MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
City Hall December
19, 2005
Council Chambers 7:00
p.m.
The Mayor led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Kelly,
Alderwoman Jepsen, Alderman Marshall, Alderman Leahy, Alderman Kramer, Alderman
Robertson, Alderman Wynn and Alderman
Cross.
City
Attorney Albrecht, City Clerk/Administrator Seemayer, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer Payken, City Treasurer Reynders and Executive Secretary
Williams.
ABSENT: Alderman Golfin.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2005
Motion was made by Alderman
Cross, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt the Agenda of the
Regular Board of Aldermen Meeting of December 19, 2005. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross,
yes.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2005
Motion was made by Alderman
Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt the Minutes of the Regular
Board of Aldermen Meeting of November 21, 2005 as submitted. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
SWEARING-IN OF PATROL OFFICER
Police Chief Knight came before the Board and stated it
was a pleasure for him to introduce Patrol Officer Rick Litschgi who was
previously with the City of Chesterfield Police Department where he served for
13 years. During that time he was
certified in traffic reconstruction. He
is a CIT (Crisis Intervention Team), which handles the mentally ill. He graduated with honors from Southwest
Missouri State University and was #1 in his police academy class.
Patrol Officer Litschgi came
before the Board and introduced his family.
Alderman Robertson, Chairman of
the Public Safety Committee administered the Oath of Office to Brentwood Patrol
Officer Litschgi.
Mayor Kelly congratulated Patrol
Officer Litschgi and welcomed him to the Brentwood Police Department.
BIDS – None
Drawing of Names for the Ballot
Mayor Kelly stated the City has a
policy that when filing first opens and more than one person appears to sign up
for the same position at or before 8:00 a.m. their names have to be drawn to
determine whose name will appear first on the ballot. Filing opened on December 13th and two names have to
be drawn for Alderman Ward 4.
Alderman Kramer drew Leon A.
Golfin’s name to appear first and Lorraine Krewson’s name will appear second on
the ballot.
HEARING OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST UPON REQUEST OF
ANY PERSON PRESENT – None
INTRODUCTIONS, READINGS, AND PASSAGE OF BILLS AND
RESOLUTIONS
Removal of Bills from
the Agenda
Motion was made by Alderman Robertson, second by Alderman
Wynn to remove Bills No. 5299 and 5300 from the agenda. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
First and Second
Readings of Bills
Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman
Robertson to give Bills No. 5303, 5304, 5305, 5306, 5307 and 5308 first and
second readings. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes;
Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
A synopsis of all bills will be attached to the hard copy
minutes.
Bill No. 5303 – Adoption
of Certain Building Codes
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5303, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
BY REPEALING SECTION 6-51 OF SAID CHAPTER RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN
BUILDING CODES; ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION 6-51; PROVIDING FOR THE
CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, its
first and second readings.
Motion was made by Alderman
Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve and adopt Bill No. 5303. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5303 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 3998.
Bill No. 5304 – Adoption of Certain Building Codes
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill
No. 5304, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
6 OF THE REVISED CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 6-154 TO SAID CHAPTER RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING CODES;
PROVIDING FOR THE CURRENT MAINTENANCE OF THIS CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES, its first and second readings.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked if the 2003 Edition is the most current edition
for the International Property Maintenance Code. Will it impact foreseeable legislation on rental and vacant
houses? What is the impact of the
adoption of the ordinance on the average citizen and how does it affect some of
the nuisance ordinances on property maintenance.
Mr. Payken stated the 2003 Edition of the Property Maintenance Code is
substantially the same as prior editions.
From the average person’s perspective there would be little change. The Public Works Committee has discussed the
issue of vacant and rental houses and how best to address those issues. One of the items under consideration is the
possible amendment of the ordinance.
At this point it is premature to speculate if it might change. The most important thing to keep in mind is
that the Code is essentially the same except for some minor updates within it
as to what has been done in the past.
Alderman Leahy asked why is the date of January 1, 1960 being used in
Section 1, subparagraph (b).
Mr. Payken stated he believes that was the date it was originally
adopted.
Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve
and adopt Bill No. 5304. Roll
call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman
Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson,
yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5304 duly passed and signed same
into approval thereof. Said Bill was
given Ordinance No. 3999.
