MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
City Hall March
21, 2005
Council Chambers 7:00
p.m.
The Mayor led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Present: Mayor
Kelly, Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Marshall, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Golfin, Alderman
Kramer, Alderman Robertson, Alderman Wynn and Alderman Cross.
City Attorney
Murphy, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Zoning Administrator Wolf, Director
of Economic Development Shelton, City Treasurer Reynders and Executive
Secretary Williams.
Absent:None.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR
BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2005
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt the Agenda of the
Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of March 21, 2005. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2005
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Kramer to approve and adopt the Minutes of the
Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of March 7, 2005. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
PROCLAMATION –
Brentwood Evening Optimist Club
Mayor Kelly stated they were
honored to have representatives in the audience from the Brentwood Evening
Optimist Club to receive a 50th anniversary proclamation.
Alderman Wynn read the
proclamation into record. A copy is
attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to adopt the proclamation for the Brentwood
Evening Optimist Club 50th anniversary. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross,
yes.
The Brentwood Evening Optimist
Club members in attendance came before the Board, introduced themselves, and
accepted the proclamation honoring them on their 50th
anniversary.
Mayor Kelly stated they greatly
appreciate the work they do for the City of Brentwood.
BIDS – None
HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF
PUBLIC INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF ANY PERSON PRESENT
Maureen Saunders – 2326 Parkridge
Avenue came before the Board and stated the visioning session for the
Comprehensive Plan will be held on Tuesday, March 22nd. The visioning session is a portion of the
planning process where they look to the future and dream about what they want
for the City. From the onset of the
planning process it was stated by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
that community input was an important part of the plan. When Woolpert and Vector Communications
submitted their proposal they talked about how they would promote public
involvement. At the last Comprehensive
Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday, March 16th, she
suggested that the committee send out a reminder postcard about the upcoming
visioning session. They were told that
the ad was in the Pulse and the newsletter.
She felt a solid campaign would still send a reminder postcard to all
residents but the committee disagreed.
The committee felt there was not enough time and it was not in the
budget per Vector Communications. The
committee decided to send postcards only to those who attended the open
house. There was no mention of the
visioning session in the March newsletter or an update of the Comprehensive
Plan. Alderman Cross as well as
Alderman Marshall agreed that the postcards needed to go out. They asked the City to do whatever it
took. The postcards were never sent
out. She asked the Board if they
believe promoting public involvement is a priority of the plan and do they
think the goal is being achieved in the best possible manner. She attended the Vox Populi forum on
Saturday. At the end of the forum they
opened up the floor for public comments and questions. A couple of residents were very worried as
to whether their property would be marked for redevelopment. They felt they were living in limbo as to
whether they should do any improvement or not.
The response was that if developers were buying up the surrounding
houses there was little the City could do once the developers or investors gain
more than 50% of the homes. That the
developers could go to the City for help in acquiring the remaining
properties. She responded that the developers
and speculators would not be buying up those properties if the City would not
use eminent domain because they would not be able acquire 100% of the needed
properties, even if there was a single holdout. She asked each Alderman to state their stance on eminent domain
with regards to using it to build office, shopping centers, and apartments, not
hospitals.
Alderman Marshall stated any
notice they could get out to the public on the Comprehensive Plan is
important. He is not looking to tear
down neighborhoods. People are showing
huge investments in the neighborhoods with infill housing. There are many things they need to address
with that and they have been doing a good job with it.
Tom Finnegan – resident of St.
Louis City came before the Board to register a complaint against Alderwoman
Jepsen. Last Monday evening at
approximately 6:30 p.m. he and a worker were in the 2300 block Patton engaged
in business. He was not aware of the
fact that on certain streets in Brentwood there was not parking on both sides
of the street, it was dark and they did not see the signs. They had a box truck that even though it was
pulled somewhat away from the side of the road left ample room for anyone to go
through if they chose to. Alderwoman
Jepsen was riding in a pickup truck.
