Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the May 18th recording in progress 2026 regular board of alderman meeting. Would everybody please join with me in saying the pledge of allegiance. Algiance 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 Plefka, here. Alderwoman Ty here. Awoman Gold here. Awoman Sims here. Alman LM Miller here. Alman G here. Aud me here. Mayor Damage, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Uh, next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes? Any objection to approving the same by acclamation? Seeing no objection, it will be so approved. We'll move on down to announcements, appointments, which we have none tonight. Public hearing. We have no public hearing either. And that brings us down to citizen comments. Anybody in the public care to address the board? Now is the time to do so. All we ask is that you go to that podium there, state your name and your address. You'll be given up to three minutes. I apologize if I'm a little short on copies.

Yeah, just Okay, you're good, Adam. Okay, thank you. Um, Mr. Mayor, oh, your name?

Oh, I I apologize. My name is uh Adam Moss. Uh I live at 8762 Brentwood Place. Um Mr. Mayor, members of the board, um I'm speaking to you tonight because my neighborhood uh recently experienced something deeply troubling. Uh a SWAT operation at a rental property just up the street from my home. Uh, seeing armored officers and tactical personnel in a quiet residential neighborhood was alarming enough, but what happened afterward raised even more concerns about accountability and oversight in rental housing. After the incident, the landlord in text messages that were provided with single party consent from the other party uh within that text chain uh basically contacted neighbors asking for sympathy because he was unable to collect rent while the tenant was incarcerated. Um, he also asked neighbors to photograph notices posted on the property and send them to him because he's not local and could not monitor the situation himself. Um, then when the tenant was released and allowed back into the property only days later, neighbors were not informed. There was no communication, no transparency, and no reassurance to the families living nearby who had just witnessed a major law enforcement action on their street. I want to be very clear. This is not about denying anyone due process. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty, but local government also has a responsibility to protect residential neighborhoods through reasonable safeguards. Brentwood already requires occupancy

permits for rental properties and conduct and conducts inspections before people move in. If we already verify occupancy and property compliance, then I believe it is reasonable to ask why landlords are not also required to conduct and certify criminal background checks before tenants are approved. Missouri law permits landlords to perform criminal background screenings as long as they comply with federal fair housing requirements and apply standards consistently. Uh across the country, many municipalities use crime-free housing and crime-free multi-ousing programs that encourage or require screening practices designed to reduce violent crime, drug activity, and chronic nuisance. This issue becomes even more important when landlords are absentee and living outside the community. If someone profits from property in Brentwood, they should also bear responsibility for protecting the surrounding neighborhood. Local residents should not be expected to monitor properties for outofstate landlords and become the unofficial eyes and ears for retail or for rental management. I respectfully ask the board to consider an ordinance requiring landlords to certify that a criminal background check has been completed before a new occupancy permit is issued. At minimum, the city should explore standards addressing violent felonies, drug trafficking, repeat criminal conduct, and landlord accountability when serious police incidents occur at rental properties. This is not about fear. This is not about discrimination. It is about responsible stewardship of our neighborhoods. Families choose Brentwood because they believe it is safe, stable, and well-governed. The recent SWAT incident should serve as a warning that our

current system may not be enough. I urge the board to study this issue carefully and take proactive steps before another neighborhood faces the same situation. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Anybody else? Do we have anyone online? Okay, we'll move on to uh mayor and alderman reports. First up is the mayor. I have no report. Alderman Pluffka. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Public safety will hold its committee meeting on the 28th of this month uh here 27th. I'm sorry. Thank you. Uh in these chambers at uh 5:30.

Thank you. Alderwoman Ty. Uh, the next Ways and Means Committee meeting will be on Thursday, June 4th at 6 PM here in this chamber. Thank you. Alderwoman Go. The next W two meeting is at 6 PM at the community center. Thank you. Alderwoman Sims report. Alderman Locker. The next W three meeting will be held at the rec center May 26th. That's a Thursday at 6:30. Thank you. Alderman Gould. Yes. Uh the communications committee meeting will be going on tomorrow at um 6:00 p.m. I believe. Um so please join us for that if you're interested in that. Thank you. Alderman Harter, no report. And Alderman Meyers, no report.

