MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
City Hall March
7, 2005
Council Chambers 7:00
p.m.
The Mayor led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Present: Mayor
Kelly, Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Marshall, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Golfin, Alderman
Kramer, Alderman Robertson, Alderman Wynn and Alderman Cross.
City Attorney
Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Zoning Administrator Wolf, Director
of Economic Development Shelton and Executive Secretary Williams.
Absent:None.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR
BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2005
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt the Agenda of the Regular Board
of Aldermen Meeting of March 7, 2005.
Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen,
yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2005
Correction:
Page 5, second paragraph should
read, “. . . patrons are not supposed to bring open alcoholic beverages outside
. . . ”
Motion was made by Alderman
Robertson, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt the Minutes of the
Regular Board of Aldermen meeting of February 7, 2005 as amended. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
BIDS – 2005 ONE TON DUMP & PLOW TRUCK
City Administrator Seemayer
stated that bids were opened on Tuesday, February 22nd for the
purpose of purchasing a new one-ton dump and plow truck. The following bids were received:
F&C
Truck Sales & Service, Inc. $38,024.00
Feld
Chevrolet $32,720.00
Bo
Beuckman West County $31,851.00
Reuther
Ford, Inc. $30,952.00
Pundmann
Ford $34,717.13
Broadway
Ford $35,733.85
Mayor Kelly stated the bids would
be referred to the Public Works Committee for discussion.
HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF
ANY PERSON PRESENT – None
INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND
RESOLUTIONS
Continued Public Hearing – ARB/Amending Chapter 25
Mayor Kelly announced the public
hearing would now be continued for the ARB/Bill No. 5270.
Al Cross – 9409 White Avenue came
before the Board and stated he is formerly a member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and is a member of the ARB in its current form. He favors the Cross/Kramer ARB
proposal. It is well designed to
respond to the concerns that arise from homeowners in the area. Based on the assumption that the Board has
described in the Cross/Kramer proposal they can talk to the Board of Aldermen
and the Board can guide it. It has the
potential to avoid the various fears that have been listed along the way. The current ARB has met twice since the bill
was introduced and has started the process.
The two applicants that have faced the ARB under its current form were
treated fairly and he thought the process was efficient and both were approved
unanimously, without a great deal of negative comments. He believes the Cross/Kramer bill offers the
possibility of an even more efficient process.
Brett Tatko – 1926 Parkridge
Avenue came before the Board and encouraged the Board to strongly consider the
Cross/Kramer proposal. He supports Mr.
Cross in his opinion that it offers a more efficient process and it also offers
better protection for the residents in the community in having some control
over the type of construction that is going to be occurring in their
neighborhoods.
Mayor Kelly stated he appreciates
the comments and looks forward to the Board’s passage of Bill No. 5270. It is a start in reassuring the residents
that the City has concerns. Builders
are willing to invest in the community and improve the housing stock, which is
vital to the future of this community, but at the same time they want to make
sure they take into account the concerns of the residents.
Motion was made by Alderman Marshall, second by Alderman
Golfin to give Bills No. 5270, 5271, 5272, 5273 and 5274 first and second
readings. All in favor none opposed.
Bill No. 5270 –
Architectural Review Board
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5270, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY
DELETING SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-63 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS
25-58 THROUGH 25-63; BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-118 IN THEIR ENTIRETY;
BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-118 ALL OF WHICH DEALS WITH THE
ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING FOR
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first reading.
City Administrator Seemayer stated that some of the
sections that were mentioned need to be amended. Section 25-63 and Sections 25-116 through 25-118 does not
exist. They are reserved sections.
Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman
Cross to amend Bill No. 5270 by changing the section numbers to read Section
25-58 through 25-62 and 25-113 through 25-115.
Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen,
yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Second Reading of Bill No. 5270 as Amended
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5270, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY
DELETING SECTIONS 25-58 THROUGH 25-62 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS
25-58 THROUGH 25-62; BY DELETING SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-115 IN THEIR
ENTIRETY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 25-113 THROUGH 25-115 ALL OF WHICH DEALS WITH
THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING
FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its second reading.
Alderman Leahy stated page 3,
Section 25-59 establishes who makes up the committee members of the ARB, but it
also establishes that the three members would be required to be licensed
architects and the building commissioner.
In Section 25-63 they establish that two members shall constitute a quorum. He asked for clarification whether the two
architectural members plus the building commissioner or the building
commissioner and one architect constitute a quorum to have a meeting.
