Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Hey, Ste. Welcome everyone to the March 2nd, 2026 regular board of alderman meeting. Would everybody please join with me in saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Alderman Puffka, here.

Aldwoman Ty, here. Aldwoman Gold here. Aldwoman Sims here. Alderman Lock Miller here. Alman Wood here. Alderman Harter here. Alderman Urg absent. Mayor D, you have a quum. Thank you. Uh, next on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do we have any questions? Any requests to remove any item? Alderman Lock Mueller. Like to make a motion that we table bill 6591 until our next meeting on March 16th. Second. We have a motion and a second to table whatever item that was. Bill is 6591. Item uh I lost everything. B under

old business. Old business 10B. Yeah. Um any discussion on that? Oh, okay. Yep. 10B. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please indicate by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Any other changes? If not, can we get a motion to approve the uh the agenda as amended? So move. Second. All in favor, please indicate by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Move on down to announcements, appointments, which we have none. And down to item five, public hearing. We have one item and that is a public hearing on an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit for Honey Coffee to operate a restaurant with carry out at 13 Brentwood Prominade Court within the Brentwood Prominade Shopping Center in the PD planned development overlay district. So with that I will open the public hearing and I think what we're going to do actually Whitney is have is the applicant here? No, no applicant.

Okay. Well, then, uh, Whitney, why don't you go ahead and, uh, let us let the public know what this is all about. Um, the applicant is the current owner of Honeybee Coffee in the Dearberg Shopping Center. And so, they are looking, I'm sorry, Honeybee Tea. So, they are now looking at filling the vacant former uh, Great Clips space within the Brentwood Prominade for Honey Coffee. Um they are making no changes to the exterior of the building or the site and there were no issues regarding parking and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval. And why do they need a a cup? Is it a conditional use permit that they need?

Yes. Restaurants with uh carry out require a conditional use permit. Okay. In the plan development overlay district. Wonderful. Thank you. Uh any questions? Anybody in the public care to address uh or speak on this matter? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this item and move on down to the next item on the agenda, which is the citizen comments. Anybody in the public care to address the board? Now is the time to do so. All we ask is that you come to the podium, state your name and your address, and you'll be given up to three minutes. Have anybody online? No.

All right. Wonderful. We'll drop on down to mayor and alderman reports. First up is the mayor. First of all, I want to thank alderwoman Ty for handling the uh the meeting, the last board of alderman meeting. I heard from many alder people that it was the best ran meeting that they've had uh in a long time. Uh but uh I was in Jefferson City for the Missouri Municipal League Legislative Conference. Um it's a day and a half conference. It's a wonderful opportunity to um hear from different legislators and also to um go and meet and speak with your your representatives whether it's your senators or your your or your representative. One thing I wanted to report to the board is a report from the state auditor. Uh and um what what he what he told the uh people in attendance was that the state of Missouri as late as I think 2023 had a $6 billion budget surplus. And he said that at the current rate that they're going uh he expects that budget surplus to be gone by the fall of 2027. So the state of Missouri will have no budget surplus. And the reason for this is um a couple of things. Number one, onetime expenditures as we all are familiar with. Sometimes you use those those surpluses to do that. One is the uh Interstate 70 expansion. Some other items, but the other reason that it's getting wiped out is uh budget deficits year-over-year from the state of Missouri. U they have made some massive tax cuts over the years and so their revenues are dropped, but their expenditures haven't. And so every year they're pulling three or 400 million dollars out of the um out of the surplus to to fill that gap. And it's it's problematic. So uh kudos to to our staff and to you all for making sure that we don't find ourselves in that position. Uh not only are we not pulling from our

budget reserves, but we continue to to add to it uh year over year. though. Uh it's just it's a wonderful reminder of how important it is to have folks that are responsible and good stewards of the tax dollars. And that is it for the mayor's report. Alderman Pluff report. Alderwoman and Parker Ty.

I have two things. on uh Thursday, March 5th. This Thursday, we have our raise and means meeting here in the chambers at 6 p.m. And then our ward one meeting is next Tuesday, the 10th at uh 6:00 pm in the rec center. And we will have uh someone from SWT who's the civil engineer who did the design work on of the water runoff at Mount Calvary Park. We had a lot of interest in that and hopefully we have great attendance again this time. Thank you, Alderman. No report. Alderman Sims, no report. Alderman Lock Mueller. Public works committee will meet this Thursday, March 12th at 6 o'clock in this chamber. Thanks,

Alderman Gold. The uh next communications committee meeting is um March 17th. It'll be uh right after the next board meeting. Uh that is St. Patrick's Day. So, if you're wanting to hang out with us and celebrate St. Patrick's Day and listen to what the committee has to say, I welcome you. All right. and Alderwoman Harter. No report.

