MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
City Hall May
3, 2004
Council Chambers 7:00
p.m.
The Mayor led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Present: Alderwoman
Jepsen, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Golfin, Alderman Kramer, Alderman Robertson,
Alderman Wynn, Alderman Cross.
City Attorney
Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Economic Development Director
Shelton and Executive Secretary Williams.
Absent:Alderman Marshall, Zoning Administrator Wolf and Treasurer Reynders.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MAY 3, 2004
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Agenda of the
Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of May 3, 2004. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes;
Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2004
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Minutes of the
Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of April 19, 2004. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes;
Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
PROCLAMATION – Rock
Hill Baptist Church
Mayor Kelly stated that a
proclamation is before the Board to be presented to the Rock Hill Baptist
Church for their 75th Anniversary.
Alderman Wynn read the
proclamation into record. It is
attached to the minutes.
Mayor Kelly presented the
proclamation to the representative from Rock Hill Baptist Church.
Bids – None
HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC
INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF ANY PERSON PRESENT
Tom Curran – 8150 Whitburn
Drive/63105 came before the Board and stated that St. Louis County has been in
contact with members of the Hanley Industrial Court Association. They understand their concerns in terms of preserving
the Court as a job base in the future.
St. Louis County, RCGA and the Economic Council are also concerned about
not only redevelopment, but also about job preservation. The City of Brentwood has been a wonderful
partner in a lot of projects they have participated in. They are currently party to the agreement in
regard to the TDD for Strassner Road.
They ask that the City carefully consider the concerns of the existing
businesses in the area as deliberations are made. Manufacturing, distribution and production jobs are particularly
important. They fully realize the need
of the City to undertake redevelopment efforts but they hope the City will
carefully consider the needs of the existing businesses when making decisions
in regard to MLP.
John Kraska – President of the
Hanley Industrial Court Association came before the Board and stated that he is
objecting to the proposed MLP redevelopment agreement with the City of
Brentwood. With the forthcoming Sam’s
and Wal-Mart along with other retail facilities off of Hanley Road, and continued
development of the east side of Brentwood Boulevard between Eager Road and
Clayton Road the area is presently over saturated with retail. Its chance for survival is very slim. To further compound the problem traffic flow
in this area is already a major problem and with the pending additional
development it will be worse. Why not
adhere to the statement of goals and objectives of the Brentwood Economic
Development Council, which is to maintain existing commercial and industrial
development, attract new commercial and industrial development to Brentwood
which will increase the local tax base, provide local employment and business
opportunities and facilitate community access to goods and services. Vote against the proposal.
Karen Smith – 8930 Harrison came
before the Board and stated that she is responding to the recent RFP issued by
the City of Brentwood on the Hanley Industrial Court area and the subsequent
proposal from MLP. She is opposed to
the Hanley Industrial proposal because it is destabilizing the
neighborhoods. What does this proposal
represent for us? What value is it
going to add to the community? What are
the goals for this project? If it is
for commercial/retail development there are several empty boxes currently in
Brentwood. There are more box type
retail establishments coming around Brentwood. Another reason that has been proposed for redevelopment in
Brentwood is to improve the residential stock, to provide more family friendly
homes to fill the schools. The proposal
for this project was for high density housing which does not provide the type
of housing for children. A number of
businesses have indicated they do not want to sell. She has not heard anyone in support of the project, so why is the
City proceeding with the proposal against opposition from viable
businesses. Developers commented that
previous developments that they have worked on have been in the outer rings of
the suburb and that they have examined the ethics behind this type of
development. She asks the developers as
well as the City to examine the ethics behind taking private property away from
businesses and residents to give them to another private developer.
Andy Truss – 2825 Brazeau came
before the Board and stated that he is a member of the MTTA Corporation and
they have had the use of eminent domain hung over their heads on a piece of
property known as suburban tracks. That
property is legally theirs as of March 30th. In order for the MTTA to move forward with
a site plan, they have to know what the position of the Board is.
Mayor Kelly suggested the Board
hold an executive session at the next meeting to discuss that situation.
Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting
Mayor Kelly stated that the City
has very dedicated employees who take the responsibilities of handling the
residents’ funds and making sure that they are allocated and kept track of in
the proper manner. The accounting
office has received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting. Mayor Kelly asked Susan
Zimmer, Finance Officer to come forward and accept the certificate for the
accounting department, which include Karen Mosby, Jackie Radovich and Dottie
Higginbotham. He cannot stress enough
how fortunate they are to have a dedicated staff that does a great job for the
City.
INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS AND
PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Bill No. 5171 will remain on
hold.
Bill No. 5229 – Construction Regulations
Applicable to New Houses
City Administrator Seemayer
stated that a memo is before the Board from City Attorney Murphy concerning
Bill No. 5229.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis
of Bill No. 5229 into the record. The
synopsis is attached to the minutes.
This Bill would amend Chapter Six of the Building Code by enacting new
regulations relating to construction of new homes. This Bill does not affect
remodeling or improvement to existing homes. The intention of this Bill is to
improve the relationship between new home construction and the existing neighbors.
The Bill has a Sunset Clause of December 31st, 2004. It is felt that
this will provide time to see if the provisions in the bill are adequate to
achieve harmony between existing homeowners and new construction.
Mayor Kelly stated that while
this bill would be on a temporary basis until the end of the year, the City
needs some tools to use while people are tearing down and building new homes,
this could still go through the process of the Planning and Zoning Commission
to be evaluated and be adopted into chapter 25 of the zoning code. Because the
City is dealing with land use, the bill will require a public hearing with at
least a fifteen-day notice.
Alderman Golfin requested his
name be added as one of the sponsors.
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Leahy to place Bill No. 5229 on hold. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Bill No. 5230 – First Amendment Redevelopment
Agreement MLP Hanley Station, LLC.
Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman
Kramer to give Bill No. 5230 first and second readings. All in favor none opposed.
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5230, AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND MLP HANLEY STATION, LLC., its first and
second readings.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis
of the bill, which is attached to the minutes. This Bill provides for
two amendments to the previously approved redevelopment agreement between the
City of Brentwood and MLP Hanley Station, LLC, the developer authorized to
redevelop two vacant parcels on Hanley Road as well as construct the extension
for Strassner Road from Hanley Road to Hanley Ind. Ct. The first amendment
grants an extension to the Developer for his closing date on the property for
RPA 2 from June 1st, 2004 to July 15th, 2004. The second
amendment changes the timing when the Developer releases two million dollars to
the City for public improvements, which may include the Strassner Road
overpass, a metro link station in the new MLP development and the relocation of
the Public Works facility. With the amendment, the Developer must release the
funds once the City receives Notice of Acquisition for RPA I which is part of
the proposed project within Hanley Industrial Court. The original agreement
required the Developer to release the funds when Notice of Acquisition was
received for RPA 2, which is the portion of the MLP project that has already
been approved by the City on Hanley Road.
Alderman Leahy asked what is in
the City’s best interest for delaying the $2 million payment for the bridge by
backing up the timing to acquisition of all property in RPA 1 when this is an
agreement for the RPA 2.
Mayor Kelly stated that the $2
million was to go originally for the construction of the Metro link stop. When Costco pulled out, the language was
changed to indicate it was going towards the bridge. The TDD was not in place at that time. It is reducing the TIF obligation on RPA 2, which is the approved
project. These were $2 million in
subordinate TIF notes.
Alderman Leahy stated on the
second page, # 2 “Funding Provision”, states that the Metro bridge could be at
grade/grade separated. Can they
establish that this is a grade-separated bridge?
Mayor Kelly said yes. When the original redevelopment agreement
was put in place they were not sure which one they were going to be
funding.
Alderman Leahy stated that within
the same paragraph, “Funding Provision” it states “. . . (b) at the option of
the City, other capital improvements within or benefiting the Redevelopment
Area as determined by the City”, he is not sure what that is referring to.
Mark Grimm – Gilmore & Bell came before the Board
and stated that in paragraph 2 “Funding Provision” of the revised draft states
“Notwithstanding the foregoing” . . . recognizes that they envision that by the
time this would occur the City’s obligation to Metro will have been satisfied
by the issuance of bonds by the TDD.
This provides that the $2 million payment would be made to the TDD and
used to make permitted transportation project improvements which were the same
improvements that were approved by the voters that can be carried out by the
TDD.
Alderman Leahy asked if he is correct that if they
pass Bill No. 5230 and the developer does not close on all the properties in
RPA 1 the $2 million commitment would not ever come due.
Mr. Grimm stated yes.
Alderman Leahy said thus they are taking a $2 million
commitment that they already have established in place for RPA 2 and possibly
putting it out and not going to collect it.
He does not see where that is a financial benefit as a City to waive
that right.
