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                                                                                               December 19, 2005

Council Chambers                                                                                 7:00 p.m.

 

The Mayor led with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ROLL CALL

 

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

 

                        City Attorney Albrecht, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Payken, City Treasurer Reynders and Executive Secretary Williams.

 

ABSENT:        Alderman Golfin.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2005

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of December 19, 2005.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2005

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt the Minutes of the Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of November 21, 2005 as submitted.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

SWEARING-IN OF PATROL OFFICER

 

Police Chief Knight came before the Board and stated it was a pleasure for him to introduce Patrol Officer Rick Litschgi who was previously with the City of Chesterfield Police Department where he served for 13 years.  During that time he was certified in traffic reconstruction.  He is a CIT (Crisis Intervention Team), which handles the mentally ill.  He graduated with honors from Southwest Missouri State University and was #1 in his police academy class.   

Patrol Officer Litschgi came before the Board and introduced his family. 

 

Alderman Robertson, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee administered the Oath of Office to Brentwood Patrol Officer Litschgi.

 

Mayor Kelly congratulated Patrol Officer Litschgi and welcomed him to the Brentwood Police Department.

 

BIDS – None

 

Drawing of Names for the Ballot

 

Mayor Kelly stated the City has a policy that when filing first opens and more than one person appears to sign up for the same position at or before 8:00 a.m. their names have to be drawn to determine whose name will appear first on the ballot.   Filing opened on December 13th and two names have to be drawn for Alderman Ward 4. 

 

Alderman Kramer drew Leon A. Golfin’s name to appear first and Lorraine Krewson’s name will appear second on the ballot.

 

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

 

INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

 

Removal of Bills from the Agenda

 

Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman Wynn to remove Bills No. 5299 and 5300 from the agenda.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

First and Second Readings of Bills

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Robertson to give Bills No. 5303, 5304, 5305, 5306, 5307 and 5308 first and second readings.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

A synopsis of all bills will be attached to the hard copy minutes.

 

Bill No. 5303 – Adoption of Certain Building Codes

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5303, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY REPEALING SECTION 6-51 OF SAID CHAPTER RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING CODES; ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION 6-51; 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. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5303.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5303 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3998.

 

Bill No. 5304 – Adoption of Certain Building Codes

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5304, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 6-154 TO SAID CHAPTER RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING CODES; 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.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if the 2003 Edition is the most current edition for the International Property Maintenance Code.  Will it impact foreseeable legislation on rental and vacant houses?  What is the impact of the adoption of the ordinance on the average citizen and how does it affect some of the nuisance ordinances on property maintenance.

 

Mr. Payken stated the 2003 Edition of the Property Maintenance Code is substantially the same as prior editions.  From the average person’s perspective there would be little change.  The Public Works Committee has discussed the issue of vacant and rental houses and how best to address those issues.  One of the items under consideration is the possible amendment of the ordinance.   At this point it is premature to speculate if it might change.  The most important thing to keep in mind is that the Code is essentially the same except for some minor updates within it as to what has been done in the past. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked why is the date of January 1, 1960 being used in Section 1, subparagraph (b). 

 

Mr. Payken stated he believes that was the date it was originally adopted.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5304.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5304 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3999.

 

Bill No. 5305 – Opt Out Sales Tax Holiday

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5305, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI TO OPT OUT OF STATE IMPOSED SALES TAX HOLIDAY, its first and second readings.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the important aspect of Bill No. 5305 is that if it is adopted tonight the City will not have to do it every year as in the past.  It will become a position of the City, unless they decide to change it. 

 

Alderman Wynn asked what does the City save by opting out of the sales tax holiday.

 

Mayor Kelly stated if the City were participating in the sales tax holiday they would be giving up the revenues on that weekend. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it is somewhat difficult to calculate the amount but it is in excess of $50,000.   Brentwood lost a portion of the sales tax because St. Louis County controls 1% and they participated, so the City lost that 1% on sales that occurred on that weekend.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the state reimburses itself through the tobacco tax, so they do not lose any revenue when they opt out.  The guidelines that are followed provide for restrictions on the amount of purchases and types of purchases.  There are no programs available to separate items from sales tax, so on the sales tax holidays they are eliminating sales taxes on almost every item in the store as well as not limiting the amount of purchases to the $200.00. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5305.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5305 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4000.