Okay, that drops us down to the city administrator report. We have one item and that is presentation of the annual actuarial valuation report for the police and fireman's pension fund. AJ right good evening. Thank you for putting uh this very important topic on the agenda. Uh my name is AJ Stole. I'm with Econ Benefits. We serve as the actuary for the pension plan um as well as administrative support for processing benefit payments for the plan and we have done that for quite some time. Um today what we have to review is the annual valuation report. So we do a report once per year after collecting census data from um from the city to value the liabilities, bump them up against the assets and review the funded status of the plan. and then not only looking at it as a snapshot, but also taking this opportunity to kind of project forward and talk about the health of the overall plan. Um, so my goal today, I do have the full valuation report. We're not going to go line by line through each page. Uh, but I thought I would just provide some of the key commentary and point you to the to the important parts of the Val report. And AJ, if I could interrupt just for a second, just for the benefit of those watching and listening, can you explain to them which pension that we're talking about

and how in general is it is it funded? How are how are contributions are made to that? Sure. So, this is the city of Brentwood Police and Firefighters Pension Plan. Um, and there are two sources of contributions. There's employee contributions. They contribute 6% of compensation to the plan. Um and then there's earmarked tax retirement revenue um that is contributed to the plan on behalf of the city. And where does that come from? Um taxpayers. Okay. But real estate taxes. How about that? There we go. Property tax. The real estate tax bill. Property tax. Okay. Thank you. Um absolutely. Please continue.

And so in the report on page three, this is the commentary. The the key item that I want to draw everyone's attention to is that the market value of assets returned 12.33% for the year ending December 31st, 2025. Um, built into our cost is that we believe that the investments will return 7% per year. And anytime that you see outperformance of that 7%, you're going to see funded status improvement in the analysis. And anytime you have investment performance below 7%, you'll see deterioration in the funded status. So with a 12.33% return, what you're going to see in the in the valuation report is an overall improvement in the level of the funded status um as we look forward. Um and then there's a couple of pages that I think are are are helpful that provide 10 years of historical review of of what that looks like. And just to note, this is the seventh out of the last nine years with double-digit investment return growth. Um it just so happens that the two non-doubledigit investment return growths were basically double- digit negative investment return growths. So um over the last 9 years, 10 years, you've averaged around an 8 and a/4% investment return. But if we look just at the last five years, closer to a 6 and a4% investment return because of the poor performance from 2022. Did I see a question?

Can I ask a question, Jenn? Um, so can you explain the significance of having a ratio of planned assets to present value of acred benefits that exceeds 100%.

Sure. So there are going to be three different measures of funded status in this valuation report. Um, the present value of acred benefits takes a snapshot as of today and ignores the future. It doesn't project compensation. It doesn't project service. It says, "What are the benefits that participants have earned today?" Um, and we're going to value that liability measure. Uh, there are a couple other measures that we have in here. One that we call an acred liability. And I like to refer to that one as doing a little bit more actuarial gymnastics because we're going to project participants compensation through retirement and then we're going to discount that back to today. So the ac crude liability is going to have a bit higher liability because we're pulling the costs that are backloaded in a participant's career earlier into their career so that they have a funding mechanism that's more of a percent level percent of pay. Uh the present value of acrude benefits ignores that and just looks at the benefits today. And your plan is a final average pay plan, which means that we're looking at the pay at retirement for an individual. And because that pay at retirement is going to be so much larger than pay earlier in a participant's career, most of a participant's benefit is earned in the last several years because of the value of that pay in the formula. So, we don't want to wait until the last few years to fund the highest level. we want to pull that earlier into um a participant's career and fund it on a more of a level percent of pay basis.

Guess my question I I I appreciate your answer. I I guess my question was more to does the ratio that exceeds 100% speak to the health of the fund?

Yeah, a little bit. I would say that it used to be that you just looked at one funded status number and now I would say we do a little bit more triangulation to dictate if we feel like the plan is in a healthy position. funded status above 100% is one of those measures that we're certainly looking for. The other is the future trajectory of the plan. How do the contributions coming into the plan match up to the benefits that are being earned so that you maintain a forward-looking positive trajectory of funded status growth. Um, and so we would really pair those two to tell you whether or not you feel like this is a healthy plan. And so you're over 100% funded with about a.7% funded status improving trajectory. Um, which is on one of our pages later in the report. Um, which which means it's healthy. I think that this plant would be a little bit healthier if you were at 110% funded with about a 1 and a half to 2% buffer because that allows you the opportunity to have bad experience, right? Right? When you have a bad investment year and you lose 10% in the markets, um your funded status can go from 110 to 100% and maintain that forwardlooking positive trajectory. Pension plans can get in trouble if they maintain 100% funding. They have a bad year and they fall below 90, below 80, and they start having a really hard time funding back that deficit. So, um I think this plan is in is in good shape. Um, but we're going to continue to to want to see that 110% with about a 1 and a.5% forwardlooking trajectory. Uh, but I have plans that are 60% funded that are also healthy because they've got tax revenue that's improving their funded status by about 5 to 7% per year. So, they had maybe a big tax revenue increase. They paired it with benefit increases. So, the funded status is just one component of the the health of the plan.