Bill No. 5305 – Opt Out Sales Tax
Holiday
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill No. 5305, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY
OF BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI TO OPT OUT OF STATE IMPOSED SALES TAX HOLIDAY, its first
and second readings.
Mayor Kelly stated the important aspect of Bill No. 5305 is that if it is
adopted tonight the City will not have to do it every year as in the past. It will become a position of the City,
unless they decide to change it.
Alderman Wynn asked what does the City save by opting out of the sales
tax holiday.
Mayor Kelly stated if the City were participating in the sales tax
holiday they would be giving up the revenues on that weekend.
City Administrator Seemayer stated it is somewhat difficult to calculate
the amount but it is in excess of $50,000.
Brentwood lost a portion of the sales tax because St. Louis County
controls 1% and they participated, so the City lost that 1% on sales that
occurred on that weekend.
Mayor Kelly stated the state reimburses itself through the tobacco tax,
so they do not lose any revenue when they opt out. The guidelines that are followed provide for restrictions on the amount
of purchases and types of purchases.
There are no programs available to separate items from sales tax, so on
the sales tax holidays they are eliminating sales taxes on almost every item in
the store as well as not limiting the amount of purchases to the $200.00.
Motion was made by Alderman Cross, second by Alderman Marshall to approve
and adopt Bill No. 5305. Roll
call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman
Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson,
yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill No. 5305 duly passed and signed same
into approval thereof. Said Bill was
given Ordinance No. 4000.
Public Hearing – 2006 Budget
Mayor Kelly announced a public hearing for the 2006 Budget would now be
heard at 7:15 p.m.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated the City operates on a calendar year basis, so the budget runs from
January 1 through December 31. All
funds are balanced. The City operates
out of four different fiscal funds, which are the general fund, capital
improvement fund, parks and storm water fund, and sewer lateral fund. The total for all funds is approximately
$12.7 million. Most of the revenues,
sources and expenses do not change much from year to year. The sales tax in the general fund is 42% of
the revenues and sales tax for all funds is 51%. The City is a service organization, so the bulk of the expenses
go towards personnel and personnel related services, which is 65% of the budget. The debt service has remained the same,
which is around 7%.
Mayor Kelly asked if there were
any comments from the audience.
There were none.
Alderman Kramer asked about
progress with the reserves.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated they would not know definitively until the end of the year because cash
flow changes daily. At this point it
looks like the City will have increased the reserves by $150,000. That will bring it somewhere between
$700,000 and $750,000 at the end of the year.
Alderman Kramer stated that they
were fortunate to be able to use part of the lateral fund for some payroll
purposes.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated Brentwood’s lateral program is done differently than other cities. All of the cities that he is aware of only
provide services if there is a break in the lateral and then they hire a
contractor to get estimates. In some
cases you pay a deductible as the homeowner to help offset that or some set
fee. Even if the line is clogged with
roots or such, Brentwood takes care of that with most of its personnel. At any given time there could be three or
four people working on a particular job site but on an average, over the course
of the year, it looks as though it averages out to be about two salaries.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked what
happens to the money in the storm water fund that was not spent and the money
being allotted for next year. She also
asked about the two grinder pumps at the public works facility.
Mr. Seemayer stated the grinder
pumps are provided by MSD and the City installs them as they are
scheduled.
Alderman Cross stated the two
grinder pumps are on hold for two homes on Sonora and White.
Mr. Seemayer stated the
Litzsinger Project was supposed to be done this year but they ran into some
changes to the project. They will now
have to wait for Ameren to relocate two or three utility poles. Whatever amount of the $200,000 that was not
expended would go back into the parks and storm water fund. The intention at the beginning of 2005 for
those monies was to do some joint work with MSD on some of the projects that
they have now taken sole ownership of.
Alderman Leahy asked what is the
limitation on usage of the money generated from the capital improvement
tax.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated it could be used for any capital equipment, maintenance to that
equipment and to pay for any debt service relating to capital improvement that
is incurred.
Alderman Leahy asked if it would
require that the City have ownership of that activity that was being paid
for.
Mr. Seemayer stated it would seem
logical but he cannot say that positively without looking into the
legislation.