Alderman Kramer stated under
Section 25-59, paragraph (a) it states that the building commissioner shall be
a member for his tenure as building commissioner but shall only be authorized
to vote on matters before the ARB to resolve a tie vote.
Alderman Leahy stated when you
are calling for a quorum in the way of a meeting being held, that member would
not have to be a mandatory member being there.
Alderman Kramer stated in Section
25-63 as a point of clarification it would be advisable to make the
clarification that two members plus the building commissioner shall constitute
a quorum.
Alderman Leahy stated in Section
25-113, no distinction is made on the construction or work on a building in
this case residential. If you are doing
regular maintenance to your home, in this bill, you could end up being required
to submit sealed plans to do that work, if it requires a building permit, i.e.
third roof on the house or replacing windows.
He asked if they should put that extensive of a requirement of sealed
architectural drawing plans for what could be constituted as routine
maintenance of the home.
Alderman Kramer stated the
schematic site plan as itemized in Section 25-113 (a)(1) is all that is
required. This kicks in only if there
is a change to the exterior of the building that requires building permit. If you were just doing maintenance on your
building that would not require a building permit.
Alderman Leahy stated if you were
replacing the windows in this bill you end up now requiring a building permit
according to the housing authority here.
Mayor Kelly stated the way it was
explained from the zoning administrator’s standpoint was only if you were
changing the size of the windows then you would have to have a building permit.
Alderman Robertson asked how far
do they go in looking into things like siding replacement or painting, etc.
Mayor Kelly stated those issues
were talked about extensively in the Planning and Zoning Commission
meetings. Once this is established and
the ARB is appointed and in place they are going to make recommendations to
make some of those adjustments to what may or may not need their approval. At the moment he does not think it is the
intent of the bill to pick out the color of siding and so forth when someone is
replacing siding on the home.
Alderman Wynn stated he is not an
architect. He has an education degree
and taught school. He has learned a lot
in the two meetings they have had. He
has a concern about all the members having to be architects. It would not be too bad to have a citizen
serve on that board that knows what he wants out of his community. It would be good to have someone on the ARB
to bring a different view and something fresh.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated she too
shares the concern that all three members must be architects and also the two
alternate members. She does not know
enough about population statistics to know that the City has five registered
architects and at all times will.
People have been talking to her about this issue and they think that
this will stop infill housing. There is
nothing in the bill that will stop infill housing. She asked if the word “quorum” in Section 25-62 should be deleted
and placed in Section 25-63 in “Meetings”.
Alderman Kramer stated that
change would be advisable.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated she has the highest respect for Aldermen
Cross/Kramer but she feels they are treading dangerously close to a
constitutional issue. Someone who owns
their land should be the controlling factor.
When she reads Section 25-114 Consideration, it is her fear that should
this board become a battleground of some sort, builders will be blocked from
proceeding. With no hard, fast
guidelines, she feels this is like posting a sign that says speed limit
enforced but you never put up the speed limit.
As the board changes and building styles change, why would you feel
comfortable leaving it without the specific guidelines?
Alderman Kramer stated that
through their efforts to review the other communities that have used an ARB
successfully they have patterned in great part this bill after two particular
communities, which is Webster Groves and Ladue. All their members are architects. Some communities have a great substantial amount of architectural
input. What their particular proposal
does is allow for notification to the neighbors of a proposed development. It allows residents to have input in the
development that they were not notified of before into the process. Residents are then knowledgeable about where
the development is proposed and can be a part of the process. The architect component of the bill allows
for a more efficient handling of the matter and perhaps a way for the procedure
to be helpful to the builders as well as the community.
As far as stopping infill
development, the ARB process in general does a great deal to help and protect
the residents who live in the community and take away the fear of them coming
home wondering what’s going to happen to the home that just got knocked down
next door to them. They will already be
aware of it and have had input into the process. This bill will allow the builders to see that not anything
goes. They are going to be working with
architects who speak the same language so they could have a good
interaction. The communities that have
used this successfully have an appeal process in place much the same that
Brentwood is proposing. If the process
did not work or was not a good fit for those communities they would have had an
extended amount of appeals against that process. It allows for an inclusive process with regards to the neighbors,
members of the community that would be either directly or indirectly across the
street or around the corner within a specified number of feet would have an
idea about what’s going on and be able to offer input into the project.
Alderman Wynn stated they have to
remember to be flexible because what they need on Parkridge may not be what
they need on a street in Ward 2 or 3.
Alderman Golfin stated they have
been debating this issue for several months.