Yep. And then funded status. There's many different funded statuses as I mentioned. So finding the right one that speaks to the health of the plan is also important. I think the present value of acred benefits for this plan doesn't tell the whole story because it ignores that compensation growth component. For other fire districts where their formula is maybe a flat dollar time service, the present value of acred benefits would be a fine measure, but not for this plan. Right. So, we'll skip ahead. Um, page four. I did want to uh call attention just the value of assets. Um, because we are looking at at the cash value, what's in the bank, but we also are looking at acrruals. So, tax revenue for the 2025 plan year is not contributed to the plan until 2026. and we count that in the value of assets primarily because we're counting the liability that was acred during 2025. So we're trying to keep the liability in the assets on an applesto apples basis. Since we're counting the liability growth in 2025, we also want to count the tax revenue that would be associated with that. So I just wanted to note that as of 12312025, there's 1.299 million of contributions expected to be made to the plan in 2026. That's 2025 tax dollars. Um, and that's a little bit larger than the acrruals at the beginning of the year. And that's because there was a bit more money that came in in December of 2024 that didn't come in in December of 2025. So, the timing of those acrruels is important and particularly there's one page in the back that looks at cash contributions that I don't think it tells the full story because of that nuance of of acrual timing. Um, page five is one of our most important pages. This is the development of our recommended contributions. So the bottom is page

five. Um this is the analysis of contribution input. Um on an annual basis, we're looking at what should the plan target to fund and we're going to bump that up against the estimated tax revenue to see if you're funding more or less than that that recommended amount. The recommended contribution has two components. There's a normal cost and then there's an amortization. The normal cost reflects the growth of benefits for an additional year of pay, an additional year of service for your active members. So that's the true cost to provide benefits for the 2026 plan year for your active participants. The amortization component is basically a mortgage of any unfunded liability that you might have. So from 2025 to 2026, the plan flipped from having an unfunded liability to an overfunded liability becoming over 100% funded on that actuarially smooth basis. Um and so we actually have a negative amortization payment which brings that recommended contribution down because you're more or less having a mortgage payment that's paying you as you grow that funded status. Uh but overall what we'd expect on a prospective basis is that that normal cost will be about the same percentage of pay year-over-year, right? About 25% of pay. We'd expect that into the future. But what that means is as pay rises, as you give pay increases, that dollar amount will also rise. So we expect an increasing dollar cost, but a level more or less level percent of pay. um for the cost of providing these benefits. Um if we scoot ahead then on page six uh this is the present value of acred benefits. So just bottom line at the

bottom here the plan improved from 109% funded to 113% funded on this basis. Um in two pages we're going to show you a funded status that's closer to 100% because that's going to incorporate that future compensation growth and pulling it back. But on a present value of acred bas benefits basis we saw that 4% improvement and that's generated from the investment returns outperforming your 7% target. Page seven just reviews the participant summary. So highlighting here that there are 54 active participants in the plan, 54 retired participants and five terminated vested participants. uh page 8 is a development of our balance sheet on this acred liability basis. So as of 112025 you are starting the year at 1.7 million in unfunded liability. So you add 54.9 million of acred liability, 53.183 of assets to get that 1.7 unfunded position. Uh marking down the page from one to five. These are all items that are expected to happen each year. We expect there to be interest on both the liabilities and the assets. So that unfunded because you were unfunded at the beginning was going to grow slightly. The normal cost, that's the participants growing their benefit with a year of service and a year of additional pay in their benefit formulas. The contributions are being made to the plan that offset that normal cost component. And then benefit payments are coming out. And so it comes out of both assets and liabilities. There's no real impact on your unfunded position. So we were expecting from 1125 to 12312025 that the unfunded would improve from a 1.7 to 1.5 million. So about a 200,000 improvement.

Line six is what happened that we weren't expecting. And there's two parts. There's the liability side and the asset side. So we know that assets outperformed 7%. And so there was a $2.664 million improvement in the funded position because of that difference of a 7% expectation versus the 12.66% actual investment return. On the liability side, there was a loss. So we we do our best as actuaries to come up with assumptions and they're all outlined in the back of this page. But I'm going to be wrong, right? The longer I do this, the more closer I get on an average basis. Um but this year we had a 65% loss and it had kind of an a loss that was offset by gains. So last year average pay exceeded the 4 and a.5% target uh the the assumption target that we have built into the valuation. So that created losses on the liabilities but it was offset by about four participants that terminated without being vested. So there were gains that offset the losses. um we were anticipating that there would be more losses because we knew about the pay gains or the pay increases and we didn't know about the non-vested participants. So um that ended up being a little bit of a a headwind or a tailwind in terms of reducing that loss that occurred during the year. So you're ending the year 12312025 overfunded position of 770,000. Any initial questions on that development? Okay. on slides 10 and 11. These are two really good pages. They provide 10 years of history to just showcase where the plan had been, where is it currently, uh, in comparison. Um, and on page 10, what we're showing is the actuarially determined employer contributions that we walked through. It's composed of the normal cost and that amortization.