Okay. Move on down to city administrative report. We have none. And drops us down to the consent agenda. Do we have any questions about any item on the consent agenda or any request to remove any item from the consent agenda? If not, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Alman Puffka, yes. Awoman Ty, yes. Woman Gold, yes. Awoman Sims, yes. Alderman Lock Miller, yes. Alderman Gold, yes. Awoman Harter, yes. Meer, yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Brings us down to old business. We have three items. First up is bill number 666. Can we get a second read by title only, please? Bill number 666, an ordinance amending title one, chapter 145 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brentwood regarding the city's open meeting and record policy. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6606 and ordinance form. I move to perfect bill 660 and ordinance form. Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. ADA PFA, yes. Awoman Ty, yes. Autooman Goat, yes. Alwoman Sims, yes. Alman Lockmiller, yes. Alman Gould, yes. Alman Harter, yes. Alman Meyer,

yes. Bill number 6606 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5231. Thank you. Next up is bill number 6608. Can we get a second read by title only, please? Bill number 668, an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit for Code Red Dance Company to operate an enclosed recreational use dance studio establishment at 8516 to 8518 Manchester Road in the shopping center addressed as 8500 Manchester Road Mchester Corridor Commercial District. would entertain a motion to perfect. Thank you.

Second. Uh, any discussion? Roll call, please. Alman Puffka, yes. Autooman Ty, yes. Autooman Gold, yes. Autooman Sims, yes. Altman Lock Miller, yes. Altman Gold, yes. Automan Harter, yes. Altman Meyer, yes. Bill number 6608 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5232. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next item is bill number Congratulations and welcome. That was quick. Uh, next up is bill number 6609. Can we get a second read by title only, please?

Yes. Bill number 669, an ordinance approving a subdivision plant to subdivide property located at one Brentwood Place to create two out parcels within the PD plan development overlay district. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6609 in ordinance form. So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yes. Alderman uh Pluffkco. I know this was covered at the first reading, but there's something in place between these two parcels that allows for the western side of the eastern property to maintain that line of parking because I I don't know how they do it if if they sell off the western parcel and they and that western parcel does something to impede getting in and out of there, they suddenly only lose 10 spots. And I when we talked about it at the initial the applicant had said that there was some sort of a cross agreement, but I didn't see that in the in the paperwork. And I just and you know, so maybe it's a question for Whitney just to say is that yeah, is that something that's being addressed or it can be addressed?

That uh just identify things. Patrick Eckleamp uh attorney with Hush Blackwell representing the applicant. Uh my address is uh 1500 I'm sorry 80001 Foresight uh sweet 1500 Clayton Missouri 63105. Uh yeah that's a great question and so um we there is a uh perpetual operations and maintenance agreement that states that uh vehicular and pedestrian traffic cannot be impeded and parking cannot be impeded. So yeah, that's in perpetuity. It'll be in place and then obviously working with Whitney uh and her staff and the whole city, we can't reduce the number of parking spaces without coming back to uh to for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Uh any other discussion? Roll call, please. Alman PFA, yes. Awoman Ty, yes. Autowoman Gold, yes. Woman Sims, yes. Lock Miller, yes. Alman G, yes. Awoman Harter, yes. Meer, yes. Bill number 6609 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5233.

Thank you. Brings us down to new business. We have two items. First up is bill number 6607. Can we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 667, an ordinance authorizing the city of Brentwood, Missouri to enter into a transportation development district dissolution agreement in connection with the dissolution of the Hanley Road corridor transportation development district and take certain other actions in connection therewith. Thank you. Who's presenting on this?

Um, this is another opportunity, Mayor Dimmit Waldman, for the city of Brentwood to celebrate another accomplishment. The Hanley Road Corridor Transportation Development District was enacted in 2009 and it paid off um what is typically a 20 25-y year debt in 15 years and that is due to the retail district that we have in the city of Brentwood. We partnered with other cities, city of Maplewood, we partnered with St. Louis County and bystate total project cost was 50 million. So just think about how our taxes, the 1% tax in that in those districts came together to allow us to pay off this debt. The projects that were undertaken specifically for Brentwood and the detail of those projects are in your board packet is the Metro Link Bridge, Rosner Road Extension, the relocation of the Brentwood Public Works. So this sounds like it'll be the second time we're relocating that facility. the Eager Road improvement, which is the Jug Handle, the Renwood Lane improvements, um the Metro Link station, there was um a project called the Trolley account, and we partnered with the other cities to provide transportation from district to district for the shoppers. Um, however, we were going to apply for a grant that we didn't get and also there wasn't enough funds allocated to make that project successful and none of the cities had the capacity to undertake the maintenance of it going forward. And the only example that more recent example that we have is Delmar Skinker um the the trolley there. Um, so that wasn't done and I attached in communication I sent to the board this afternoon um a resolution um dissolving that project and allowing the funds to go back into the operating account. Um there was one

other project that was proposed that really never got off the ground. It would have been a kiss and ride at the Metro Link um on um Strawner as well. So in in the documents before you is an allocation of the proceeds that will go back to the participating cities. City of Brentwood expects 1.2 million and in the 26 budget capital budget we have included funds 800,000 to pay for street projects. Um the balance will roll over into subsequent years as we go along. Mayor Dimit sits on the district board. Um, and you voted along with all these projects and so I don't know if you have anything to to add, but all the projects are completed. And so the recommendation is for the dissolution of the