She stopped in the middle of the road, began to berate his driver, and
was using many vulgarities. The “F”
word in particular was featured prominently in her language at that time. She proceeded to tell him that they were
guests in the City of Brentwood and that they were parked illegally. His driver proceeded to tell her that if she
would just speak to them in a civil manner that they would be glad to move
their truck. She continued to curse and
was very loud and confrontational on a public street, in the middle of the
road. When he tried to speak to her to
defuse the situation, her response to him was . . . a very course vulgarity was
used towards him. She then left after
trying to write down information regarding their vehicle. All she needed to do was say in a polite
manner, could you please move your truck, as any person would behave towards
someone else. As someone who is in
public office and is speaking to someone else he was very taken aback by her
language and her demeanor. They then
went back to their store and the next morning he tried to call Alderwoman
Jepsen at a number that was provided to him by the League of Women Voters, just
to defuse the situation and give her an avenue to offer up an apology. She not only did not apologize to him, but
she continued to be abrasive, patronizing and spoke to him in a very sophomoric
manner. When it was obvious to him that
she was not going to apologize for the incident the preceding evening, he told
her that he would very likely be pursuing all legal avenues to address the
situation and to hold her accountable for her behavior and her response was
woo. Not at all what he would expect
from a public official when addressing someone who is calling raising a
concern. To compound the situation and
to make matters worse, she then proceeded to call his boss on his cell phone
and told him, and he has this conversation recorded and would very gladly
produce it if necessary, that if he were to show up at the meeting this evening
that she would sue both his company as well as him. She also told him that she had numerous instances that were kept
on her caller ID of him calling her both from his residence as well as his
work, none of which were true. He asked
Alderwoman Jepsen to produce the records if she had them.
He has never, in 41 years of
life, been berated by anyone in such a manner, let alone a public official who
aspires to higher political office. Her
behavior was disturbing to both he and the gentlemen who works for him. He was so taken aback at the time that he
could not sleep that night. He stated
to the citizens that if Alderwoman Jepsen is the type of person who is held in
popular regard as one that is qualified to be mayor, that they have some
serious reconsidering to do on that issue.
He has had the pleasure to know a number of politicians throughout his
life. Politicians are ambassadors to
their community. They are meant to
help people and serve the public interest.
He and his family have recently begun house hunting in Brentwood,
Kirkwood and Webster Groves, neighborhoods that they have been
considering. If the way he was treated
in the “City of Warmth” is indicative of the way that the average citizen is
treated in Brentwood, then they will be searching elsewhere.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that she
would be brief. Her attorney is present.
The gentleman was parked on the west side of Patton Avenue where you are
not allowed to park. He was standing in
a front yard with two other gentlemen.
There was no delivery. The
delivery had happened. It was
over. And there was a car on the other
shoulder. She drives a truck with the
extended mirrors and could not get through.
She came down the street, stopped, flashed her lights, waited and
waited, and honked her horn. She was
trying to get her son to his Boy Scout Court of Honor. She opened her door and said move your truck
and she was met with a response that if she would just be nice they might
consider it. He was illegally
parked. She could not see any license
plates. She was going to call the
police at that time. They finally moved
the truck. She has a Tom Finnegan on
her caller ID at home from the night before.
Mr. Finnegan stated he would like
to see the record of the caller ID.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated given
the way Mr. Finnegan talked to her she would not be inviting him over. She stated Mr. Finnegan called her the
night before and started berating her.
She was very polite and said she was not talking to him and hung
up. She called the district
manager. He had told her he had
contacted Chief Knight and was filing harassment charges against her. She had had one contact with him at that
point. He called her at home and has
shown up here. She would think if
someone were being harassed it would be her.
She has talked with Mr. Finnegan’s senior legal counsel. This was a traffic incident and Mr. Finnegan
was illegally parked blocking the road.
Her initial request to get him to move was met with confrontation. He has called her at home and showed up
here.