And the second column, it's the actual contributions that were made during the calendar year. I don't love this page. This is mandated because it doesn't include the acrual timing. Um so like for instance the 2025 plan year has 1 million of contributions. Uh but that's just cash contributions that were made during 2025. What we know is that 1.4 million in the 2024 row had a little bit of 2025 kind of including it. So I don't love that that last column which shows a contribution as percentage of covered payroll. You would you would imply from this that 2025 has the lowest contribution percentage of covered payroll. But really you should compare the first column which is our actuarily recommended contribution against payroll uh which is about a 31% um number and that's a little bit more in line with where it has been historically. So takes a little bit of that timing of contributions out of it. Um the other thing to note on this page is that on the bottom it shows the investment return by year for the last 10 years and you can correlate spikes in the actuarily determined employer contribution with years following bad investment returns. So the 2022 investment return was -3%. When you expect to earn seven, you earn negative -3. That's a 20% hit to your funded status. And you can see the recommended contribution in 22 was at a low of 391,000 and then popped up to 1,380,000. Um, and then the next couple years when you have good investment returns, it starts to tick back down. Um, the next page uh shows that full uh review of the liability development and the asset development uh for the last 10 years. Um, and and again it just provides a lot of good context. I think I I call this

my actuarial report card. Uh there's one line on here called the actuarial losses and gains on liabilities. Our assumptions are meant to be middle of the road. We're not trying to be aggressive. We're not trying to be conservative. We're trying to be middle of the road on all of our assumptions. Um so I would love it if all of these actuarial gains and losses were zero. That means I always got every actual experience right on. Uh but if it's not that, I'd like to see negatives in some years and positives in other years that kind of average out to zero over a long enough horizon. Um and so we saw in 2024 there was quite a large loss. That's was a $3.4 million liability loss, which is substantially larger than any other year in the last 10 years. Two components driving that liability up. One, compensation grew by more than expected. So there was a cost study that kind of pushed up compensation numbers and then two there were disabilities that occurred. Those are low probability, high severity events and that created some liability for the plan. Um but overall in other years we're seeing that expected kind of flip-flop between gains and losses. And when we look at each assumption, our assumptions seem to be in line with experience. The last two pages that I'd like to point you to are pages 16 and 17. So page 16 kind of incorporates what we've been talking about. The plan is 101% funded, 770,000 overfunded position at the beginning of the year. What does that mean looking forward? Um so the expected contributions for the year of 2026 1,690,000 that composes of about 312,000 of employee contributions and a,377 of employer contributions.

We've got the acrruals that participants are earning in the plan and expenses that are being paid out of assets of 1.36 million leaving 329,000 to further improve the funded status of the plan. Because you are now in a position where you're overfunded, you also get a little bit of interest on that overfunding. So your net is about 383,000 of expected funded status improvement year-over-year. So that's.7% on a funded status measure. So you'll go from 101 to 101.7% this year. Um page 17 is a new required disclosure that's included in these valuation reports. Um the actual standards board decided that we don't show enough funded status measures. So they added one for us. They call this the LD ROM or the low default risk obligation measure. And so the idea here is what if you are not able to earn 7% return on your assets. What does the funded status look like and what does that trajectory look like? Um so if we use this low discount rate of 4.44% 44% which is like a a bond rate a very low you know a bond rate um the liabilities would be valued at a higher level because you're discounting cash flows at a lower discount rate so you would increase your liabilities from the 57 million that we have included in our valuation to 77 million on this basis your funded status drops from 101% to 75% and on a forward-looking basis maintaining an expected contribution of 1.69 million, your funded status would expect to deteriorate by 2.1%. So the idea here is that the 7% investment return is really built into the funding of this plan, right? At a

4.44% or low um low return expectation, um you would need to fund almost double what you're currently funding to just tread water. And when you think about it on a 401k standpoint, you know, young people and people generally under age 50 aren't encouraged necessarily to invest in low risk, low default investments. They want that investment return which is going to make up a substantial part of their retirement income. Um the same is true with the pension plan. Um it's just that the pension plan holds the risk of that, right? both the upside risk which you've seen over the last several years and the downside risk which you saw in 2022. Um and so this does a a job in just highlighting that that 7% is built into how this plan is expected to be funded contributions but also earnings from from the investment side of the portfolio. Any questions about the the valuation report?

Yes. Alderman Dice. Hi AJ. Good to see you. Hello, great to see you.

So, I have a question about the next page 18. Um, so in on this page are the assumptions and I my question is about the salary appreciation number of 4 and a half%. So when we did the compensation study the um salary increase you know we do a CPI which is a fiveyear CPI to get the um to get the um the increase and then in addition to that the step increases in the uniform employees is 5 and a half% per step. So my question is, are assumptions here too low to keep up with the way our salaries are growing?