Mayor Kelly announced the public
hearing for the 2006 Budget closed at 7:25 p.m.
Bill No. 5306 – 2006 Budget
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill
No. 5306, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD FOR
THE CALENDAR YEAR 2006; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE,
its first and second readings.
Alderman Marshall thanked City
Administrator Seemayer, Finance Officer Zimmer and the Ways and Means Committee
for their time and hard work on the budget.
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Leahy to approve and adopt Bill No. 5306. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5306 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4001.
Bill No. 5307 – Development Agreement
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill
No. 5307, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD, MISSOURI, AND ACE HOLDINGS, L.P., its first and second readings.
Motion was made by Alderman Leahy
to send Bill No. 5307 back to the Ways and Means Committee with representatives
from Ace Holdings, L.P. present to discuss the different clauses that are in
the bill.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated Mr. Epstein was present at a recent Ways and Means Committee meeting and
the agreement document was not talked about, but the general terms of what was
going to happen was.
Alderman Leahy stated there were
a number of issues in the document that he wanted to go through which would be
more productive in a committee meeting than to do it in an open session.
Alderman Marshall stated they
have gone over the matter two or three times in the committee meetings. He requested that Alderman Leahy voice his
concerns at the Board meeting.
There was no second to Alderman
Leahy’s motion.
Alderman Leahy stated the fourth
paragraph from the bottom of page 1 is establishing that the City will do
installments, plus interest but they are asking to establish a ceiling value of
$250,000. The way the document reads is
the interest becomes excessive to that value.
He is wondering why and how they can get to that point if they put a
ceiling cap on it.
Mayor Kelly stated the cap is not
to exceed the $250,000 and it cannot go longer than five years, so that if the
projected revenues from the new business do not meet the projected sales at
five years it will stop.
Alderman Leahy stated the
document reads that you pay the interest payment first, then principal, and
then you have up to five years to pay off the note, so you will be paying
interest payments on each and every year’s installments. Thus it could exceed the $250,000 at the
last payment, which would be contrary to what they want to do.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated the amount to be repaid for the improvements is not to exceed $250,000
plus the cost of the interest during the term of that repayment period. Your total cost could be more than $250,000
if it went close to the full term. He
asked Alderman Leahy if he is stating that they should not pay over $250,000
total of the sum of principal and interest.
Alderman Leahy stated yes. That was the motion approved by the Ways and
Means Committee.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated they decided not to go with the COP because they found that potentially
to be less advantageous to the City.
You could not put a cap of years on a COP because you are obligated to
pay those bondholders the full amount.
There was some debate on the topic of the interest, whether or not the
City should pay any interest because it is paying for the improvements or
whether the City should pay a maximum amount not to exceed $250,000, whether it
is the improvements or the interest.
The agreement does allow for the repayment of the $250,000 and the cost
of interest while it is being carried up to the five-year term.
Alderman Marshall stated that he
and Alderman Golfin understood it to mean that there was going to be a $250,000
cap on everything. Alderman Golfin was
concerned about going over that amount with the interest. Given what the Ways and Means Committee had
discussed, he does not think anything above the $250,000 was amenable to the
Committee. If it would be acceptable to
Mr. Epstein, he would consider amending it to remain at the $250,000 because he
believes that to be the maximum agreed to.
Mayor Kelly stated the project is
above and beyond what is required in the building of the retention center. The City is reimbursing the owner for money
he will spend in order to finance the retention center.
Fred Epstein – Chairman of Indeeco
and President of Ace Holdings, L.P. came before the Board and stated he
attended the last Ways and Means Committee meeting and it was his understanding
that the interest was to be paid in addition to the $250,000 in capital
expense. In a previous meeting that was
documented in the previous version of the agreement the interest was
omitted. He made it clear to the Ways
and Means Committee and the attorney that that deal was not acceptable to them. The original capital cost for the project
was approximately $297,000 and they got it down to $265,000, which was further
reduced by the Ways and Means Committee to $250,000. This money does not come free particularly since they are only
allowing them ½ of 1 percent of the taxable sales from Grainger.
Mayor Kelly stated the reason the
interest is not just lumped in is that if it is paid off in two years the
interest will be a lot less. If it is
paid off in five years it will be more.