The character of the infill housing has not been appropriate to the
neighborhood in some cases. He sees
where a three-story frame house goes up next to a series of bungalows and ranch
houses, which is not at all suitable.
They had nothing to address that at that time. He felt pretty helpless in responding to those residents because
there was nothing in the ordinances that could be used to enforce some
constructive action on that. He has
indicated that he is opposing Bill No. 5271, which is the bill that applied
stringent standards, which in his mind they really do not know at this
time. It would be a mistake to go into
stringent standards because it would do exactly what some of the alderpersons
here have expressed, that it would discourage infill building, which they
certainly do not want. They want more
residential. On the other hand he feels that they must take some action to move
forward. In his mind it is like going
down the road on a path that they have never taken before. There is no doubt in his mind that as they
proceed they will develop the standards as they see necessary. Those standards may have to be
characteristics of sections of the City, so they have to look at those very
carefully and deliberately. He strongly
supports Bill No. 5270 and encourages its passage.
Alderman Leahy stated Section
25-62 is establishing that the ARB has the right to establish a cost for their
planned review. At what time will this
cost be established by the ARB if the bill is approved? Are there any guidelines that the City
wishes to give this board as to what would make that fee reasonable versus
unreasonable?
Alderman Kramer stated that
particular item in terms of the amount of the cost or the type of fee schedule
would be right at the top of the agenda for one of the first meetings of the
ARB. As far as the actual cost, he does
not believe that the language is such that they are giving the members a blank
check to charge something unreasonable to the community. The other communities that have used this
same framework have the same language in the process and have used it
successfully.
Mayor Kelly stated the idea is to
cover the City’s cost associated with the process, not necessarily charge a fee
to be charging a fee.
Alderman Robertson stated it is
important that they pass the bill tonight so they could get the process started
for the protection of the neighborhoods.
This does not have a lower limit on many things that would be excessive
to run through ARB and put builders through the delay and cost. He does not think the ARB has any business
looking at some things, so he would like to establish that as soon as possible.
Motion was made by Alderman
Kramer, second by Alderman Cross to amend Bill No. 5270 by deleting the word
“quorum” from Sec. 25-62 and adding it to Sec. 25-63, clarify the paragraph in
Sec. 25-63 to read “Two members plus the building commissioner shall constitute
a quorum . . .” Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Mayor Kelly stated that as the
process moves forward the builders that want to invest in the community need to
understand that it is the City’s goal to work with them and to promote new
housing in the community.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5270 which is
attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman
Cross to approve and adopt Bill No. 5270 as amended. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5270 duly passed and
signed same into approval thereof. Said
Bill was given Ordinance No. 3968.
Alderman Robertson stated his position has been that they
need to move forward with more clarity and set standards. Something that could benefit to all
neighborhoods to make sure that there is consistency maintained or to encourage
consistency where there is none now.
This bill is more in that direction but they will have to go a long way
to get to that point.
Alderman Kramer stated the process the City has undertaken
quite expensively with the comprehensive plan, is going to take some time. There are some good opportunities for the
residents to have input into the comprehensive plan. Some of that input as it is disseminated may impact the types of
choices that are made. That the ARB or
the Planning and Zoning Commission may make in helping to formulate those
various line items or standards for an ARB.
The process that they have fortunately now begun will get them to the
point where they could work those in there.
He applauded the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sheri Bilderbach and
John Nornbuerger and some other members who struggled at great length with that
particular concept and acknowledged efforts knowing that the process will
continue. They will be looking for more
of their input as well as the newly formatted ARB to get them to standards that
are voiced from the residents as well as from the elected officials to make
them as good as they can be going forward.
Alderman Wynn stated he has found that over the years it
is very difficult to change legislation once it is in place because the Board
changes, and people’s ideas changes.
Alderman Golfin stated in passing this bill he does not
feel that they have indicated that they are not going to support standards,
certainly they are. They do not know
what those are in specificity until they have some indication of where the comprehensive
plan is going and until they have some experience with the new ARB. They are kind of in unchartered waters if
they have no standards to go by. He is
confident that because there is a final appeal to the Board of Aldermen with
any question that comes up in the interim they can review that and go forward
with no impediment to the infill residential construction.
Continued Public Hearing – ARB Standards/Amending Chapter 25
Mayor Kelly announced the public
hearing would now be continued for the ARB Standards/Bill No. 5271.
Scott Stinson – 8624 Eulalie came
before the Board and encouraged them to pass something to protect the integrity
of the neighborhood.
With no further comments from the
audience, Mayor Kelly announced both public hearings for the ARB would now be
closed at 7:30 p.m.
