City Council - Regular Meeting

everybody to the Overland City Council meeting for January 12th, 2026. Uh if we can start off the year with a roll call, please. Councilwoman Ruckman here. Councilman Releski here. Councilman Furnuses here. Councilwoman Stable here. Mayor Little here. Councilwoman Ferguson here. Councilwoman Rayo is excused. Councilman Bernard here. And Councilman Bennett

here. All right. Thank you. If we could please rise for the pledge of allegiance and at its conclusion, remain standing in remembrance of our service men and women. Please. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Please be seated. and welcome everybody to 2026. We have a hopeful hopefully productive meeting here, but something pretty straightforward to get uh uh the year started in terms of resolutions and ordinances and that kind of thing. Um in terms of the substance of the meeting here, we'll start by approving the minutes from our meeting on December 9th, 2025. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Minutes are approved and same thing with the bills. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. U Melissa, your report, please.

You should all start receiving your um notice of Missouri Ethics Commission personal financial disclosure deadlines. If you are a candidate for this year, uh you need to have your candidate um personal financial disclosure filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission by tomorrow. Um, if you are not a candidate this year, you have until May 1st of this year. Um, I recommend filing online. Pretty simple. Get it done. If you don't know your password, you can call them to get your password, um, your username and password or get that set up. And the ever popular city calendars, they were mailed the last week in 2025. Um, I believe they were mailed the least expensive way to mail them and so it can take a little bit of time to be delivered. We did hear that people have started receiving them. Um but um so we have not started handing them out at city hall. Um so be a little patient and see if we can get them delivered. I'll let the postal service deliver them. If not, if we start handing them out too soon, we will run out of all the extras that we have. And that concludes my report.

Perfect. Thanks. Yeah, with calendars. I got mine which is a good sign because usually don't get any of the newsletters or other mail. Got two two calendarers. I got two for neighbor on the floor. Yeah. Well, no comment on the USPS. Okay. Um Joe, on to your report for the resolutions.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have the following legislation to offer tonight. First is resolution 20261 authorizing reallocation of funds within the capital improvement fund budget for fiscal year 2025 2026 and authorizing a contract with Burns Citadel Security Company for the installation of a security camera system at the municipal operations facility. Make a motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. The next is resolution 20262, notice of records scheduled for destruction. Motion to approve. All those in favor? Any opposed? Records are destroyed.

The next is resolution 20263 amending resolution 2025 uh 35 related to fiscal year 2025 2026 employee compensation plan as notified herein. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next is resolution 20264 authorizing a contract with IT voice to replace the existing telephone system for all city facilities. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. The next is resolution 202605 authorizing issuance of a liquor license. Motion to approve.

Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The final one is resolution 2026 amending resolution 202573 related to the contract for the outfitting of patrol vehicles for use by the Overland Police Department. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. All right. On to uh staff reports. Rick report. Okay, thank you for giving me time to talk. Uh, we're getting ready for a big season with our summer events. Starting next week, we're going to start reviewing bands. So, got some pretty interesting things coming up. Uh, everybody hang in there. It's going to be fun. We're gonna have a great year. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Yeah. and um like to work with you on that orchestra that plays our holiday concert. They're doing their outdoor concert this year in May here.

So, I don't know how much work we'll need from your crew for that, but we'll talk that through and like add it to your calendar that you share and that kind of We'll do. All right. Thank you. Perfect. Thanks, Right. Mr. Crowder,

Mayor Little, members of council. Usually this time of the year, the commission is pretty much on hiatus, but not really. We will be at all the city events. First to come is the senior lunchon in February and will be at the 10th of March volunteer fair. But what I'm excited about this evening, and you can write this date down or certainly remember it, our overland parade is already scheduled for the 16th of May. I've done a lot of lot of manipulating to get the high school marching band. There's a lot of competition for that band, but we've got them, Marty, and they're going to be coming right down Lacklin playing those songs that all of us want to hear. Uh members of council, the OBA meeting is tomorrow morning. You're hope you'll come and join us. And that is my report. Thank you. Happy New Year.

Thank you. and chief, your report for the evening. Uh just want to let people know that uh we've been having groups of juveniles again in the northern part of town uh getting into cars and things of that nature. So people be on the lookout and report any suspicious activity.

Great. Thanks. And there was a an article in the post today about and the community leagues working hard on this the point system for juveniles. So just so everybody in the room knows um in Missouri or St. Louis County specifically if you catch a juvenile committing a crime you can arrest them but in order to retain them uh they have to have at least 15 points on this point system. Okay. All that sounds rational so far. The wild thing is most felonies are only 12. So, uh, juveniles can get commit most felonies, um, and then be released immediately and then commit the same felony and go back and then they only have 12 points and the points don't add up each time. You start fresh every time you come in, which makes zero sense. So, that's something they're trying to change at the state level. Um, it is county specific. St. Charles does it a different way. Uh, but St. Louis County, St. Louis city have not updated their juvenile reform system to accumulate points either per day or per arrest. It's still per charge. So that's something um if you have any communication with any state representative, state senators, that's something that would really help us out if they can make that uh make that legislation uh and get it signed. All right. Uh nothing in the way of residents comments this evening. We're moving very quickly here. Uh any council comments, questions, concerns? Okay. Um I just have one uh story here that's going to provide two accolades. Um we had a municipal league board meeting Friday night. And we're sitting there, we're talking about the nuisance legislation that we enacted a couple years ago that goes in and cleans up properties that have uh that are in disrepair.