Tom Smallwood – Attorney for Ace
Holdings, L.P. and Indeeco came before the Board and stated the agreement has
been through a lot of changes and modifications. Mark Grimm, Attorney with Gilmore & Bell, has approved the
terms of the agreement. It was their
understanding that interest would be a necessary cost included in the
reimbursement and the rebate.
Alderman Kramer asked if he is
correct in that they are classifying it as a public improvement on private
property. Was there ever a figure
substantially lower in the $60,000 to $100,000 range? If so, how did they get to the $250,000?
Mr. Smallwood stated the original
sum was much greater. Other more
complex projects were discussed that would encompass gigantic basins all along
other property owned by the company. In
connection with the Grainger project, they felt this was the more appropriate
way to go.
Mayor Kelly stated originally the
actual retention center had a cost that was around $70,000, but that did not
include engineering or construction fees or any of the other numbers. They now have the real cost of the project.
Alderman Marshall asked Mr.
Seemayer what were the numbers they were looking at with the interest.
Mr. Seemayer stated it was
estimated to be between $30,000 and $40,000 and that depends on when the
$250,000 would be retired. That was
using a four-year period and the maximum of the five years.
Alderman Marshall stated the City
has asked Mr. Epstein to do some things that he does not need to do and there
are obvious costs associated with that.
As far as the work being done on private land, it will help to abate
some of the problems with the flooding.
They have a chance to do something about the flooding problem while it
is in the construction phase, which is a lot cheaper than going in afterwards
and taking care of it. He stated he
would not have a problem with increasing the amount if it is okay with the
Board because of the benefits to the City and because of the amount of money
the City will be receiving from the business.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated it would not take an amendment to do what Alderman Marshall is stating
because that is the way it is written in the agreement at present. Their biggest safeguard on this would be if
the sales were not what they projected, the City’s contribution would still be
stopped at five years. Forty thousand
gallons of water is not a major detention of water but if the City can find
ways to do projects such as this one it will add up. If this is the only one they ever do then it is a waste of
money.
Mr. Epstein stated at the Ways
and Means Committee meeting there was mention of a 25- foot diameter pool, 4
feet deep. The amount of water that
will be retained is almost four times the size of that 25-foot pool, 4 feet
deep.
Alderman Leahy stated earlier he
brought up the question of the capital improvement fund expenditure with this
being the project, the City does not own the property. Would it qualify under state statutes to
allow them to spend the capital improvement sales tax money on the
property?
City Administrator Seemayer
stated it seems logical that it would be permissible based on the TIF projects.
City Attorney Albrecht stated he
could not give a definitive answer not having been prepared for the
question. His initial impression was
that it is a public project, regardless of where the location is, used for
public good and public benefit. He
would have to look at the statutes.
Mr. Smallwood stated that Mark
Grimm made the determination that the storm water and parks and the capital
improvement sales taxes were the appropriate ones to be allocated under the
City’s ordinances and the state statutes.
Alderman Leahy asked if 15 days
is enough notice for the City to be able to conduct reviewing, approving or
disapproving changes stated on page 2, subsection (b). This subsection has a clause that says if
the City does not take action in the fifteen (15) days it is automatically
approved. Does this seem to be a
reasonable timeframe?
City Administrator Seemayer
stated it could be changed to 30 days.
If something did occur it would be better to have 30 days than 15 days
because if you do not respond within the 15 days it is automatically deemed
approved.
Alderman Leahy stated page 3,
subsection (c) states “ . . . Public Improvement is to be dedicated to the
City, the Company will dedicate said Public Improvement to the City within a
reasonable time” . . . He asked if there is anticipated public improvement that
will be returned to the City at the end of the completion of the project?
City Administrator Seemayer stated
it was his understanding that there would not be.
Alderman Leahy asked what is the
expected life usage of the pipe versus a two-year warranty being given referred
to on page 3, subsection 7.
Kevin Bohnenstiehl - R.G. Ross
Construction came before the Board and stated as far as the life expectancy he
does not know how you would put a time on it.
As far as a warranty, any manufacturer is only going to give you a
limited warranty of some sort. Lifetime
expectancy on something like this is about 20 to 30 years.
Alderman Leahy stated and the
fact that no public improvements are anticipated to be deeded back to the City
would then the care and maintenance of the pipe fall on the holding company to
perpetuate its usage.