Bill No. 5271 –
Architectural Review Board Standards
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5271, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY
AMENDING SECTION 25-115(a); BY ADDING NEW SUB-SECTIONS 25-253(d)(8) AND
25-254(d)(8); PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.
Alderman Cross requested that her name be removed as
sponsorship from the bill.
Alderman Golfin stated as he understands it because the
bill must come forward whether it is going to be approved or not by the Board,
it is generally the convention to list all aldermen on the bill, not
necessarily sponsoring it or supporting it but in order to bring it to the
Board. He would like his name removed
from the bill if it infers that he does support it.
Alderman Marshall requested his name be removed as well.
Alderman Leahy stated Bill No. 5271 has in it the repeal
of all conflicting ordinances. He would
like to point out that this bill and Bill No. 5270 have different appeal
processes from the same ARB decisions.
That puts the two bills in conflict with each other. He asked City Attorney Murphy if both bills
are passed which bill presides.
City Attorney Murphy stated whichever one is going to be
repealed with what is inconsistent, so it does not make a whole lot of
difference.
To clarify his question, Alderman Leahy stated both bills
give different appeal methods from the ARB decisions that go to different
bodies for a final resolve which he doesn’t think is in their best interest but
because they are in conflict with each other it says that you would repeal the
conflict. Which bill would end up being
the correct process for an appeal through an ARB decision?
City Attorney Murphy stated since Bill No. 5271 was not
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission it is going to require a ¾
vote to pass, so there is going to be an academic discussion.
Alderman Kramer stated following up with Alderman Golfin’s
comments earlier he understands that it is their fiduciary responsibility to
take those measures that are brought to them from the Planning and Zoning
Commission and act upon them. However
it would appear that just based on the language, introduced by, at the top of
the bill may not be completely accurate in this case as well. He requested his name be removed from
sponsorship of the bill.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5271 which is
attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman Golfin, second by Alderman
Wynn to consider approval of Bill No. 5271.
Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen,
no; Alderman Marshall, no; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Golfin, no; Alderman
Kramer, no; Alderman Robertson, no; Alderman Wynn, no; Alderman Cross, no.
Bill No. 5271 failed.
Bill No. 5272 – No
Parking Except by Permit
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5272, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3965 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI BY AMENDING THE TWO NEW PARAGRAPHS ADDED TO SECTION
14-1038, SCHEDULE LL, NO PARKING EXCEPT BY PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT
MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE;
AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; its first and
second readings.
Alderman Cross stated this bill was passed at the last
meeting. The ordinance should have read
from Thursday through Sunday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and they passed it
reading from Thursday through Saturday from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis of Bill No. 5272 which is
attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman
Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5272.
Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen,
yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman
Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5272 duly passed and
signed same into approval thereof. Said
Bill was given Ordinance No. 3967.
Presentation by U.S. Postal Service
Leonard Stevens – 4925 Fairview
Avenue, IL came before the Board and stated he is a real estate specialist with
the U.S. Postal Service. In conformance
with their community relation procedures they have been making presentations in
communities where some action needs to be taken with the current postal
facility. The present post office was
occupied on a temporary basis due to an emergency situation. They must now seek a permanent solution to
provide quality service to the City of Brentwood. After consulting with the Post Master they will need
approximately 8,000 square feet of an interior space. To meet this requirement they will consider relocating to another
building or constructing a new building on a site that is approximately 74,000
square feet. In identifying a building
or site every effort will be made to maintain it within the business area of
the City of Brentwood. They will wait
15 days for comments for this action from officials or the public. Any comments should be addressed to him at
the Great Lakes Facility Service Office in Blommingdale, IL.
Mayor Kelly asked if the 74,000
square feet breaks down to about 1¼ acre.
Mr. Stevens stated yes.
Alderman Kramer stated there was
talk when the post office departed the City that if they came back they were
going to come back as a store front only and not a sort facility. Has that changed?
Mr. Stevens stated at the moment they are looking for a whole post
office, which would include retail and carriers as well. After the 15-day comment period, a letter
will be sent to Mayor Kelly explaining to him their procedure in going ahead
with the project. That will be posted
for 30 days at the post office and at City Hall, after which time he will be
advertising for the proposed building or site and that will take 30 days. Once that is finished and it is determined
that there are sites available a letter is again sent to the Mayor explaining
their options for selection which is posted for 30 days for the public and
governmental comments. After that time
they will have their site specific and the U.S. Postal Service will choose a
site, which will be announced to the Mayor.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated like
every City their tax base is what keeps them afloat. Is it not a consideration to split the store front from the
processing?