 

Public Hearing – 2006 Budget

 

Mayor Kelly announced a public hearing for the 2006 Budget would now be heard at 7:15 p.m.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated the City operates on a calendar year basis, so the budget runs from January 1 through December 31.  All funds are balanced.  The City operates out of four different fiscal funds, which are the general fund, capital improvement fund, parks and storm water fund, and sewer lateral fund.  The total for all funds is approximately $12.7 million.   Most of the revenues, sources and expenses do not change much from year to year.  The sales tax in the general fund is 42% of the revenues and sales tax for all funds is 51%.  The City is a service organization, so the bulk of the expenses go towards personnel and personnel related services, which is 65% of the budget.  The debt service has remained the same, which is around 7%. 

 

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

 

There were none.

 

Alderman Kramer asked about progress with the reserves.  

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated they would not know definitively until the end of the year because cash flow changes daily.  At this point it looks like the City will have increased the reserves by $150,000.  That will bring it somewhere between $700,000 and $750,000 at the end of the year. 

 

Alderman Kramer stated that they were fortunate to be able to use part of the lateral fund for some payroll purposes.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated Brentwood’s lateral program is done differently than other cities.  All of the cities that he is aware of only provide services if there is a break in the lateral and then they hire a contractor to get estimates.  In some cases you pay a deductible as the homeowner to help offset that or some set fee.  Even if the line is clogged with roots or such, Brentwood takes care of that with most of its personnel.   At any given time there could be three or four people working on a particular job site but on an average, over the course of the year, it looks as though it averages out to be about two salaries. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked what happens to the money in the storm water fund that was not spent and the money being allotted for next year.  She also asked about the two grinder pumps at the public works facility.

 

Mr. Seemayer stated the grinder pumps are provided by MSD and the City installs them as they are scheduled. 

 

Alderman Cross stated the two grinder pumps are on hold for two homes on Sonora and White.

 

Mr. Seemayer stated the Litzsinger Project was supposed to be done this year but they ran into some changes to the project.  They will now have to wait for Ameren to relocate two or three utility poles.  Whatever amount of the $200,000 that was not expended would go back into the parks and storm water fund.  The intention at the beginning of 2005 for those monies was to do some joint work with MSD on some of the projects that they have now taken sole ownership of.

 

Alderman Leahy asked what is the limitation on usage of the money generated from the capital improvement tax. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it could be used for any capital equipment, maintenance to that equipment and to pay for any debt service relating to capital improvement that is incurred.

 

Alderman Leahy asked if it would require that the City have ownership of that activity that was being paid for. 

 

Mr. Seemayer stated it would seem logical but he cannot say that positively without looking into the legislation.             

 

Mayor Kelly announced the public hearing for the 2006 Budget closed at 7:25 p.m.

 

Bill No. 5306 – 2006 Budget

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5306, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2006; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second readings. 

 

Alderman Marshall thanked City Administrator Seemayer, Finance Officer Zimmer and the Ways and Means Committee for their time and hard work on the budget. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt Bill No. 5306.   Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5306 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4001.

 

Bill No. 5307 – Development Agreement

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5307, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI, AND ACE HOLDINGS, L.P., its first and second readings.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Leahy to send Bill No. 5307 back to the Ways and Means Committee with representatives from Ace Holdings, L.P. present to discuss the different clauses that are in the bill. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated Mr. Epstein was present at a recent Ways and Means Committee meeting and the agreement document was not talked about, but the general terms of what was going to happen was. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated there were a number of issues in the document that he wanted to go through which would be more productive in a committee meeting than to do it in an open session.

 

Alderman Marshall stated they have gone over the matter two or three times in the committee meetings.  He requested that Alderman Leahy voice his concerns at the Board meeting. 

 

There was no second to Alderman Leahy’s motion.

 

Alderman Leahy stated the fourth paragraph from the bottom of page 1 is establishing that the City will do installments, plus interest but they are asking to establish a ceiling value of $250,000.  The way the document reads is the interest becomes excessive to that value.  He is wondering why and how they can get to that point if they put a ceiling cap on it. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the cap is not to exceed the $250,000 and it cannot go longer than five years, so that if the projected revenues from the new business do not meet the projected sales at five years it will stop. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated the document reads that you pay the interest payment first, then principal, and then you have up to five years to pay off the note, so you will be paying interest payments on each and every year’s installments.  Thus it could exceed the $250,000 at the last payment, which would be contrary to what they want to do.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated the amount to be repaid for the improvements is not to exceed $250,000 plus the cost of the interest during the term of that repayment period.  Your total cost could be more than $250,000 if it went close to the full term.  He asked Alderman Leahy if he is stating that they should not pay over $250,000 total of the sum of principal and interest.