And I was sitting next to right Mike Rorman who's the mayor of Ellisville. He goes, "You're not going to believe this, but we stole your legislation." Uh, and he found out about it because he sat next to Melissa at the state meeting and she told him about it. So, he took it home. They've enacted it. And they have what's called the Rockwood Mayors Association, which is, I think, four cities out in West County. Now, all four of them copied us, too. So, uh, that's, uh, Manchester, Wildwood, Ellisville, Chesterfield, I believe, are all working with what we did to set up, uh, all that stuff a couple years ago. So, kudos to Joe for drafting that. Sorry you don't get paid for them, stealing it from us. Uh, and Melissa for bringing that up. So, you know, what we did here a couple years ago has now spread um, quite randomly. And, uh,

I shared it with the city of Wesville, too. So, it's in the middle of the state as well. All right. There we go. So, we're we're the envy of of a lot of cities when it comes to abating some of the problems we've been working on. So, nice work everybody. No royalties for Joe. No royalties. You didn't sneak that into the legislation. It's all public record.

Yeah, we we the first guy through the gate gets his nose blooded sometimes. So, we we paid for it, but uh it's certainly helping a lot of folks out. Um so, with that said, we do have a work session. Everybody can hang out for the work session if you'd like. We're going to talk about uh conditional use permits, liquor licenses, and and some nuisance vehicles which might be uh entertaining or informative for you. So, with that said, I'll take a motion to go into a work session. I'll make that motion. Second. All those in favor? I. All right. Let's go right into our three topics here.

So, good evening everyone. Happy new year. Um so the first item is administrative approval of cups uh or certain cups. Um so this is something we already have in place. Um but one of the things we've realized in dealing with some applicants is that um they kind of think this is like a speed pass and that they don't have to go through the rest of the process. Um so we we'd like to change some language in there just to make it clear when people read it um before they talk to us. Um so that's really what kind of this first section is is just kind of changing that um so that it's clear when you read it that this is part of a process. It's not a way to bypass um the cup process. The decision as to whether or not something is subject to the administrative approval is made after the review of the application, the site plan, all of that, not at the beginning, which is kind of what people have been um interpreting it to be. So we'd like to change that. Um the second thing that we would like to do or I guess the next thing we would like to do is under the the uh circumstances under which an administrative approval can be granted would be to add um a provision that speaks to uh the increase in square footage of an existing space within a essentially a multi-tenant building. Um, so if a if a tenant currently has I'll just pick a number, 10,000 square feet and they want to take up an additional 10,000 square feet right next to them and it doesn't affect their cup, it doesn't affect hours, parking, any of that kind of stuff, we would like to include that as part of the um the administrative approval as opposed to having it go back to planning and zoning. Um, so there's there's that. Um, in addition, there are some criteria that the director is supposed to review

and and does review, we'd like to add to that um the results in an increase in required parking. Um, so if if it increases their the required parking um and it's not available on site um they can go and and obtain a variance from the board of adjustment. Um so we'd like to add that. That's that's another again criteria the director is supposed to use to determine whether or not it's it's um subject to avail you know subject to the approval under the admin process. Uh and then the other things one of these is um currently we speak about um marijuana and tobacco in one of the provisions that's in there. We've decided to break that out so it's clearer that actually break it out and expand it to include liquor, marijuana, tobacco or ecigarette products. Um that was only in one of the sections about the hours of operation. What we've said is if your business is related to alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, ecigarettes, administrator approval does not apply. That has to go to planning and zone. Um, and also if um a business had a cup and it's expired or they've it's lapsed, the business left, another business wants to come in, same type, same use, same essentially everything. If it's more than 90 days lapsed, it has to go to PNC. Otherwise, the director could could approve it. U the caveat to all of this is the director always has the authority to refer something to PNC. So just because it's available, the admin approval doesn't mean it's automatic. The director can say, you know what, I'm not, you know, I'm not comfortable with this. Let's send it to planning and so those are the proposed changes we'd like to make for the admin approval process.

Those do require approval or review by planning and zoning. um those are on the January meeting uh at the end of the month. Um because of the publishing deadline, we went ahead and added that to the agenda. So if there are no objections, we will run that through PNZ and then it will come back to you all for final February. I have a comment. Sure.

My comment is in the first example you giving that um we wanted to uh not go to and zoning, but to just come through the administrative process. Um, my question is why wouldn't we want it to go back to planning and zoning? Well, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Um, in I think in the beginning of the comments of the section, you were you were talking about administrative approval. Um, and it would have to normally it would if somebody had I think if if it was was denied or something that they would have to go through finance zoning or I'm sorry I got I got it confused. It'll come back to me. It it's not that it's denied and what so if you go back to the if you're talking about the first slide.