Otto Lickenbrock – 2302 St. Clair
came before the Board and stated he is a member of the Storm Water Committee
and has been since the day it was formed in the early 1990’s. He is before the Board to address several
comments that were made in the last several weeks regarding a 50/50 split of
the stormwater/parks tax revenue. The
two most disturbing and misleading comments are that there never was a
commitment for equal revenue distribution and that the Stormwater Commission is
basing their position on the newspaper article by the City. Both of those comments are completely
false. After the 1993 flood it was
determined that MSD’s financial condition would not enable them to make their
badly needed sewer improvements without Brentwood assistance. A decision was made to ask the voters to
approve a 1/8-cent sales tax with 100% of the revenue dedicated to sewer
improvements. Resolution No. 759 was
written which states that the funds would be used for storm water control as
outlined in House Bill 88. This is what
the Stormwater Commission members were told and it is what they told the voters
when they campaigned for its passage.
Some time later Resolution No. 760 was generated which amended
Resolution No. 759 for the sole purpose of adding the parks. When the Stormwater Commission protested
this change, they were told it was required by state law and they should not be
concerned because the intent remained unchanged and it was still a stormwater
bill. He eventually did a check on this
and was informed that there was no such requirement. The ballot could have been submitted for stormwater control,
parks or both. The ballot language
submitted to the voters determines how the money is to be spent. Unfortunately the ballot did not specify a 50/50
split nor did it specify 2% for stormwater and 98% for other needs as occurred
in 2001. On November 2nd
1995, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch listed all issues that each community in St.
Louis County would vote on during the November 7th election. The big issue for Brentwood was the storm
water vote. Our City Administrator’s
comment was as follows “money raised by 1/8-cent sales tax to each dollar would
cover storm water work for each year”.
Nothing mentioned about the Parks Department. The ballot proposition passed with a 60.4% majority. Ten months later on September 1st
1996, Mid County Journal Correspondent Sheila Myers interviewed the City
Administrator about other Brentwood tax changes that were being
implemented. During the interview he
commented as follows, now that the parks tax has been eliminated parks funding
will come from half of the 1/8-cent sales tax approved. The other half will be used for storm water
projects. This is where the Stormwater
Commission is coming from with this issue.
He hopes they can finally resolve the confusion that has been going
around concerning the subject.
Alderman Golfin stated he
supports the intent that they have as much public participation as
possible. As far as publicizing
adequately, he and Alderman Kramer write a monthly newsletter in their ward
informing citizens. His article this
month is going to heavily publicize the Comprehensive Plan and getting citizen
input.
Mayor Kelly stated he does not
understand the supposed fear the residents are having that neighborhoods are
going to be redeveloped. He does not
know how much more the City can stress that is not the direction the residents
or the City wants to go. They have all
stated over the last number of years that housing is their biggest issue. That is not only for the future of the
community but also for the future of the school district, churches and all the
organizations in the community. They
are starting to see revitalization in their neighborhoods. The way you have stable neighborhoods is to
have ownership. Getting more houses
that people want to live and raise their families in is something that is very
important. They tend to hear rumors
about developing the neighborhoods but the reality is it is just not true. Brentwood’s focus needs to be on the
residential neighborhoods and making improvements to them.
Alderman Wynn stated he had voted
against the Promenade and yet he looks at it today and realizes the City is
very fortunate to have it. He talked to
people who lived in Evans Place and they do not seem to be shedding any tears
over what they got. He voted no on the
Promenade because he was standing up for a lady that lived in Evans Place. He is not for condemnation, but there are
other things involved. He has been a
great supporter of the schools. The
City needs more people and kids.
Alderman Golfin stated that
municipalities should have the authority of eminent domain but only for very
necessary reasons of infrastructure, roadways and things that are essential to
the community. They have to be very
cautious of any use of eminent domain.
As far as excluding eminent domain from a municipal operation it is
impossible. You would not be able to
have roadways, sewer lines or telephone poles, etc. If past performance is any indication of what the City of
Brentwood does the Promenade was in his ward and he was heavily involved in
that. Those citizens wanted to move on
to better living conditions and get a good price for their home. They debated that for a long time because it
was a very critical issue and it was given very careful consideration by the
Board. It developed over a period of
time that almost all the residents wanted to move and they waited until all of
them wanted to go. Finally there was a
holdout by one individual who he believes had a vacant lot and was holding it
for investment purposes and the greed of getting more money. They could not allow that to hold up what
the rest of the residents wanted. That
issue finally went to court and it was resolved.