 

Alderman Leahy stated yes.  That was the motion approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated they decided not to go with the COP because they found that potentially to be less advantageous to the City.  You could not put a cap of years on a COP because you are obligated to pay those bondholders the full amount.  There was some debate on the topic of the interest, whether or not the City should pay any interest because it is paying for the improvements or whether the City should pay a maximum amount not to exceed $250,000, whether it is the improvements or the interest.   The agreement does allow for the repayment of the $250,000 and the cost of interest while it is being carried up to the five-year term.

 

Alderman Marshall stated that he and Alderman Golfin understood it to mean that there was going to be a $250,000 cap on everything.  Alderman Golfin was concerned about going over that amount with the interest.  Given what the Ways and Means Committee had discussed, he does not think anything above the $250,000 was amenable to the Committee.  If it would be acceptable to Mr. Epstein, he would consider amending it to remain at the $250,000 because he believes that to be the maximum agreed to.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the project is above and beyond what is required in the building of the retention center.  The City is reimbursing the owner for money he will spend in order to finance the retention center. 

 

Fred Epstein – Chairman of Indeeco and President of Ace Holdings, L.P. came before the Board and stated he attended the last Ways and Means Committee meeting and it was his understanding that the interest was to be paid in addition to the $250,000 in capital expense.  In a previous meeting that was documented in the previous version of the agreement the interest was omitted.  He made it clear to the Ways and Means Committee and the attorney that that deal was not acceptable to them.  The original capital cost for the project was approximately $297,000 and they got it down to $265,000, which was further reduced by the Ways and Means Committee to $250,000.  This money does not come free particularly since they are only allowing them ½ of 1 percent of the taxable sales from Grainger.      

 

Mayor Kelly stated the reason the interest is not just lumped in is that if it is paid off in two years the interest will be a lot less.  If it is paid off in five years it will be more.  

 

Tom Smallwood – Attorney for Ace Holdings, L.P. and Indeeco came before the Board and stated the agreement has been through a lot of changes and modifications.  Mark Grimm, Attorney with Gilmore & Bell, has approved the terms of the agreement.  It was their understanding that interest would be a necessary cost included in the reimbursement and the rebate. 

 

Alderman Kramer asked if he is correct in that they are classifying it as a public improvement on private property.  Was there ever a figure substantially lower in the $60,000 to $100,000 range?  If so, how did they get to the $250,000?

 

Mr. Smallwood stated the original sum was much greater.  Other more complex projects were discussed that would encompass gigantic basins all along other property owned by the company.  In connection with the Grainger project, they felt this was the more appropriate way to go. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated originally the actual retention center had a cost that was around $70,000, but that did not include engineering or construction fees or any of the other numbers.   They now have the real cost of the project.

 

Alderman Marshall asked Mr. Seemayer what were the numbers they were looking at with the interest. 

 

Mr. Seemayer stated it was estimated to be between $30,000 and $40,000 and that depends on when the $250,000 would be retired.  That was using a four-year period and the maximum of the five years. 

 

Alderman Marshall stated the City has asked Mr. Epstein to do some things that he does not need to do and there are obvious costs associated with that.  As far as the work being done on private land, it will help to abate some of the problems with the flooding.  They have a chance to do something about the flooding problem while it is in the construction phase, which is a lot cheaper than going in afterwards and taking care of it.  He stated he would not have a problem with increasing the amount if it is okay with the Board because of the benefits to the City and because of the amount of money the City will be receiving from the business.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it would not take an amendment to do what Alderman Marshall is stating because that is the way it is written in the agreement at present.  Their biggest safeguard on this would be if the sales were not what they projected, the City’s contribution would still be stopped at five years.  Forty thousand gallons of water is not a major detention of water but if the City can find ways to do projects such as this one it will add up.  If this is the only one they ever do then it is a waste of money. 

 

Mr. Epstein stated at the Ways and Means Committee meeting there was mention of a 25- foot diameter pool, 4 feet deep.  The amount of water that will be retained is almost four times the size of that 25-foot pool, 4 feet deep.