Mr. Smallwood stated per MSD, they
have a maintenance agreement with them.
Alderman Leahy stated on page 5,
subsection 9 there is a definition for both “Commencement Date” and
“Incremental Sales Tax Revenue”. He
would like them to insert and clearly define that both of those taxes are only
being taxed from the property itself and not as it is defined here that it
could be incorporated as any of the storm water tax or capital improvement tax
in the City of Brentwood.
Mayor Kelly stated it
states, “. . . Sales Tax attributed to
the Project”.
Alderman Leahy stated with it
strictly generated from the property in question.
Mr. Smallwood directed Alderman
Leahy to the following page where it defines “Sales Tax”.
Alderman Leahy stated he would
like the second to last sentence in the first paragraph on page 6 to include
the same thing as being from the property itself. The way the document is written it could be argued that the tax
could be any of the sales tax or incremented tax from within City boundaries. He would like to make sure that they are all
agreeing that it is strictly from the property in question.
Mr. Smallwood stated the
definition of “Incremental Sales Tax Revenues” is “Sales Tax” meaning storm
water and parks and the capital improvement sales taxes attributed to the project,
which is defined as this project on this property.
Alderman Leahy stated on page 6
and 7, Section 10, paragraph (a), the discussion is within this timeframe if
the property fails to generate enough funds to suffice covering the debt, how
does this affect the City’s rating on its general category for bonds, etc. This paragraph leads you to believe that
this could have an adverse affect on the City.
Mayor Kelly stated the City is
not issuing bonds. The City is
reimbursing the property owner for his investment in the project. He would still be making his payments to the
bank but he would not be getting any more money from the City.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated there would be no credit agencies involved because of the way they
decided to do it.
Alderman Leahy stated page 8,
subsection (b) refers to the $250,000 total improvements and the interest if
they are going to include it. Would it
help this paragraph to also define that it should stay within the five-year
time frame? This has to do with the
termination agreement. He would like to
look at adding a subsection (c) under Section 12 Termination, limiting to the
definition of five years from the completion of the project where they would be
able to start generating. They get the
five years to generate from that time frame.
City Administrator Seemayer asked
Alderman Leahy if he would like the five-year clause restated.
Alderman Leahy responded yes.
Mr. Smallwood pointed out that
page 6, subsection (b), (iv) addresses that.
Alderman Leahy stated page 8,
Section 13, paragraph (b), last sentence could raise the ceiling level from the
$250,000 limitation if it became effective.
Mayor Kelly stated it also gives
the City the ability to go after the property owner if they defaulted.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated the only way the City could default on it is if for some reason the City
decided not to appropriate those payments during the five-year term. The City’s only action is making those
appropriations each year. If the City
defaulted you would be doing that knowingly because you would not be
appropriating the payment.
Alderman Leahy asked if it would
be superlative to ask for the clarification on page 9, Section 14, Amendment or
Modification, that modification of the agreement duly written by the parties
should be with the Board of Aldermen approval.
This does not require any further modification coming back to the Board.
Mayor Kelly stated the Board is
the second party to the agreement.
Alderman Leahy stated in Section
15, since they are dealing with public funds, can they identify that the public
should be allowable as party. Section
15 states that the parties would only be limited to the City of Brentwood
itself and the holding company.
Mayor Kelly stated the elected
officials represent the public.
Alderman Leahy stated what he is
looking at in Section 15 is if a third party, in this case, a member of the
public in the City of Brentwood wishes to challenge this action; Section 15
would preclude them from being able to do so.
Mayor Kelly stated that it would
not. If somebody in the City of
Brentwood wanted to challenge it in court, they have every right to do so.
Alderman Leahy stated page 10,
Section 18 Benefits/Transferability, allows that the agreement may be able to
be assigned by the company. He is
interpreting this paragraph as allowing that in case the sale of the property
would go forward. Would this project
be a capital improvement to the property that the City might be able to
consider some benefit of getting a refund in the way of the improvements they
have helped make to the property?
Mayor Kelly stated it is saying
that if the property is sold and it is not generating sales tax that they will
not receive the rebate from the City of Brentwood. The City is trying to protect itself that if it is not a sales
tax generating business then there is going to be no reimbursement.
