’s.   He is before the Board to address several comments that were made in the last several weeks regarding a 50/50 split of the stormwater/parks tax revenue.  The two most disturbing and misleading comments are that there never was a commitment for equal revenue distribution and that the Stormwater Commission is basing their position on the newspaper article by the City.  Both of those comments are completely false.  After the 1993 flood it was determined that MSD’s financial condition would not enable them to make their badly needed sewer improvements without Brentwood assistance.  A decision was made to ask the voters to approve a 1/8-cent sales tax with 100% of the revenue dedicated to sewer improvements.  Resolution No. 759 was written which states that the funds would be used for storm water control as outlined in House Bill 88.  This is what the Stormwater Commission members were told and it is what they told the voters when they campaigned for its passage.  Some time later Resolution No. 760 was generated which amended Resolution No. 759 for the sole purpose of adding the parks.  When the Stormwater Commission protested this change, they were told it was required by state law and they should not be concerned because the intent remained unchanged and it was still a stormwater bill.  He eventually did a check on this and was informed that there was no such requirement.  The ballot could have been submitted for stormwater control, parks or both.  The ballot language submitted to the voters determines how the money is to be spent.  Unfortunately the ballot did not specify a 50/50 split nor did it specify 2% for stormwater and 98% for other needs as occurred in 2001.  On November 2nd 1995, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch listed all issues that each community in St. Louis County would vote on during the November 7th election.  The big issue for Brentwood was the storm water vote.  Our City Administrator’s comment was as follows “money raised by 1/8-cent sales tax to each dollar would cover storm water work for each year”.  Nothing mentioned about the Parks Department.  The ballot proposition passed with a 60.4% majority.  Ten months later on September 1st 1996, Mid County Journal Correspondent Sheila Myers interviewed the City Administrator about other Brentwood tax changes that were being implemented.  During the interview he commented as follows, now that the parks tax has been eliminated parks funding will come from half of the 1/8-cent sales tax approved.  The other half will be used for storm water projects.  This is where the Stormwater Commission is coming from with this issue.  He hopes they can finally resolve the confusion that has been going around concerning the subject. 

 

Alderman Golfin stated he supports the intent that they have as much public participation as possible.  As far as publicizing adequately, he and Alderman Kramer write a monthly newsletter in their ward informing citizens.  His article this month is going to heavily publicize the Comprehensive Plan and getting citizen input.  

 

Mayor Kelly stated he does not understand the supposed fear the residents are having that neighborhoods are going to be redeveloped.  He does not know how much more the City can stress that is not the direction the residents or the City wants to go.  They have all stated over the last number of years that housing is their biggest issue.  That is not only for the future of the community but also for the future of the school district, churches and all the organizations in the community.  They are starting to see revitalization in their neighborhoods.  The way you have stable neighborhoods is to have ownership.   Getting more houses that people want to live and raise their families in is something that is very important.  They tend to hear rumors about developing the neighborhoods but the reality is it is just not true.  Brentwood’s focus needs to be on the residential neighborhoods and making improvements to them. 

 

Alderman Wynn stated he had voted against the Promenade and yet he looks at it today and realizes the City is very fortunate to have it.  He talked to people who lived in Evans Place and they do not seem to be shedding any tears over what they got.  He voted no on the Promenade because he was standing up for a lady that lived in Evans Place.  He is not for condemnation, but there are other things involved.   He has been a great supporter of the schools.  The City needs more people and kids.   

 

Alderman Golfin stated that municipalities should have the authority of eminent domain but only for very necessary reasons of infrastructure, roadways and things that are essential to the community.  They have to be very cautious of any use of eminent domain.  As far as excluding eminent domain from a municipal operation it is impossible.  You would not be able to have roadways, sewer lines or telephone poles, etc.   If past performance is any indication of what the City of Brentwood does the Promenade was in his ward and he was heavily involved in that.  Those citizens wanted to move on to better living conditions and get a good price for their home.  They debated that for a long time because it was a very critical issue and it was given very careful consideration by the Board.  It developed over a period of time that almost all the residents wanted to move and they waited until all of them wanted to go.  Finally there was a holdout by one individual who he believes had a vacant lot and was holding it for investment purposes and the greed of getting more money.  They could not allow that to hold up what the rest of the residents wanted.  That issue finally went to court and it was resolved. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated as far as the postcards being mailed out the committee made a decision based on what they thought was accurate information.   Based on the findings that information might have been in error.  The request for pushing for more public notification is not a bad thing.  He suggested that if the turnout tomorrow night is not to their satisfaction, they could enter into a discussion with Vector Communications about holding another visioning session and hopefully correct for human error. 