 

Alderman Leahy stated earlier he brought up the question of the capital improvement fund expenditure with this being the project, the City does not own the property.  Would it qualify under state statutes to allow them to spend the capital improvement sales tax money on the property? 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it seems logical that it would be permissible based on the TIF projects.

 

City Attorney Albrecht stated he could not give a definitive answer not having been prepared for the question.  His initial impression was that it is a public project, regardless of where the location is, used for public good and public benefit.  He would have to look at the statutes.

 

Mr. Smallwood stated that Mark Grimm made the determination that the storm water and parks and the capital improvement sales taxes were the appropriate ones to be allocated under the City’s ordinances and the state statutes. 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if 15 days is enough notice for the City to be able to conduct reviewing, approving or disapproving changes stated on page 2, subsection (b).  This subsection has a clause that says if the City does not take action in the fifteen (15) days it is automatically approved.  Does this seem to be a reasonable timeframe?

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it could be changed to 30 days.  If something did occur it would be better to have 30 days than 15 days because if you do not respond within the 15 days it is automatically deemed approved. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated page 3, subsection (c) states “ . . . Public Improvement is to be dedicated to the City, the Company will dedicate said Public Improvement to the City within a reasonable time” . . . He asked if there is anticipated public improvement that will be returned to the City at the end of the completion of the project?

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated it was his understanding that there would not be.

 

Alderman Leahy asked what is the expected life usage of the pipe versus a two-year warranty being given referred to on page 3, subsection 7.

 

Kevin Bohnenstiehl - R.G. Ross Construction came before the Board and stated as far as the life expectancy he does not know how you would put a time on it.  As far as a warranty, any manufacturer is only going to give you a limited warranty of some sort.  Lifetime expectancy on something like this is about 20 to 30 years. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated and the fact that no public improvements are anticipated to be deeded back to the City would then the care and maintenance of the pipe fall on the holding company to perpetuate its usage. 

 

 

Mr. Smallwood stated per MSD, they have a maintenance agreement with them.

 

Alderman Leahy stated on page 5, subsection 9 there is a definition for both “Commencement Date” and “Incremental Sales Tax Revenue”.  He would like them to insert and clearly define that both of those taxes are only being taxed from the property itself and not as it is defined here that it could be incorporated as any of the storm water tax or capital improvement tax in the City of Brentwood.

 

Mayor Kelly stated it states,  “. . . Sales Tax attributed to the Project”.

 

Alderman Leahy stated with it strictly generated from the property in question.

 

Mr. Smallwood directed Alderman Leahy to the following page where it defines “Sales Tax”.

 

Alderman Leahy stated he would like the second to last sentence in the first paragraph on page 6 to include the same thing as being from the property itself.  The way the document is written it could be argued that the tax could be any of the sales tax or incremented tax from within City boundaries.  He would like to make sure that they are all agreeing that it is strictly from the property in question. 

 

Mr. Smallwood stated the definition of “Incremental Sales Tax Revenues” is “Sales Tax” meaning storm water and parks and the capital improvement sales taxes attributed to the project, which is defined as this project on this property.

 

Alderman Leahy stated on page 6 and 7, Section 10, paragraph (a), the discussion is within this timeframe if the property fails to generate enough funds to suffice covering the debt, how does this affect the City’s rating on its general category for bonds, etc.  This paragraph leads you to believe that this could have an adverse affect on the City.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the City is not issuing bonds.  The City is reimbursing the property owner for his investment in the project.  He would still be making his payments to the bank but he would not be getting any more money from the City. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated there would be no credit agencies involved because of the way they decided to do it. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated page 8, subsection (b) refers to the $250,000 total improvements and the interest if they are going to include it.  Would it help this paragraph to also define that it should stay within the five-year time frame?  This has to do with the termination agreement.  He would like to look at adding a subsection (c) under Section 12 Termination, limiting to the definition of five years from the completion of the project where they would be able to start generating.   They get the five years to generate from that time frame.

 

City Administrator Seemayer asked Alderman Leahy if he would like the five-year clause restated.

 

Alderman Leahy responded yes.

 

Mr. Smallwood pointed out that page 6, subsection (b), (iv) addresses that. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated page 8, Section 13, paragraph (b), last sentence could raise the ceiling level from the $250,000 limitation if it became effective. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated it also gives the City the ability to go after the property owner if they defaulted. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated the only way the City could default on it is if for some reason the City decided not to appropriate those payments during the five-year term.  The City’s only action is making those appropriations each year.  If the City defaulted you would be doing that knowingly because you would not be appropriating the payment. 

