Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

And we'll unfortunately be gone for the next call. There we go. Okay, so I will get, I'll ask for a second. We can't do it by ourselves. I use it every day.

That's no, no, yeah.

I'm not out here. Laughter.

Welcome, everyone, as I call to order the regular Board of Aldermen meeting for September 8th, 2026. Would everybody please join with me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll call, please.

Alderman Plufka?

Here.

Alderman Tice? Here. Alderman Gold? Here. Alderman Sims is absent. Alderman Lockmiller?

Here.

Alderman Gould?

Here.

Alderman Harder? Here. Alderman Meyer?

Here.

Alderman Demers? There's a quorum.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes, modifications, requests to move any of the items? Yes. Alderman Tice?

I would request that on the consent agenda, I don't know if I should do it now or when we get there, but that item, I believe it's H? Yes, that item H, resolution 1604 be moved to new business.

I would second that.

Resolution 1604 be moved to new business.

Agenda, any discussion on that? Okay, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries, thank you. Any other changes? Any objection to approving the agenda as modified? Seeing none, it will be so approved. NEXT ITEM IS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS. WE HAVE NONE. DROPS US DOWN TO PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST UP IS PUBLIC HEARING TO ESTABLISH THE NEW PROPERTY TAX RATES. AND FOR THAT, I WILL GAVEL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT. AND WE HAVE PRESENT MICHELLE DEPUE IS GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE AS SHE NORMALLY DOES.

A bit of an echo, I don't know where that's coming from.

Good evening. We have a notice of a public hearing in order to set the tax rates for 2026. The assessments and the assessed values and the tax rates are in your packet. We set tax rates for the general fund and the pension fund. We do not have a debt service fund. And for the general fund, we do not set a residential tax rate. But for the residential tax rate, the total rate is 0.2490. The commercial rate is 0.5240. And the personal property tax rate is 0.5920. For the general fund and the pension fund, the total estimated revenue is $1,835,943. The tax rate is expressed per 100 of assessed valuation. Are there any questions? We do this annually. It's normal and customary.

Questions? Exactly what I was going to ask you. Is there a deadline when the board needs to approve these tax rates?

Tax rates are due to St. Louis County by October 1st. So they need to be set before October 1st.

So there's no need to have a second read on this tonight. We could do the second read at the next meeting.

That is correct.

Okay. Any questions? All right, anybody in the public care to speak on this issue? Just come to the dais and state your name and your address. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing on that item and move on to the second public hearing, and that is for a text... Public hearing on a text amendment to sections 400.2890 and 400.3020 of Division 8 of the Chapter 400 of Title IV, the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood regulating flood hazard controls to provide clarifying language for cumulative substantial improvements based on the recommendations of SEMA, which is the State Emergency Management Agency. I will open the public hearing for that. Whitney.

Good evening. On March 16, 2026, the city adopted ordinance 5219 that established cumulative improvements over a 10-year period where if any improvements exceed 50% of the current value over that 10-year period, they have to take measures and to bring the property into compliance with floodplain regulations. That was recommended by SEMA. However, because our ordinance included that as part of the definition of cumulative improvements rather than in the body of the text of the ordinance. CEMA has recommended that we amend our ordinance to include it within the body. So this is clarifying language to that. And the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by eight to zero.

Thank you. Any questions? Anybody in the public care to speak on this matter now is the time to do so Seeing none. I will close the public hearing on this item and move on to public hearing item number three which is for titanium fitness for conditional use permit to expand the existing fitness studio facility and the tenant space and at 854 to include the tenant space at 856 Hanley Industrial Court for the property addressed at 820 Hanley Industrial Court. Is Chuck Beckham here by chance? Anybody on behalf of Titanium?

Yeah, we reached out to him.

Sorry about that. Sorry.

We reached out to him, so he is not here at this time. I'll just introduce it again. The property is on PD, Plan Development Overlay District, where fitness facilities and recreational uses are listed as a conditional use permit. As they are expanding into the adjacent tenant space, that prompts a new CUP, conditional use permit. And therefore, that's the reason for tonight. And the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval eight to zero.

OK. Any questions? Anybody in the public care to speak on this item Seeing none. I will close the public hearing and We'll move on to the last item under public hearing and that's public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the boundary adjustment site development plan and conditional use permit for extra space storage facility at 80 71 80 75 Manchester Road that I will gavel open the public hearing and Joel are you taking on this one? Okay Just please state your name for the record.

My name is Beau Reinberg, and I live at 7018 Maryland Avenue, 63130. Okay.

If you would just speak a little bit as to what this is about.

Yeah, so thank you for your time tonight. And I have to say, as I was coming over here, I was looking forward to it, one, because you guys have the best candy bowl of any of the cities, so I do enjoy a good candy bowl. When we first got involved in this process and this project, it was over 18 months ago, and I would say it was kind of hanging on by a thread, to say the least. Not by any fault of anyone, But you're dealing with a publicly traded large REIT that sometimes is hard to navigate, and a complex development process, and there were ground leases and neighbors. It was a tough situation, but quite frankly, the collaboration has been tremendous when I think about working with Joel and Halo, Whitney and the city staff, planning and zoning, and the other shareholders and stakeholders along the boulevard there. I really, again, being in self-storage for over 20 years and and presenting on projects everywhere from California to Florida, rarely do I get like an applause for self-storage and I understand that, don't get me wrong. But the reality is one in 10 of households utilize this amenity. The amenity is in Brentwood right now. 90% of the customers are from within one to three miles of that facility. So just closing that facility, really does a disservice to over 700 people and small businesses. And I don't think that's anyone's intention by any means, but I think we've been able to come up with a solution that, one, relocates them, two, activates or potentially activates more ground for additional development, and three, enhances a corner that's been less than enhanced for a long period of time. With a project that It certainly, in our opinion, looks great. We know there's a customer base for it. We know that it's residents of Brentwood and small businesses in Brentwood. And in working with Whitney in the city, I feel like we've come up with a plan that really helps connect the dots and can be very catalytic when you think of Brentwood and of the Manchester Boulevard, which I know was the goal of the city and has been the goal. And it's already starting to pay off with potential multi-family developers coming on board. We're the contractor on the kinder care. That all started once we got involved. And us being able to, we've worked with Extra Space both in a partnership capacity and well as a third party for over 15 years. So we understand kind of the inner workings of their organization, which is challenging at times. the end we're local I live two miles away my kids go to school in this area and so it's important for us that it's something that not only Brentwood can be proud of but also that we can be proud of so I hope that you know once you look at it and and kind of understand the type of project that it can be and understand that it is an amenity for over 700 constituents and residents and small businesses in the area that we can get this project started and see what it can do to help spur additional development.

Thank you. Mr. Weinberg, the one question I have for you references a boundary adjustment. Can you speak to that or Whitney, whoever can best position?