Alderman Leahy stated as far as
the postcards being mailed out the committee made a decision based on what they
thought was accurate information.
Based on the findings that information might have been in error. The request for pushing for more public
notification is not a bad thing. He
suggested that if the turnout tomorrow night is not to their satisfaction, they
could enter into a discussion with Vector Communications about holding another
visioning session and hopefully correct for human error.
He is not in favor of using
eminent domain as a city entity to turn around and take away someone’s home but
he would like to reserve judgment on a case-by-case issue before they just use
blanket statements. He would like to
weigh out the facts as to the benefit to the City of Brentwood and the
realization of the homeowner’s rights to his own property.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated
somewhere it talks about widening Brentwood Boulevard corridor to a 300-foot
lot depth. She asked if that might be
some of the residents concern.
Mayor Kelly stated in the mid
1990’s, Alderman Williams proposed a bill that would have changed the zoning
along the Brentwood Boulevard corridor.
He believes it was 200 feet from the centerline on both sides of Brentwood
Boulevard to rezone it to commercial use in order to try to resolve some of the
parking issues, etc. The practicality
of that is the City would never want to do that because you would give up all
control over what can be built there.
Alderman Marshall stated there
was talk about widening Brentwood Boulevard with one more lane. The City was very much against that. The fact the City was fighting against that
should tell the residents that they are not looking to take out
neighborhoods. They are looking to work
on the neighborhoods.
Alderman Kramer stated it is
important for the elected officials to weigh each situation as it comes up on
its own importance and its own merits.
The inclusion of the process for the Comprehensive Plan is very important. When the visioning session takes place and
it appears as though there is insufficient sampling or it is just thought that
it is a good idea to have another session, he would support something like
that.
Alderman Robertson stated the
Comprehensive Plan is hugely important.
He is disappointed that they did not send out the postcards. They have had a lot of advertising. As far as development, they would want to
be extremely sparing and very careful with eminent domain. It is not their function to take away the
neighborhoods that elect them.
Alderman Cross stated the
Comprehensive Plan needs quality input at the grass root level and this is the
right time for that. She would like to
see them take advantage of the opportunity that this visioning session was intended
to provide for them.
INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND
PASSAGE OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Bill No. 5273 – Amend Redevelopment Agreement with MLP
Alderman Leahy stated that the
only large change he is noticing in the bill is the TDD funding dollar limit. He asked why the $1.25 million to a $2.5
million possible funding of TDD.
Mark Grimm came before the Board
and stated MLP had a pre-existing obligation to contribute $2 million towards
the Strassner extension cost. The
existing redevelopment agreement calls for that obligation to be funded by a
note from the Brentwood/Strassner TDD to the developer, so that eventually the
developer, assuming there were sufficient funds through the Brentwood/Strassner
TDD, could be reimbursed for the Strassner extension cost up to $2
million. The developer has asked that
the TDD that the developer is going to create, over that project site itself,
be allowed the option of incurring part of that $2 million cost. It does not change the amount of the MLP
contribution towards the Strassner extension but it presents a different option
on how that cost is reimbursed to MLP.
Alderman Leahy stated if he
understands correctly if they authorize the amendment they could then offer
their own TDD, in this case at $2.5 million, establishing a taxing entity
within their properties and thus draw their revenues and pay that bill versus
applying to the Strassner Road TDD saying they need them to help fund them,
because they are not in the Strassner Road TDD boundary lines at this point. If they go along with the change if MLP does
not generate revenue to cover the cost of what they are incurring to do the
roadway, what happens?
Mr. Grimm stated the City would
use its best efforts to cause the Brentwood/Strassner TDD to issue a note to
the developer for that $2 million in cost.
Given that the City has two of the six representatives of the
Brentwood/Strassner TDD, if the City recommends it then there is a pretty good
chance that the Brentwood/Strassner TDD board would go along with that
recommendation to give that note back to MLP.
From the City’s standpoint it might be better to have MLP’s controlled
TDD incur part of the $2 million cost rather than the Brentwood/Strassner Road
TDD.