Mr. Stevens stated that he does
not have an answer to that question at this time.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked when you
advertise for a site if nothing is forthcoming given that you are a government
entity how would you normally proceed.
Mr. Stevens stated he would
address that if and when that situation arises.
Alderman Leahy asked if the post
office would be more inclined to purchase the property or lease it.
Mr. Stevens stated they would
probably lease the property but would weigh both options.
Alderman Robertson asked if he is
correct in that the post office has a one-year lease with a one-year option at
its present site.
Mr. Stevens stated the increments
are a little different but it is a short-term lease.
Mayor Kelly stated there is a lot
of support in the Brentwood community for bringing the post office back. The City looks forward to working with the
post office and having them open up as soon as possible.
Presentation by Parks Department
Mayor Kelly introduced Dana
Lewis, Recreation Superintendent, George Kroenung, Parks Superintendent and
Craig Strohbeck, Ice Arena Superintendent of the Brentwood Parks and Recreation
Department. He thanked them for
managing the Parks Department as a team since the parks director resigned about
eight months ago. He stated that they
have been doing a very good job and the City appreciates it.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated last fall at the Ways and Means Committee meeting they started looking
at the future of the recreational facility because of some major repairs that
need to be done to the building because of its age which is 30 years old.
Dana Lewis, Craig Strohbeck and
George Kroenung came before the Board and gave an overview of the facilities
they manage as a team, the parks department accomplishments, the parks
department system in 1991 vs. 2005 and beyond, responsibilities and functions
of the parks department and residents desires, etc. They also touched on the importance of committing funds to the
parks department, the needs of the community as it relates to recreation, why
upgrading the recreation complex and ice arena is the most cost effective
alternative to meet the needs of the community, and future parks needs. The entire presentation is attached to the
minutes.
Alderman Kramer stated he and Mr.
Strohbeck had a conversation some time back about smaller blocks of time for
renting of the rooms to generate some more revenue. He asked how was that working out?
Mrs. Lewis stated they were
working on an eight-hour time span.
This year their residents and non-residents are able to do a four-hour
minimum, which has been working very well.
They have been getting more people into the facility with that
change.
Alderman Kramer asked how would
Brentwood’s ice time be rated versus other communities or rinks that are
leasing.
Mr. Strohbeck stated those prices
would be going up effective May 31st at the start of the new hockey
season. The rink is currently very low
in pricing. St. Louis County is the
only facility lower than Brentwood on indoor rentals. Outdoor rentals tend to be a little less expensive.
Alderman Kramer stated there was
a question when the needs study came out as far as resident uses of the ice
rink versus non-resident uses. The main
reason that he is aware of that many of the residents go to the Heights is the
ability to work out. If they have one
of the meeting rooms at the complex dedicated as a workout room maybe they
wouldn’t have to send so many of the residents over to the Heights.
Mr. Strohbeck stated it would be
expensive to go with commercialized equipment, which is what they would need to
provide a quality experience for the residents. However, they could introduce a few select items. He has looked into using the party room at
down times with some equipment. With
that alternative storage becomes an issue because they have a lack of storage
at the community center.
Alderman Golfin stated that he
agrees that the unique feature of the
recreational complex is the ice rink.
Certainly there is one thing that they want to have that is unique and
not readily available elsewhere, but he is concerned about the improvements and
upkeep as well. In the needs of the
Brentwood Recreational Complex a number of major improvements are listed with
some broad estimates for the cost. Some
of those items appear to be fairly large but there is no number. What would a new ice arena compressor and
overall system and a new roof entail?
Mr. Kroenung stated he is still
working on the numbers but it would probably be around ½ million dollars. A new roof is probably about $100,000.
Alderman Marshall stated when the
needs assessment survey came out one of the major things that residents wanted
was more walking trails. He remembers
sitting down with the previous director and looking for areas throughout the
City to put more trails. He asked
where on the west side of Brentwood would you put more parks. When you look at the map there is nowhere on
the west side to go.
Mr. Strohbeck stated that if they
work with the overall parks system for the St. Louis community there is a
potential that those costs could be shared.
They are looking at coming out of Lorraine Davis’ Park in Webster Groves
and wind behind what is now the new Webster Groves public works facility,
potentially crossing over into Brentwood Park on either the east or west
side. That would address all the
residents south of Manchester on the west side of town. To reach the rest of the residents on the
west side they could do street trails, and designate a bikeway or walkway along
the street. There are certain areas
they could cross and then connect eventually into Tilles Park. There is hope in working as a larger
regional capacity to expand trails throughout St. Louis.
