Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Welcome, everyone, to the City of Brentwood Regular Board of Aldermen meeting for August 17th, 2026. Would everybody please join with me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge 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.

I mean, plus the year on woman ties here. I don't want me to go here. I don't want me to see him here. I don't mean like Miller here. I don't mean Gould. I don't want me harder here. I don't mean Myers absent. Mayor Demers, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Next up is the approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes? Any objection to approving the same by acclamation? Seeing none, it will be so approved. Next item is announcements and appointments. I have one, and that is, according to your agenda, is to appoint Alderwoman Harder to the Identity Project Committee. You're willing to do that? I am. Okay, thank you. So I'd like a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Any discussion? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Drops us down to item five, public hearing. We have none. Citizen comments? Anybody in the public want to come and address the board? 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.

Hello again. My name is Jeremy Strassner, 2528 High School Drive. So, yeah, I was here last week, or excuse me, last month, addressing you all. So I just want to reiterate I'm an avionics embedded systems engineer with decades of experience in software engineering, architecture, and security. Last month I asked this board why we have these flock cameras everywhere. So far the only response I've heard is a nebulous to reduce crime. Excuse me, but I asked you where are the numbers that are proving this? The only thing I've heard so far is a nebulous 30% reduction in vehicle thefts. National average is currently 25% decrease, so that does not seem to even be a statistically significant amount. So where are the quantifiable numbers about the benefits of these systems? In an article three days ago on Salon, reporter Amanda Marchetta wrote about these cameras. I'm going to quote and paraphrase significantly from her article. Flock cameras have become a symbol of growing anger over the efforts of technological oligarchs to impose their dystopian fantasies on our country, replacing democracy with surveillance state and using Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World as instruction manuals. When I read these in high school, they were cautionary tales. While these cameras are sold to the public as a banal traffic safety measure, they've prompted an outpouring of stories of how they're being used to violate civil liberties and undermine democracy. And I encourage you to go out there and read some of those stories. According to an exhaustive 10-month analysis by the electronic foundier Frontation, excuse me, Local police were using these cameras to track protesters. They were then put into a national database where they could be searched across all jurisdictions. Despite claims that these cameras only record license plates, the technology-focused outlet 404 Media found the database was also being used to collect information on individuals that can then be searched by clothing, race, gender, and body type. At least 50 law enforcement officers have been accused or charged for misusing the Flock or similar system. What was Flock's response? Basically, trust me, bro, and we'll put some stuff in place and protect you. And almost nothing has happened. Adrian Daub from Stanford University, when asked about the surveillance state that we're creating, responded, the intersection with state actors is particularly worrisome. Governments can be outsourced their dodgier aspects of data collection and use, while the private sector gets to disavow the obvious political implications of this kind of mass surveillance. Flock's behavior represents a trend that should alarm all freedom-loving Americans, regardless of political affiliation. Silicon Valley enriched themselves with promises of a cyber resolution and the flow of information. But in recent years, there's been a dramatic about-face as the C-suite class has become increasingly authoritarianism. The tech oligarchs feel the democracy is outdated, a vestigial organ. The Nerd Reich by Gil Durian expanded on this and said that oligarchs feel free that the U.S. is an obsolete country. They don't like government unless they control it, so they're actively reshaping it to their vision. This proof, I have a couple quotes from These tech billionaires, Peter Thiel, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. Elon Musk categorized oversight as a mind virus that needs to be overridden by unencumbered tech operators. Larry Ellison, the Oracle CEO, citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on. I don't want to live in a country like that, and you all can stop it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we will move on to mayor and alderman reports. First up is mayor. I have no report. Alderman Plufka.

Thank you. I don't normally do this, but I want to respond to the citizen comment just generally. I've been the chairman of the Public Safety Committee since the time I've been elected as an alderman, which began in 2015. and we received monthly reports are meetings are the fourth wednesday of every month and you're invited to open meetings to attend in every part every meeting has a portion that is uh... given presented by our chief of police in which he talks about the crime rate in our city on a monthly basis and then a year-to-date basis and i can tell you that dozens of times and over the years, I would say approaching 100 times, he has specifically told us that the use of the license reading technology helped either thwart a crime that was about to happen or help them find a criminal who had committed a crime within minutes of it happening. And that's not just some months, that's every single month. I also know that although homicide is a very rare occurrence in the city of Brentwood, The one time there was a homicide on the parking lot of the jury hotel, the reader cameras, the flock license reader cameras, helped our detectives locate the perpetrator, track them down to South Carolina, and help apprehend them. So I will tell you that, anecdotally at least, It's not some amorphous notion of reducing crime. It is reducing crime, very real reducing crime on a monthly basis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Alderman Tice.