 

He is not in favor of using eminent domain as a city entity to turn around and take away someone’s home but he would like to reserve judgment on a case-by-case issue before they just use blanket statements.  He would like to weigh out the facts as to the benefit to the City of Brentwood and the realization of the homeowner’s rights to his own property.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated somewhere it talks about widening Brentwood Boulevard corridor to a 300-foot lot depth.  She asked if that might be some of the residents concern. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated in the mid 1990’s, Alderman Williams proposed a bill that would have changed the zoning along the Brentwood Boulevard corridor.  He believes it was 200 feet from the centerline on both sides of Brentwood Boulevard to rezone it to commercial use in order to try to resolve some of the parking issues, etc.  The practicality of that is the City would never want to do that because you would give up all control over what can be built there. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated there was talk about widening Brentwood Boulevard with one more lane.  The City was very much against that.  The fact the City was fighting against that should tell the residents that they are not looking to take out neighborhoods.  They are looking to work on the neighborhoods.

 

Alderman Kramer stated it is important for the elected officials to weigh each situation as it comes up on its own importance and its own merits.  The inclusion of the process for the Comprehensive Plan is very important.  When the visioning session takes place and it appears as though there is insufficient sampling or it is just thought that it is a good idea to have another session, he would support something like that.

 

Alderman Robertson stated the Comprehensive Plan is hugely important.  He is disappointed that they did not send out the postcards.  They have had a lot of advertising.   As far as development, they would want to be extremely sparing and very careful with eminent domain.  It is not their function to take away the neighborhoods that elect them. 

 

Alderman Cross stated the Comprehensive Plan needs quality input at the grass root level and this is the right time for that.  She would like to see them take advantage of the opportunity that this visioning session was intended to provide for them. 

 

INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

Bill No. 5273 – Amend Redevelopment Agreement with MLP

 

Alderman Leahy stated that the only large change he is noticing in the bill is the TDD funding dollar limit.  He asked why the $1.25 million to a $2.5 million possible funding of TDD.

 

Mark Grimm came before the Board and stated MLP had a pre-existing obligation to contribute $2 million towards the Strassner extension cost.  The existing redevelopment agreement calls for that obligation to be funded by a note from the Brentwood/Strassner TDD to the developer, so that eventually the developer, assuming there were sufficient funds through the Brentwood/Strassner TDD, could be reimbursed for the Strassner extension cost up to $2 million.   The developer has asked that the TDD that the developer is going to create, over that project site itself, be allowed the option of incurring part of that $2 million cost.  It does not change the amount of the MLP contribution towards the Strassner extension but it presents a different option on how that cost is reimbursed to MLP. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated if he understands correctly if they authorize the amendment they could then offer their own TDD, in this case at $2.5 million, establishing a taxing entity within their properties and thus draw their revenues and pay that bill versus applying to the Strassner Road TDD saying they need them to help fund them, because they are not in the Strassner Road TDD boundary lines at this point.  If they go along with the change if MLP does not generate revenue to cover the cost of what they are incurring to do the roadway, what happens?

 

Mr. Grimm stated the City would use its best efforts to cause the Brentwood/Strassner TDD to issue a note to the developer for that $2 million in cost.  Given that the City has two of the six representatives of the Brentwood/Strassner TDD, if the City recommends it then there is a pretty good chance that the Brentwood/Strassner TDD board would go along with that recommendation to give that note back to MLP.  From the City’s standpoint it might be better to have MLP’s controlled TDD incur part of the $2 million cost rather than the Brentwood/Strassner Road TDD.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that this gives them the ability to issue bonds up to that amount once they have their leases signed and the City knows the businesses are going to go in there. If they cannot generate the revenue to support it, the City will not authorize the issuance of the bonds.  In the end they may be able to support $1.75 million.  This is just giving them the ability to go up to that if they can support it and if the costs are there as well associated to the new roadway.

 

Alderman Leahy asked if there is a timeframe to get the bonds paid off if they are issued or do they stay open until they are met.

 

Mr. Grimm stated there is a statutory timeframe for every transportation development district, which is 40 years.  From a practical standpoint there is not a market for that type of an obligation. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if they agree to allow the $2.5 million does this foreclose them from coming back to the Strassner Road TDD and asking them for assistance.

 

Mr. Grimm stated it provides that it is a direct offset. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the cost has been revised as well.  Initially the road was going to cost just a little over $1 million.  Now they know after getting done with St. Louis County and the land costs etc., that the new roadway is going to be closer to $2 million for the final project.