That's just simply combining the two lots together.

Okay. All right. And Mr. Reinberg, you don't need to tell us how difficult that lot has been to develop. We've been here. I know Alderman Plufka and I sat on planning and zoning going all the way back to 2006. And that space has been vacant ever since then. So we're going on 20 years.

And we're moving, I mean, the development environment right now, whether it's for self-storage or multifamily, it's very difficult. Not only cost, which continue to go up, not down, interest rates that now will continue to go most likely up, not down. So, you know, but for a city that's willing to reinvest and invest in projects, things like this don't occur. So I think... It speaks highly of Brentwood and what you're willing to commit to kind of the growth and development.

Okay, thank you. Well, don't go anywhere. You don't have a seat, but we will have questions from the board when it comes up for the first read. Anybody in the public care to speak on this issue during this public hearing? Seeing none, I will close public hearing on that final matter and move on down in the agenda to citizen comments. Anybody in the public care to address the Board of Aldermen, 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. Anyone online by chance? Okay, we will move on to mayor and alderman reports. First up is the mayor. I just have one quick one, and that is we are fast approaching our annual Brentwood Days event, which is gonna be September 18th and September 19th. We are going to have a special parade, a little change to the parade route. in honor of the celebration of Route 66 and I won't get into the specifics other than we're just gonna be going due south on High School all the way to Manchester and then going west on Manchester and then getting on our normal route. The carnival rides, the wristbands are on sale now for those of you who are interested, anybody who's watching, you want to have a way to ride the carnival rides, purchase your wristbands, you can get those throughout the city. I believe our rec center has them and maybe some other places, City Hall, I'm not sure. But be sure to do that. Next up, Alderman Plufka.

No report.

Alderwoman Tice. No report. Alderwoman Goad. No report. Alderman Sims is gone. Alderman Lockmuller.

Yes, we have our Public Works Committee meeting here this Thursday. That would be September 10th at 6 o'clock in this chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Gould. No report. Alderman Harder.

No report.

And Alderman Myers. No report. Okay. Brings us down to City Administrator Report. We have none. Let's get down to the consent agenda. We've already had one change to the consent agenda by removing the one item. Any other changes or questions on the consent agenda? If not, the chair would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? Roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Brings us down to old business. We have only one item and that is bill number 6619, which we've already had a first read on. Mr. City Attorney, can we get a second read? By title only.

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.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PERFECT BILL NUMBER 6619 INTO ORDINANCE FORM. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

Alderman Tice. Yes. Alderman Gold. Yes. Alderman Lockmill. Yes. Alderman Gould.

Yes.

Alderman Harder. Yes. Alderman Meyer.

Yes.

Bill number 6619 now becomes ordinance number 5245.

Thank you. All right, everybody, buckle in. We're in new business. We have 10 items. So without any further ado, let's jump in. Bill number 6622. Can we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes. Bill number 6622, an ordinance approving a development agreement between the City of Brentwood and 8300 Manchester LLC and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith. Mr. City Attorney, you're presenting on this? I am. And the applicant is here. The next two ordinances pertain to a development agreement and a land purchase agreement between the city and 8300 Manchester LLC. Joel Oliver is with the developer. He'll present the project to you. But the development agreement provides for the city to sell certain properties located at All are part of properties at 8302, 8304, 8318, and 8330 Manchester Road, as well as a portion of 2740 Bonaparte Avenue. That does include the public works facility that the city is currently using in order for the developer to build their project. The development agreement further provides for certain incentives in the form of tax abatement. and a exemption on sales tax for construction materials. And those are the nuts and bolts. But I think Mr. Oliver will talk about the project in whole and more of the details of the development agreement and why they're interested in receiving that. OK. Thank you.