Alderman Marshall stated one of
the concerns he has with going through residential neighborhoods is they have
parking problems and if you take away one side of the street you would have
people very upset.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked when does
the 1993 bond issue expire.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated in 2012.
Bills No. 5273 and 5274
Mayor Kelly requested after Bills
No. 5273 and 5274 regarding the MLP project is given the first readings they be
placed on hold. In talks with MLP,
since they closed on the final piece of property a week or so ago there needed
to be some adjustments with the redevelopment agreement to set some timetables
in place for construction and so forth and the issuance of the TIF notes. One of the biggest changes to the
redevelopment agreement is that MLP is withdrawing as the preferred developer
for RPA 1 and 3. This lifted any cloud
for redevelopment in Hanley Industrial Court.
Part of the reason for that is because of the private investment they
have begun to see in that area over the last year or so. The bills need to be placed on hold because
there is still some fine tuning being done between the attorneys as well as the
aldermen who need the information in plenty of time to go through it before
passage.
1st Reading of Bill
No. 5273
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill No. 5273, AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND MLP HANLEY STATION, LLC., its first reading.
1st Reading of Bill
No. 5274
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5274, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES (HANLEY/STRASSNER REDEVELOPMENT
AREA – RPA 2), SERIES A AND B, OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI, AND
APPROVING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE
NOTES, its first reading.
Alderman Marshall requested the
changes being made to the redevelopment agreement be highlighted.
Mayor Kelly stated the changes
are not dealing with any substantive changes to the actual agreement. It is setting up a new timetable for the
future construction.
Alderman Leahy stated by
separating all three areas and independently leaving area 2 to stand alone,
will the City have to go back and redo a blight evaluation for those two pieces
of property?
Mr. Shelton stated they do not
believe they will, but he will check with the planning consultant.
Mayor Kelly stated those areas
were done as part of the other study.
He does not know why that would need to be done again.
Alderman Leahy stated because
they are now looking at only making it one area versus developing the entire
area.
Mayor Kelly stated except the
original RFP was for this site alone.
The other areas were added afterwards because of some concerns that were
happening from outside pressures in Hanley Industrial Court.
Alderman Leahy stated they had in
the agreement of the site development plan the possibility of adding an extra
floor on two parking garages to help bring the parking quantity up. It was contingent upon MLP having a need to
do this at a later time. He asked if
the banking arrangements establish that this might need to be done now as
construction is being done in a whole versus coming in later after the
development.
Mayor Kelly stated that is an
issue with MLP and their financing and demonstrating that they need that
parking.
Alderman Leahy stated so at this
point the additional parking levels are still an option that may be injected
later into the project.
Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Ho to
give a brief update on the tenant lineup that they did not have before. Is there anything from areas 1 and 3 that is
now going to be going into area 2?
Mr. Ho stated the tenant lineup
is pretty much the same as before. The
interest that they had in RPA 1 and 3 cannot be placed in RPA 2. There has not been any change to the tenant
makeup or the project itself. They are
under contract negotiations with a number of possible tenants.
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Marshall to place Bills No. 5273 and 5274 on hold. All in favor none opposed.
ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Golfin to adopt the warrant list dated
3/7/05. All in favor none opposed.
Alderman Leahy asked about a CDG
Engineering expense for $2,500. Can
they identify that this money was spent for a study that was done on Annalee
and not part of the sewer problem.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated that is correct.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:
Mayor’s Report
April 5th Election
Mayor Kelly encouraged everyone
to vote on April 5th.
Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters
Mayor Kelly stated they have an
executive session scheduled for after the meeting but he does not know where
that stands at the moment.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated he is not sure either. He sent
Alderwoman Jepsen an email this afternoon.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated what was
not clear was having such a limited scope of what they can call an executive
session for. They need to be very
careful and know what they are going in there for.
Mayor Kelly stated the issue is
legal and personnel matters, which falls under the scope of an executive
session. They will have an executive
session following the close of this meeting for a legal/personnel matter.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated the
pending legal matter, which many people know is against her is a matter of
public record.
Alderman Marshall asked if they
are allowed to speak about previous executive session meetings.
Mayor Kelly stated no not in open
session.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated there
was public correspondence.
City Attorney Murphy stated if
the parties consent to open discussion there would be no problem.