Yeah. And the only thing to add on that that was funded by a 1% Yes. sales tax and that is either gone or it's in the process of being abolished in 24. Yeah. So what we're talking about is money that has still been collected. we need to distribute those. It's a one-time distribution, but uh so the the sales tax number that you'll see up in that district, it has been reduced by 1%. Uh which is good. Um yeah, and we're wanting a second read on this tonight. Yes. So, uh motion for a second read. Second. Second. Uh any discussion on the motion for a second read? All those in favor, please indicate by saying I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. City attorney, can we get a second read of bill number 6607 by title only, please? Bill number 6607, an ordinance authorizing the city of Brentwood, Missouri to enter into a transportation development district dissolution agreement in connection with the dissolution of the Hanley Road Corridor transportation development district and take certain other actions in connection therewith. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6607 into ordinance form. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Yes.

I just want to say really quick, it it be I mean I know a tiff and a TDD are not the same thing, but I I just it's another example of how this city uh outperforms any expectation put before it with regard to ability to generate funds to to fund uh projects for the benefit of the city. I mean, of the of the tiffs that have been that have been closed out, almost all of them closed out prior to their 23-year life expectancy, this is the same. And I I just uh I I just think it it bears mentioning at this juncture.

No, I agree. And as as our city administrator had uh mentioned, it is just another success story. Yeah. Uh, you know, we have shown there's appropriate ways to use these TDDs in TIFFs over the last 20 years. I know they get bad reputations. Um, but I think Brentwood has been very, very responsible. Um, nothing to do with us. It was the people who preceded us in these seats. But, you know, hats off to them for their vision in doing that because it allowed us to improve the north part of the city. uh and and also to ensure our sustainability for for the foreseeable future because of the revenues that are generated. So, no, I agree with you, Alderman Puffka. It's it's a wonderful um result for the for us. Uh any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Alman Puffka, yes. Awoman Ty, yes. Awoman Goat, yes. Awoman Sims, yes. Alman Lockmiller, yes. Alderman Gold, yes. Awoman, yes. Alman Meyer, yes. Bill number 66 07 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5234. Thank you. That brings us to the final matter under new business and that is bill number 6610. Can we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 6610, an ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Clayton for a fire authority feasibility study.

Has the pleasure of presenting on this. There you go. So, the city has been invited to participate with a number of other central core cities uh to study the feasibility of creating a fire authority um to address operational issues and economic issues impacting a number of the municipal fire uh departments within central core. Um Clayton is taking on this. they would be the ones contract with a entity, a consultant to perform a feasibility study. They've asked a number of other municipalities who have fire uh departments to participate. A number of them have already agreed. Some have decided not to participate. um draft agreement is before you and uh it would be a maximum financial contribution by any single city dollars and this is just study to determine if it is even and just to build on that it's it was an invitation to all the municipal fire departments in St. county which goes all the way out from uh Depair, Kirkwood, uh Glendale, uh Shrewsbury, Maplewood, Richmond Heights, US, um Olivet, Clayton, uh U City, all the way up into the north county as well. There are a number of municipal fire departments and um again, the the fire authority is similar to a fire protection district in that it would be one fire department. Um but that's not what's in front of this board tonight. It is simply whether or not to participate in the feasibility study. And so far I think what we have

six

six cities uh have agreed to move forward to participate in this uh feasibility study. And just for the uh benefit of those in the audience, the uh there would be a steering committee that would put together and that steering committee would have certain members on it that would um handle the um the issuance of the of the RFQ or is that what that is or yeah, I think it's an RFQ that's being issued. Uh again, just to look at the costbenefit analysis if it makes sense. This is not to make a decision on whether or not to take that that big step. So, um, that's that's where we are. Do we want to participate in in this study, which would cost no more than $40,000 to do that? So, um, if you are wanting to do that, we we do need a second read tonight if this is something that you want to do because, uh, the the city of Clayton needs to know by June 1st if we want to participate. Um, the other city was Leoo and they said no. front neck was a no. Um so chair would entertain a motion either to discuss or if you want to have this up for a uh a vote um make that motion.

Your honor, I think we deserved or we we should give an answer to the city of Clayton. So in that spirit, I'll make a motion for a second read. Okay. The same spirit, I'll second. Okay. So we have a motion and a second for a second read. Uh any discussion on that motion? All in fa favor of the second read, please indicate by saying I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Uh Mr. City attorney, can we get a second read by title only, please? Yes. Bill number 6610, an ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Clayton for a fire authority feasibility study.