The Ways and Means Committee meeting for this month has been moved back later to Monday, August the 31st. And then our typical meeting on September the 3rd will not occur. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Sims.

No report.

Alderman Gould. No report. Alderman Lockmuller. No report. Alderman Gould.

Yes, the communications committee meeting that was scheduled for tomorrow night is canceled. We'll be picking it up at next meeting. Is that correct?

Hope so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Alderman Harder.

Brentwood Forest has their monthly meeting on Tuesday, August 25th at 6 o'clock at the clubhouse.

Great, thanks. Next up is the city administrator report, which we have none. Brings us down to the consent agenda. Any questions or any requests to remove any item from the consent agenda? If not, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Moved.

Second.

Do we have a discussion? Roll call, please.

Alderman Plufka? Yes. Alderman Tice? Yes. Alderman Gold? Yes. Alderman Sims? Yes. Alderman Lockmiller?

Yes.

Alderman Gould?

Yes.

Alderman Harder? Yes. Motion passed.

Thank you. Next up is old business. We have one item, and that is Bill No. 6616. Can we get a second read by title only, please?

Bill No. 6616, an ordinance granting site development plan approval for a new nine-unit townhome development at 8815 Madge Avenue.

Okay, chair to entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6616 in the ordinance form. I'll move.

Second.

Okay, any discussion? Yes, Alderman Gould, sorry.

Yes, I just had one question as it related, as I was looking at the plans. The potential of the sinkhole that's not technically on the property, but just slightly to the west, Does that pose any issue with construction of this size? And then if need be, is it something that needs to be disclosed to potential purchasers?

11 Deer Creek Woods, St. Louis, Missouri, 63124. So that's a great question. And one of the things that we did actually was help reduce the water going into the sinkhole. So with the new design and development, that's actually favorable. be disclosing if it's out there, but to the lot that we are proposing, there's not a sinkhole that we have identified or we have found, so it should not impact. Okay, thank you.

Alderwoman Harder. Can't get there yet.

I'm very familiar with condo living. And you have just stay with me here. Now you have nine units, right? And there's two parking places for each unit. So you have 19 places and you only have room for two guest parking spots.

So what we did was the two spots, the 18 total, and then on the west side along the drive aisle, we also added additional eight to nine parking spots.

So yes, in the memo that was provided with the revised ordinance, the applicant is showing that they would like to just do the two parking spaces as those could be permanent, and they do not interfere with the backing out from the garages of the town homes. However, they can provide up to eight to nine, which is a, so if you would like for us to have them stripe and sign for the eight, then a motion to revise the ordinance and include that would need to be provided.

In Brentwood Forest, parking is one of the main gripes that everyone yells about. So you have nine units. If one unit has their two kids over with two cars, that fills up the guests, so nobody else can come. So what happens to... you know, on a holiday or a weekend, if somebody else wants to have their friends over, are they going to have to park in the streets in front of everybody?

Well, that's why the two permanent ones are for the people that live there. Well, there's two per unit provided in a garage. Then there's the two visitor parking spaces that he's showing that do not interfere with the backing out of the driveway. He can provide along the entire length of that driveway up to eight additional parking units. He's also indicated that they are in communication with the commercial property owner on the east to see if he would agree to any overnight parking.

Okay. Alderman Lockmuller.

So Whitney, are you saying that we need to, if we want to have those spaces designated as visitor parking, we need to do so as part of the?

Correct. The revised ordinance references the site plan for the two guest parking spaces that they would prefer. However, if you want all eight to be striped and signed, then a motion to have all eight striped provided would need to be included.

Would the eight, though, block the fire hydrants?

No, the fire hydrant is actually on the east side of the drive aisle, right at the corner of the building.

Then I'd like to make a motion.

I don't know, Jim, if I'm amending the... Yeah, so what you would want to make is a subsequent motion to add an additional condition number nine to section two of the bill to read, applicant shall provide eight striped visitor parking spaces on the west side of the drive aisle.

Would you please restate that? No. But as Jim said, I'll make that motion.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right.