 

Alderman Leahy stated the fact that they started out with a three-area development and the agreement established all three areas blighted and qualified and the current event that they are now withdrawing from RPA 1 & 3, are they terminating those redevelopment areas.   Does RPA 2 stand on its own as it is currently listed or does the board have to reestablish that blighted area in condition as a stand-alone.

 

Mr. Grimm stated they do not need to do anything as a Board to reestablish RPA 2 as a blighted area by itself.  This amended agreement eliminates MLP’s rights to RPA 1 & 3.  It does not remove those from the redevelopment area.  If the Board desires to shrink the redevelopment area to just RPA 2 then the TIF Commission would have a public hearing and would make that recommendation to the Board and the Board would adopt subsequent legislation.  If the overall boundaries of the redevelopment area are changed, it requires going back through the TIF Commission public hearing process, even if it is just to eliminate those project areas.  The statute does not create that distinction. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated the Board passed a moratorium resolution.   That would state that since MLP has now withdrawn from RPA 1 & 3 that it would become an isolated area until the Comprehensive Plan is approved.  At that time would the City revisit looking at redeveloping those areas or would they walk away from that redevelopment classification and if so, should they do something to completely close it out.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the idea would be to close it out. 

 

Mr. Grimm stated he could prepare a memo that briefly outlines the steps that they would need to collectively go through.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated Mr. Grimm’s recommendation would be wonderful.  She knows the business and property owners in Hanley Industrial Court would like to be totally out from under it.  Are they maxing out some sort of level or are they swapping one for the other and they would not be included for the future work on Hanley Road.  It is no secret St. Louis County wants to do an overlay district and collect another ½ cent for the work on Hanley Road. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated MLP was already at a 1-cent TDD.  There has been some legal dispute whether they could actually do an overlay.  The state statute says a 1-cent TDD is the limit.  Some attorneys have said that is for a specific district and you cannot put another 1-cent on top of that one.  He has held the position at the meetings that the City would not be interested in going any higher than the 1-cent anywhere in the City, that they would not be in favor of an overlay.  They were never part of the calculations for trying to generate revenues for Hanley Road.

 

Alderman Leahy stated paragraph 6.5, Notice to City for Transfer, gives them a 10 day advance notification if for any reason the developer agrees to transfer the ownership of the property to the City for them to evaluate how that transfer may or may not affect the City.  That is the same language that was in the September 2003 document.  He asked if it would be better to change it from a 10-day to a 30-day notification to give the City ample time to review the ramifications.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to amend paragraph 6.5 in the amended and restated redevelopment agreement from a 10-day advance notification to 30-day advance notification if the clause is ever invoked.  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.

 

Alderman Kramer stated in the memo presented today referring to Section 5.1.2 directly as it relates to Section 3.2, since the property has come through closing and transfer of title, is the title clear on the property? 

 

Mr. Grimm stated MLP has the title to the parcels of property.  Their request was that the power of condemnation still be in the document in case there is any gaps in coverage or clear title issues that need to be resolved.  They own the property at this point.

 

2nd Readings of Bills No. 5273 as amended and 5274

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Kramer to give Bills No. 5273 and 5274 second readings.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Bill No. 5273 as Amended

 

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 second reading.

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5273 into record.  It is attached to the minutes.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt Bill No. 5273 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. 5273 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3969.

 

Bill No. 5274 – Issuance of up to $5,000,000 of TIF Notes

 

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 second reading.

 

Alderman Leahy stating they are authorizing not to exceed $5,000,000.  What is the maximum amount that would be financially achievable through the development and how would they understand what they are authorizing.

 

Mr. Grimm stated realistically it would be $5,000,000.  The developer is required to submit requisitions as project costs have been incurred under the TIF act.  The requisition costs have to be eligible costs under the TIF act.  Supporting documentation has to be presented to the City for review and approval. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated in the past with some of the TIFs they have elected to pay them off much quicker to get the full revenue in a short amount of time.  He asked what is the life of the TIF notes as far as how they were going to be paying it back.

 

Mayor Kelly stated it would be 12 years.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated if the cost were $43,000,000 without the TIF, how would the project be different if you did the $38,000,000 you are stating you could afford. 

 

Chris Ho with MLP stated without the TIF assistance in this particular project, the project would not move forward.  Within that component is the ability to cover costs and to make a reasonable return for development.  In a typical project you are looking at a 15% return on costs on all projects.  

 

Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5274 which is attached to the minutes.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5274.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, no; 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. 5274 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3970.

 

Bills No. 5275 and 5276

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Cross to give Bills No. 5275 and 5276 first and second readings.   All in favor none opposed.