It's the fastest we've ever made it work. Joel Oliver addresses 900 North Rock Hill Road. Super thrilled to be at this point to present this to you all tonight. As Mr. Rutledge indicated, the project right now, the name is 8300 Manchester LLC. I'll go through some of this pretty quickly and then answer questions as you have. This is on the southern portion of Manchester, a portion of where Public Works currently is. I'll show you a map in a second. This project's a little bit different than KinderCare and Extra Space in that those are both really big companies where we acted in a developer role to facilitate those getting done. This project is being developed and co-owned by the Halo principals and the principals from KDG, so Mark Rubin and Jason Braidwood. So we're obviously extremely excited after all these years to be on this spot. The assemblage is a portion or all of five city-owned parcels and one privately-owned parcel that is under contract. It's a total of 4.36 acres. It's showing two buildings in the mixed-use development. The northern building, as you'll see, is four stories. The southern building is five stories to really maximize our views of the park. We're targeting in the 179 to 200 unit range. That's been some flexibility in the development agreement as we finalize design and work our way through planning and zoning. We are still including 4,000 square feet of commercial space to achieve the mixed-use vision that we had laid out years ago. We are providing community connectivity to the park, which we're very excited about. This is the first segment of the new central road that runs parallel to Manchester, which we all know has been key to the vision of how we execute this and really make it kind of a downtown feeling for Brentwood. We have been through our first planning and zoning hearing and our site plan subcommittee. We believe that process has gone very well with the members of PNZ. What you'll see tonight incorporates the feedback to date. So that's been a very good working dynamic so far. As I said, the economic incentives that we're pursuing through the chapter 100 bond issuance is a portion of tax abatement and then abatement on the sales tax of construction material. So the base real estate taxes are preserved as is in the master development agreement. New taxes are abated 75% for 10 years and then 50% for years after that. Some things that we have been able to incorporate mutually into the agreement to provide some safeguards for the city and really bolster the community benefits are that if there's a sale of the property in the first 10 years, there's math that allows for an assessment of that tax abatement incentive that was there to check and see was it really necessary and if there was some excess profit there, that's a mechanism for the taxing districts to receive a portion of that back. The development entity is making a financial contribution to a further connection point west of this site that will help kind of with an additional roundabout and connectivity to Manchester. Regardless of that would be for us as the developer, if somebody came else in to develop it, those dollars would be available for that connectivity. The site design that you'll see tonight envisions the two future roundabouts on the subject property in the future when we're able to develop east and west. We were able to maintain the mixed use concept that was originally in the master plan. And then, as I said, we're also having a connector path from Manchester down into the park with a rest shade kind of gathering structure for the public on our private property. So the onus is on us to maintain that over time, insurance, those kind of things. So we're not transferring that burden to the city. This is obviously the overall redevelopment area that we've contemplated. The project zone that you see is about three quarters where Public Works currently is. Just for remembrance, this is what's attached to the master development agreement, which originally showed condominium-style living and two commercial buildings on the site. The amazing part is even while the lawsuit is still working its way through the judicial system with the overall project, these four projects you see account for about 23% of the total development area actively being under development as we're here tonight presenting this to you. So obviously, KinderCare is under construction. Manor Realty has relocated their headquarters. And then with extra space, over four years in the making, we're thrilled that we may still break ground this year. So we're very proud of the progress we've been able to collectively make with the city to this point. Just so everybody's contextually aware, this is what we're talking about. The yellow portion is city-owned, where Public Works is. The northeast white parcel is the privately owned parcel that's under contract. So as we said, just to reinforce that we're maintaining the original vision, what was originally shown was the center road and this mixed use of housing and commercial. And what we are still presenting tonight is two buildings that have residential use with the 4,000 square feet of commercial. This particular lot had some challenges to it, and I don't get too far into this because we're not in a planning and zoning meeting here. There were a couple of cross access easements that were on the site that we weren't originally aware of that we kind of had to rejigger some things around in the short term. But we are planning for in the future for how we add in the roundabouts and do the engineering in a way that works in the future. On the western side of the site, so on the left side where you see residential exterior amenity, this is where there will be a very clearly delineated path from Manchester down safely through the parking lot to down in this bottom corner where there'll be the community gathering space and then the access down into the park, which you'll see a better picture of that that's not in planned view in a second. These are the upper floors. Like I said, the north building along Manchester's four stories. The southern building along the park is five stories. There's a lot of topographic change on this site. So actually when they're next to each other, they look very much closer, even though one's a story taller because it falls as it goes towards the park. This is a bird's eye view from the northwest of what it would look like if you were on Manchester, kind of looking towards the park, if you were looking that way so you could see where that path would be down to that shade structure that is shown. This is a view from if you were in the park, you know, the southwest view. The structures that you see in the parking lot are what I would describe as an architecturally interesting cantilevered carport. What that means is that it's covered parking, but the structures are not in the parking field. That creates a lot of difficulties with snow plows and cleaning and maintaining parking lots. So they'll be aesthetically very pleasing, but provide that covered amenity for folks that want that. We did for context show this on the bottom of it are the two buildings that we're discussing tonight and what's rendered at the top of the screen matches exactly what's in the approved master plan from a use perspective and then you see how that all flows together with the adjacency next to the park. This is showing if you're on Manchester, looking towards the commercial use in the first building that has outdoor patio seating and then the connectivity where people would be able to go through the tunnel if they wanted to under Manchester, be able to come by here, grab a cup of coffee, whatever that use is, and then continue down into the park. There'll also be bike storage inside for our tenants but also outside for members of the public if they were to be riding their bike, they could safely do that and not have to try to find a solution. That is what the pool amenity and the shot down the center street will look like. The center street apartments will all be more of a single story townhouse concept where you'll actually enter those units off of the center street instead of inside the building off of a central corridor. So a little more of a sense of place and homeliness when people are walking down that street. It's gonna give you an example of what we anticipate that looking like. So if you were in that unit, you would enter that from the street side. And then in the shade structure that you see in the bottom It's just an iteration of what we've been working with planning and zoning on of what this kind of gathering area could look like With seeding shade water for people when it's hot out if it's raining or something going on I mean, like I said, that's on our property. So we maintain that So thrilled to be here tonight. I'm happy us making progress Thank you.

And just for clarification. I Well, you put on the presentation of what the vision is. What's in front of this board tonight is not approval of either the site plan or the conditional use permit for this, correct? Correct. This is simply the first bill is for the approval of the redevelopment agreement, and the second bill, which we'll be hearing after this, is for approval of the purchase of the city-owned property.

And we're currently on track to hopefully be back in front of the board in October, assuming that we progress correctly through, I'm sorry, in November. We'll finish planning and zoning in October and be back here in November.

Because you've already had one hearing in front of P&Z.

We've had one P&Z hearing and our site plans.

And the site plans. Yes, that's right. Okay. And the purchase price for the city parcels is what?

This is $1 million.

Okay. Thank you. All right, any questions by the board? And remember, this is solely on the very first bill, which is the approval of the redevelopment agreement. So if you can confine your questions to that, that would be great. Yes, Alderman Goad.

So for the redevelopment agreement, that $1 million is the dollars that was set back when the original master was signed. And so we're just reaffirming that purchase price, correct? Correct.

And the master development agreement, it contemplates that the first parcel would be $500,000 and the second parcel is 500,000. And this is a portion of five, I believe. So it's the full million is from that math in the original development agreement. That's correct.

Anybody else?

Alderman Lockmiller. That'll be in the next bill, correct?

That's the approval.

For the purchase, the actual purchase price will be in the, That purchase agreement is the next bill, but it is referenced in the development agreement.

In the RDA, yeah.

And to be clear, we would not be closing on this site until all of the project financing is in place and we're getting ready to start construction. So there's no we buy it now and then have to try to figure those rights out.

It's a fully baked cake. In fact, we require from the developer 180 days notice since we will have to move our public works facility.

And that brings up a great question. Again, just for the, I know the board understands this, but for those people who may be watching either by Zoom or by YouTube, Mr. City Attorney, can you speak to how the city's gonna deal with, if we get notice to vacate our current public works building, where are we going? Or city administrator, wherever you want. Whoever feels more comfortable answering that.

That's a good question, Mayor Dimmitt. We are looking at alternate locations, partnering with other municipalities around us, and looking at space that we currently have to store items. So when we get closer, before the end of this year, we'll have a good plan of action in place that we will bring back to the board. OK.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Yes, Alderman Lockmiller. I don't know if I should direct this to Joel or Jim, but if you could kind of explain, I guess, the timeline of once approved by this board for the project, how the tax incentives kick in and at what time.

I would probably defer to Jim for it to be more appropriate.

I mean, I'm looking at, like, the abatement initiation date, when that would take place, and then there's a mention of a certificate of completion.

Yeah, so the... Actual abatement is not going to start, well, until they're complete with the project, there is zero abatement. They're required to pay a pilot equal to, a pilot being a payment in lieu of taxes, equal to 100% of the assessed value of the property. Once the project is completed, at that time we will move to the tax abatement that's outlined in the development agreement.

Then when it comes to the exemption of sales tax, what time does that start? Because they're going to need to buy materials.

That starts after the development agreement is signed. And as long as they are buying construction materials for this particular project, then they will be provided with our tax-exempt certificate. they can take that to the local supply store where you buy all the supplies for a $40 million apartment complex and show it to them and they save their sales tax.

That's on good faith or how is it?

Well, certainly the city has the ability to audit their purchases and verify that they were only used for our project. Obviously, the developer has been in this for a while, and they understand certainly the risk of buying something tax exempt that's not related to our project.