Mayor Kelly stated that this
gives them the ability to issue bonds up to that amount once they have their
leases signed and the City knows the businesses are going to go in there. If
they cannot generate the revenue to support it, the City will not authorize the
issuance of the bonds. In the end they
may be able to support $1.75 million.
This is just giving them the ability to go up to that if they can
support it and if the costs are there as well associated to the new roadway.
Alderman Leahy asked if there is
a timeframe to get the bonds paid off if they are issued or do they stay open
until they are met.
Mr. Grimm stated there is a
statutory timeframe for every transportation development district, which is 40
years. From a practical standpoint
there is not a market for that type of an obligation.
Alderman Leahy asked if they
agree to allow the $2.5 million does this foreclose them from coming back to
the Strassner Road TDD and asking them for assistance.
Mr. Grimm stated it provides that
it is a direct offset.
Mayor Kelly stated the cost has been
revised as well. Initially the road was
going to cost just a little over $1 million.
Now they know after getting done with St. Louis County and the land
costs etc., that the new roadway is going to be closer to $2 million for the
final project.
Alderman Leahy stated the fact
that they started out with a three-area development and the agreement
established all three areas blighted and qualified and the current event that
they are now withdrawing from RPA 1 & 3, are they terminating those redevelopment
areas. Does RPA 2 stand on its own as
it is currently listed or does the board have to reestablish that blighted area
in condition as a stand-alone.
Mr. Grimm stated they do not need
to do anything as a Board to reestablish RPA 2 as a blighted area by
itself. This amended agreement
eliminates MLP’s rights to RPA 1 & 3.
It does not remove those from the redevelopment area. If the Board desires to shrink the
redevelopment area to just RPA 2 then the TIF Commission would have a public
hearing and would make that recommendation to the Board and the Board would
adopt subsequent legislation. If the
overall boundaries of the redevelopment area are changed, it requires going
back through the TIF Commission public hearing process, even if it is just to
eliminate those project areas. The
statute does not create that distinction.
Alderman Leahy stated the Board
passed a moratorium resolution. That
would state that since MLP has now withdrawn from RPA 1 & 3 that it would
become an isolated area until the Comprehensive Plan is approved. At that time would the City revisit looking
at redeveloping those areas or would they walk away from that redevelopment
classification and if so, should they do something to completely close it out.
Mayor Kelly stated the idea would
be to close it out.
Mr. Grimm stated he could prepare
a memo that briefly outlines the steps that they would need to collectively go
through.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated Mr.
Grimm’s recommendation would be wonderful.
She knows the business and property owners in Hanley Industrial Court
would like to be totally out from under it.
Are they maxing out some sort of level or are they swapping one for the
other and they would not be included for the future work on Hanley Road. It is no secret St. Louis County wants to do
an overlay district and collect another ½ cent for the work on Hanley
Road.
Mayor Kelly stated MLP was
already at a 1-cent TDD. There has been
some legal dispute whether they could actually do an overlay. The state statute says a 1-cent TDD is the
limit. Some attorneys have said that is
for a specific district and you cannot put another 1-cent on top of that
one. He has held the position at the
meetings that the City would not be interested in going any higher than the
1-cent anywhere in the City, that they would not be in favor of an
overlay. They were never part of the
calculations for trying to generate revenues for Hanley Road.
Alderman Leahy stated paragraph
6.5, Notice to City for Transfer, gives them a 10 day advance notification if
for any reason the developer agrees to transfer the ownership of the property
to the City for them to evaluate how that transfer may or may not affect the
City. That is the same language that
was in the September 2003 document. He
asked if it would be better to change it from a 10-day to a 30-day notification
to give the City ample time to review the ramifications.
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Robertson to amend paragraph 6.5 in the amended and
restated redevelopment agreement from a 10-day advance notification to 30-day
advance notification if the clause is ever invoked. Roll call: Alderwoman
Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Alderman Kramer stated in the
memo presented today referring to Section 5.1.2 directly as it relates to
Section 3.2, since the property has come through closing and transfer of title,
is the title clear on the property?
Mr. Grimm stated MLP has the
title to the parcels of property. Their
request was that the power of condemnation still be in the document in case
there is any gaps in coverage or clear title issues that need to be resolved. They own the property at this point.