Yep. If you go back and you look at the memo, They started this project back in February with planning and zoning. And every meeting, planning and zoning commissioners asked the applicant to do something, and he did it. Went to site plan, citizens asked things of him, and he did it. And now he's going to do something else for us. He's always been there to accept whatever the citizens wanted. for this project, and he's asked nothing. He's asked nothing of tax abatement. He's asked nothing about rezoning or variances. He just wants permission to build this nine-unit building, which I think will add people to the, or add children to the school district.

So I'm in favor. Okay, anybody else? All right. So we have a motion to perfect that's on the table and it's, uh, it's been amended. The, uh, the ordinance has. So seeing that we have nothing further roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Bill number 66, 16 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 52 42. Great.

Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations and welcome. All right, next up, we have no old business. We are moving on to new business. First up is resolution number 1601, which is a resolution to... Jim, if you've got it, you go right ahead and read it. I'm trying to scroll down to it.

The resolution to approve a contract for a retaining wall. Okay. Okay.

Who's presenting on that, Dan?

Yep, we brought this to Public Works in the past. So between 2828 and 2832 Manderley, there's an existing masonry block wall that's leaning. This proposal from NOVAC is to remove that wall, put in a new base, and put in a new VersaLock wall. So these will be block modules that have a geogrid behind it. It'll all be compacted, a capstone glued on the top and backfilled, and there's a little bit of privacy fence. But the entire breakdown was provided. It's $43,839.76. So it gets rid of the old wall, puts in a new wall, puts in a new fence, backfills. The only thing left for Public Works is there's some faux bushes up front. We'll remove those, store them, put them back, and then there's some rock in lieu of sod between the garage and the wall, and we can do that in-house, so there's no additional charge from the contractor, because we'll do that.

Okay, any questions? If not, can we get a motion to approve Resolution 1601? So moved.

Second.

All right, any discussion? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much for the passage of Resolution 1601. Drops us down to the next item, which is Bill number 6619. Can we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes, Bill number 6619, an ordinance amending Title I, Chapter 105 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood to adopt new candidate filing dates.

Jim, are you handling this, or who's handling this?

I can. Please. So the state law is being amended as to the filing dates for municipal elections. moving the start of the filing date from the 17th Tuesday prior to the election to the 16th Tuesday prior to the election and ending instead of on the 14th Tuesday prior to the election on the 13th Tuesday prior to the election and providing that if that final day happens to be a state or federal holiday that the closing shall be at five o'clock on the following day. because as this exists, it can hit on Christmas. Okay. So we're amending our code to conform with the statute, which will be coming into effect on August. All right.

Any questions for Jim? All right. We will take this up for a second read at the next meeting. Brings us down to the next item, which is bill number 6620. Can we get a first read by title only, please?

Bill number 6620, an ordinance of the city of Brentwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor and or city administrator to enter into and execute an agreement for the fiscal year 2026 street request for, and agreement for the fiscal year 2026 street request for proposal projects between the city of Brentwood, Missouri and Pavement Solutions, LLC, and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.

Thank you. Dan?

This was brought up at the Public Works Committee. So we opened bids on the 7th. We only received the one bid from Pavement Solutions. I put together the table of the engineer's estimate versus Pavement Solutions. The one that you'll notice is on the higher side is Collier because originally we were looking at 10,000 square feet of paving. It would really be concentrated at the intersection of Pendleton and Collier and then just north of Russell and a couple slabs in between. What we actually asked for and received in the bid is going from Pendleton all the way south to the new pavement that's just north of Russell. So that would get you on both sides of the road but that whole stretch. And then whenever we looked at the actual cost versus budget, the budget line, the 40, 401, 65, 35, there's a little over $873,000. We've spent to date a little over $84,000. That only leaves $789,252. These bids came in at $840. That's higher than what's left. So then we looked at possibly doing some other options, reducing the scope again of Collier, deferring the Strassner-Hanley intersection, but then a fourth option was brought forth at the Public Works Committee, and that's doing three projects, but deferring item one, which is Eager Road. So the asphalt project would be deferred, the other three would be done in their entirety, and then that's a rough number, $715,597. So that gives you remaining budget in 2026 of a little over $73,600, to do other projects. I know we're looking at doing some other things, and so is parks, so this is probably the best balance. We can continue to patch any areas that we need to of Eager, and we'll coordinate with Richmond Heights if they do their half west of this. This was really just concentrating on the Brentwood portion, which would be bobolink out to the county limits west of Brentwood Boulevard. So a lot of different moving parts here, but we were wanting to move forward with option four. With pavement solutions, I know they could get started right away sometime in September and knock out those other three projects for the little over $715,000.