Yes. So, what's happening is is applicants are reading the code and they're applying an interpretation that this is kind of like a speed pass and that they don't have to fill out all the paperwork and all that kind of stuff. and we think it's clear, but in order to maybe kind of address this, we're trying to make it clear that this administrative process still requires you to submit all the paperwork and all the documents that are required as as if you were going through the CUP process, we would review it. Then if it is subject to administrative approval, it can be administratively approved. Um, it doesn't have to be because again the director has the discretion to say, "No, I think this needs to go to planning and zoning." Um, but the first part of this that I have on the screen, we're just trying to clarify when somebody's reading the code that this is not a speed pass kind of thing. You got to do all these steps in order to, you know, for us to review it and then make a determination whether or not it's it's subject to administrative approval. And and when this was initially designed and kind of set up, we were getting maybe 60 65% of cup applications that were just a change in owner name and same business, same everything. So we would have, you know, a lot of additional paperwork for kind of things that were not fundamentally changing the operation of the business. It was just, hey, I was a franchisee and now I own the place or something like that. So, we designed the admin approval as kind of a bespoke targeting those things that are never really controversial and being a way where we could still keep the cups in place and essentially find a way to streamline the agendas so that if there were more things that needed more

attention, it wasn't we're going to divide 100% of attention on 11 items, 10 of which are just changes in ownership, changes and um you know the kind of very small stuff so that the focus could be done on you know the PUDS the more complicated things um and at least in terms of the limitations described that we're trying to add in that's how we've interpreted it um this is just kind of adding more heft that when people argue with us um that we can say well no this was the intent you know if a cup has been expired for a year you can't come back and say, "Well, it was, you know, a sandwich shop in the past. Why can't it just be a sandwich shop? We're just resurrecting this." So, this is really just kind of in part doing a lot of what we're already interpreting it and and trying to keep it in a very very limited narrow scope because most of these things should be going to P&Z. It was just things like change of business address or or change of ownership or um change of hours that were minor. I think said at like 15%.

Yeah. So, so under the current ordinance, a a change in the name of or ownership interest in a business operating conditional use or a change in ownership of the property where a conditional use permit has been issued or a change in the hours of operation of all businesses except those selling intoxicating liquor and marijuana businesses. provided that such changes in the hours shall not increase by more than 15% in total hours the business would be in operation or an increase in days of operation. Those were the two circumstances under which administrative approvals would be eligible potentially. So it's very narrow.

So it's it's very narrow. All we're trying to do is add an additional one that if somebody's in a multi-tenant building and they want to take over some additional space within the building and it doesn't affect their parking or their operation or anything like that that can go through administratively without going to DNC. That's all we're trying to do.

Yeah. There's instances where people will have like uh uh office that's also uh car repair and if they're not adding any bays but expanding the office, they still have to go get a CUP amendment. It's like well they're not really expanding the thing that is theoretically more intensive. Um if they were adding more bays or adding more uh intensity to it, it would still come back to PNZ automatically. But some of this is, you know, hey, I'm in suite A. I want to take part of suite B. Do I have to wait potentially a month and a half to go through this when it's not, you know, again, if this is something that they see downstairs that is problematic, they'll kick it up and say, I don't want to deal with this. Let's have PNZ, which will then come to council. So ideally, it's just kind of, you know, streamlining what we can that's in a very targeted way. Does that explain more of your concern? Okay.

Yeah. And if anybody's curious as to what gets administratively approved, that's usually reviewed at PNZ and it's on the record there, too. So, if anybody has any questions about what's going on, feel free to send an email or give us a call.

Okay. So that's it for ZUPS. Uh the next one is nuisance vehicles. Um what we are proposing to do with the nuisance ordinance is to add some additional items under nuisance vehicles that would be subject to the nuisance process. Um and what we did is we went through the existing traffic code uh and other section of the code and tried to identify vehicles that essentially created or circumstances that created a public safety um concern or a danger to public safety, health and welfare in looking at these. So this is not an exhaustive list from the traffic code, but it's the ones that we felt fell into kind of the nuisance category. So, if there were a vehicle that was parked on a sidewalk or a crosswalk or any place where official signs were posted or within 30 feet of an intersection, uh, or 30 ft of a traffic signal, uh, or 20 ft of the driveway of a fire station, um, or fell within section 340 280, sorry,

but not plated at all. Again, the no plates and all thing is not I don't know that I would call that a nuisance. just I I don't think they can just tow it. I think that's it.

I'll I'll defer to Joe on the legal aspect of this and we can talk about an executive session or Yeah, I I guess I we do have legal on executive. Would you prefer? Yeah. Sorry, we can't take statements at this time. Thanks. You're fine. Sure.

So, that is what we were proposing to incorporate into the nuisance hearing process or to the nuisance process. That the removal of those vehicles would be subject to the nuisance process. So, they'd have to be given notice. They go to the hearing and we'd issue findings and orders and then if they still don't move the vehicle, we can tow them. And is that 30 ft, 30 ft, and 20 ft. Does that match just current? It does. Yeah, we we took these directly from the traffic code. We didn't

There were some that we took out um and I don't know that I have the list of the other ones, but we just didn't feel like they were related to health, safety, and welfare. Um, so that's why we took them out. Um, we felt these were related to that. So that's why we left these in there. But these numbers are exactly what we wanted the code to match. We didn't want to have different criteria for the court, if you will, versus the nuisance process. I started tweaking it and then Jason and I had that exact conversation. And it's like, well, it's not a basis to get a ticket, then why should it be a basis to be a nuisance or vice versa,