Uh, great question. I think this assumption pulls a lot of weight in the liabilities. Um, primarily because if you think about the tax revenue that you're receiving, the tax revenue is expected to increase generally with inflation. So if you're increasing your tax revenue with two uh.75% inflation and you're increasing your salaries by 4 and a.5% eventually your salaries will overtake your tax revenue. So there's a little bit of interplay there that we have to understand what is your tax revenue basis and what is your compensation growth expectations um and project those out kind of in tandem. Um, and so this is intended to be a career assumption. It's not a annual assumption. It's a career assumption. Um, and it's made up of two components. That inflationary expectation as well as promotional step increases. Um, and so over the course of a 30-year career, the average expectation is built to be 4 and a.5%. Um, you have control over that, right? of all of the assumptions here, this assumption is very much in your control to manipulate and and change as as needed. Um, one of the levers that you know, if the plan was ever to become in a position that it was struggling to meet contribution requirements, making sure that you're not having those pay increases that increase your costs would, you know, fuel potential savings in the pension plan. Um but from our analysis and and historical pay this four and a half percent assumption has been um accurate and we can see that because in the actuarial report card there are gains and losses and so we're looking at all of the assumptions over time. Um this assumption if you're telling me going forward now is different than what it has been historically. We can have that conversation of whether or not this assumption will continue. um and we can

model what the cost of a higher assumption could look like. Um but from our understanding, this still is an applicable assumption on our best estimate. Great. Thank you. Anybody else? And again, this is justformational only. No action is required by you all. But thank you so much, AJ.

And my last closing comment is I think the plan is is in a healthy position. You're over 100% funded. Um, now you've kind of come out from that 2022 negative investment return. You've built in the compensation increases that have happened. Um, but you will still require that 7% return going forward. You will still require that strong contribution at at roughly current levels. Um, so it's not necessarily a finish line hitting 100%. It'll be continuing um to hit those 7% in contribution targets. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. Uh do we have any questions about any item on the consent agenda? Alderman Pluffka

uh email earlier this afternoon from Octavia having to do with the correctness of the minutes from February 17th, 2026. I was just curious as to whether or not what's in the consent agenda is the corrected redline version or or we have to make a motion to incorporate that as we vote to approve the consent. You're going to motion to incorporate them. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. You want to make that motion? I would make that motion. Second. Okay. Wonderful. Uh, so do we um uh So, how are we handling this, Jim? Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? Yes, that's exactly. We don't need to take a vote on the motion.

No, it can just be a motion to approve the consent agenda with the minutes as amended that were submitted to the board this afternoon. Okay. Get a motion to that effect, please. So moved. Second. Uh, any discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Altman PLA. Yes. Autooman Ty. Yes. Awoman Gold, yes. Autowoman Sims, yes. Alman Lockmiller, yes. Aman Gold, yes. Autooman Harter, yes. Motion pass. Wonderful. Drops us down to old business. First up is bill number 6590. Can we get a second read by Title only, please.

Bill number 6590, an ordinance amending sections 400.450,400.920, 400.930 in division 4 and division 8 of chapter 400 relating to building permits for residential buildings and construction projects and declaring when approval of the architectural review board is required. Motion to perfect. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Oh, I'm sorry, Alderoon Goat. I didn't see that. Sorry. That's all right. I'm small.

Um for this it says um in the new version to In the new version it says to um sorry, where did it go? Um to review. Do we want to add anything about granting them the position to review, consider, and approve instead of just to review and consider because currently they improve or does review and consider imply approval? We'll let Whitney field that one.

Um, yes, and thank you for your question. Um uh instead of the way it reads now, it says to approve which we felt was too much of a foregone conclusion where under section 400950 it has that the board the architectural review board is to make a um either approve conditionally approve or deny. Um so therefore we wanted to clarify that it was to review and consider um to encompass all of that that they can consider denial approve or conditional approve. However, I understand your concern with how it's worded. So we would recommend that it would be to review, consider, and take action. Um, so and that would be for section 400450A1 and A2 to read to review, consider, and take action. Or it could say to review, consider, and vote to approve, deny, or modify, however you feel best.

However you like to handle it. I'll go with the first one to review, consider, and take action. Yes. In any direction just to clarify is to make sure that they know they have that decision-m authority. Yes. Okay. So, we just need a subsequent motion to amend uh by inter delineation in that manner and once we have that then we'll we'll have a final we can do the vote. We don't need another motion to um to approve. Okay. No, we just need the the subsequent motion to amend um as described to have it read to review. consider and take action.

So I would move that we um update as just discussed to review, consider and take action um as the new language. Second just a minute. Any discussion? Do we do that separately or? Yep. Now just a all in favor on that. All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Now we've got the we have the motion to for uh to perfect. Uh any further discussion? Roll call, please. Alderman Pleska, yes. Autooman Ty, yes. Autowoman Gold, yes. Alderwoman Sims, yes. Lock Miller, yes. Gold, yes. Awoman Harter,

yes. Now it now becomes ordinance number 5215. Okay. Thank you. Uh item 10B, we have tabled that. So we'll move down to 10 C, which will be bill number 6592. Can we get a second read by title only, please?