The extra layer of security there is 99.99, if not 100% of the time, that would actually be the general contractor. through their subcontractor of building the project. So it's not really us. There's a lot of contractual liability covering there that everybody's very aware of doing it correctly. And I wouldn't anticipate that much of any of a project that scaled those materials we bought in Brentwood. They're bought from scale from national distributors. So that provision generally would have very little impact on a local municipality.

Thank you.

I agree with everything else Jim said. It was our understanding too. Yes, Alderman Goad.

And also just to clarify, planning and zoning and the architectural review board will have a very strong say in any details or concerns they have. We are merely approving the redevelopment idea as a whole.

Sort of. ARB doesn't do anything with the commercial property. That's all planning and zoning. So P&Z will do, P&Z applies, am I wrong on that? Okay, I was gonna say, P&Z applies and sets out the architectural standards for commercial properties.

We've had a lot of conversations with them about what the building looks like, so they've been very engaged.

Two of the three ARB members sit on P&Z, so there's a lot of continuity and discussion of the design, yeah.

One of the good things that I did as mayor is I appointed architects to the planning and zoning. One of the very few things. Okay, anybody else? Yes, Alderman Gould. Oh did you ever sorry.

So on the on the assessment or the abatement. You had mentioned that that they pay 100 percent of the current evaluation and that is I understood maybe with what Joel was saying. moving forward, they there's, they still pay what the city has been getting for the evaluation of that. Yes.

So the, the assessment is determined by St. Louis County, obviously not by, not by the city. Um, and even though the property is tax exempt because we currently own our portion of the property, it still has an assessed value. And at such time that they close on the sale, between that time and the time that they complete their construction of the project, they will pay 100% payments in lieu of taxes or they will be paying the taxes. So they're paying 100%. At such time that they complete the project, then they're going to have a 75% abatement and they will pay a 25% payment in lieu of taxes that will be based on the then current value of the property. Once they build the property, the county is going to come in, reassess the property, and have a new appraised and a new assessed value, which will be obviously significantly higher. So the tax revenue generated from the property, even when they have a 75% abatement, will be substantially higher than the current assessed value and the tax revenue that would be generated if the property were privately owned.

Okay, great. And then am I to understand correctly that even if we enter into this agreement, there is no date for closing set? And that as they progress down the process and get closer to actual construction, they need to give us 180 days notice that they're ready, and that's when the clock starts ticking for closing. Is that correct?

That is correct. So they have to give 180 days notice. At that time, they have to give assurances. that they will have the financing in place to proceed. Then when we get to the 10 days before closing, they have to demonstrate to us that they have the financing in place, that they're ready to commence construction. What we don't want to do is move our public works facility when it's not necessary and then have a property sit vacant. They are committed to starting construction, which is going to include grading and site preparation, immediately after closing. So once they close, they'll go, and we do have a provision in here that if for some reason they closed on the sale and did not follow through with the construction of the development as approved by P&Z and eventually by the board, then we have a right to repurchase the property for the same price that we sold it to.

Okay, that was going to be my next question. All right, thank you. Alderman Tice.

Alderman Gould asked my question. I wanted to highlight the 10 days and talk about the timing of that, so thank you.

You're welcome. And Alderman Gould asked you about the property tax abatement under this proposed RDA. This isn't anything new to the city.

No, it is not. The city is used. Tax abatement in many cities throughout the region use tax abatement because we recognize that the cost of investment for development is very high and often the developers are also contributing significantly to the infrastructure improvements in the area as well as just increasing the overall tax base This one will bring in many new people to the city who will be able to partake in all the other services and the beautiful park.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? All right, then I guess we have a second read. Are you asking for a second read tonight or not? No. No, okay. All right, we will have a second read for this on September 21st. Next up is bill number 6624. Can we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes. Bill number 6623. 23, sorry about that, yep. Bill number 6623, an ordinance approving a purchase agreement between the City of Brentwood and 8300 Manchester LLC for the sale of 8318 and 8330 Manchester Road and portions of 8302 and 8304 Manchester Road and 2740 Bonaparte Avenue. and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith.

Okay, this is essentially the companion bill, if you will, to 266.22, and that is, this deals with the sale of the aforementioned parcels that Joel was talking about. Have any questions on that? Okay, we will have a second read for that as well on September 21st. Brings us down now to 266.24. Can we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes, bill number 6624, an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit and boundary adjustment for extra space properties 186 LLC DBA extra space storage to operate a mixed use ground floor retail slash office and storage facility established, establishment addressed at 8071 to 8075 Manchester Road in the MC Manchester Corridor Commercial District.

Thank you. And this is, again, for those at home, this is for construction of a new building on what was Memphis Best Barbecue and is it Burger King? Burger King, which came down many, many years ago. And so whoever is presenting on that, go ahead and jump on up. And this project has been already through planning and zoning?

Correct.

Okay.

So this was the public hearing earlier in the meeting? Right. The applicant is requesting a site development plan, boundary adjustment, and conditional use permit for a 106,992 square foot storage facility, extra space storage facility, with 8,396 square feet of ground floor retail office area at 8071 through 8075 Manchester Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of six to two on August 12th. Applicant is here to answer any questions since we covered everything under the site development, I mean under the public hearing.

Do we have any renderings or anything like that?

I can show us some renderings.

I think the folks at home might be interested in seeing this. This will be the first building one sees going westbound on Manchester Road as you enter into Brentwood.

I could just tell them it's a really good looking building. I don't know if that'll work. Everybody at home, if that works, we're good.

Well, while Whitney is getting that set up, does somebody want to speak to the issue? So this would be a new extra space storage. We currently have an extra space storage, or ESS, on Manchester Road. That's right. So are we going to have two operating?

No. And that's really where this all kind of came together was, trying to figure out a solution to take the current space, which is, um, quite frankly, it's more of a first generation storage facility, traditional drive up on climate, uh, water issues, uh, deferred maintenance. And this was not developed by extra space. This was part of an acquisition when they acquired life storage. And, um, you know, when this, Storage over the last 30 years has really matured as far as an asset class goes. And really, customers expect a much higher level of both service as well as just appeal. Over 50% of our customers are the real boss of the household, which is oftentimes the wife. And so we want these facilities to be aesthetically very pleasing, safe, secure. And we want them in retail locations because that's where customers are most comfortable visiting their belongings and their things. And so we understand that sometimes that doesn't align with a certain city's zoning. And that's where we come in and we try to collaborate and say, how can we give the look and feel of, almost I want to say, give the look and feel of something that's not our business, which is a Class A office building or a retail location, but still provide the accessibility and the visibility that we need to drive customers to this location. And so what we've worked out with Halo and the city and staff is a situation where, upon opening this facility, we'll start to transfer residents or not residents, hopefully at that point, customers. We don't want, we'll transfer the residents to the apartments and we'll take their things to the storage facility. So that way, then that site will be, you know, we'd love for it to be the second phase or third phase of multifamily or mixed use or commercial. I mean, again, that's really good for our business too. So that's, you know, the more population we get within close proximity to us, the better. So it really came down to a win-win situation. It took, you know, it certainly took some give and take from all sides, the city, Exerspace, Halo, staff, P&Z. And I think that we've come up with something that works for our business model economically, which is it's important to us. and also we think works with the goals of Brentwood.