right? Um, so just so everyone kind of understands, so kind of how this works is if it's on private property, it's handled by the Department of Community Development. Uh, the the nuisance process. Um, but the police department is involved when the vehicle is towed. So they they have to come out, they have to run it, uh, for make sure it's not stolen, and then they they handle essentially the towing of the vehicle and the notice that goes on from there. public property. It can be either. Um if they see something, they can notify us. If they we see something or we the community development department sees something, they can do something with it. Um and then the towing of vehicles, the process for towing of vehicles is all laid out in the code depending on the circumstance. So, you know, like emergency, you know, an emergency tow and there's a there's a list of uh circumstances that in the code and they come from state law that you can tow a vehicle. Um so, we've laid those out in the code and this kind of says, you know, notice and hearing is not required for emergency toes, but notice required afterwards. um a vehicle that's non-emergency uh from public property uh is required and then notice is also required afterwards after it's towed. Uh and then from from private property at the request of the property owner. So if somebody abandons a vehicle on someone else's property, um notice in the hearing is not required before the removal, but notice required following. So that's kind of the thing in a in a nutshell. That's how we've been doing it. Um, again, we just wanted to add those other criteria in the event that we have somebody who, you know, leaves a vehicle parked somewhere like that. This is a much quicker process than going through the court because we can

typically turn something like this around in less than 30 days. Court, you're three or four months before it ever even gets to court. they don't show up then it's another 30 days and this and that. So that's what that is. So any concerns questions about that other than

um depending on when they wrote it but yeah we have I mean they have 10 days to remove it. We hold the hearing. They have another 10 days. If they don't remove it, we can tow it. area because it well because the ticket has to go to court. So until the court adjudicates the ticket or you write a warning on it. Well done. Well again I we'll we'll talk about

we'll talk about it. I I understand what you're saying. Let's So are there any questions about that? Yes sir. So as far let's can we talk can I give you a scenario and then you kind of break down the steps legal conclusion. So everyone just give No, I'll give you a scenario of something that actually happened this week and then taking enacting this how it would all break down step by step just so everyone can understand. Uh, truck broken down up on jack stands, halfway on the sidewalk, halfway on the street. I call it in. I report it to PD. They send it over to community development. What happens?

Okay, so the vehicle is broken down. It's half on the sidewalk on jack stands. And I'm not I'm not trying to it qualifies as a nuisance, but an emergency nuisance or a standard nuisance. Is that where you're going? I'm just wondering the stepby-step process. Like what's what's what happens?

So if it's inoperable, it would go through the nuisance process whether you pass this change or not. If it's inoperable, we can send it through nuisance and we would have authority to tell it. This is adding to that in theory where these cars are completely operable so far as we can tell. It's just they're being parked in places that they're not supposed to. So, without knowing all the facts here, if it's an operable vehicle, whether this passes or not, we can sight it for nuisance and proceed. Um, if it was completely operable but parked over a sidewalk, this would us to be able to cite it where we couldn't previously because we don't have anything in the code that says, you know, parking like a jerk is, you know, where you're impeding ADA or stuff like that. You know, um things that are tailored to public health and safety because there's probably many streets where if there's not a sidewalk, people with disabilities have to go into the street and that's not safe. So this is an idea of how to address those where we currently don't have that authority. So if it's on jacks or something like that, it might be inoperable. Well, and it could also I mean if if you look again without knowing all the facts and circumstances if you looked at this under the procedure for emergency removal of nuisance vehicles from public property um there are at least two of these that it's entirely possible that one could argue it would be subject to emergency removal. uh when a vehicle poses a menace to traffic or hazard to the safety of others or prevents access for construction purposes by by being so situated on city property as to block or restrict ingress or egress to the property or or portion thereof. If it's parked on the grass and on the sidewalk,

one could argue it's a danger to the public and therefore could have been sub I mean could be subject to emergency removal. So the the real issue is it's all about the actual circumstances. If you let let's say for example it wasn't a doesn't fall into that category community development would go out they would write it they would send them a notice it'd be placed on the nuisance hearing for in this case probably be February because it's after the deadline if they didn't remove it by the nuisance hearing it would be on the nuisance hearing docket I would review it make a determination as to whether or not it was a violation we would send them findings and orders and say you have 10 days to remove the vehicle if they don't remove it we could then authorize the vehicle to be towed. Okay. And that again that process takes you know 20 the timeline the the time frame is is established by state law. So it's not it's not like we can do five days or whatever. It's 10 days on the front end 10 days on the back end and then we can tow the vehicle. And if this were to go through the court process, you're probably looking at 90 to 120 days before it even gets heard by the court. So if it's a ticket and the person doesn't show, then the court h the court will issue a uh a second notice and will continue the case for typically until the next court date, which is another month. And if the person still doesn't show up, then they'll issue a warrant for may issue a warrant for failure to appear. So if this person never shows up, this could drag on six, seven months. Um, you know, if if it wasn't subject to the emergency removal, but was subject to the nuisance process, you could have the vehicle removed theoretically in less than 30 days.

Thank you. So, and that's essentially how the nuisance process works because if if someone doesn't show at the hearing it, we don't do a continuence. We don't we move on. So, we send them second, you know, a follow-up findings and say, "Hey, vehicle has to be removed. Um, if it's not, we're going to tow it." They don't, then we go out and tow it. Okay, any other questions on this one? I know we're going to talk a little bit more on the executive session.