Any questions? Alderman Gould.

So the condition of Eager Road, or at least our portion of it, I mean, it's another challenging road that we share with multiple municipalities and counties. Our part of it, you feel, is in good enough condition that by deferring it, it's fine.

Yeah, we've milled out some of the, like typically like where the center line is where you've done two different passes with the asphalt, that opened up and then we milled out a portion, put new asphalt, rolled it. We'll just continue to do that until we can do a more permanent solution, which is a two-inch mill and overlay.

I mean, I think this is a smarter way to go as long as, Igor, as you know, is highly trafficked. It is. It seems to me that, so we don't end up like we have in some cases where we have half of McKnight and half of McKnight not done. It seems to me to try to coordinate with all of the owners of that to do it at once and not just our little section. So I would agree with deferring it, but also would love to see potential future conversation and coordination to get that done.

Alderman Lockmiller.

And is there a way to check with the utility companies? I hate when we resurface something and next thing you know, dig rights out there, it's spray painting and digging a hole.

Yeah, it's not in the, I did look at the capital that we received from Missouri American. It's not in there yet, but that doesn't mean it won't change. And I know CSO Mary, the big MSD project doesn't affect this stretch whatsoever. CSO Mary does impact Stratford, portions of high school, St. Clair, Pine, a lot. and that's like a three year project, so I flagged those in my budget just to not even mess with those other than keep them maintained, but when they rip it out, like Stratford's entirely replaced whenever that cycle hits with MSD.

Thank you. How far out does Missouri American plan their capital improvements?

They give us a one year, so it's like it's forward looking in 27, but I don't know what's going to happen say 2030.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions? And you were asking, Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Tice.

I just wanted to give a little more color for those not on the public works committee. We did discuss eager and that there is construction going on in Richmond Heights and we're unsure of the additional, if there's going to be additional construction in those villas and then sort of leaned toward the other streets that are all Brentwood. Cause we, unless the utilities come and dig them up, we know what's, what big equipment might or might not be rolling on those things. And I'll make a motion for a second read.

Second. Okay, any discussion? Before you is a motion for a second read. All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. City Attorney, can we get a second read by title only, please?

Yes, an ordinance of the City of Brentwood, Missouri, authorizing the mayor and or city administrator to enter into and execute an agreement for the fiscal year 2026 Street Request for Proposal Projects between the City of Brentwood, Missouri and Pavement Solutions, LLC, and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.

Thank you. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6620 in the ordinance form.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? Roll call, please.

Alderman Plufka. Alderman Tice. Yes. Alderman Gold. Yes. Alderman Sims. Yes. Alderman Lockmiller.

Yes.

Alderman Gould.

Yes.

Alderman Harder. Yes. Bill number 6620 now becomes ordinance number 5243.

Thank you. Brings us down to the last item under new business, and that is bill number 6621. Could we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes. Bill number 6621, an ordinance amending table 4Q of schedule 4 of title 3 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brentwood, Missouri, to establish no parking except by permit zones on the north and south sides of Pine Avenue west of Brentwood Boulevard. Thank you.

Hello, Dan.

This is for the mid block portion of Pine. So around 8910 8911, which puts you about in the center of Pine going east to Brentwood Boulevard. There's already parking restrictions about 150 feet west of that intersection with Brentwood Boulevard. This would take you from those limits continuing a little further west to the mid block. The folks that it would affect, they'll be giving four parking stickers just like we did for Brazu next to the destination playground. They'll display those and then anyone that does not have it then would possibly be cited for parking where they shouldn't. We're trying to get it so that the residents can park in that first half block just because they're affected by the veterinary clinic parking. I know the library is soon to open so that might take some of the pressure away, but this was an interim measure to try to help those folks.

Okay. Any questions? And you are asking for a second read on this as well tonight?

Yes, if it's okay, just because I figure we did a locate ticket and we can put the signs in if everyone's okay with that. Otherwise, we'd have to wait another several weeks.

That's the rationale for the second read.

I make a motion for a second read.

I'll second. Right. Any discussion on that? Okay. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. City Attorney, can we get a second read by title only, please, of Bill number 6621.