 

 

Alderman Leahy asked if it would be superlative to ask for the clarification on page 9, Section 14, Amendment or Modification, that modification of the agreement duly written by the parties should be with the Board of Aldermen approval.  This does not require any further modification coming back to the Board.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the Board is the second party to the agreement.

 

Alderman Leahy stated in Section 15, since they are dealing with public funds, can they identify that the public should be allowable as party.  Section 15 states that the parties would only be limited to the City of Brentwood itself and the holding company.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the elected officials represent the public. 

 

Alderman Leahy stated what he is looking at in Section 15 is if a third party, in this case, a member of the public in the City of Brentwood wishes to challenge this action; Section 15 would preclude them from being able to do so.

 

Mayor Kelly stated that it would not.  If somebody in the City of Brentwood wanted to challenge it in court, they have every right to do so.

 

Alderman Leahy stated page 10, Section 18 Benefits/Transferability, allows that the agreement may be able to be assigned by the company.  He is interpreting this paragraph as allowing that in case the sale of the property would go forward.   Would this project be a capital improvement to the property that the City might be able to consider some benefit of getting a refund in the way of the improvements they have helped make to the property?

 

Mayor Kelly stated it is saying that if the property is sold and it is not generating sales tax that they will not receive the rebate from the City of Brentwood.  The City is trying to protect itself that if it is not a sales tax generating business then there is going to be no reimbursement.

 

Alderman Leahy stated he does not get that understanding from that section.

 

Mr. Smallwood stated this paragraph is meant to give the City a gate from the company assigning this right to receive the rebate.   Prior to completion of the project, the company cannot assign this agreement without the Board’s prior written approval.  After the project’s completion the company can sell the property to a new owner and receive the right of the rebate as long as they are generating revenues. 

 

Mr. Epstein stated that their lease agreement with Grainger runs for 12 years, so it will run much longer than the agreement. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Robertson to amend Bill No. 5307 on page 2, Section 3, subsection (b) by changing the “fifteen (15) days” to “thirty (30) days”.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated this is an innovative idea and she believes Hanley Industrial Court will ultimately be benefited.  She asked if they were setting precedence by doing it.  What would be their exposure if they would get a company that is not going to generate sales tax?

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated there has to be a way to pay for the improvement.  If you are not generating the revenue, they cannot entertain the possibility because they have to find some way to perform something like this.  It is being done for this project specifically from the new taxes that will be generated by the project.  If someone would come to the City but did not have any new taxes to offer, the City could say unless there is some new increment of tax being offered they could respectfully decline.

 

Alderman Marshall stated one of the things that they stated in the Ways and Means Committee meeting was that if a business owner in Hanley Industrial Court wanted to do sewer work that project would be looked at for its individual merits.  They would welcome any business that wanted to come forward and talk to them about that and they have the right to say yes or no. 

 

Alderman Leahy reiterated that the agreement should be corrected to refer that it is only a $250,000 cap all-inclusive.   The way the document is currently written is not right for the City.

 

Alderman Kramer asked if the amount is approximately $290,000 at a maximum over a five-year period. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer responded yes.  It could be as high as $290,000 depending on the actual interest rate.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt Bill No. 5307 as amended.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5307 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4002.

 

Bill No. 5308 – Plat for Resubdivision

 

City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5308, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLAT FOR RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY NUMBERED 8917, 8923, AND 8925 LITZSINGER AVENUE AND ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second readings.

 

Alderman Kramer asked what was the frontage on the three existing lots prior to proposed resubdivision.

 

Dan Stegmann – Stegmann Farms came before the Board and stated the lots were actually never subdivided.  The White family who owns everything from High School Drive to Brentwood Boulevard never really plotted the lots.   They built seven houses on three lots. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated this resubdivision is on Litzsinger Avenue just east of High School Drive where there are now existing seven rental properties that will be divided into ten legal lots.  Ten new homes will be built there. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked if there would be houses left between Mr. White’s properties.

 

Mr. Stegmann stated there are several houses before you get to Mr. White’s house.  They have an option on those as well.  They are planning to continue that process.  They will be doing it in two stages based on Mr. White’s request.  Their intent is to build 14 or 15 houses.  

 

Alderman Kramer asked what would be the approximate square footage of the lots.