Bill number 6592, an ordinance amending sections 375.010 010 through 375.150 of chapter 375 of title 3 repealing sections 340 and 340.107 of chapter 340 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brentwood regulating the use of alternative vehicles in the city of Brentwood Missouri and amending section 225.040 040 of chapter 225 of the code of ordinances regarding park rules.

Wonderful. Uh chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6592 into ordinance form. So moved. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Sorry. I need to grow. No, it's my eyes. There's something wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh just wanted to clarify on So, I've talked to a number of neighbors. They really are happy something is being done. There was just some folks that wanted to understand what we meant by certain things. I think um so in particularly for um the motorized play vehicles and the example I'll use is a Barbie Jeep. um if they don't live um on a street that currently has sidewalks, um would they be able to drive said vehicle from their house straight to a closest sidewalk or trail path? Would that be considered allowable?

We won't have Chief respond to that. Chief speech, you want to address that that concern raised by Alderman Go about uh whether we're going to give a citation to uh six-year-old driving the Barbie Jeep. It's a great question. Great question. Until they pointed out they had no sidewalks and they just drive to the trails point. No. Well, my answer is is this that uh some of this is common sense. Don't let a six-year-old take her Barbie thing out of your house and go two blocks to the park. That's a bad idea. Uh, do we have to codif codify that somehow in here? I I don't think you need to do that. Okay.

Uh, part of this is the officers are given discretion in terms of what they're going to do and not do. Clearly, in a case like that, I think what they'd say is, uh, either, "Hey, little girl, you need to go home to your mom," or to the mom, you're fine till you get to the park. I I don't really think this is going to be an issue.

Second question that got f brought up, not something they necessarily disagreed with. They just wanted clarification on the electric MTD. A little um yes. Um that it is not allowed on parks and trails. Um, their impression was it only went four miles an hour, but that they weren't sure on that. So, catch up with here. You're you're talking about the little standup guy with two wheels on it, right?

Yes. I think the parent may have been imagining come spring their child would take said vehicle on the path behind Douglas Court to Mark Twain. They're not opposed to that not being if that is the rule they'll they seemed very comfortable abiding by it. They just wanted to know how they were going to explain that one. Um they're good if that was the rule. So they're excluded from the parks and trails. Correct. So they couldn't but they are allowed on sidewalks. I defer to Jim and I ask you, Jim, can you share why that is

just a discussion among um well, it started with staff including Eric and his staff as to to parks, but then it went to public safety. Um kind of got reviewed for all the check marks and X's in the table, got that review. So yeah, the the current intent is that those items would be in fact prohibited on trails and in the parks. Certainly this board has the ability if they're so inclined to make any amendments. U we want we want the legislation to achieve your not forcing you to vote on alderman. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Well, I I will say that um I mean I did have this concern a little bit in the in public safety and I living living where I do I adjacent to Rogers Parkway that's a that's an area that um kids use the the hoverboards all the time and um I would rather them be there especially since there aren't sidewalks either um along there. Um, I guess I would I would be open to th those type of um vehicles being allowed on on at least the trails. Um, I don't know why. I don't know if Eric can speak to the the concern with them and on on in the parks. Maybe Alderman Pluff.

Yeah, I from our committee conversation, it was the stance of the vehicle. In other words, a bike has a has a more narrow footprint, if you will,

than this device, which has a wider footprint. And we thought that even with the 10- foot wide trail system that if you had two people walking and this thing came up on onto them and they go faster than four miles an hour. Um, but that because of its stature, it it would it could be disruptive. And so we thought that that was at least the rationale at the time. It wasn't, you know, we it was something we talked about. It was definitely a fluid conversation where we talked back and forth. Um, but I know that that was what came up just was the nature, the orientation of the vehicle itself being forward facing and wider as opposed to profile of a of a scooter or a an ebike. But it's no wider than a Barbie truck or you know.

Um so and and certainly it does they do zip along pretty pretty quick. I I will say that. Um so four miles an hour is probably not how fast it goes. Eric,

the two things I'd say is that hoverboards in particular most of the time are prohibited in parks and trails. Uh and the main reason is while uh some people are good at them, it is a uh a a device that is can lead to um mistakes and it's harder to control than say just a regular bike or even a skateboard. And so I think it's those are the reasons why you see that prohibited in most parks. It is more the danger if someone misuses it than properly using it. Thank you. Anybody else? Good. Good. Okay. Thanks, sir.

Uh, sure. No, absolutely. So, we had a motion to perfect, right? Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Roll call, please. Alderman Plusa, yes. Awoman Ty, yes. Aud, yes. Awoman Sims, yes. Alman Lockmiller, yes. Alderman Gold, yes. Awoman Harter, yes. Bill number 6592 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5216.