Mayor Kelly stated that they are
reducing the TIF by $2 million because these were subordinate TIF notes that
would have to be paid out of the TIF. They are lowering the finance on the TIF
notes on the first phase of the project in hopes of by having it on the second
phase there would be additional funds to build the Metro link stop. MLP will contribute $2 million by issuance
of $2 million in subordinate TIF notes.
Why would the City want to have TIF notes floating if they do not need
them for that project? Now that the
bridge is paid for by the TDD, they do not need those additional funds.
Alderman Leahy asked where in the
agreement does it establish that their TIF obligation is reduced by $2 million
other than they do not have an obligation to submit $2 million to the City for
payment but it does not say they cannot float the full TIF bonds out there.
Mayor Kelly stated that they can,
but the City is not requiring them to do it.
Mr. Grimm stated that was
included as a reimbursable project cost.
They will not have evidence of that as a reimbursable project cost when
they submit their initial request. They
will not be able to submit a certificate saying they incurred a cost under this
category.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated in
regards to the $2 million that they won’t be submitting for reimbursement, how
is this going to end up on RPA 1.
Mayor Kelly stated if they move
forward on project area 1 they would have to issue a $2 million note to the
City on notice of property acquisition, meaning that they have closed on the
project and it is moving forward.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that in
addition to the $18 million for areas 1 & 3, they are bumping it to $20
million.
Chris Ho stated that the $2
million is in the $18 million amount.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked if the
Metro link stop would be built there and who will eventually pay for it?
Mayor Kelly stated that it is not
in the budget for this project. Metro
link has made it known that if the City wants a stop there the City will have
to fund it. Their goal with RPA 2,
which is the project that was approved, was not to build a Metro link
stop. Their goal with approving the MLP
project on Hanley Road was using that project to fund a new road going from
Hanley Industrial Court out to Hanley Road.
That is the main benefit of that project to the City.
Mayor Kelly stated the other
thing that is in this bill is extending the closing date from June 1st
until July 15th because the developer has run into mines underneath
the site. They want to take some more
samples to determine if that is going to be a major increase in cost of their
project before they close on the property.
They have asked that the City extend their closing date until July so
they could get all that testing done and run their numbers again to make sure
it still fits into their projected cost.
If they don’t move forward with the closing of the property by July 15,
the City would issue another RFP for the Hanley Road site, the Walsh and Serta
properties, with the goal of using whatever is built there as the funding
source for the new roadway from Hanley Road to Hanley Industrial Court Drive.
Alderman Golfin stated as he see
it the voters have approved the Strassner TDD as financing and funding for
these improvements. That is an
additional motivation to use that sort of funding for the project as they are
heading in that direction.
Alderman Leahy stated that the
difference being is that one sales tax is based strictly for the TDD where they
have no other obligations of diminishing the financial return to cover the
school and the City.
Mayor Kelly stated that the TDD
is a new sales tax generated specifically for that use.
Alderman Leahy stated that the
person paying the tax is the person buying the merchandise with the retail
shops.
Mayor Kelly stated that the City
is not obligated by TIF notes but it is City revenues that are paying those TIF
notes. It is the school district and
the other taxing districts’ property taxes that are paying back those TIF notes
as well.
Alderman Leahy requested that
line 3, paragraph 2, be changed to read “grade separated crossing”.
Mr. Grimm indicated that would be
changed.
Motion was made by Alderman
Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Bill No. 5230 as
amended. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5230 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3932.
Resolution No. 907
– Preferred Developer and Preliminary Funding Agreement
Mayor Kelly stated it is
important for everyone to understand that by approving the preferred
developer’s status with the resolution it would put into place a funding
agreement so the City can evaluate the residents and business owners concerns
about Hanley Industrial Court. The next
step would be to enter into a redevelopment agreement with the developer, which
would be the main document that would move the project forward. Mayor Kelly asked Chris Ho with MLP to come
forward with the revised site plan.
Mayor Kelly stated that it would
not be in the best interest of the City to have any kind of project move
forward that is going to hinder not only the existing businesses but also the
future of the community. One of the
things that are very important is relocation. They would like to relocate most
of those businesses back in Brentwood.
Chris Ho – MLP Hanley Station LLC
came before the Board and stated he is here to present the revised project for
RPA 1 & 3. The concept has stayed
the same throughout this process. They
are proposing a mixed-use project within this redevelopment area that is a
combination of retail on the ground floor, residential above and an
entertainment center that is the heart of RPA 1 area, which was the old Costco
site.