Alderman Leahy stated he does not
get that understanding from that section.
Mr. Smallwood stated this
paragraph is meant to give the City a gate from the company assigning this
right to receive the rebate. Prior to
completion of the project, the company cannot assign this agreement without the
Board’s prior written approval. After
the project’s completion the company can sell the property to a new owner and
receive the right of the rebate as long as they are generating revenues.
Mr. Epstein stated that their
lease agreement with Grainger runs for 12 years, so it will run much longer
than the agreement.
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Robertson to amend Bill No. 5307 on page 2,
Section 3, subsection (b) by changing the “fifteen (15) days” to “thirty (30)
days”. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes;
Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated this is
an innovative idea and she believes Hanley Industrial Court will ultimately be
benefited. She asked if they were
setting precedence by doing it. What
would be their exposure if they would get a company that is not going to
generate sales tax?
City Administrator Seemayer
stated there has to be a way to pay for the improvement. If you are not generating the revenue, they
cannot entertain the possibility because they have to find some way to perform
something like this. It is being done
for this project specifically from the new taxes that will be generated by the
project. If someone would come to the
City but did not have any new taxes to offer, the City could say unless there
is some new increment of tax being offered they could respectfully decline.
Alderman Marshall stated one of
the things that they stated in the Ways and Means Committee meeting was that if
a business owner in Hanley Industrial Court wanted to do sewer work that
project would be looked at for its individual merits. They would welcome any business that wanted to come forward and
talk to them about that and they have the right to say yes or no.
Alderman Leahy reiterated that
the agreement should be corrected to refer that it is only a $250,000 cap
all-inclusive. The way the document is
currently written is not right for the City.
Alderman Kramer asked if the
amount is approximately $290,000 at a maximum over a five-year period.
City Administrator Seemayer
responded yes. It could be as high as
$290,000 depending on the actual interest rate.
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Robertson to approve and adopt Bill No. 5307 as
amended. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, no; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes;
Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5307 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4002.
Bill No. 5308 – Plat for Resubdivision
City Attorney Albrecht gave Bill
No. 5308, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLAT FOR RESUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY NUMBERED
8917, 8923, AND 8925 LITZSINGER AVENUE AND ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS ORDINANCE, its first and second readings.
Alderman Kramer asked what was
the frontage on the three existing lots prior to proposed resubdivision.
Dan Stegmann – Stegmann Farms
came before the Board and stated the lots were actually never subdivided. The White family who owns everything from
High School Drive to Brentwood Boulevard never really plotted the lots. They built seven houses on three lots.
Mayor Kelly stated this
resubdivision is on Litzsinger Avenue just east of High School Drive where
there are now existing seven rental properties that will be divided into ten
legal lots. Ten new homes will be built
there.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked if there
would be houses left between Mr. White’s properties.
Mr. Stegmann stated there are
several houses before you get to Mr. White’s house. They have an option on those as well. They are planning to continue that process. They will be doing it in two stages based on
Mr. White’s request. Their intent is to
build 14 or 15 houses.
Alderman Kramer asked what would
be the approximate square footage of the lots.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated on the original plat that went before the Planning and Zoning Commission
they were just over 5,000 square feet with the exception of the corner lot at
High School Drive, which was about 9,000 square feet.
Mayor Kelly stated the 5,000
square feet does not include the 20-feet alley that will be in the rear of the
building.
Bill Biermann – Litzsinger Manor
came before the Board and stated the lots are just a little over 41 feet wide x
149.96 feet deep, except for one odd shaped lot that comes off of
Harrison. The alley will come in off
High School Drive and there will be rear entry units with two-car garages and
driveways.
Alderman Cross asked what would
be the price point on the homes.
Mr. Biermann stated that would
depend on the final elevation that they elect to build which is subject to City
approval through the ARB process.
Ultimately they will be expensive homes, just because of the type of
architecture, look and size. The square
footage will be approximately 1,800 to 3,000.
Alderman Cross asked if the
elevations of the houses would be different.
Mr. Biermann stated there would
be three plans with three elevations.
Alderwoman Jepsen stated there
are currently residents enjoying parking at the edge of that street. She knows the people on the south side of
Litzsinger use the parking there. She
asked if there was still going to be street parking on the north side.