And, Bo, I think, if I remember correctly, it's an 18-month overlay between the one that's... That's right. Okay. So once the new one is constructed, if it happens, then 18 months later, the old ESS would shut down. That's right.

Okay.

That's right. And I think it will... We put that in there because, again, there are traditional kind of moving times of year. It will behoove us to move residents faster, but some of that we can control, some of it we can't. Any questions?

Yes, Alderman Locke-Mueller. I don't see CBP here, so I guess I'll ask you, Whitney. It's always about traffic. We've got KinderCare down the road. Can you kind of explain the means of egress into this site?

Sure. Let me get to this site.

And while she's going to that, I will say that self-storage is the lowest traffic generator of any commercial use really, that you can choose. I mean, a busy day in self-storage is 20 customers for the whole day. So it's not a high traffic generator, which is nice. And also there's a thought, well, we're going to have giant moving trucks and 18 wheelers. That's also not the case. 90% of our customers use their own personal vehicle, or if anything, the smaller version of a U-Haul type box truck. So it's professional movers generally aren't bringing things to a self-storage facility. They're bringing things to a warehouse or offsite.

So this is the site development plan. The applicants have agreed to eliminate the current entrance along Manchester and is negotiating with the adjacent property owner, Manor, for the shared access to the west. Then there would be a right in, right out only, further east, closer to Hanley Road. That has also been agreed to by the applicant and initially discussed with MoDOT. So that will require their permitting as well. Because of the stream buffer, and they were required to meet with the 50-foot stream buffer, it did push the parking within this area some. So there is limited ability to provide landscaping within the parking lot, which the Planning and Zoning Commission did, and the Board of Aldermen have the opportunity to waive under the MC district regulations. But those are the access management. The parking was reviewed by CBB as well with the retail. Since the office, since a portion of the retail is the office for the applicant, we separated that out, so it's general, since it would be all part of that use. Therefore, the parking was reviewed and it meets with the recommendations of CBB.

If you don't get the cross-access agreement, what's plan B?

They would have to come back through the Planning and Zoning Commission for review of that. And that is a condition of their ordinance before you tonight, that if they cannot come up with the shared access agreement, they would have to come back for a new site development plan.

Anyone else? Yes, Alderman Plufka. I'm sorry.

Change in coverage. Are there any additional accommodations being made for...

They are required to meet with the city's stormwater infill development regulations as well as with MoDOT for any work off-site along Manchester and MSD for their storm, their water runoff requirements as well. So those are all reviewed as part of the building permits.

Alderman Tice.

Mr. City Attorney, can you comment on the tax incentives, the difference between what's going on with the apartments and this ESS building?

You're asking for me to remember the development agreement from ESS. Do you remember what the, or Joel, do you remember what the...

It's a staggered, I mean, it's a similar, I mean, part of this came into... Or was it just the...

Just Chapter 100?

Was it just the sales tax? No, sales tax and abatement.

Sales tax, I think, just on KinderCare. Oh, that's right.

Oh, okay. Yeah, KinderCare was sales tax only. We have abatement for a period of time, and I can't remember if it's 90% or 75% for 10 years, and then it drops after that. That was negotiated as part of us paying for the sign, the Brentwood sign.

which we're going to have some discussions on later.

Yes, yeah, I knew that. I just was curious.

I didn't see it in here, and I... No, no, it's... We're still going to have those discussions. Okay. But that doesn't, you know, that's more related to the development agreement.

Okay, perfect. And then... I guess you answered my other, so if you don't get the shared use agreement with the neighboring municipality, or the neighboring building, you'll be back to PNC. That's, okay, great, thank you.

We hope that doesn't, we feel like we're moving in the right direction. Again, this has been a long process and a long time coming, and we get into this area of development where not starting by a certain time of year can cause much further delay than we want.

So is this all conditioned upon the approval of the cross-access agreement or this board can vote on it and then if there's a problem getting the cross-access agreement to take that up later? Correct.

There is already a condition in the in the approval that they must get the cross-access. So if they do not then they're gonna have to go back through the process. Got it. Okay. And Alderman Tiefs As to your prior question, they have a 75% abatement for 15 years and 50% for another five.

Are we voting on that redevelopment agreement as part of this?

No, that has already been approved.

Oh, we've already approved. Okay, great. Thank you.

I like 90%. I don't know if that's – you can vote on that if you want to give me the – if you want to go with the 90%. I already voted. This isn't an auction. Alderman Gould.

OK, so two questions. One, I noticed in some of the elevation renderings, there's a pretty significant terrace where the building is raised up from parking. And then additionally, there's a retail space on the southeastern corner. How do people access, I don't know, it looks to be potentially even up to 10 feet of a wall that then everything is on top of? How do they access that?

Well, the majority of the retail parking is on the eastern side of the property where the right in right out is okay and obviously everything will be a da you know so so access will be. It will be accessible in an a da approved fashion. The grading and in. geotech of this site that's presented issues for other folks. This is our solution for that, and we think also kind of breaks up the building itself and the massing and just kind of elevates that retail frontage so that it's even more visible to traffic on Manchester, which we think is going to help. I mean, I don't want to stand here and say that this is a retail development with self-storage in it. It's a self-storage development with retail in it. And so we want to give that retail the best opportunity to be successful. And we think keeping that up as high as possible while also making it accessible to customers gives us the best chance to fill that space with good businesses.

So are there a series of steps and ramps that get up to that level? Okay, because I can't, it's hard to tell from these renders, and I understand that these are more rough three-dimensional renders. Speaking of the retail space, now the discussion we just recently had with respect to potential of the multifamily industry showed about 4,000 square feet that was actually divided into two, so potentially two 2,000 square foot retail space. This looks like one complete 8,000 square foot plus space. Is there ability to, because I assume you don't have a retail partner yet.

No, not yet, but we're working with Halo and with their understanding of the retail in this corridor. And the way that the layout is being designed is so that there could be up to two or three or four different users in that corner.

It's not just a one user. I didn't know if there was just one door entrance. No, no, no. We'll put at least two.

OK.

So the drawing we have up here shows in the gray what are being calculated as part of that retail. The very east corner. would be the future tenant. The west corner is the office and retail component of the extra space storage facility. Yeah, so.