Thank you. Chair to entertain a motion to perfect 6610 and ordinance form. I'll make that motion just to get it out there. We have a second. I'll second. Okay. Uh any discussion? Yes. Alderman go. Uh so just clarity there are eight positions on the steering committee and we are not guaranteed a position if eight cities participate of which six have already said yes. So there are some very real scenarios. There are now 10. There are now 10. So because there are two finance directors as well, two finance directors, two chiefs, two union reps, um two elected officials.

Yeah. Two two mayors and uh two city administrator or two elected officials. Two electeds, right? There's a very real chance we would have no representation on the steering committee. it the the intent was that every city would have at least one representative on the steering committee. Based on the fact that there are six who have said yes and a number have said no, it is likely there will be one, but not more than that and no guarantee that it would be your your city administrator or an elected official or which one it would be.

Yeah. And my position was that um we should guarantee each city should be able have the guarantee that our city administrator or manager would sit on that steering committee and my position is that also our finance person should sit on that steering committee and I could not get that guarantee. So uh this is where we find ourselves.

I I just don't I mean I've read the proposal. I I do not see how this um benefits uh our residents and and uh improves what is already uh a great fire service um with the lowest of response times and some of the best trained uh paramedics and firefighters in St. Louis County. We have the new uh facility which we just um um dedicated uh for training purposes. I I I just don't see how spending 40 up to $40,000 to see whether or not collectively putting ourselves in together with a number of financially strapped municipal fire departments makes any sense for our constituents. Oh, Alderman alderwoman Ty now they're at the end.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I'm usually a voice of let's see what the other municipalities are doing. I say that with so many issues and uh in this one I've yet to hear a reasonable argument about why this would be good for the citizens of Brentwood and why it could potentially save us money. Uh, and there's some sort of language in there that troubles me. First, we would be the the proposal looks that cities would turn over their fire department. the land and the equipment to this entity and they would charge us a user fee. So, we don't know what that user fee is and we would lose control of the budgeting for this user fee that some other entity puts upon us. And I don't see how that's good for the citizens um of Brentwood. Uh and then they talk about potential cost savings by standardizing the fleet. There are three major manufacturers in all of North America that make all of the firetrucks. There are two major conglomerates and private equity firms that make all um or 80% of the firet trucks and about similar amount for ambulances. So if we buy a firetruck every 10 years and if this new entity buys a firetruck every 3 to 5 years, we're still not a big player when major conglomerates own the manufacturing. So I don't see savings coming from standardizing the fleet. Uh and they also talk about uh transitioning to a fire authority pension. We have a really I don't serve now but I have served on the police and fire pension. We have a very generous pension uh for our uh firefighters and police officers who risk their lives for us every day. And I would not want to do anything that would reduce the pension for uh people who uh protect us every day. Um, so if there were reasons to to um if there was anything out there that convinced me that this could be better for Brentwood, I would consider spending the money on this study, but I haven't heard any of that. So, uh, for those reasons, uh, I don't think it's a good idea.

Following Gold, all very good points. Um, and so I don't really have much to add to that other than the fact that um, again, this is I don't I don't see reasons why this is about public safety and improving public safety when in addition to what Alderman Pluffka had said and alderwoman Ty said, we do have a system that actually works really well and it's called mutual aid and that has benef cities have benefited from the response times and and expertise already uh, as a region. So, I don't see the need to spend uh the 40,000. Anyone else?

Okay. The motion is uh or we don't know what this is. We've perfected 6610. Uh roll call, please. Puffa, no. Automan Ty, no. Automan Gold, no. Awoman Sims, no. Lock Miller, no. Alman G, no. Aldwoman Harter, no. Alderman Meyer, no. Uh, motion fails.

All right. Thank you. Brings us down to the last item, which is citizen comments. Once again, if anybody cares 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 will be given up to three minutes. Anyone online by chance? Okay, great. Uh, we do have a request to go into close session. Um, so we need a motion to go in close session pursuant to RS Mo 610.021 subsection and once again it cannot show up for me. Um, is that 12? 12. 12. Subsection 12. Uh, can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved and to adjurnn there from

and to adjurnn there from. Thank you. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Uh, any discussion? Roll call, please. Alderman Puffka, yes. Alderwoman Ty, yes. Alderwoman Gold, yes. Autowoman Sims, yes. Alman Lock Miller, yes. Alderman Gold, yes. Awoman Harter, yes. Mayor, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. We will uh meet in about five minutes. Thank you.