They are underway with RPA 2 in
terms of doing geo-technical and environmental investigations on that site and
moving forward with that project. RPA 3
which is immediately west to RPA 2 is a continuation of that concept of RPA 2
which is a mixed-use situation predesigned to take advantage of what will be a
future Metro link station. It
encourages pedestrian friendly activities with retail and activity on the ground
and very importantly reintroduces more residential within this area. It enhances residences that bring stability
to the City. RPA 3 will be timed in
such a way that it will be staggered after RPA 2. RPA 1 will be tenant driven.
Since this project is an entertainment center, they have had a number of
interested movie theater operators. The
movie theater aspect has been very positive and supports entertainment-based
retail that has been designed within that area. The changes that you see on the actual project as opposed to the
initial project are within RPA 3 the project area is from Strassner Drive north
only. There are no inclusions of any
properties to the south of Strassner Drive.
They have refined some aspects within RPA 1 by creating another urban
street that comes down and allows for drop off for the movie theater. They have been able to put retail shops
along the front of the parking structure.
The movie theater has been reorganized.
They are up top and the lobby is on grade. The theater venues are raised.
There is parking structures immediately behind and the overflow surface
parking is behind. Because of the
strength of the movie theater interest they have been able to speak to the
movie theater operators and all of them on a preliminary basis have been
agreeable to an additional 50-cent ticket tax.
The revenues from the 50-cent ticket tax which is estimated to be about
$500,000 a year will go to the Brentwood School District.
Jim Lahay – Stifel Nicolaus came
before the Board and stated that projects of this nature normally require some
type of public assistance. In this case
they are talking about TIF and TDD.
They try to look at these projects at this stage as to what is being
proposed and make a determination based on that project once it is built out
what revenues would likely be generated from it and what it could support.
Development Strategies makes a projection as to what the incremental revenues
would be from a TIF standpoint and if a transportation development sales tax was
imposed what it would support. They are
generally in agreement at this stage that both the TIF and TDD would support
about $18 million, approximately $12 million would be TIF and the balance which
is the $6 million would be TDD. TIFs
have a 23-year statutory life in Missouri, so you have 23 years to pay off
those obligations. When they analyze it
they want to make sure it can be paid off in 15 years. They have sales tax and real estate
taxes. Half of the new sales taxes that
are generated by this development go to pay off TIF obligations and the other
half go to the municipality. In this
case, they are assuming that the municipality will keep its half of those sales
taxes and would only use the statutory portion to pay off the TIF
obligations. If it turns out that the
project changes, market changes and interest rates are higher and the TIF and
TDD would only support for instance $16 million then the City would only issue
TIF bonds for $16 million not $18 million.
The City would never be in a position of issuing bonds for more than it
can support.
Alderman Robertson asked what is
the proposed tax rate. Would it be the
same as the rest of the surrounding shopping areas?
Mayor Kelly stated the sales tax
would be the same as Brentwood Pointe.
Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Lahay
to go through the brief mental gymnastics for the residents to help them
understand the difference of the existing tax base and how that tax
preservation will stay in place going forward.
Mr. Lahay stated that when they
do a TIF there is a “base” established, based upon certain value (of tax
revenues already established), for a property.
Once this project is completed, the (new) value will be much greater
than what the base is right now. The
difference between the two, the increment, is captured by the TIF, both in the
way of sales taxes and in the way of real estate taxes. So, the base taxes and the new increment
taxes are all still being paid. Up to
the point of where the base is they are going to the various taxing districts. They are capturing that difference, the
‘increment’. That difference is what is
used to pay off TIF obligations.
Alderman Kramer stated so the
existing base stays in place and goes to the various taxing districts as they
always have been. In this particular
case you are talking about a unique component, which would separate out some
revenue from the movie theater that would send it additionally to one of the
taxing districts.
Mr. Lahay stated that there would
be an amount that they have agreed to pay that would simply be passed on
directly to the school district.
Mr. Lahay stated that he has been
doing this for 15 years and he has worked with a lot of municipalities
throughout the state of Missouri, counties and Brentwood has gone to great
lengths to try to recognize the impact TIFs and TDD have on other taxing
districts. In order to get these TIFs
paid off as quickly as possible, so that all taxing districts could start
realizing the full potential, the City has agreed to use its municipal sales taxes
to pay off the debt quicker. They try
to keep track of how they are paying off.