Yeah, well, I commend you for, first of all, even considering that. I know that, like you said, you're an extra space storage company, but you do understand the vision of this whole area to be more pedestrian friendly, to be more- to be more mixed use to to bring a retail environment so that it not just for the residents here brentwood but for the region so i appreciate you being sensitive to that and and i just just wanted to make sure i understood if it was one 8 000 square foot or or open to subdivide quite frankly in our business too over the past really 10 years 30 of our customers are small business

and retail space a lot of times is much more costly, and so we have a lot of businesses that utilize our services as kind of just-in-time warehousing, so they don't need, you know, they may not need 5,000 square feet. They may need 1,000 square feet, and so, you know, this can be successful. Again, it doesn't always go hand-in-hand, and the users have to, it has to work with it, but we really think that the way this can lay out, that we can attract you know, maybe displaced retail from within the corridor at this time and maybe new retail. I mean, I think there's a lot of opportunities at this corner.

Thank you.

Alderman Goad.

first i'm excited we found a new home for extra space i like that they are currently in the district and they get to stay in the district so um thank you for getting creative on that um looking at the plans so this area's got a lot of elevation that goes with it so it's a four-story building but the residential houses behind it are all on a hill correct so there's going to be like a visual breakup for the neighbors between They're not looking at a four-story wall because they're already up on that bluff, right? That's right. OK. And then also, I saw the attachments for the directional lights on the front. On the back, if I saw correctly, it's mostly a wall. It's not going to have those front windows that are probably always going to be lit, I'm assuming, for advertisement purposes on the front. But on the back, that's not going to be the case.

Yeah, no. And what I will say with lighting in the back, I mean, The loading and unloading is the area that we want to stay illuminated, and really the drive aisle, which is way below where any residential is. But like any project, if a light gets put up and the way it hits a rock and hits a wall and all of a sudden it's in somebody's window, we're not going to stand for that either. We'll move the light to make sure that it doesn't impact what we think are going to be potential customers. So we have to be a good neighbor.

I love that. And those front windows, those aren't going to be, I drive by possibly competitive developments that are more on the interstates or closer to interstates and they're just like lit up 24 separate and super bright on the inside so you see them. This is more toned down, correct?

Correct. And actually a condition of the ordinance, there was discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission that the display areas on the upper floor would be inconsistent with the city's sign regulations. So therefore, that is excluded right now. They can come back under a comprehensive sign plan when they're ready to proceed with signage for the building itself and ask for a comprehensive sign plan. But under the current ordinance, they have to comply with the city's regulations and the displays on the upper floors were not allowed at this time. recommended to be allowed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

All right, we're recommended or we're not?

We're not recommended to, yeah.

Right around the front, calmer on the back, the neighborhood.

Alderman Lockmuller. Whitney, can you bring up that visual that is the rear? 5.3 on your top one. Yeah, that's the white box is the home correct. Oh Is that parapet wall that goes around the front of the building does that continue around the back?

No, the parapet the the front was to out Create a level pad for around the building. So the dry vial is even with the front the retaining wall is

I think he's talking about on the roof. I'm talking about the roof.

Oh, the parapet. Yes. I'm sorry.

Parapet, sorry.

That's true. So yes, any rooftop mechanical would have to be screened. Yeah.

Nice question. So the HVAC, everything's on the roof, right, Bo? Yeah. Correct.

Everything gets screened.

Yeah. All right, good. All right, thank you.

Anyone else? All right, well, thank you so much. We will take up a second read for this on September 21st. Thanks, both. Thanks. Next item is bill number 6625.

Can we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 6625, an ordinance establishing the rates of property taxes to be levied for the year 2026 for general municipal purposes and for the police and fire retirement fund.

All right, this is what we had a public hearing on earlier. And I think you've probably got any additional questions since, yes, Alderman Goad.

Just for anyone who pulls this up, our director, I'm guessing it was you, wrote that very nice email talking about the changes in valuations. Do you want to comment or two?

City Administrator, can you speak to the changes in the assessed value?

There's a $4 million drop in assessed value, and there was a lovely write-up in the note. You're welcome. Thank you.

So there are changes in the personal property assessed valuation. There are changes in the residential and commercial as well. The personal property valuation, there is... And what we said in the memo... Excuse me, there's a decrease. What we said in the write-up to you is that there has been a change in the used vehicle market, and the prices have fallen sharply after several years of unusually high value. So that's what we attribute to what we see under . In terms of commercial property assessed valuation, that market has also changed, particularly higher vacancy rates and slower demand, which puts pressure on market values. Owners of these properties also have an opportunity to protest. Combination of that. Talk to folks at St. Louis. So you should know that this is pre-BOA. Hopefully we will have post-BOA, and if there's any revenue that is generated from that, we will bring that back. And the last is residential. Fire demand. Housing inventory, so those are some.

Great. Anybody else? Yes, Alderman Dice.

I'm just going to point out something I emphasized at the Ways and Means Committee meeting is that the residential tax rate does not have, we don't have a residential tax rate for the general fund or for debt service. So that is a great thing about our city that we only tax people's homes for the police and fire pension for the things that the city itself does.

Anyone else?

We will have a second read on that on September 21st and that brings us down to bill number 66 26 can we get a first read by title only please yes bill number 66 26 an ordinance amending table 7a of schedule 7 of title 3 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood Missouri to amend the intersections where right turns on red are prohibited and gummersheimer come on down

This particular item was first brought up, or we first investigated the concern or question about Eulalie at Brentwood. So whenever we were looking at it, we just decided to look at all the other locations that were referenced in this table, and three out of the six are actually obsolete references to the way the intersections were before I-64 was redone. So you'll see it makes reference to Hanley Road southbound on the Eager Road, which no longer exists, Highway 40 eastbound off ramp on the Eager, and then Highway 40 eastbound off ramp on the Hanley. So to clean up this table, you would get rid of those and only leave the three that truly do need to exist for the no right on red. Two out of the three that would remain, we've asked the county to put the signs back up since we don't own the traffic signals. So if you're at the intersection of White and Brentwood Boulevard, when you look across, if you're going eastbound on White, you'll see no right on red, and it's because of sight distance issues. Same thing with the other two, it's sight distance issues. So we want those signs put back up, but to make this table clean, we wanted to remove those obsolete references.

All right, any questions? All right, we will take that up September 21st. We'll go anywhere, Dan, because next up is Bill number 6627. Could we get a first read by title only, please?

Bill number 6627, an ordinance amending Table 3A of Schedule 3 of Title 3 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood, Missouri, to amend the locations within the city where parking is designated at any time.

Yeah, and this item was taken up at public safety. So at the intersection of Litzinger and Mary on that southwest corner, some folks have been parking on that corner, which makes it difficult if you're heading eastbound on Litzinger to try to make that right-hand turn to go southbound on Mary. It was the desire to go ahead and put up no parking basically from that corner 20 feet in each direction. So you wouldn't be able to park that close on Mary or on Litzinger right at that right angle.

