[0:02] Patricia Friebus, mayor. >> Ryan Fernandez, alderman Ward One,

[0:07] » present. >> Natalie Akens, alderman, Ward One,

[0:10] » here. >> Marie Davis, alderman Ward Two.

[0:12] » Remember to speak into your mic. Present.

[0:15] » Mark Schwarz, alderman Ward two, >> here.

[0:18] » Greg Columbo, alderman Ward three, >> present.

[0:21] » Angie Wel, alderman Ward three, >> here.

[0:24] » Kathy Freriedman, alderman Ward four, >> here. Alderman Ward four here. Britney

[0:30] Gillette, city administrator, >> here.

[0:32] » Jeff Tman, director of finance, >> here.

[0:35] » Mike Knight, director of planning and public works,

[0:37] » here. >> Gerald Brown, director of parks and

[0:40] recreation, >> here.

[0:41] » Steven Dodge, chief of police, >> here.

[0:43] » Aaron Cely, city attorney, >> here.

[0:46] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Mrs. uh Stone. Next item is

[0:49] approval of the agenda. Um, we need to amend it for the motion to add prestige

[0:54] pools, but Mrs. Celely would like to make a comment.

[0:57] » Yes. I just wanted to say for the record that this did come in late. It is an

[1:01] event that we have numerous years. So it is nothing new. Um however the event

[1:06] does occur before the next meeting and therefore as long as you are comfortable

[1:11] we would find good cause to amend the agenda because of the fact that it did

[1:14] come in late. We are not able to provide the 24 hours notice yet the event will

[1:19] occur before you're able to have a meeting. Um, so a motion to amend the

[1:23] agenda would include that good cause finding for less than 24 hours notice.

[1:28] » I do have a motion to amend the agenda. Alderman Davis,

[1:31] » I'll move since she's in my ward. You're in my ward.

[1:36] » You have a second. >> I'll second then.

[1:39] » Uh, Alderman Davis made a motion was seconded by Alderman Schwarz. All in

[1:44] favor of approval of the agenda with the amendment.

[1:52] Motion passed as amended. Next item is a consent agenda. Bills to

[1:58] be approved. Do I have a motion, please? >> I'll make a motion.

[2:04] » Second. >> Motion was made by Alderman Atkins,

[2:08] seconded by Alderman Davis. All in favor?

[2:12] » I >> Madame Mayor, did we miss the minutes or

[2:16] did I skip? >> [laughter]

[2:17] » I think I crossed them off before we Thank you for bringing that to my

[2:21] attention.

[2:24] » Uh, do I have a motion for the approval of the minutes of the July 14th, 2026

[2:29] regular meeting and the July 29th, 2026 special session meeting?

[2:35] » I'll make a motion. >> Second.

[2:39] » Motion was made to approve the minutes from Alderman Wiggle and seconded by

[2:44] Alderman Akens. All in favor? Thank you for bringing that to my

[2:49] attention. The consent agenda also passed. Next,

[2:55] public hearings. The board will consider and discuss a request to amend the text

[3:00] of several sections of the city of Sunset Hills unified development

[3:04] ordinance relating to recreational uses.

[3:10] Anyone from the audience that would like to come forward?

[3:13] Mike. Yes.

[3:19] Sorry, I was just getting the clicker ready here.

[3:22] » Thought you were hiding under there. No. [laughter]

[3:24] » So, we have uh two public hearings tonight. The first one is a text

[3:29] amendment for the city and it's regarding recreational uses.

[3:34] So, a little background, there was the discussion uh at the board um regarding

[3:39] recreational uses in industrial areas and we were specifically talking about

[3:44] at that time indoor athletic training facilities. We were talking about how

[3:48] these recreational facilities were grouped together and maybe there's a

[3:53] potential text amendment to better understand these and how they relate

[3:56] into our code. Um the issue that was in front of us is we had a use that was

[4:02] permitted in our code that said health, athletic, recreation, amusement

[4:06] facilities, and indoor. And although it was a use, it wasn't defined. So when we

[4:11] regulate zoning, when we have permitted uses, we want a definition. So when

[4:14] these nuance different community members come in, we know exactly, you know, what

[4:19] that use is or how we define it. We also had something called recreation uses