Mr. Biermann stated that they
would be willing to work with the City to come up with a solution. If it is feasible they will certainly
accommodate that. What goes hand in
hand with that is the issue with the sidewalks.
Alderman Robertson asked if what
they are asked to do tonight has any bearing on whether the sidewalks will be
improved or replaced.
Mayor Kelly stated no.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the
existing sewer system and the runoff downhill.
Mel Kosanchick - Volz Engineering
– 10849 Indian Head Industrial came before the Board and stated he had a work
session with MSD and is very familiar with the new improvements that have been
made in that area. They will accept all
the drainage and follow the MSD and City guidelines, collect it and will be
discharging it into the 48 inch RCP reinforced concrete pipe system that was
built. It will be in full compliance
with ordinances and will be a first class job in that area.
Alderman Kramer asked if an
association would be formed for the maintenance of the alley.
Mr. Biermann stated that would be
the simplest way to do it.
Motion was made by Alderman
Cross, second by Alderman Wynn to approve and adopt Bill No. 5308. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
The Mayor thereupon declared Bill
No. 5308 duly passed and signed same into approval thereof. Said Bill was given Ordinance No. 4003.
ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE CITY
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Leahy to approve the warrant list dated
12/19/05.
Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the
amount for Mill Products regarding leaf and ice bags and why were they charged
to Park/Sanitation. She does not see a
Sanitation Department in the description of departments.
Mayor Kelly stated the yard waste
and ice bags are sold to the residents at the Brentwood Recreation Center.
Mr. Seemayer stated he is not
sure why the Sanitation Department is on there.
Alderman Marshall pointed out
that “Cash Recovery Corp.” should be “Cost Recovery Corp.”
Roll call on approval of warrant
list: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman
Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson,
yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
REPORT OF COMMITTEES AND DEPARTMENT HEADS:
Mayor’s Report
United Way
Mayor Kelly stated that he received a thank you letter
from United Way. He thanked Shelly
Williams and Chris Seemayer for their help with the United Way contribution
from employees each year. The
contributions are greatly appreciated by that organization.
Boy Scouts of America
Mayor Kelly stated he also
received a letter from the Boy Scouts of America thanking the City for its
support with the canned food drive this year using the fire department as a
collection point.
Projects
Mayor Kelly stated the City
received two letters from MSD regarding the Parkridge storm water project
including Parkside. The project is
being bid out for the design phase. The
Cecelia, Helen, Florence and Ruth Avenues storm water project, which is a
completely new storm water project with a new storm water system, has been let
to bid for the design as well. The
first phase of this project has been awarded to a contractor and should be
proceeding soon.
Committee Appointment
Mayor Kelly requested that
Alderman Cross be appointed to the Ways and Means Committee.
Motion was made by Alderman
Marshall, second by Alderman Wynn to approve the appointment of Alderman Cross
to the Ways and Means Committee.
Email
Mayor Kelly stated that
Alderwoman Jepsen sent out an email in which she made a comment that she can
remember him quoting that the projects were creating traffic problems and that
the City was not going to do anything about it with respect to the projects
being developed within the City of Brentwood.
Mayor Kelly stated that he has never made that statement. He does not believe that the projects have
created traffic problems in the City of Brentwood. He has reiterated a number of times that the traffic has been an
issue in the community for a long time.
Because of the projects they have spent over $10 million in roadway
improvements in the community of Brentwood.
Without the projects to help fund the improvements the City would not
have those improvements.
Executive Session
Mayor Kelly announced an
executive session would be held following the regular meeting.
Post Office and Parking Garage
Alderman Kramer asked for an
update on the post office and the parking garage.
Mayor Kelly stated the City of
Brentwood was put on hold regarding the post office. They are reevaluating what they need for the post office. With respect to the Metro Link garage all
parties will be signing tomorrow. The
goal is the garage will take no longer than one year to build. Metro is very optimistic that the trains
will be running in September of 2006, so they would like the garage opened as
soon as possible.
Public Safety Committee – No report
Public Works Committee
Alderwoman Jepsen stated that she
attended the November 30th Public Works Committee meeting and would
like the minutes to reflect that.