Mr. Elkin Kistner, counsel for
Kevin McCarthy stated that Alderwoman Jepsen has alluded to some correspondence
that he offered on behalf of Mr. McCarthy.
Therefore, Mr. McCarthy would have no objections to any open discussion
tonight of what took place in any previous closed session.
Alderman Wynn stated when the
executive session was held they were told that they could not discuss what was
brought up, and now if they open the discussion to the public, what do they
tell the next person. You have
downgraded what you stated to them as a Board.
Mr. Kistner stated that the Board
of Aldermen has its own legal counsel.
His opinion is that the intent of the closed session statute as it
pertains to personnel is intended to protect in large part the person who is
affected and could be harmed in their reputation by some sort of open discourse
in front of the public about matters that are sensitive involving personal
issues to them. To the extent that
there was a closed session previously which the Board discussed Kevin McCarthy
he cannot imagine that anybody would have any standing to complain about the
public discourse concerning that closed session.
Alderman Wynn stated the next
person that comes in in some kind of situation like this and you tell them that
the discussion has to stay here and in a week or two it has not stayed here, it
is now in the public, you may not get as good a response. He would not respond as good if he thought
that it was not going to stay quiet.
Mr. Kistner stated if the concern
of the Board is that the comments members of the Board might have made in the
course of the closed session under the assumption that there was some sanctity
that they enjoyed in some confidentially that would never be breached, the
distinction is that the person who is the subject of the discussion, at least
one of them, is openly stating through his legal counsel that he has no
objection. Mr. McCarthy is saying please
discuss this in open session because it is exactly what he wants. In the scenario Alderman Wynn described you
do not have the confidence that the subject would want an open discourse. Until such time as somebody comes forward
who is the subject of a closed session involving a personnel matter and states
what he has just stated then the more circumspect or lawful position to take
would be to maintain confidentiality.
City Attorney Murphy stated he
does not disagree with anything Mr. Kistner has said. They would not be in violation of the Sunshine Law if both
parties meaning the City and the employee agree to it.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked City
Attorney Murphy if public discussion of the matter would give either aggrieved
party at this point the chance to say that they talked about it in public and
it really hurt their reputation.
City Attorney Murphy stated it
does not extinguish any cause of action a party may have.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked if they
could claim further damage by them discussing it in the public session instead
of the closed session.
City Attorney Murphy stated
anything is possible.
Mayor Kelly stated it is his
understanding that Mr. Seemayer received an email from Alderwoman Jepsen
stating that she wanted it discussed in open session. Mr. McCarthy through his attorney has made it clear that they do
not object to that. The question is
does Alderwoman Jepsen want to discuss it in open session or will it be
discussed in executive session.
Alderman Leahy stated as a point
of order before they make any ruling from the Board he would request that they
go into executive session and get legal counsel from City Attorney Murphy as a
Board independently before any decisions are made.
Mr. Kistner asked given that
unique circumstance and combination, does the Board anticipate that Mr.
McCarthy would be entitled to attend the closed session?
Mayor Kelly stated he could. The reason for the executive session at that
point would be more of a legal aspect to find out what ramification the City would
have by discussing it in open session not necessarily the actual issue.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that it
is her understanding that a personnel issue is when someone is being chastised,
fired, laid off or disciplined in some manner.
The legal side of it is a lawsuit that the City is involved with. In this case she is not being sued yet but
is continuing to be threatened. She
gets letters delivered to her home that are opened by anyone. She gets letters delivered to City
Hall. She will bow out of the executive
session because she is not being sued yet.
She does not understand how in an executive session, legal/personnel
matter the person is there. She will
let Mr. McCarthy have his say and she will excuse herself.
Alderman Marshall stated that
Alderwoman Jepsen made a comment that this is a lawsuit between the City and
Kevin McCarthy. As far as he knows, it
is a lawsuit between Alderwoman Jepsen and Mr. McCarthy.
Mayor Kelly stated there has been
no lawsuit filed.
Alderman Marshall stated the
disagreement is between Alderwoman Jepsen and Mr. McCarthy.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated it was
her bringing a residential concern forward that resulted in this
situation. She has contacted the
insurance company and they will seek full indemnification.
Mayor Kelly announced they would
hold an executive session legal and personnel matters following the meeting.
Public Safety Committee
– No report
Public Works Committee
– No report
City Engineer – No
report
Parks – No report
Zoning Administrator – No
report
Ways and Means Committee
– No report
Planning and Zoning –
No report
City Attorney – No
report
City Clerk/Administrator
Special Use Permit/McCarthy Building Company
City Administrator Seemayer
stated McCarthy Building Company has requested a Special Use Permit to serve
beer at their Charity Softball Tournament.