 

Bill No. 5275 – Amending Chapter 6

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5275, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY REPEALING SECTIONS 6-16, 6-51, 6-101, 6-126, 6-151 AND 6-152 OF SAID CHAPTERS RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING CODES; ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTIONS 6-16, 6-51, 6-101, 6-126, 6-151, 6-152, 6-153 AND A NEW ARTICLE VIII CONSISTING OF SECTIONS 6-175 AND 6-176; 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 read a synopsis of Bill No. 5275 which is attached to the minutes.

 

Alderman Leahy stated he is struggling with how this bill and the new codes affect the resident coming forth asking for permission to do certain maintenance on the home and now needing permits and how that relates with the ARB. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated under the current codes ordinary repair and maintenance does not require a building permit.  In other words if you are going to reshingle your house and put a second layer on the roof, it does not require a building permit.  If you are going to change your siding and add vinyl siding to it, it does not require a building permit.  If you are going to remove a driveway and put a new driveway in that does not require a building permit.  Under the 2003 International Codes, each of those items does require a building permit.  Under the ARB regulations, any construction activity that requires a building permit and impacts the exterior of the home requires a review by the ARB.  Therefore you can say that all of those items would have to go to the ARB because they all impact the exterior. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated under the new ARB requirements what documents does the homeowner need to provide the planning office to request that permit to get to the ARB?  This is why he questioned whether they should make the stringency of the sealed architectural plans a requirement for permit work, that they could catch it and make it an expensive to do list for the homeowner.   He does not think that was their intent. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated those are some of the adjustments the ARB will have to make. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if they postpone approving the code changes in order to work through making some amendments to the ARB, is that better than approving the bill this evening and waiting for the ARB to do something.  Is there a way they could modify and make everything work in harmony with each other versus in conflict?  Which would be the better timeframe to work with?

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated it is his opinion the Board should act on the legislation this evening for two reasons.  It contains a clause that says it is not taking effect until July 1st.  Therefore anybody who is going to be building in Brentwood have the benefit of knowing what codes they will be judged by if they file for building permits in July or later.  Secondly under the current codes, which would remain in effect through June 30th, if no building permit is required there is no review required.  That violates the intent of the ARB. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated within the last six months based on an unfortunate fire incident, the City instituted in new construction a hard wire heat detector.  In reading through the bill, it talks about a one-hour fire door in the garage and the wired in smoke detector.  It was her understanding that with previously existing homes unless there was a major renovation, a change in the use of a garage were exempt from that.  Is this bill now stating that should the home be sold and to get an occupancy permit they have to have a hard wire heat detector and fire door?

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated it is not intended to say that.  They only implement that when there is construction in that vicinity.  In other words if you are going to be building a new garage that is attached to the home then that requirement would come into play. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated it does not talk about construction it just says underneath or attached to.  If somebody sells their house and all of a sudden they have to hard wire the garage and buy a fire door that would slow the process down.  It does not say new construction.  She asked if this bill would change that line. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated that is covered under the existing 2003 International Building Codes.   They adopted the fire code and then they had to amend it because that requirement is unique to Brentwood.

 

Alderman Golfin asked how would the ARB be functioning in relation to this bill until July 1st and after.  Suppose a homeowner wants to put in a new driveway or a direct replacement of an existing driveway, the ARB could exempt that kind of request for permit from their review.

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf stated the Board of Aldermen could by exempting it as a building requirement.  Today that would not apply.  Effective July 1st it would apply.

 

Alderman Golfin stated suppose the ARB is dealing with something more serious than a direct replacement could the ARB set up their standards and their exemption, get approval for that from the Board and then proceed on that basis. 

 

Zoning Administrator Wolf said no.  You would have to change the law as to what triggers an ARB review and what standards you wish to apply.  The Board had the option of adopting some standards and chose not to. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked Aldermen Cross and Kramer if they foresee amending the ARB bill.

 

Alderman Kramer stated as far as the ARB bill, they have been working on it for a while, much in advance of entertaining tonight’s bill.  They want to attract housing and want the process to be an evolving one.  There are going to be some low clearance items regarding the siding or roofing.  It may be possible that as a city and as a combined effort, they may decide as the process moves forward, they do not want to have the ARB review those items that previously were not reviewed, such as those maintenance items that have been brought up. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Bill No. 5275.  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. 5275 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3971. 