Bill number 6621, an ordinance amending Table 4Q of Schedule 4 of Title 3 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood, Missouri, to establish no parking except by permit zones on the north and south sides of Pine Avenue west of Brentwood Boulevard.

Thank you. Chair would entertain a motion to perfect bill number 6621 in the ordinance form. So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Yes. So this has been a contentious issue for the people on that block. We've had a couple of rounds of voting, if you will, by postcard. And the second time when it was more directed and focused on the folks in the middle of the block who it would affect, It was pretty overwhelmingly in favor of this cumbersome thing. And I don't like the idea of us, you know, turning our streets into permit-only streets. But the success of that veterinary clinic at the end of the block, combined with the lack of other places to park, namely the construction zone that is our library currently, has made it hard for them and really has and We're going to on public safety revisit this from time to time to make sure that it continues to be a Because as Dan points out, as the new library comes online, they have made the offer to the employees of that veterinary clinic to park down there and ease some of the parking concerns right there on the facility. And if they follow through on that, and if the employees are able to do that, then wonderful. We may not need this for very long. But for right now, it's been hard for them. And I would be in favor of this.

OK. Alderman Gould. I just wanted to build on something that Alderman Plufka brought up and that, you know, I did have some concerns about the potential of this being temporary and that it's only, you know, once the library comes online and then potentially they have an agreement with them that allows employees to park there. I was persuaded that while they may park there for a period of time, likely they're going to be going and parking on the street. And it will be a continual enforcement to try to get them to park where the residents that live along there would prefer them to park because it's all public street. So even when the library comes on, I wouldn't want to say that convincingly That solves the problem, so I'm supportive of this Especially since we will evaluate it, but even I think that long term this may be something that will have to stay Hey anyone else?

All right in front of you is a motion to perfect I've seen no further discussion roll call please I

Alderman Plufka. Yes. Alderman Tice. Yes. Alderman Gold. Yes. Alderman Sims. Yes. Alderman Lockmiller. Alderman Gould.

Yes.

Alderman Harder. Yes. Bill number 6621 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5244.

All right, thank you. Thanks, Dan. Next on the agenda is citizen comments. Anybody in the public care to address the board, now is the time to do so. We ask that you just come up and state your name and you'll be given up to three minutes.

Mr. Costner again, 2528 High School Drive. Thank you for that information. I appreciate that. That sounds like it would be an appropriate place to... address these concerns. I just want to again reiterate as last time, my problem here is not with the police. This is not a defund the police. I trust the police. I like our Brentwood police. I've never had a problem. My problem is with the flock system. And I'm not saying that AI, ALPRs aren't useful times. But what I am saying is the juice is not worth the squeeze. I don't want to lose my autonomy. Basically, what the system does is, let's say I just wait for you to leave your house at the end of the day. I follow you around, take pictures of everywhere you go, take pictures of your car, take pictures of everyone you're traveling with. And then at the end of the day, I take that data and sell it to anybody who wants to buy it. That's what these cameras do. You know, when I hear you talk about why they're useful, maybe that's true. However, crime in the U.S. is down across the board. Burglaries are down 12%. Larceny, 16%. Robbery, 18%. Aggravated assault, 7.6%. Rape, 7.6%. Murder, 18%. So countrywide, crime is down. So that's why I'm asking for real numbers. You know, we're really spending a lot of money on these cameras. I'd like to know that... this money we're spending on is actually going to a good purpose. And I hear that Flock speeds up these investigations. Well, that's great. But who's to say that it actually did anything? There are cameras in the Drury or whatever hotel it is, parking lot, that may have been sufficient. So I mean police departments around the US are getting rid of these cameras For example in Camden, Missouri the they ended their contact with flock flock refused to come out and take down the cameras So the mayor went out and took it down and then they arrested him for theft and intervening with a police investigation so this this company that runs these cameras is very questionable morally and I think that They don't have the best interest of the citizens at heart

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. We have a need to go into closed session tonight pursuant to RSMO 610.021 subsection 1. Can we get a motion to that effect?

I'll move.

Okay. Discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please.

Alderman Plushka? Yes. Alderman Tice? Yes. Alderman Gould? Yes. Alderman Sims? Yes. Alderman Lockmiller? Yes. Alderman Gould? Yes. Alderman Harder? Yes. Motion passed.

Thank you. All right, everybody, let's go ahead and hit back in the back room.