2nd Readings of
Bills No. 5273 as amended and 5274
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Kramer to give Bills No. 5273 and 5274 second
readings. All in favor none opposed.
Bill No. 5273 as Amended
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5273, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND MLP HANLEY STATION,
LLC., its second reading.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis
of Bill No. 5273 into record. It is
attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt Bill No. 5273 as
amended. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman
Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5273 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3969.
Bill No. 5274 – Issuance of up to $5,000,000 of TIF Notes
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5274, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTES (HANLEY/STRASSNER REDEVELOPMENT
AREA – RPA 2), SERIES A AND B, OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI, AND
APPROVING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE
NOTES, its second reading.
Alderman Leahy stating they are
authorizing not to exceed $5,000,000.
What is the maximum amount that would be financially achievable through
the development and how would they understand what they are authorizing.
Mr. Grimm stated realistically it
would be $5,000,000. The developer is
required to submit requisitions as project costs have been incurred under the
TIF act. The requisition costs have to
be eligible costs under the TIF act.
Supporting documentation has to be presented to the City for review and
approval.
Alderman Marshall stated in the
past with some of the TIFs they have elected to pay them off much quicker to get
the full revenue in a short amount of time.
He asked what is the life of the TIF notes as far as how they were going
to be paying it back.
Mayor Kelly stated it would be 12
years.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated if the
cost were $43,000,000 without the TIF, how would the project be different if
you did the $38,000,000 you are stating you could afford.
Chris Ho with MLP stated without
the TIF assistance in this particular project, the project would not move
forward. Within that component is the
ability to cover costs and to make a reasonable return for development. In a typical project you are looking at a
15% return on costs on all projects.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis
of Bill No. 5274 which is attached to the minutes.
Motion was made by Alderman
Golfin, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5274. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, no; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5274 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3970.
Bills No. 5275 and 5276
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Cross to give Bills No. 5275 and 5276 first and second
readings. All in favor none opposed.
Bill No. 5275 – Amending Chapter 6
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5275, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY REPEALING
SECTIONS 6-16, 6-51, 6-101, 6-126, 6-151 AND 6-152 OF SAID CHAPTERS RELATING TO
ADOPTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING CODES; ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF NEW SECTIONS 6-16,
6-51, 6-101, 6-126, 6-151, 6-152, 6-153 AND A NEW ARTICLE VIII CONSISTING OF
SECTIONS 6-175 AND 6-176; PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE;
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.
Alderman Kramer read a synopsis
of Bill No. 5275 which is attached to the minutes.
Alderman Leahy stated he is
struggling with how this bill and the new codes affect the resident coming
forth asking for permission to do certain maintenance on the home and now
needing permits and how that relates with the ARB.
Zoning Administrator Wolf stated
under the current codes ordinary repair and maintenance does not require a
building permit. In other words if you
are going to reshingle your house and put a second layer on the roof, it does
not require a building permit. If you
are going to change your siding and add vinyl siding to it, it does not require
a building permit. If you are going to
remove a driveway and put a new driveway in that does not require a building
permit. Under the 2003 International
Codes, each of those items does require a building permit. Under the ARB regulations, any construction
activity that requires a building permit and impacts the exterior of the home
requires a review by the ARB. Therefore
you can say that all of those items would have to go to the ARB because they
all impact the exterior.
Alderman Leahy stated under the
new ARB requirements what documents does the homeowner need to provide the
planning office to request that permit to get to the ARB? This is why he questioned whether they
should make the stringency of the sealed architectural plans a requirement for
permit work, that they could catch it and make it an expensive to do list for
the homeowner. He does not think that
was their intent.
Mayor Kelly stated those are some
of the adjustments the ARB will have to make.
Alderman Leahy asked if they
postpone approving the code changes in order to work through making some
amendments to the ARB, is that better than approving the bill this evening and
waiting for the ARB to do something. Is
there a way they could modify and make everything work in harmony with each
other versus in conflict? Which would
be the better timeframe to work with?