Um, so the last issue, um, is liquor licenses. I promised Councilman Furnus we would have this meeting January. Um so um so currently um what we have is and and this really evolves around essentially full package liquor sales. This doesn't have to do with restaurants or bars or anything else. This is really about full package liquor sales. So currently we have three we have a class A license which is full package liquor sales and then there are three subcategories. AC which is a convenience store without fuel. AF convenience store with fuel and AS supermarket. What we found is this is a little cumbersome um to deal with both from a a liquor licensing perspective as well as a planning and zoning perspective. And initially when we did this we tried to avoid getting into the into the zoning code because it it just has to go to P&Z and has to come back just takes longer. We've realized that's really not probably the best way to do this long term. So, what we have proposed to do is to amend the zoning code to include um some new definitions. Um a new definition for convenience store. Um, and then a definition for grocery neighborhood, which would be any retail establishment uh less than 5,000 square ft in area. Uh, I would note that the reason convenience store is 6,000 square ft is different than all the other ones is there is a Quick Trip that's a little over 5,000 ft. So, uh, that's why it's 6,000. Um, grocery neighborhood less than 5,000 square feet. grocery community which is

5,000 to 25,000 square feet. Uh grocery supermarket which is more than 25,000 square feet. And then we would have the definition of liquor store. Um, oddly enough, uh, if you look at most cities, the definition of liquor store is so generic that any almost any business that has packaged liquor for sale would be considered a liquor store. Most of them typically say an establishment uh, that provides for off-site consumption of packaged liquor. So, there's no like real um, good definition. Um historically, um you could actually look at retail sales like the sales tax reports and they would break it down. That stopped several years ago. And so having some sort of criteria where more than 50% of the sales are liquor. We can't tell that anymore. Um so this is kind of the best definition that we could come up with. um that a retail establishment or place of business primarily exclusively engaged in re in retail sale of consumption uh for consumption of off- premises of alcoholic beverages. So that's kind of the best definition that we could come up with. Um so what we would then do is we would modify um the liquor code to incorporate these classifications within the code. So you would have um a class A- CS which would be for convenience stores. Um and for convenience stores they have to sell um so they have to have fuel sales. Um and then they can sell with um then you'd have a or class AGN which is

grocery neighborhood. Uh ACG which is grocery community. um A GS which is grocery supermarket and then ALS which would be liquor stores. And so I included in the in your packet a breakdown of each business or the different businesses that sell and where they would be categorized. Um and so currently we have AC which is essentially the liquor stores. We have a limit of four and then there's no limit on the other ones. Um so on that's the column on the left or the two columns on the left. The two columns on the right are the proposed. So again, there would be no limit on anything other than liquor stores. So the four that we classify currently as liquor stores would remain and that would be the limit. Um the other question that I that I we ran across is there is a class B license for the sale of malt liquor and light wine. We currently have that listed as zero licenses. Do we wish to leave that? We don't have any, but it was weird that we had zero. And I mean, is there a reason I guess would we want to limit

or

I think that's why it was at zero because there wasn't any. Yeah. And I just wanted to Would that be a brewery? Would a brewery? No. No, that's a different license. Yeah. I'm guessing like wine and cheese place or Yeah, something like that.

Tasting has its own license, but but potentially, yes, you you could be right. I mean, it's it's where they don't sell hard liquor, whiskey, bourbon, Scots, whatever. It's just, you know, beer and basically beer and wine. So I I just wanted to clarify while we were doing this that we wanted to leave it at zero. It's fine. I just wanted to clarify that. And then there's no changes to the rest of the classes. So again, this is really about just package liquor sales to do with bars or restaurants or anything like that. Yeah, breweries have their own licenses that we added in Yeah. 23 or so. There there's a bunch of ML licenses one through five that are like manufactured that are

and it goes by barrel essentially or what they're making. So those are available. We just don't have any at the moment. So instead of no limit as opposed to what is the goal of the reclassifications? Well, it's it's kind of twofold. one, it's to kind of provide some clarity both on the liquor code side, but also in the zoning code as to what type of business is what. Uh the good example is kind of the longpour. When it came to you all, it said convenience store because there's nothing in the code that would say in the in the zoning code that would classify as something else. So, but we counted it as

we counted it as a liquor store. But so what we're trying to do is kind of create these some clarity between the liquor code and the zoning code as to what a business would be. So and we were using convenience store very broadly under our code if you look at the definition does a retail establishment with fuel sales which uh occupies less than you know so the problem is we were we call a lot of these things convenience stores when they're not when they're not

because we don't have these other grocery definitions. So this will fix other issues in the code where everything's the sea store when in reality they're all kind of mixed grocery or some other sort of thing. So, I think when we were drafting all of all of these classes, we didn't want to go into the zoning code and have it delay the classification issues. So, now that we have more time to go through the zoning code and fix those definitions, I think the goal is to make them both talk to each other. Yes.

As opposed to you're a convenience store for purposes of the liquor code, but you're kind of not for purposes of zoning that some kind of some confusion I think internally that led to uh potential mclassification. I just need clarity. Yes. One thing I think we should look at in the future too is a lot of these places start have these games in them now. These casino games casino classification in here as well. But that that's becoming a thing that can help us classify it as well. I know that's a state deal that we'll be dealing with soon. I wish the state would provide some clarity as to those. Um,

right. If that helps with classifying because when I see those in the shop, it's a liquor store name. It's a different thing. Yeah. And also Overland Food Martin Liquor, that's the one at Woodson and Flora. Is that correct? Yeah. So, Ali's Market. I'm not seeing that on there. And as most certainly, I would consider that a liquor store casino. No. I think there's another that's not that was not one that we classified as a liquor store. But why wouldn't it? That's classified as a neighborhood grocery. Yes. It was not one of the four businesses that we originally classified.