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated on the original plat that went before the Planning and Zoning Commission they were just over 5,000 square feet with the exception of the corner lot at High School Drive, which was about 9,000 square feet. 

 

Mayor Kelly stated the 5,000 square feet does not include the 20-feet alley that will be in the rear of the building.  

 

Bill Biermann – Litzsinger Manor came before the Board and stated the lots are just a little over 41 feet wide x 149.96 feet deep, except for one odd shaped lot that comes off of Harrison.  The alley will come in off High School Drive and there will be rear entry units with two-car garages and driveways. 

 

Alderman Cross asked what would be the price point on the homes.

 

Mr. Biermann stated that would depend on the final elevation that they elect to build which is subject to City approval through the ARB process.  Ultimately they will be expensive homes, just because of the type of architecture, look and size.  The square footage will be approximately 1,800 to 3,000. 

 

Alderman Cross asked if the elevations of the houses would be different.

 

Mr. Biermann stated there would be three plans with three elevations. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated there are currently residents enjoying parking at the edge of that street.  She knows the people on the south side of Litzsinger use the parking there.  She asked if there was still going to be street parking on the north side.

 

Mr. Biermann stated that they would be willing to work with the City to come up with a solution.  If it is feasible they will certainly accommodate that.  What goes hand in hand with that is the issue with the sidewalks. 

 

Alderman Robertson asked if what they are asked to do tonight has any bearing on whether the sidewalks will be improved or replaced.

 

Mayor Kelly stated no. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the existing sewer system and the runoff downhill.

 

Mel Kosanchick - Volz Engineering – 10849 Indian Head Industrial came before the Board and stated he had a work session with MSD and is very familiar with the new improvements that have been made in that area.  They will accept all the drainage and follow the MSD and City guidelines, collect it and will be discharging it into the 48 inch RCP reinforced concrete pipe system that was built.  It will be in full compliance with ordinances and will be a first class job in that area.  

 

Alderman Kramer asked if an association would be formed for the maintenance of the alley.

 

Mr. Biermann stated that would be the simplest way to do it.

 

Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt Bill No. 5308.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5308 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof.  Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4003.

 

ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Leahy to approve the warrant list dated 12/19/05. 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the amount for Mill Products regarding leaf and ice bags and why were they charged to Park/Sanitation.  She does not see a Sanitation Department in the description of departments.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the yard waste and ice bags are sold to the residents at the Brentwood Recreation Center. 

 

Mr. Seemayer stated he is not sure why the Sanitation Department is on there. 

 

Alderman Marshall pointed out that “Cash Recovery Corp.” should be “Cost Recovery Corp.”

 

Roll call on approval of warrant list:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

REPORT OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:

 

Mayor’s Report

 

United Way

 

Mayor Kelly stated that he received a thank you letter from United Way.  He thanked Shelly Williams and Chris Seemayer for their help with the United Way contribution from employees each year.  The contributions are greatly appreciated by that organization.

 

Boy Scouts of America

 

Mayor Kelly stated he also received a letter from the Boy Scouts of America thanking the City for its support with the canned food drive this year using the fire department as a collection point.

 

Projects

 

Mayor Kelly stated the City received two letters from MSD regarding the Parkridge storm water project including Parkside.  The project is being bid out for the design phase.  The Cecelia, Helen, Florence and Ruth Avenues storm water project, which is a completely new storm water project with a new storm water system, has been let to bid for the design as well.  The first phase of this project has been awarded to a contractor and should be proceeding soon. 

 

Committee Appointment

 

Mayor Kelly requested that Alderman Cross be appointed to the Ways and Means Committee. 

 

Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman Wynn to approve the appointment of Alderman Cross to the Ways and Means Committee.

 

Email

 

Mayor Kelly stated that Alderwoman Jepsen sent out an email in which she made a comment that she can remember him quoting that the projects were creating traffic problems and that the City was not going to do anything about it with respect to the projects being developed within the City of Brentwood.  Mayor Kelly stated that he has never made that statement.  He does not believe that the projects have created traffic problems in the City of Brentwood.   He has reiterated a number of times that the traffic has been an issue in the community for a long time.  Because of the projects they have spent over $10 million in roadway improvements in the community of Brentwood.   Without the projects to help fund the improvements the City would not have those improvements. 

 

Executive Session

 

Mayor Kelly announced an executive session would be held following the regular meeting.