This is something they have requested in the past and received. The Charity Softball Tournament will be held
at Brentwood Park on May 21st.
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Cross to grant the Special Use Permit to McCarthy
Building Company for their annual Charity Softball Tournament. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, no;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, no; Alderman Cross, yes.
Director of Economic Development
Comprehensive Plan
Director of Economic Development
Shelton came before the Board and stated the Board has in front of them the
monthly report from the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. There will be a visioning session held on
March 22nd from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Recreation Center. They encourage the Board and any interested
residents to attend. In this visioning
session they will begin to focus on the community and its future. They have received back 506 surveys. The goal was 10% and they are at 13%. All surveys will be counted and all
responses recorded. They will be
discussing the survey results at the next regular meeting of the Comprehensive
Plan Steering Committee, which is schedule for next Wednesday, March 16th
from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at City Hall.
They will also be holding the resident focus group meetings. They will begin contacting the individual
names that were submitted by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee in the
next couple of week checking their availability.
Alderman Kramer asked Mr. Shelton
to clarify who can attend the visioning sessions.
Mr. Shelton stated the visioning
sessions are opened to all residents and businesses. It is the next step beyond an open house where they will begin to
look at design issues and things you think the City ought to have.
Alderman Kramer asked if the data from the surveys will be
available in raw form or will it be complied and cross-sectioned in terms of
the result.
Director of Economic Development
Shelton stated they would discuss that on Wednesday. He has not seen a report.
The general consensus of the consultants was if you list every single
comment of the 506 comments, 400 might say do something about traffic, so they
may have to read many comments, which may be repetitive. Every issue that is brought out will be
defined.
Grant Application and MoDOT
They were able to talk to all of
their state representatives and senators about the grant application for close
to $1 million to SEMA, which is now being forwarded to FEMA. All of their representatives sent letters
after they met with them, which was very successful. They also met with the individuals from the governor’s office on
the MoDOT maintenance yard. It has
continued to fall into disrepair. They
took some photos and the representatives were appalled at the condition. The Mayor has scheduled some follow up
meetings with highway commission members.
They have been contacted by MoDOT.
They emphasized that they needed to sell the property. It is at a valuable corner and it is not a
good site for a staging area, which is their plan when they do the I-64
improvements.
Excise Commissioner –
No report
Library – No further
report
Municipal League – No
report
Waste Management Commission
A Waste Management Commission
meeting will be held on Thursday, March 10th at 7:00 p.m. at City
Hall.
Storm Water Management
A Storm Water Management meeting
will be held on Friday, March 18th at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Communication – No
further report
Insurance Committee –
No report
Historical Society
Alderman Wynn stated the Brentwood Historical Society now
has portable equipment for the recording of oral histories for its archives. These recordings will be indexed and
available at the Historical Society facility for information and research. Members can conduct an interview at its
location at 8764 Rosalie or at the interviewee’s location. The recording equipment can also be signed
out to interested citizens who wish to conduct an interview of friends or
neighbors who can contribute historical information. The Historical Society would also appreciate receiving names of
anyone who might be an interesting person for such interview.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Review of 9325 White
Alderwoman Jepsen stated the ARB
met on February 3rd and reviewed plans for 9325 White Avenue. The meeting was attended by Alderman Wynn
and Al Cross. They reviewed a great
plan for a house at the corner of White and Patton. The house will be expanding and will be quite the improvement.
NEW BUSINESS
A Ward 3 meeting will be held on
March 29th at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Recess
The meeting was recessed at 9:25
p.m. for an Executive Session legal/personnel matter.
Alderwoman Jepsen excused herself
from the Executive Session.
Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Leahy to go into Executive Session on a legal/personnel
matter at 9:31 p.m. Roll call: Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
Also in attendance were Kevin
McCarthy and his legal counsel, City Administrator Seemayer and City Attorney
Murphy. Discussion was held and Kevin
McCarthy and his legal counsel left at 9:49 p.m. The Board continued in discussion.
After discussion on
legal/personnel matter, Motion was made by Alderman Kramer, second by Alderman
Leahy to return to open session at 10:25 p.m.
All in favor none opposed.
Vote to Approve ARB Plans for 9325 White Avenue
Motion was made by Alderman
Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve the ARB plans for 9325 White
Avenue. Roll call: Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Golfin to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. All in favor none opposed.
Pat
Kelly, Mayor
Attest:
Chris Seemayer, City Clerk