What's that? Well, I mean, it wasn't it wasn't one of the four that we classified originally as a liquor store. If you want to classify it as a liquor store, then we would need we can, but we would need to change the limit to five. Currently, we Well, but I guess the point is if we're going to if it's truly a liquor store and we're saying we're limiting liquor stores, but if you can just come in and now say you're a g a neighborhood grocery, what's the point? I'm saying that because I mean I again, we had the four that we originally classified as liquor stores. I thought they were No,

but I'm just saying like if I'm a new person coming in, I'm going to be a neighborhood grocery store, but I'm really selling liquor. Then how does that prevent us from keeping the number of liquor stores down? Well, again, it it's the problem is the the the struggle is the definition of liquor store, right? So, I mean, you you know, you have to sell like other items. So to be anything you if you're if you're just a liquor store if you're predominantly well I mean so does Longpour. Well Longpour would be a liquor store right but they have a huge like snack aisle and I mean soda and but they're primarily engaged in liquor. Yeah that's what that's what I'm saying.

So I don't understand the difference. I guess I thought when we one point was So I mean the current ones are LG or A1 Cheapo Depot PX overland food martin liquor which is at 9603 page and the longer. Those were the four that we classified as liquor stores. Paul where was Overland Food Martin Liquor? That's that's 9603 Page. That's at the corner of Page and Yeah. So the wood of Woodson and Flora it's a liquor store. Yeah, but so I got to be a grocery store now. I that kind of

my brother loves it. So again, I mean, I just worked off the original four list. I mean, so I mean, if if we want to if you want to change the classification, you can, but you just have to change the number. Well, I think the bigger question is it's not even how do we determine what is an establishment primarily selling liquor because Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Karen's point is what if somebody says, you know, we're going to apply to be, you know, Johnny's fish and chip shop and they sell one thing of fish and chips every day and 80 cases of beer. That would be a liquor store. And that be they might get in under the first time, but we would reclassify that.

But how but we're not tracking sales. That's Yeah, that's Yeah, that kind of goes to the uh that uh project that Steak and Shake was down on page. Well, that I mean that would have been a convenience store because they had fuel sales. It sound like more of a liquor store to me because I think they have other other stores in the community around doing something different. They were adding specifically adding a gas station to get around our code. Correct. Yeah. Because they wanted to be a liquor store and we need to watch those people. At at that point though, there was no there was no definition of liquor store. So they everything was a convenience store. I mean that's

that's well that was after that we set the limit of four. So I think that's if you didn't have fuel sense. So that's why they went right. I mean again I mean we don't know exactly. I mean we we know they were going to have food for sale indoors. they were going to have a a I guess a restaurant drive-thru and fuel sales and you know the sale of you know stuff in a convenience store. Um so I mean that's how we got to there. Well, then maybe the question is then should these other ones have limits or should we that that's a fair question or should we increase the number of licenses and categorize the other ones that are in all

and then knowing the future one that's really a liquor store has to be a liquor store. Can we require any of these businesses to report their sales to us? The problem is when you report it to the state, it's all a lump number. The state doesn't break it down anymore. It the state used to break it down where you could tell. That was my question. Can we require them to break it down for us? No. I mean, it's do's I mean it's Department of Revenues, right? They don't send us a remittance directly. It goes to do that. I get it. But can we have them send it to us directly?

I don't think so. do is even weird about who's allowed to view that stuff. I have to get like special authorization even attorney, you know, technically I think you two are the only people that are supposed to see it and so like I mean it's I've gone around with about this specific if we want to have Joe I mean a client if if we want to have Joe like look at something he has to sign a document and we have to submit it to the state before he can look at it. It's kind of

Are there any We'll call in the next five, 10 years. Do we think there's going to be any convenience stores that are applying for licenses that don't sell alcohol? I can think of the one like candy store here on Lackland that might be the convenience store. But does it sell does it sell fuel? No. Okay. So, it wouldn't be a convenience store. So, like the convenience store has to have fuel. That's the way we draft the way I drafted this is that a convenience store has to have fuel in the future. But the ones we're talking about here, none of those three s sell fuel. Correct.

So I mean we again we we could reclassify any store you want. It's just what the you know what number

I mean I guess and Joe maybe this is a legal question that we should hold is Can you set the number and say okay these X number are you know let's hold it for the executive session it's my

I will say when we talked about definitions to where we got here was at one point Jason and I were noodling around determining what amount of your sales floor was dedicated to alcohol because if it was you you know, 55% or more or 45% or more. It's a liquor store. It's primarily engaged in sale of liquor. And I think where that kind of broke down, and correct me if I'm wrong, was how are we going to enforce this absent Yeah. a really big like site plan operation that then we go through and make sure essentially, which I think is doable,

but it might be something that is well, it the enforcement of it would be problematic because how, you know, you'd have to be in there essentially every day because they could just move, you know, move stuff to the back, move stuff out, you know, like you could, you know, move a candy rack off the floor and bring liquor out on one day and now you're over that limit. It's like a shell game. Really kind of a whack-a-ole scenario.