City Engineer
Projects
Director of Public Works/City
Engineer Payken stated he approved the foundation only permit for the Metro
garage, so they could start the structural work for the foundation. They have submitted the balance of the
package for the entire garage, which is currently under review.
Mr. Payken stated he has been
meeting with representatives of MSD and residents on Rosalie regarding the
project in Ward 2, which is progressing as well. He believes there are four property owners that need to sign
easements.
As far as the Litzsinger widening
project between Cecelia and Helen, Ameren has committed to moving three of the power
poles. They need three easements from
residents. He will be meeting with the
residents to see if they are willing to sign.
Once all that has been accomplished Ameren will come in and move those
poles. They have already scheduled it
tentatively to start within 60 days.
They have been going back and
forth with St. Louis County Highway and MoDOT regarding the Eager Road widening
plans. He was told verbally that both
MoDOT and St. Louis County Highway have now signed off. The only outstanding issue
is what type of pavement will be constructed.
Once that issue has been determined they will have a full scope of work
for the project. The plans will be
finished and they will have it ready to go out for bid.
Mr. Payken stated that they ran
into a problem with the Rosalie Trail and Bridge Project where they did not get
the two easements. They decided to
handle that with a boundary adjustment plat with the two affected property
owners. He has received the boundary
adjustment and has sent them to both property owners for their comments.
Mayor Kelly thanked Mr. Payken
for going out and meeting with residents on a one on one basis to explain what
needs to be done with the projects.
Ways and Means Committee – No report
City Attorney – No
report
City Clerk/Administrator – No report
Director of Economic Development – No report
Excise Commissioner
– No report
Library - No report
Municipal League –
No report
Waste Management Commission – No report
Communication – No
further report
Insurance Committee
– No report
Historical Society –
No report
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Budget
Alderman Marshall stated in doing
the budget one of the things they ran into was double digit increases on health
insurance, rising fuel and heating cost and they were still able to present a
balanced budget with a raise for City employees.
NEW BUSINESS
New Hires
Mayor Kelly stated with the
Board’s approval he would like to bring a resolution to the next meeting to
institute a policy where new employees are hired at the bottom of the pay
scale. It is important from the City’s
standpoint that they start people at the bottom of the pay scale so they can
work their way up and will help reduce some of the City’s long-term costs.
Ward 3 Meeting
Alderman Leahy stated the Ward 3
meeting would be held on Tuesday, December 27th at 7:00 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan
Alderwoman Jepsen asked about the
final public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and when will it be held.
City Administrator Seemayer
stated there would be at least one more public hearing, which will be up to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Aldermen. There could be more than one, but nothing
has been scheduled yet.
Email
Alderwoman Jepsen addressed the
Mayor’s earlier comment regarding the email that was sent. She stated that she did not in any way mean
to accuse the Mayor personally of not doing anything about the traffic
problems. She believes she sat in a discussion
when the Strassner Road extension was going through and perhaps it was the
collective City. They were told by the
County with the Promenade, Dierbergs, etc., there would be ensuing traffic
problems. That concern was brought
forward in light of the red light ticketing program that perhaps they were
going to end up ticketing people that were innocent.
Mayor Kelly stated he does not
remember the County saying that the projects were going to create traffic
problems at any meetings they have had.
They always want to encourage improvements to traffic. The City did traffic studies with all of the
projects. If they were going to create
some kind of problem, the County would have required additional improvements to
make up for those deficiencies.
Recess
The meeting was recessed at 9:00
p.m. for an executive session personnel matter.
Executive Session
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Cross to enter into executive session on a personnel matter
at 9:14 p.m. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes;
Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
Discussion was held on a
personnel matter, no action was taken.
Motion was made by Alderman Leahy, second by Alderman Wynn to return to
open session at 9:25 p.m. Roll call: Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall,
yes; Alderman Leahy, yes; Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes;
Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman Cross, yes.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Alderman Wynn,
second by Alderman Marshall to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Roll call:
Alderwoman Jepsen, yes; Alderman Marshall, yes; Alderman Leahy, yes;
Alderman Kramer, yes; Alderman Robertson, yes; Alderman Wynn, yes; Alderman
Cross, yes.
Pat
Kelly, Mayor
Attest:
Chris Seemayer, City Clerk