[4:24] that was permitted, but it was only permitted in parks and conditional and

[4:28] residential areas. It wasn't defined. It almost sound like it was a community

[4:33] pool or tennis court or something like that. It didn't really seem applicable

[4:36] here. Didn't make much sense. Actually, we also had some definitions in our code

[4:40] that didn't have uses. And a lot of these were kind of built part of that

[4:43] other use. said talked about recreation facilities indoor. Um where the the

[4:48] trampolines and the indoor driving ranges, um amusement center indoors

[4:53] where they were talking about coin operated game video game machines, more

[4:57] of a classic arcade and then a health facility indoor and that was called kind

[5:02] of a health club and at minimum these definitions need to be revamped with

[5:06] current language uh today and um looked into.

[5:12] So staff looked at uh what we have today, looked at the different uses and

[5:16] say how are they most appropriate in today and what we see out in these

[5:22] different areas, where do they match zoning wise? Um the first conversation

[5:26] we had was the athletic training facility indoor, the one we talked about

[5:30] in depth where these youth sports often have these training specific areas. Um

[5:36] sometimes they're in industrial areas. We talked at the board level. Um, so we

[5:41] defined it as athletic training indoor, made it permitted in both the commercial

[5:46] and industrial zoning districts. Um, also put a parking

[5:53] uh, minimum standard in there that we have with all of our uses. Did the five

[5:57] per thousand, I think it says one per 200 gross floor area. I say five per

[6:01] thousand. It's a pretty standard commercial industrial minimum parking

[6:05] standard that you'll see. We also even talked about at the board level and and

[6:10] internally that athletic training indoor is not one of these larger sports

[6:15] complexes. It's not Scott Gallagher. It's not. So we purposfully define these

[6:21] larger more competition um where everybody comes and watches

[6:26] spectator uh use and said specifically the athletic training facility indoor in

[6:32] that definition is not a sports complex indoor and outdoor. and then define the

[6:37] sports complex and did not make it permitted in any of our zoning

[6:41] districts. Then we have those other three we talked

[6:44] about. So we have one called fitness center and health club. It's a permitted

[6:48] use in commercial. Think your gyms, your Planet Fitnesses that you see in these

[6:52] commercial areas with the five uh per thousand

[6:57] uh parking. And then we had the recreational facilities indoor and

[7:02] talked about um you know this is your indoor arcade bowling whether you're

[7:06] urban air or your main event or your bowling mostly always in commercial

[7:11] permitted in commercial districts. Um and then we [clears throat] also defined

[7:15] movement center outdoor. Now these aren't necessarily always on large

[7:19] tracks of land but they are outdoor. Um think of your mini golf or your batting

[7:24] cage maybe we'll call it swing around funtown something like that that you

[7:27] see. Um, so we didn't make it permitted by right, but since it's outdoor, made

[7:31] it conditional in the commercial districts. Um, and then I used one space

[7:37] per 500. That's just a little research when I looked at there's not a lot of

[7:40] these. Look out there. That seemed to be a common metric for our parking knowing

[7:44] that if anybody did come in, they would have that plan development p permit

[7:47] process that we have. So what we did, there was one

[7:52] recreational use classification that was combined. It didn't define the athletic

[7:56] portion of it for sure and it was only permitted in the commercial districts.

[8:00] So, we had also a use called recreation facilities that was only conditional in

[8:04] single family residential areas and it just didn't make much sense. Um, so we

[8:09] created the five distinct recreational facility uses that we mentioned, applied

[8:14] the applicable zoning districts that we felt were most appropriate, provided a

[8:17] parking standard to them, um, removed that recreation use that didn't seem to

[8:23] make sense or that we use applicably in these subdivisions.

[8:27] Um, this was part of it's a text amendment, so it went to the planning

[8:30] and zoning commission. They are your recommending body for all land use and

[8:33] zoning decisions. Um they recommended approval unanimously as it was

[8:38] submitted. Importantly, tonight the distinguished night is a public hearing.