Yeah. So that that's why we got away from that whole concept um was to again kind of create kind of a you know kind of a standard because again we also have like um you know Dollar General, Family Dollar, like we had to figure out where those go. Um, so again, what I did was kind of worked backwards from, okay, we had these were the four liquor stores that we said we had and then used the square footage of those the other stores to kind of slot them into either a neighborhood or a community or a supermarket. Obviously, supermarket, there's only one Snooks, but the other ones kind of fell into there. So, if you, you know, even Walgreens. So, you know, if you want to want to modify who falls into where, we can. Um, but let's let's hold that because I don't want to. But

I would say, you know, if we were considering that square foot floor or sales floor area question, I would still recommend that these zoning definitions be passed because I think this will fix zoning issues that we've seen in terms of things that aren't convenience stores being called convenience stores. So, I think that will help the zoning issue. What you could do is you could take neighborhood grocery and then in the liquor code say to qualify for this license, you shall have no more than 20% of your floor area. So, you could do both, but I would still recommend this piece for the zoning because we

And also, doesn't the liquor code include a provision that essentially grants the council or or ensures that the council has the final authority as to what what they're classified as, I believe. So, so I mean, that would be the other thing. We try to do it on the f on the front end. But there it could be where council could say, "Well, no, we think this is, you know," or even planning and zoning could say, "Well, we think this is a

as opposed to um I you know, the the struggle again, the struggle with the liquor code, and I I've spent a fair amount of time researching definitions of liquor codes through like the like the MUN code multi-state search, and you know, the majority of them I never found anything that was like real bright line, cut and dry. Again, most of the definitions were, you know, anything would be, you know, anything could essentially be declared a liquor store.

Speaking of that, um, it looks like we're creating a new category where liquor stores are concerned. right now. Yeah, we currently we do not have a definition of liquor store and and my question also is um in our ordinance it says that you know that if you have this type of sales that that the sales must end at 10:00. Well, but that's an hour well that's hours of operation. But that's a different issue. But that doesn't apply to liquor stores. It will. Well, potentially doing any package liquor, what this would do is say you got to cut it out of 10. Yeah, we're not there yet. Yeah, that's in there. But yeah, right. So, I love your square footage idea.

Sure. It's if we can't get sales numbers, we have your sales floor. Right. I think the whole whack-a-ole issue, are they going to take the time? They see a code enforcement officer coming, they're going to move the racks all around. That's a great question. I think that would be enforceable. And then I think we should make some enforcement for it and make it hardcore. Right. I get Yeah. This all looks great. This all looks fantastic. I'm I'm down the I'm down the road already.

What we can do is like I said, we can take these definitions and then say, you know, amend on the slide where it says amend section 6260 A1, you know, defined as a convenience store further to be eligible. you shall be limited by X. So you could do both and then we would have that zoning definition that's going to carry through. So you don't have well for zoning purposes they're a C store but for liquor purposes they're a convenience store without fuel. It's like we're kind of just tearing apart our code to try to find a way to square it as opposed to just let's line it up. But that would be my recommendation if we were looking at square footage. The question is always going to be What's what's the number? How do we enforce it?

So, we are going around and I'll measure. I will watch. All right. So, so let me let me So, at this point, are we okay with with planning and zoning adopting these definitions? Okay. So, we can go ahead and let PNZ hear this at the end of the month. We need to work out the issues on the liquor code side that are further eligibility. Further eligibility that that's got a question. I'm I'm still kind of hung up on um that now the sea stores the convenience stores will only be defined as convenience store if they sell fuel. Correct.

Why would we get rid of the convenience store without fuel sales? The reason I'm asking because does have racks and racks of all sorts of groceries. Although they're not a grocery store, they are a liquor store, but they don't have fuel sales. So, why do we get rid of they'd be the ALS? They'd be liquor store. So, you're going to just get you'll just get rid of fuel sales because the problem is that sea store without fuel sales sales, pardon me, was always kind of at odds with the zoning code. Okay,

because the zoning code required there be fuel. But we were trying to find a way without breaking up in the zoning code. So it won't matter that they're selling x amount of percentage of square footage to their grocery items, their t-shirts, and all the things that they sell. I think they would admit themselves they are primarily a liquor. Yeah, I they're probably them and owls I think are probably more in the clear. We are a liquor store. I think it was primarily to prevent prevent future people from corner liquor store shops. Okay.

Yeah. So, it the problem is it's a whack-a-mole issue and it's a you know, we're dealing with old classifications that probably were not the best fit because they weren't really clear for zoning purposes. For example, you'll see CPS that say convenience store with alcohol and then you look in the zoning code, they're not a convenience store. don't have fuel. So, it's like we're kind of just stacking this kind of

thing on top of itself. It's like, well, let's just line it all up and say, well, if you're a neighborhood grocery store, like many that we have or if you're a neighborhood grocery store, let's just call it what it is and say like, yeah, they can sell some of Delo, but they're primarily engaged in grocery business. Because that was always the issue. It was how do we square a square footage issue because we have a lot of grocerers that might sell some beer or a lot of beer. We don't know who's selling what because we don't get the same receipts that we used. Right. And this is in many states. It used to be that's how you defined it. And

restaurants. We used to have all that. And that's true in Illinois. That's true. So they've been kind of whack-a-ole to try to fix this. We can do the well we can do the zoning thing. We can go ahead and let that go and then we'll come we'll circle back on the liquor definition and we'll plan will be to come back in two weeks with the liquor code thing clarified so we can tie all this together. We can do it all at the same time. It's not foolproof. Still have a whack-a-ole issue. Sure. Right. Yeah.

All right. Um so the last part of this is the hours of operation. Um so um so this was a discussion that occurred at PNZ or excuse me here and then um with well when the longpour was here it was mentioned. So the the question is do we want to institute a a a standard hours of operation for all liquor stores? um and the all liquor licenses authorized. That that would be the language. Um I went through and just looked at either the four liquor stores that we had previously identified. Um what their hours were u overland food mart I guess has been here for like a thousand years. So there's no cup that I could find. Um so that's why it says Google. Um I just Googled them. Um the other ones are all from the cups. So there's 10 o'clock, 10 o'clock, midnight, and 10 p.m.