Zoning Administrator Wolf stated
it is his opinion the Board should act on the legislation this evening for two
reasons. It contains a clause that says
it is not taking effect until July 1st. Therefore anybody who is going to be building in Brentwood have
the benefit of knowing what codes they will be judged by if they file for
building permits in July or later.
Secondly under the current codes, which would remain in effect through
June 30th, if no building permit is required there is no review
required. That violates the intent of
the ARB.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated within
the last six months based on an unfortunate fire incident, the City instituted
in new construction a hard wire heat detector.
In reading through the bill, it talks about a one-hour fire door in the
garage and the wired in smoke detector.
It was her understanding that with previously existing homes unless
there was a major renovation, a change in the use of a garage were exempt from
that. Is this bill now stating that
should the home be sold and to get an occupancy permit they have to have a hard
wire heat detector and fire door?
Zoning Administrator Wolf stated
it is not intended to say that. They
only implement that when there is construction in that vicinity. In other words if you are going to be building
a new garage that is attached to the home then that requirement would come into
play.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated it does
not talk about construction it just says underneath or attached to. If somebody sells their house and all of a
sudden they have to hard wire the garage and buy a fire door that would slow the
process down. It does not say new
construction. She asked if this bill
would change that line.
Zoning Administrator Wolf stated
that is covered under the existing 2003 International Building Codes. They adopted the fire code and then they
had to amend it because that requirement is unique to Brentwood.
Alderman Golfin asked how would
the ARB be functioning in relation to this bill until July 1st and
after. Suppose a homeowner wants to put
in a new driveway or a direct replacement of an existing driveway, the ARB
could exempt that kind of request for permit from their review.
Zoning Administrator Wolf stated
the Board of Aldermen could by exempting it as a building requirement. Today that would not apply. Effective July 1st it would
apply.
Alderman Golfin stated suppose
the ARB is dealing with something more serious than a direct replacement could
the ARB set up their standards and their exemption, get approval for that from
the Board and then proceed on that basis.
Zoning Administrator Wolf said
no. You would have to change the law as
to what triggers an ARB review and what standards you wish to apply. The Board had the option of adopting some
standards and chose not to.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked Aldermen
Cross and Kramer if they foresee amending the ARB bill.
Alderman Kramer stated as far as
the ARB bill, they have been working on it for a while, much in advance of
entertaining tonight’s bill. They want
to attract housing and want the process to be an evolving one. There are going to be some low clearance
items regarding the siding or roofing.
It may be possible that as a city and as a combined effort, they may
decide as the process moves forward, they do not want to have the ARB review
those items that previously were not reviewed, such as those maintenance items
that have been brought up.
Motion was made by Alderman
Kramer, second by Alderman Golfin to approve and adopt Bill No. 5275. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5275 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3971.
Bill No. 5276 – Laclede Gas Company
City Attorney Murphy gave Bill
No. 5276, AN ORDINANCE RENEWING AN EXISTING FRANCHISE AND GRANTING FOR A PERIOD
OF TWENTY (20) YEARS TO LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ITS
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE RIGHT, PERMISSION AND AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT,
RECONSTRUCT, EXCAVATE FOR, PLACE, REPLACE, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND USE ITS MAINS,
SERVICE PIPES, CONDUITS, CONDUCTORS, TANKS, VAULTS, VAPORIZERS, REGULATORS AND
OTHER EQUIPMENT, WITH ALL NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE APPLIANCES AND APPURTENANCES
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IN, ALONG, ACROSS OVER AND UNDER THE STREETS, ROADS,
ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS, SQUARES, BRIDGES AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI AND AREAS DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY USE, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF TRANSMITTING, FURNISHING, TRANSPORTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR
LIGHT, HEAT, POWER AND OTHER PURPOSES WITHIN AND THROUGH SAID CITY, PRESCRIBING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH GRANT, AND IMPOSING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS UPON
THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, SUCCESSIVELY, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
its first and second readings.
Alderman Marshall stated over the
past couple of years they have had complaints from residents on Rosalie,
Eulalie and some of the surrounding streets of strong odor of gas. In talking with Alderman Robertson, some
progress has been made.