Wonderful. Thank you. That brings us down to new business. We have two items. First up is bill number 6593. Can we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 6593, an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit for Honey Coffee to operate a restaurant with carry out at 13 Brentwood Prominade Court within the Brentwood Prominade Shopping Center in the PD Plan Development Overlay District. Wonderful. And the applicant is here now. If you would Hello. Hello. just go ahead and identify yourself and and speak a little bit about what you're what you're proposing.

Okay. Yes. Um I uh currently run the uh honeybee tea that's uh next door in uh Brentwood Prominade and um really enjoy doing business in the city of Brentwood. So, um I'm proposing to open up a a coffee shop at the plaza uh uh over at um the prominade and um it's going to be coffee and uh matcha and um light pastries and um looking forward to to to doing it and continuing to do business in Brentwood. It's been a joy and um uh looking forward to trying this this new concept here. So

is Oh, I'd also since um I'd I'd like uh to ask for a first and second review um tonight since we're not making any changes to the you know exterior or the the site. Sure. So it's is it strictly carry out or there be places for people to sit and drink? There'll be a few uh uh a few tables to sit, but mo most likely just like our shop, people are always on the go. They're they're probably going to leave. Yeah. So, it's a it's aimed for to go. So, and parking's covered. Uh yes, there's plenty of parking on that side of the plaza. I know that that plaza tends to get a little bit congested, but uh

really and but luckily fortunately for us in the the the corner when you first enter the plaza on the far left, it's it's always seems to be a bunch of spots open there. So, that's good for us. And what about signage? Um it'll we're going to have uh signage on the the front of the the the building. So Whitney are are there is there special requests for signage or is does it No, sir. He um he did not show any signage. So they would either have to comply with the current standards. Um I know the center is under a comprehensive sign plan. I don't know the specifics at this location.

Um okay. Thank you. Any questions? You did hear the applicant make a request for a second read tonight. If the board's so inclined, I need a motion to that effect. So moved. Okay, we've got a motion and a second for a second read. Any discussion on that motion? Uh, all in favor, please indicate by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, Mr. City Attorney, could we get a second read by title only, please? Bill number 6593, an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit for Honey Coffee to operate a restaurant with carry out at 13 Brentwood Prominade Court within the Brentwood Prominade Shopping Center in the PD plan development overlay district. Thank you. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6593 into ordinance form. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Alderman Puffka, yes. Autowoman Ty, yes. Awoman Gold, yes. Awoman Sims, yes. Alman Lockmiller, yes. Aman Gul, yes.

Awoman Harter, yes. Bill number 6593 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5217. Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you all and welcome. Thank you. Uh, next up is bill number 6594. Could we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 6594, an ordinance granting site development plan approval for chiller equipment sound enclosure at 2555 Hermalan Drive. Applicant want to come on up and introduce yourself?

Sure. My name is Dennis Johnson. I'm with Kand Drug Delivery. I'm the senior project manager for facilities and going to get um a first and second reading tonight as Okay. You want to speak a little bit on uh what what you're what you're proposing?

Uh we are proposing to put a sound attinuation barrier around our chiller that has been um I guess causing some um neighbors to be upset with us over there. 2555 Hermalin. Um our goal is to have um our decibb down to 49.9 dBA uh 247 which is uh 0.1 below uh what it is to be on Sunday afternoons. So, and at night time I do have my engineer of record with me and he can explain a lot more than I can. Okay. I'm just the face. He's he's

um so this is a facility that's been there since what had a few additions I believe and uh Okay, go ahead and and just talk just briefly about the the sound issue. Okay. So, um in in 2018 we started our CGMP2 project uh which was adding on to the building. Uh in 2020 we commissioned uh the chiller that is um for lack of a better term making making the noise. Uh we did do a couple of iterations of put a muffler on it, put some sound dampening on it and it just did not um do do the job. Uh so we have uh we had two engineers um start off on the project to get us to that 49.9 uh CRB is is is the winner and uh they believe they can get that u 49.9 dBA at our property line and the sound barrier that they they have designed

correct questions about that Davis can can handle those. Any questions? Alderman Lock Miller. Yeah. I could we speak with the engineer. And your name is? My name is Davis Beglin. Dave. Um, so we're looking at the chillers that are somewhat elevated. That's where the 24 foot wall is going to be constructed. Go ahead. There will be uh so the chiller sits on an existing um structural steel platform. Right. So it is already currently elevated. What we're going to be doing is we're going to be building the acoustical panels off of that existing platform temporarily. You have plywood up. Yes. And so will it be higher than the current plywood?

What is the you know the height? 10 ft.

We have the existing one there. 24 foot U-shaped. So, we're at just under 15 foot for what we're proposing for our uh for our new plan for the panels for that would be on the 4ft tall existing platform. If you can see that or not. So, how tall is the barrier? Total of 20 ft. And then you also have some air handlers or air conditioners that also are requiring a wall, a soundproof wall. There's like six listed.