Any questions?

Yes. I will just comment that this is a pretty busy, if you look at the picture that's in the packet there, that is Rogers Parkway that runs parallel to that very difficult 90-degree turn on Litzinger and Mary. Just to the east of that is the Mark Twain Elementary. What compounds this and makes this a public safety issue is that And now that school's back in session, there are children that are walking and having to dodge cars that are parked along there because there are no sidewalks, with vehicles oftentimes coming to that corner at the exact same time. And so with sight lines and issues, it becomes... really a hazard for most of the people that use our trail system and have to navigate that complex area. Additionally, if you can imagine, and actually just this past Friday when school was let out, happened to be driving by and they let out early there were several vehicles parked on both sides and at the corner and there was a child that had to really quickly navigate through and my biggest concern at that point with all of those vehicles parked on those corners and on the opposite side of the street if a fire to fire truck had to come through there's no way they would have been been able to make that turn so that's I I wish that there was common sense and we didn't have to make some areas no parking, but this is definitely a public safety issue. And because of that, I'm actually going to make a motion. I know normally we don't do second reads, but since school has started and this is something I would ask if we could do a second reading of this tonight.

Second.

For a second and a second on that motion, any discussion on that? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Now, Alderman Tice, I saw your hand up first, though.

Yes, I have a question. We had something similar in Ward 1 last year when we added no parking next to a house. Has the homeowner of this home been approached to let them know that these signs are going into place?

We have not, but we would if it's... It's approved. We have to call in locates, and we would knock on the door and let them know what we're doing.

Yeah. I know when we did this the last time near McGrath, we had an opportunity to talk to the resident first. I think safety probably comes into play more, but I think it's important that we talk to the homeowner before all of a sudden they can't park on either side of their house.

All right.

Anyone else, yes. And just for clarity, I think the 20 feet wouldn't eliminate one parking right in front of their house. It would just eliminate the ability, and actually I don't think it's them that parks there. And they do have a driveway with garage, so they have off-street parking. But I understand your concern.

Anyone else? All right, Mr. City Attorney, could we have a second read by title only, please, of Bill No. 6627?

Bill No. 6627, an ordinance amending Table 3A of Schedule 3 of Title 3 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood, Missouri, to amend the locations within the city where no parking is designated at any time.

Thank you, Chair. I entertain a motion to perfect Bill No. 6627 into ordinance form. So moved. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

Alderman Palufka? Yes. Alderman Tice? Yes. Alderman Gold? Yes. Alderman Lockmiller? Yes. Alderman Gould?

Yes.

Alderman Harder? Yes. Alderman Meyer?

Yes.

Bill number 6627 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 5246.

Great, thank you. That drops us down to Item 6628, can we get a first read by title only, please?

Bill number 6628, an ordinance approving the site development plan and authorizing the issuance of a new conditional use permit for Titanium Fitness LLC, DBA Titanium Fitness, to operate a fitness facility establishment at 820 Hanley Industrial Court within the tenant space addressed as 854 through 856 Hanley Industrial Court in the PD Plan Development Overlay District. All right. Is the applicant here?

No, sir. He has not come, but I've reached out to him. This is a first reading, so we will try to get him here again on the second reading.

All right.

But if there's any questions...

It's kind of hard when we don't really have a presentation, but I'll leave it up to you all what you want to do on this. Do you have any questions? If not, you'll have an opportunity at the next Board of Aldermen meeting. Yes, Alderwoman Goad.

If I'm understanding correctly, this is just all in, there's two units, it's all internal, the only change is that internal space. There's no exterior changes, there's no boundary changes, it's merely bringing two interiors together.

Correct. There are no changes to the exterior building or the site. They had opened up this space between the two, and because it's an expansion of a conditional use permit, it prompted a new CUP.

Anyone else? They are occupying the space currently, and they're currently operating, so this is just an expansion of their... Yeah, correct.

I mean, that seems like a... And there was no impact on parking. They had sufficient parking on site.

Okay, thank you.

All right. We'll take that up. Second read on September 21st as well. Drops us down to bill number 6629.

Can we get a first read by title only, please? Bill number 6629, an ordinance amending sections 400.2890 and 400.3020 of Division 8 of Chapter 400 of Title IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brentwood regulating flood hazard controls.

So this was part of the public hearing earlier in the meeting. Again, in March, We revised with ordinance number 5219, establishing the cumulative improvements for a 10-year period. This was based upon the direction of FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Association, as well as SEMA, the State Emergency Management Association, that over that 10-year period, if there's renovation exceeds 50% of the current value of the structure, then they should be take measures to bring the property out of the floodplain. Our ordinance defined cumulative with that 50% over the 10-year period. However, SEMA asked that we revise our ordinance to have it within the body of the text. So therefore, this is clarifying that language.

OK. Any questions? Are you asking for a second read on this?

It's not necessary.

All right, we will take that up September 21st. Brings us down to last but not least, Whitney, we think we're finished with you. Bill number 6630, can we get a first read by title only, please?

Yes, bill number 6630, an ordinance establishing the ambulance fee schedule for the Brentwood Fire Department and establishing tiered rate increases with effective dates, reaffirming billing applicability and exceptions, and providing for compliance and effective date. And I also think we're going to have one matter that got pulled from.

Yes, thank you, Chief. The floor is yours.

Yes, good evening. Appreciate once again the opportunity to present this enhancement to the billing program that we currently have for our ambulance service. This particular enhancement was a byproduct of the budget development process where we did a comprehensive analytic review of our current charges based off what Medicare allows. and then what is reasonable and customary through the other municipalities within the region that we serve. We're currently at about 165% of what Medicare allows, which is way under what the recommended rate is for this region based off of one of the major ambulance districts in the metropolitan area and everyone else around us. So with consultation with our billing vendor, which is the MSMC, they had recommended that we approach a tiered increase, which would match what Medicare is recommending for providers throughout the nation based off of balanced billing legislation that has already been passed in 30 other states. The reason this is impactful for us is if we do not have a tiered, any type of program that outlines what we charge for our services, once, if Missouri adopts this bill, which we're pretty sure they will, we're late adopters here in the middle of the country, but that would lock us into whatever our current rate is and then would restrict us to about 2% increase per year. So the program that we've put together is based off of reasonable and customary, an audit of the other agencies within this region, what our billing, vendor recommends based off of a Medicare tiered increase. So this would be approximately a two year program that would start in October and would move us up to 225%, 250, 325, and eventually by the end of 2028 we would be at 350% of what Medicare is allowed. And that is based off of compliance standards. So that is customary throughout the nation right now. In order to make that effective, we ask that we enact an ordinance that outlines what this program would be so that locks us in with legislation and prevents us from being adversely impacted by any legislation that comes down the pike.