They and the City monitors it monthly and they are all paying off very
well, either slightly ahead of schedule or on schedule.
Alderman Leahy asked what is the
time frame to get something moving on RPA 1.
Mr. Ho stated that they would
finish with RPA 2, assess how the project did in terms of the market
conditions, if it were positive they would then begin RPA 3. RPA 3 would be a subsequent phase to RPA 2.
Their initial response from the tenants has been very positive. If that continues to be positive they would
move on it immediately. As long as they
have interest from the tenants they will move on that project right away, so it
is not reliant on what happens with RPA 2 or 3 but exists on its own depending
on tenant response.
Alderman Leahy asked what is the
cost to the City of Brentwood while they go through these exercises to the
current businesses that are there.
Alderman Golfin stated as this
TIF financing is now conceived with the 50 cent ticket charge at the movie
theater which they hope will proceed on tenant demand, is it correct that the
immediate impact on City current budget will be practically none and the
immediate impact on the school district budget will be a plus $500,000 to
$700,000.
Mayor Kelly stated that the City
would see an increase of 50% of the new sales tax revenue. The agreement that was put in place with the
past TIFs has been that the City only $300,000 of new sales tax revenue from those
projects. Everything else went to pay
back the TIF earlier.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that the
term “will support this” was used and they have done those projections and
figured out how much risk they do not have to assume.
Mr. Lahay stated that when he
said what it would support, he meant that the project would generate a certain
amount of TDD and TIF revenues. Based
on that flow of revenues it would support paying off TIF and TDD notes. You have a certain cost of this development
and the public assistance part of it is a reasonable and acceptable part of
it.
Mayor Kelly stated that the
developer’s TIF request will have to go through the TIF process. A TIF Commission will have to be
formed. The developer will have to make
his presentation and his request for the TIF amount to the TIF Commission,
which will go through an evaluation of what it can support and what is
eligible. They would evaluate the
amount and make a recommendation to the City.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that the
designers involved have made a point in this meeting and in earlier meetings
that they are moving the land requirements north and no longer breathing down
the necks of Access Courier and Southside Roofing. Both of them said they would love to eventually take over the whole
Court. She does not think those people should feel they have dodged a bullet.
Mayor Kelly stated that he does
not think anybody heard them say that they would love to take over the whole
Court.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that
they said there was definitely the development potential. She has the feeling that they have excluded
two of the biggest property owners to get this thing going, but they have made
no secret they think the whole Court would make wonderful single-family
development.
Richard Ward – Development
Strategies came before the Board and stated that he never said they would love
to take over the whole Court. This is a
comprehensive development for an urban street.
He does not know where the future may lie for the rest of the
Court. They will be asked to evaluate
that to some degree with the funds that will be made available through the
funding agreement. They have to do a
cost benefit analysis, which is required by law under the TIF. This is more complex than most of them
because it does raise issues like how will this affect the other businesses in
the area and how will it affect the businesses that are in RPA 1, 2, and
3. What is the City gaining and losing
in this process. He is impressed with
what MLP is doing with the nature of the project. It is a credit to the City.
It is a major benefit in terms of Strassner Drive being improved. It offsets some of the complexities on Eager
Road. It also opens the door for the
prospect of a light rail station there.
It sets a new tone for the community with a mixed-use development. He has to beg the question a bit as to what
might happen next. What the impacts and
benefits might be to the City and the surrounding area in terms of this project
and its multiplier affect over time?
Alderman Leahy said referring to
the preliminary funding agreement in the paragraph addressing “advance of
funds” it establishes a $20,000 initial payment with an additional $20,000 to
be available. Is there any set limit as
to how much funds the City can continue requesting?
Mr. Grimm stated that there is no
limit. If at any time the City’s cost
exceed the amount set forth in the estimate the developer would be required to
advance additional funds or the City could stop the process.
Alderman Leahy asked if the funds
stated on page 2, paragraph 4 (a) “repayment of preliminary funds expended”,
and are subject to being covered by the TIF notes that would eventually be
issued out.
Mr. Grimm stated yes.
Alderman Leahy stated on page 3,
letter (c) no dollar amount is established.
Is this point open for discussion with MLP?
Mayor Kelly stated that still has
to go through the process of the TIF Commission.
Alderman Leahy stated that
paragraph 6, “MLP’s right to termination” is based solely on their discretion
of whether or not they wish to continue forward. Is there a way of putting in a recoupable fee for whatever the
City has done towards the Court?