 

Bill No. 5276 – Laclede Gas Company

 

City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5276, AN ORDINANCE RENEWING AN EXISTING FRANCHISE AND GRANTING FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY (20) YEARS TO LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, PERMISSION AND AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT, EXCAVATE FOR, PLACE, REPLACE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND USE ITS MAINS, SERVICE PIPES, CONDUITS, CONDUCTORS, TANKS, VAULTS, VAPORIZERS, REGULATORS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT, WITH ALL NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE APPLIANCES AND APPURTENANCES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IN, ALONG, ACROSS OVER AND UNDER THE STREETS, ROADS, ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS, SQUARES, BRIDGES AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI AND AREAS DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY USE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSMITTING, FURNISHING, TRANSPORTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR LIGHT, HEAT, POWER AND OTHER PURPOSES WITHIN AND THROUGH SAID CITY, PRESCRIBING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH GRANT, AND IMPOSING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UPON THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SUCCESSIVELY, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, its first and second readings.

 

Alderman Marshall stated over the past couple of years they have had complaints from residents on Rosalie, Eulalie and some of the surrounding streets of strong odor of gas.  In talking with Alderman Robertson, some progress has been made.

 

Alderman Robertson stated as part of their work in the Public Safety Committee, Fire Chief Niemeyer contacted Laclede Gas Company and got an extensive survey done of those streets and they made a few repairs. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked City Attorney Murphy if there were any significant changes.

 

City Attorney Murphy stated he did not read the franchise agreement from 20 years ago.  This is a standard agreement and they are stuck with it.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5276.   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. 5276 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3972.

 

ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Cross to adopt the warrant list dated 3/21/05.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the $3,000 ad for the Zoning Administrator’s position.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated the City does not usually use St. Louis Post Dispatch for those types of ads.  However, because they have much better coverage it was advertised in there and ran three times.

 

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:

 

Mayor’s Report

 

Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters

 

Mayor Kelly stated the executive session scheduled for after the meeting will not be held.  The city attorney is still researching some information. 

 

Election

 

Mayor Kelly encouraged everyone to vote on April 5th.

 

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/Temporary Liquor License St. Mary Magdalen

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated St. Mary Magdalen is requesting a temporary liquor license for the annual parish picnic to be held on May 20 and 21, 2005. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Cross to approve the temporary liquor license for St. Mary Magdalen Parish Picnic.  All in favor none opposed.

 

Director of Economic Development

 

Director of Economic Development Shelton came before the Board and stated that a Comprehensive Plan Visioning Session will be held on March 22nd from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Brentwood Recreation Center.  They encourage everyone to attend and participate.

 

The notice of the visioning session ran in the February issue of the Pulse and the Brentwood Bulletin.  Vector Communications asked that it run in the March issue.  The editor is out of town this week, so he does not know why it did not run in the March issue.  It has also been on the website, the Suburban Journal and BTV-10.  There will be a design charette scheduled for May 18th at the High School Cafeteria. 

 

Mr. Shelton stated they have applied through SEMA to FEMA for close to $1 million grant for flood proofing and buyout in Hanley Industrial Court.  They have the support of MSD and they will be the local sponsor in providing the match.  When he and the Mayor were in Jefferson City, they met with all of their representatives and encouraged their support.  Based on their support, they feel good about SEMA’s recommendation to FEMA.

 

Excise Commissioner – No report

 

Library – No report

 

Municipal League – No report

 

Waste Management Commission

 

Trash/Recycle Services

 

Alderman Golfin stated the trash/waste services are doing very well.  They are realizing savings, which are every much as they expected, and perhaps a little more.  They look for improvement in those savings.  He feels they could do much better with the recycle participation.  It is not only important for them to do it environmentally but if you recycle your wastes the City saves money because they save the tipping fee that is avoided because you are putting trash in the recycle bin instead of the trash can.  If residents do not recycle and if the City is not able to afford the service they could pay as much as $18.00 a month per resident for trash services contracted outside. 

 

Stormwater Management

 

Stormwater Projects

 

Alderman Golfin stated a report of stormwater projects is attached to the aldermanic report.   Public Works and the Ways and Means Committees will be reviewing the projects.  $200,000 is budgeted for this year. 

 

Communication – No report

 

Insurance Committee – No report

 

Historical Society – No report

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Report from Woolpert

 

Alderman Kramer stated at the last Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meeting held there was an inventory of existing land uses and community facilities report from Woolpert.  There were some recommendations made at the end of the report.  Is that a preliminary recommendation?

 

Economic Development Director Shelton stated that information was handed out at last Wednesday’s meeting.  It was not discussed and is very preliminary based on some of the initial information they have.  Those will probably be some of the issues you will see in the visioning session and design charettes. 

 

Ward 3 Meeting

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.  All in favor none opposed.

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                Pat Kelly, Mayor

 

Attest:

 

 

                                                           

Chris Seemayer, City Clerk