So somebody who needs use of an ambulance, they're going to see an increase in the bill? Negative.

If you're a resident of Brentwood. Right, thank you. Yeah, I was getting to that once we established the need. Thank you. So if you're a resident of Brentwood, as Alderman Tice brought up, we have some very good amendments, amenities here in the city. One of them is that if you're a resident, you will not receive a bill for an ambulance transport. We bill your insurance company, whatever that is, and then whatever the insurance company reimburses us for, that's what we accept. That's what you get as a resident of Bretwood. So regardless of what this program looks like, a resident will not receive a bill and will not incur any charge for having us come in service. If you're a non-resident, different story. The other piece of this that we're adding is, we've not done this before, I'm not sure why, but we'd like to institute a treat, no transport charge. This is where, if you would call 911 for any reason, we come out and do any type of comprehensive exam or treatment. I always use the diabetic, low blood sugar. We come out, you're passed out on the floor. IV, EKG, oxygen, we give you some D50, some sugar, and then you're conscious, you're like, I feel great now. I'll just go ahead and call my doctor. the way it is right now, we leave. No bill. We have no way to recoup any of those medical expenses, IV supplies, anything. So again, based off reasonable and customary for this region and a really deep dive into our immediate neighbors, we're requesting a $252 charge, which was recommended by our billing vendors.

Recording in progress.

Right at about... the top of the middle third. So we're not highest and we're not lowest. We're right where we need to be.

Okay, thank you. Recording stopped.

No, I was going to ask about the impact to residents. All right. Thank you.

Anybody else? Any other questions? I think you are asking for a second read on this tonight, get this in place.

Based on the implementation date of October 1st, Assistant Chief Harmon and I needed to go through some checks and balances and some accountability with EMSMC to make sure that the rates that are set correctly and that we will give them dummy charges to make sure that they're being billed.

Recording in progress.

That usually takes a couple of weeks, so if we could get a second read tonight, I'm pretty sure, pretty confident we can have this in place up and running on October 1st.

Like a motion for second read.

We got a motion and a second for a second read. Any discussion on that? All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

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

Yes. Bill number 6630, an ordinance establishing the ambulance fee schedule for the Brentwood Fire Department and establishing tiered rate increases with effective dates, reaffirming billing applicability and exceptions, and providing for compliance and effective dates.

Thank you. Chairman, entertain a motion to perfect Bill number 6630 in the ordinance form.

So moved.

Second.

All right. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

Alderman Plushka? Yes. Alderman Tice? Yes. Alderman Lockmiller? Yes. Alderman Gould?

Yes.

Alderman Harder? Yes. Alderman Meyer?

Yes.

Bill number 6630 is hereby passed and now becomes ordinance number 52.

Thank you. Thanks, Chief. Appreciate the consideration. All right. That brings us down to the last item, and that is Resolution 1604, I believe.

Thank you, Mayor Dimmitt. Staff is seeking approval to engage CBB, CBB, all traffic engineer, to perform a Manchester Road access management guideline project. Just this evening, we talked about multiple redevelopment projects that are along the corridor. What we are looking to do is coordinated access management strategy to ensure safety, mobility, and functionality along the corridor. We know that the Missouri Department of Transportation owns and maintains Manchester Road. Site plan approval along this corridor. Partnering with CBB on a project to help ensure that future development along the corridor will return. Right away, making coordination. Recommended motion is approval. And the cost of this project is.

Any questions? Alderman Tice.

Thank you, Bola. I asked to pull this off because I think this is a really important thing that we're doing within the corridor. We're thoughtfully looking at the traffic. We have a master developer, but it's not going exactly like the original master development plan was designed, and this gives the city a little bit more control with what is developed in this corridor and how they access Manchester Road because traffic is one of the biggest concerns. Controlling traffic is one of the biggest issues, I think, that we have in the corridor. So I support it, but I just wanted to highlight that we're doing it.

Can we get a motion to approve Resolution 1604? Can I make a comment? Well, let's get the motion first.

So moved. Second.

Okay. Alderman Plufka.

I, too, think this is a very important thing. I do have a question for the city. About the bid to anybody else?

And I think that's a good question. And the reason we're able to ask CBB for a task order is because they're the city's on-call traffic engineer, and it would be a business such as them that would do this kind of study. How long has CBB held that? So total, it's probably been greater of 20 years, but we went out, I think we issued an RFQ, and they were recommended. We have other engineering firms as well, but they specialize particularly and have the most experience with City of Brentwood Roadway in terms of traffic management, even though we've disagreed with their recommendations.

Alderman Gould.

Yes, thank you. We've had several initiatives, I'd say, that have reimagined the corridor. We've done it at one point with comprehensive planning, as we've done comprehensive planning and set those and then amended them. vision for that and then also the master redevelopment discussion that we had several years ago. How is this different than those discussions? Because in those sessions there was a lot of recommendations or at least concepting of how to manage ingress, egress, cut, curb cut, count so that there's not a bunch of them along Manchester. How would this be different for us, for the city moving forward than those initiatives?

So when the city selected a master developer, we thought that there would be a comprehensive guideline look at the entire corridor, but because we now have what is considered piecemeal development, we want to make sure that even though there's piecemeal development, there is an ability to continue to have discussions with subsequent developers as they come up to make sure that they stay true to the city's vision for the entire corridor. So we will always have this document, and when a developer comes to talk to the city, We will also present this to them so that they're able to incorporate it within whatever vision they have planned before they formally come back with the application before the city, so to speak.

So an official guidelines for traffic management along that corridor, much like we have guidelines for architectural buildings and everything else. This would be another official document that then would guide them to what to propose to us rather than us reacting to whatever they propose.

They would know what the city's expectation is for the corridor.

Okay, great, thank you.

Alderman Plufka.

I just want to build on that and say, especially when so much of this development, when it was originally conceived, had to do with diverting traffic off of Manchester Road and internally making it consistent throughout the development, this kind of advice is going to be, I think, crucial.

Anyone else? Okay, in front of you is approval of Resolution 1604. There being no further questions, all those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries, thank you. Brings us down to citizen comments one more time. Anybody in the public care to address the board, now is the time to do so. Anyone online by chance? Okay. Believe it or not, we do have a request to go into closed session, and that is pursuant to RSMO subsection 610.02, and I can't see it on mine. 023? Just that one, right? Okay. 610.021 subsection 3. Any discussion on that? Can we get a motion to that effect? And to adjourn therefrom.

So moved to adjourn therefrom.

Yeah, any discussion? Roll call, please.

I'm sorry, who was the second?

Alderman Gould.

Alderman Pluster? Yes. Alderman Tice? Yes. Alderman Gould? Yes. Alderman Lockmiller? Yes. Alderman Gould? Yes. Alderman Harder? Yes. Alderman Meyer? Yes. Motion passed.