We're only focusing on the chiller. I don't believe there's anything else that we're doing for any other air units. It's the chill making the noise. We're focusing on that. All right. I just saw in the the report that it had six lined up air conditioners that were making some noise, too. And you proposed a barrier there or not?

So, that that was the um that was the original iteration with with Burtons at McDonald. Um so through our additional sound study, we determined that that is not needed at this time. Um as a part of the um what we went to planning and zoning with with was that we would do an additional sound study once it's complete to ensure that we are at that DBA that we that we're at the 49.9. So, so we're going to omit the additional sound wall on those smaller units um unless it is an issue to which time we will address it. Then who will do the sound study? An independent through you guys is

um we do have a sound meter so we could do it. If we want further review, we would require the applicant to have their engineer do another study for submitt. Those would be taken at the same areas that they were taken back in August. Yes, I forgot the date, but be the same time period or would it be upon completion? It would be at at completion of the project uh to ensure that the sound walls are compliance with the zoning regulation.

How long will that take? wise like September, October time frame, but that also depends on approval when we can get drawing submitted for permit and all that because my feeling is during the cold cold winter months when those trees have no leaves. I mean, that would be a good time to do the test because I just think the sound probably carers carries during the winter months or fall months further than they do during the humid uh you know, summer months.

Chiller is actually the most part louder in the summertime too, just because it's working a lot harder to cool um cool the area. So, summertime would be the the best time. It's usually when it's the loudest. I understand what your point is though. Yes. You know, the chiller was initially approved in 2015 at the planning and zoning commission and it is in the flood way. So, we're still working um they will have to submit for FEMA approval. Um really for a no rise for a modification to the structure. Yes. Um okay. We are that will be part of the

Okay. Any idea how long that's going to take? We have a little experience with FEMA. That's why I'm asking you. Yeah, I'm already Yeah. Okay. No, that's fine. That was That's good. Uh, any other questions? Yes, Alderman Ghoul.

I just have a followup on um what Alderman Lock Miller was getting getting at and and at the time the way that this is designed, if if when we do the the sound study and it isn't meeting the the decibel levels that you're looking for, what's the plan then? How do how do you augment the design to actually get to the levels that we're looking for? Is it adding panels to to to the top of it to go even higher?

There are multiple there are multiple options that we can move forward. We don't have an exact like contingency plan for if it doesn't work, but yes, we can add panels to it. Um we can surround it more without suffocating the chiller. There's other options we can do. Um, but we're working with Acoustic Control, which is our sound engineer, our subconsultant for this, and they've looked at all the information. They've came out, did preliminary reports on it, and they do believe that they can get that underneath the 49.

I just I just didn't know if there was already a plan for if it doesn't work, this is how we would in the design of it, this is how we'd mitigate. We don't have anything specifically spelled out for it, but you know, these are it's it's tricky to make sure that we get that that sound exact to to that 49 dB, but um in discussions with acoustic control, they believe they can do that. And if we can't achieve that, there is other options that we can and is the is the sound the the I guess noise pollution that's happening, is it is it going everywhere? Is it directed up? Is it coming, you know, or once we install? No, I'm just talking in general like you know, from a direction of the of what's causing the sound. Is it just Yes. Omniirectional?

So, so yes, it it is uh since it's raised um off of the ground the four feet, it it does travel everywhere. It's um it comes from the underside of the machine of the chiller itself. The um compressor is on the bottom and that's that's what's creating the And you're and you've got uh some some fabric that you're putting down for the sound blankets. Sound blankets. So, so because and that's because of the um FEMA issues, build off of the ground if we if we at all can avoid it. Yes. Okay. Anybody else? I guess speaking as the owner, my my last contingency plan would be to move the chiller uh to the other side of the building.

I'm I'm I'm being serious. It's a consideration because I mean, we want to be friendly neighbors and we don't want our neighbors to be angry with us. And if that's uh if we're not able to achieve it through this, then um that's that's definitely on the table. Great. Thank you. Uh, and you did say you would like a second read on this, and I'm assuming the reason for that is time is of the essence. You can't really apply for permits, FEMA, etc. until this board does something with the ordinance. Does that sound fair? Motion for a second read. All right. Second. Uh, any discussion? All in favor, please indicate by saying I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Mr. City attorney, can we get a second read by title only, please? Bill number 6594, an ordinance granting site development plan approval for chiller equipment sound enclosure at 2555 Hermalan Drive. Thank you. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6594 into ordinance form. So moved. Second. Uh any discussion? Roll call, please. PFA. Awoman Ty. Yes. Aud Sims, yes. Lock Miller, yes. Alderman Gold, yes. Awoman Harter, yes. Bill number 6594 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5218.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next item on the agenda is public comment. Anybody in the public care to address the board now is time to do so. All we ask is that you come to the podium, state your name and your address, and you'll be given up to three minutes. No raised hand. Nobody online. Okay. Well, uh, seeing we have no further business, this meeting is adjourned. They