Mr. Ward stated that if anything
a lot of this would cause property values to go up rather than go down which can
be detrimental to some of the people who operate businesses there now. There is no question that when there is an
issue like this hanging out there it does freeze everything up. People stop making decisions.
Motion was made by Alderman
Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Resolution No. 907. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Mayor Kelly stated he has
prepared a resolution, which is important for property owners in Hanley
Industrial Court as well as the rest of the City. He is asking the Board to consider putting a moratorium on the
City issuing RFPs until the Comprehensive Plan is completed. The only exception would be that if the MLP
project for RPA 2 did not move forward they would issue an RFP for that site
because the City is committed to building that road. It is in the best interest of the City that the Board considers
this resolution unless the property owners initiate it with written request to
the City; the City would not initiate any RFPs until after the Comprehensive
Plan is completed. He would like the
resolution considered for the next meeting.
The other resolution deals with
MSD and their flood buyout for Hanley Industrial Court area. MSD has designated funds for buyout in the
flood way. The initial funds allocated
were $4 million. They have already
spent a significant amount of this money in Maplewood with buying out areas in
the flood way. They understand by
making improvements there is no way they are going to be able to bring it out
of the flood way so it is cheaper to buy the properties out. The resolution is supporting MSD with their
buyout efforts for properties they have designated as being in the flood area.
He requested the resolution go to committee for evaluation.
ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Cross to approve the revised warrant list dated
5/3/04. All in favor none opposed.
Alderman Leahy stated they have
seen scanning charges for City Hall documents on the warrant list. How far along are they at getting those
documents completed?
City Administrator Seemayer
stated that they are almost finished. They are just working on some drawings,
etc.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND
DEPARTMENT HEADS:
Mayor’s Report
Mayor Kelly stated National Day
of Prayer is Thursday, May 6th.
There will be an event at City Hall at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday.
Mayor Kelly stated that they have
met with engineers with respect to the Strassner Road TDD. That project will start to move
forward. It is estimated that Eager
Road improvements would not take place until next spring. It would take about 90 to 120 days to get
the plans drawn and approved by St. Louis County.
The improvements to Wrenwood will
be completed this summer. If they could
get the engineering done and depending on the time it takes to order the
bridge, they could see some trail work done in the parks as part of that TDD.
Mayor Kelly stated that Maplewood
has an ordinance in place where they inspect the inside and outside of all
rental property once a year. That would
be a good ordinance to look at and potentially adopt in the City of Brentwood.
Public Safety Committee
– No report
Public Works Committee
– No report
City Engineer – No
report
Parks – No report
Zoning Administrator
– No report
Ways and Means Committee
– No report
Planning and Zoning
– No report
City Attorney – No
report
City Clerk/Administrator
– No report
Director of Economic Development
Excise Commissioner
Consumption of Intoxicating
Liquor License – Time for Dinner, LLC/8506 Manchester Road
City Administrator Seemayer
stated that this liquor license needs to be removed from the agenda. If the business wants to pursue the liquor
license, it would require a conditional use permit. Zoning Administrator Wolf will be notifying them of that.
Library – No report
Municipal League –
No report
Waste Management Commission – No
further report
Storm Water Management
– No report
Communication – No
report
Insurance Committee
– No report
Historical Society
– No report
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
Alderman Kramer stated that the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee had a vote. He asked Economic Development Director Shelton to go over some of
the things of the meeting.
Mr. Shelton stated that they have
narrowed their list to three consultants to ask to submit specific RFPs. There would be further interviews after they
submit written proposals and specific fee proposals.
Mr. Shelton stated that the Post
Office is scheduled to move around May 15th. Drop off boxes will be located outside of
the Recreation Center.
NEW BUSINESS
Meeting
Alderman Leahy stated that a Ward
3 meeting would be held Tuesday night May 26th at 7:00 p.m.
Recycle
The City of Brentwood received a
grant from the St. Louis Health Department for the Boy Scouts to start pushing
aluminum can recycling. They have put
two recycle collection stations at St. Mary Magdalen, YMCA, and Walgreens to
help increase the aluminum can recycle.
The money that is raised from the recycling of cans goes to fund the
Boys Scouts Troop 361 at St. Mary Magdalen program.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Alderman
Kramer, second by Alderman Leahy to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. All in favor none opposed.
Pat
Kelly, Mayor
Attest:
Chris Seemayer, City Clerk