I thought we just changed Long Force to 11. We did it to 11. Is it 11? Yeah. On the weekends, right? 11 on Friday. Yeah. On Friday and Saturday, we just change. So yeah, the the hour is in there that if we change it, Right. Right. But sorry, what Joe? There is something in their cup that was because this was talked about in the runup to that that says essentially if we unilaterally change all hours of operation for liquor stores for package liquor that they will come into compliance with that. So they've been put on notice I think as much as we could in addition to So the question is do we want to set hours or not? I think that's

say 11 p.m. on weekends, 10 p.m. on weekdays.

That's what the long core is doing. That's what we drug them through the mud already with all that. Only fair to apply that across the board. I think the goal in something like this was rather than having to dig through the c each time and then compare them and have kind of a battle back and forth between two people saying we want to be open later later. This is just kind of a this is the last version of this. I just came up with 10 as sort of a here's a round number, but by all means whatever we prefer. Aren't we all Aren't we already um our code is 10 o'clock already?

No, it's not. No, there's nothing in the code that sets standard hours. No, it that's why that that's why we're trying to do this is figure out what what it would be. So, if you want to do, you know, Monday through Friday, 10 p.m., Saturday, Sunday, 11 or 11 p.m. Friday, Saturday, what whatever. Yeah. However you want to do it. I mean whatever it is we we would just establish it that way when they came in here are the hours you can operate them period that's there's no more you know I want this and well they got this so I should get this it's just here are the hours

yeah but will all the other places that are able to sell liquor that the real liquor stores have a cut off time but the other places can sell on this is anybody within those classifications to sell package So if you're a quick trip, you got to be done at 11 on those edgenooks, two schnooks, whatever time, whatever time we we we propose, then that's the time that they have to cut off. If you have that a class A license, which are the package liquor that we're talking so overmart though they don't have we don't have a CUP on them, whatever it is, they would have to come into compliance also.

What is QT's cut off right now? I think it's whatever state or 130. Well, I don't know. Personally, I don't find it fair that a small independent is going to have to close down at 10:00, but QT can stay open until 1:00. So, or you know, is that going to impede? They can stay open. They just can't sell liquor.

I mean, not without Yeah, but are you are you penalizing an independent versus a major player that the independent can't stay open but a corporation can I don't think telling Quick Trip that they can't sell liquor is going to be good. No, we don't have to do this. But I also don't know that those little stores in neighborhoods need to be open till 1:30 either. Rip trips in the middle of the neighborhood. Yeah. But I I totally understand. But there's inconsistency this

I mean because they're going to be open anyway because they're selling gas and whatever. So they're if they're Could you apply the limitation just to those stores that we identify as liquor stores? That's what I was saying. I was thinking but then we have to reclassify some of those liquor stores. And I think that's getting back to Beth's point that they would be the ones that have to close. And yeah, again, it's all classic. Okay. So, well, I don't even know if that's I mean, I don't know. Can we even tell? Law encore may not want to stay open until 1:00 a.m., you know, for staffing issues, the smaller ones. I don't know that they do. Nobody's been asking for that, but I don't know if you can penalize somebody because they're not because they're not quite

Yeah. And I have a I'm just going to share my personal opinion on this. I I think it's in the best interest of the city to restrict having a liquor store in every corner and that that's why we did this a year ago whenever we did it. Um is it really in the community's best interest to have somebody close at 10:00 instead of 11? That one I don't feel as strongly about. Um you know, preventing the spread of these things, we already have enough. I'm all on board. That's why we did it. But, you know, in terms of really cutting this stuff off off early, people drink later on in the evenings. That's something I'm sure their sales are pretty heavy, you know, later on in the night. And I, you know, whether somebody's pulling on a driveway at, you know, 9:50 versus 10:25, it's the same bother either way to all the neighbors.

And if the bars can stay open, what's the difference between a neighborhood bar staying open versus a package liquor store? I guess the bars are more in the middle of a neighborhood, a lot of them. So, so we we would we would be proposing no limit state which is what we currently unless it's already established in their c which often it is because that's true. So, which is actually a good thing to think about going forward because if somebody proposes, you know, if hypothetically new valleys comes in, it's surrounded by a bunch of residences, we'd always have the right P&Z would have the recommendation to us to say

nine o'clock or what, whatever the number is. That's that's helpful for me going forward. It's just the ones we're dealing with now make it. Yeah. So, I mean, again, this this was something that was brought up. We're just bringing it to you all. If you don't want to do it, fine. We can leave it and move on. I think it still needs some something to be worked out. Think about it some more because I don't know how. Yeah, because then we're still going to have because then all the ones that have 10 now would have to come back and ask to be and they could ask to one.

Okay, we'll come back to this. All right. So, that's all I have for the work. All right. Perfect. All right. With that said, I'll request a motion to go into executive session for legal purposes in accordance with RSO61021 subsection one. I'll make that motion. Second. And roll call that vote, please. Councilwoman Ruckman, yes. Councilman Robleski, yes. Councilman Furnuses? Yes. Councilwoman Steel? Yes. Councilwoman Ferguson? Yes. Councilman Bernard? Yes. Councilman Bennett? Yes. All right. Motion carries. Thanks for joining us. We're going to hang out here a little bit longer.