 

Post Office and Parking Garage

 

Alderman Kramer asked for an update on the post office and the parking garage.

 

Mayor Kelly stated the City of Brentwood was put on hold regarding the post office.  They are reevaluating what they need for the post office.  With respect to the Metro Link garage all parties will be signing tomorrow.  The goal is the garage will take no longer than one year to build.  Metro is very optimistic that the trains will be running in September of 2006, so they would like the garage opened as soon as possible. 

 

Public Safety Committee – No report

 

Public Works Committee

 

Alderwoman Jepsen stated that she attended the November 30th Public Works Committee meeting and would like the minutes to reflect that.

 

City Engineer

 

Projects

 

Director of Public Works/City Engineer Payken stated he approved the foundation only permit for the Metro garage, so they could start the structural work for the foundation.  They have submitted the balance of the package for the entire garage, which is currently under review. 

 

Mr. Payken stated he has been meeting with representatives of MSD and residents on Rosalie regarding the project in Ward 2, which is progressing as well.  He believes there are four property owners that need to sign easements. 

 

As far as the Litzsinger widening project between Cecelia and Helen, Ameren has committed to moving three of the power poles.   They need three easements from residents.  He will be meeting with the residents to see if they are willing to sign.  Once all that has been accomplished Ameren will come in and move those poles.  They have already scheduled it tentatively to start within 60 days.  

 

They have been going back and forth with St. Louis County Highway and MoDOT regarding the Eager Road widening plans.  He was told verbally that both MoDOT and St. Louis County Highway have now signed off. The only outstanding issue is what type of pavement will be constructed.  Once that issue has been determined they will have a full scope of work for the project.  The plans will be finished and they will have it ready to go out for bid.  

 

Mr. Payken stated that they ran into a problem with the Rosalie Trail and Bridge Project where they did not get the two easements.  They decided to handle that with a boundary adjustment plat with the two affected property owners.  He has received the boundary adjustment and has sent them to both property owners for their comments.  

 

Mayor Kelly thanked Mr. Payken for going out and meeting with residents on a one on one basis to explain what needs to be done with the projects. 

 

Ways and Means Committee – No report

 

City Attorney – No report

 

City Clerk/Administrator – No report

 

Director of Economic Development – No report

 

Excise Commissioner – No report

 

Library  - No report

 

Municipal League – No report

 

Waste Management Commission – No report

 

Communication – No further report

 

Insurance Committee – No report

 

Historical Society – No report

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Budget

 

Alderman Marshall stated in doing the budget one of the things they ran into was double digit increases on health insurance, rising fuel and heating cost and they were still able to present a balanced budget with a raise for City employees.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

New Hires

 

Mayor Kelly stated with the Board’s approval he would like to bring a resolution to the next meeting to institute a policy where new employees are hired at the bottom of the pay scale.  It is important from the City’s standpoint that they start people at the bottom of the pay scale so they can work their way up and will help reduce some of the City’s long-term costs. 

 

Ward 3 Meeting

 

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

 

Comprehensive Plan

 

 

Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the final public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and when will it be held. 

 

City Administrator Seemayer stated there would be at least one more public hearing, which will be up to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Aldermen.  There could be more than one, but nothing has been scheduled yet.

 

Email

 

Alderwoman Jepsen addressed the Mayor’s earlier comment regarding the email that was sent.   She stated that she did not in any way mean to accuse the Mayor personally of not doing anything about the traffic problems.  She believes she sat in a discussion when the Strassner Road extension was going through and perhaps it was the collective City.   They were told by the County with the Promenade, Dierbergs, etc., there would be ensuing traffic problems.   That concern was brought forward in light of the red light ticketing program that perhaps they were going to end up ticketing people that were innocent.

 

Mayor Kelly stated he does not remember the County saying that the projects were going to create traffic problems at any meetings they have had.  They always want to encourage improvements to traffic.  The City did traffic studies with all of the projects.   If they were going to create some kind of problem, the County would have required additional improvements to make up for those deficiencies. 

 

Recess

 

The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p.m. for an executive session personnel matter.

 

Executive Session

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Cross to enter into executive session on a personnel matter at 9:14 p.m.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

Discussion was held on a personnel matter, no action was taken.  Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to return to open session at 9:25 p.m.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion was made by Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Marshall to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m.  Roll call:  Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.

 

                                   

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                    Pat Kelly, Mayor

 

Attest:

 

                                                           

Chris Seemayer, City Clerk