Alderman Robertson stated as part
of their work in the Public Safety Committee, Fire Chief Niemeyer contacted
Laclede Gas Company and got an extensive survey done of those streets and they
made a few repairs.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked City
Attorney Murphy if there were any significant changes.
City Attorney Murphy stated he
did not read the franchise agreement from 20 years ago. This is a standard agreement and they are
stuck with it.
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5276. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Golfin, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman
Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5276 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3972.
ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Cross to adopt the warrant list dated
3/21/05. All in favor none opposed.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the
$3,000 ad for the Zoning Administrator’s position.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated the City does not usually use St. Louis Post Dispatch for those types of
ads. However, because they have much
better coverage it was advertised in there and ran three times.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:
Mayor’s Report
Executive Session – Legal and Personnel Matters
Mayor Kelly stated the executive
session scheduled for after the meeting will not be held. The city attorney is still researching some
information.
Election
Mayor Kelly encouraged everyone
to vote on April 5th.
Public Safety Committee
– No report
Public Works Committee –
No report
City Engineer – No
report
Parks – No report
Zoning Administrator –
No report
Ways and Means Committee
– No report
Planning and Zoning –
No report
City Attorney – No
report
City Clerk/Administrator
Special Use Permit/Temporary Liquor License St. Mary Magdalen
City Administrator Seemayer
stated St. Mary Magdalen is requesting a temporary liquor license for the
annual parish picnic to be held on May 20 and 21, 2005.
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Cross to approve the temporary liquor license for St.
Mary Magdalen Parish Picnic. All in
favor none opposed.
Director of Economic Development
Director of Economic Development
Shelton came before the Board and stated that a Comprehensive Plan Visioning
Session will be held on March 22nd from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the
Brentwood Recreation Center. They
encourage everyone to attend and participate.
The notice of the visioning
session ran in the February issue of the Pulse and the Brentwood Bulletin. Vector Communications asked that it run in the
March issue. The editor is out of town
this week, so he does not know why it did not run in the March issue. It has also been on the website, the
Suburban Journal and BTV-10. There will
be a design charette scheduled for May 18th at the High School Cafeteria.
Mr. Shelton stated they have
applied through SEMA to FEMA for close to $1 million grant for flood proofing
and buyout in Hanley Industrial Court.
They have the support of MSD and they will be the local sponsor in providing
the match. When he and the Mayor were
in Jefferson City, they met with all of their representatives and encouraged
their support. Based on their support,
they feel good about SEMA’s recommendation to FEMA.
Excise Commissioner – No report
Library – No
report
Municipal League – No report
Waste Management Commission
Trash/Recycle Services
Alderman Golfin stated the
trash/waste services are doing very well.
They are realizing savings, which are every much as they expected, and
perhaps a little more. They look for
improvement in those savings. He feels
they could do much better with the recycle participation. It is not only important for them to do it
environmentally but if you recycle your wastes the City saves money because
they save the tipping fee that is avoided because you are putting trash in the
recycle bin instead of the trash can.
If residents do not recycle and if the City is not able to afford the
service they could pay as much as $18.00 a month per resident for trash
services contracted outside.
Stormwater Management
Stormwater Projects
Alderman Golfin stated a report
of stormwater projects is attached to the aldermanic report. Public Works and the Ways and Means
Committees will be reviewing the projects.
$200,000 is budgeted for this year.
Communication – No
report
Insurance Committee
– No report
Historical Society
– No report
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
NEW BUSINESS
Report from Woolpert
Alderman Kramer stated at the
last Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meeting held there was an inventory
of existing land uses and community facilities report from Woolpert. There were some recommendations made at the
end of the report. Is that a
preliminary recommendation?
Economic Development Director
Shelton stated that information was handed out at last Wednesday’s
meeting. It was not discussed and is
very preliminary based on some of the initial information they have. Those will probably be some of the issues
you will see in the visioning session and design charettes.
Ward 3 Meeting
Ward 3 meeting will be held on
Tuesday, March 29th at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by
Alderman Wynn, second by Alderman Leahy to adjourn the meeting at 8:45
p.m. All in favor none opposed.
Pat
Kelly, Mayor
Attest:
Chris Seemayer, City
Clerk