[8:42] So this is an opportunity for staff to describe the ordinance amendment and

[8:46] really receive feedback. Receive feedback from the board, receive

[8:49] feedback from the members of community, whether they're, you know, here tonight

[8:52] or in the future. Um and and no action is scheduled for tonight. This is

[8:57] strictly on for a public hearing. Closes my presentation and of course I can

[9:02] answer any questions. I said I was going to receive feedback, but I left my

[9:04] notepad. So, I'm going to grab that. >> Any questions?

[9:08] » Alderman Columbo, >> how would you define the VETA bubble?

[9:13] » Alderman Columbo, >> how would you define the the VETA bubble

[9:19] under which category? I'm just curious. >> Right.

[9:22] » It's not a sports complex because it has multiple tennis courts.

[9:25] » Yeah. So, I would say no. Good. I never looked specifically into their

[9:29] operation. And I know we've talked about it from my understanding of their

[9:33] operation or being there. This is one and more of those indoor training

[9:36] facilities and not use events. Now I could have new information and find out

[9:40] that they have massive tournaments or something like that. Again, they're

[9:43] existing condition as they are right now. Um, so no change, but the best of

[9:48] my knowledge, it's an indoor training facility, but without reaching out or

[9:52] understanding really their operation, I have to put that caveat in there.

[9:55] » Secondly, the the parking. >> Mhm. It seems overly restrictive at one

[10:01] per 200. And and I'll give some examples because I believe Veta currently is

[10:05] 45,000 to 50,000 square feet total between the two bubbles in the building.

[10:11] They have 60 spots on hand. >> So that's like a one per 700ish average.

[10:18] Spirit Gymnastics, Crossgra Boy, they lease 14,000 square feet of that 34,000

[10:24] foot building. He has 27 spots for them on one side of the building and then the

[10:30] remainder of that building has 15 on the other side for his industrial uses and

[10:34] there's 15 spots around back. >> So again, you're into like a one per 450

[10:41] area. Um, and I could go on. I the very other

[10:46] examples here of all American Big Bendon 44. That's another

[10:52] » Yeah. 40 something 50,000 square foot facility. They're about one per 400

[10:58] under parking. Bud Dome I was just talking to somebody about is an 80,000

[11:02] square foot place, one per 4 to 500. Um, uh, Powerhouse is another one where you

[11:11] know all of these places and these are mostly places that are holding events

[11:16] too, not just training facilities. So, they're way advanced. And I guess my

[11:21] point is in Sunset Hills, we're not getting complaints about parking at

[11:24] Spirit Gymnastics. We're not getting complaints about parking at Veta yet.

[11:28] We're coming at one per 200, which great. Now, we've authorized a use, but

[11:34] it's so overly restrictive that we may never be able to utilize that use

[11:39] because the parking is too restrictive. So,

[11:41] » sure. >> Just thoughts.

[11:43] » Five per thousand is typically like kind of a lower parking minimum. I'm not a

[11:47] firm believer that, you know, I I you you clearly looked at all these

[11:52] places and all these things, you know what I mean? So, I'm not like debating.

[11:55] I would just say from a overall perspective, five per thousand isn't a

[11:59] high from what I've known, but >> correct. It's that and that's my point.

[12:03] Powerhouse 45,000 ft, 113 spots, one >> and a lot of these I just think uh

[12:08] important comment is it's the mixture of uses within these buildings, right? So,

[12:12] you you look at the other uses. So they may designate X amount of spaces for

[12:17] these uses, but if they're mixed, maybe they're lower in other ones. You you

[12:21] look at the building as a whole, right? You take each use, you say what the

[12:24] requirements are, you see what the >> parking but I guess my point is most of

[12:29] these places get more use than an athletic training facility will ever

[12:33] get, right? Because they're hosting competitions. They're hosting multiple

[12:38] practices and a competition. So, I I if when it comes to time for this ordinance

[12:45] to come up, I I think I'm going to make a motion to amend to be a little less

[12:48] restrictive so that we can actually utilize some of those places versus

[12:52] having something that's allowed but will no longer be practical to use. And I

[12:57] would say part of the public hearing process is to gather feedback and

[13:01] understand. So, I think, you know, I'll do the same. I'll look into it, see what

[13:04] I can find on these nuanced areas and come with that information.

[13:08] » Yeah. Any other questions from the board?

[13:12] » Yes, >> Alderman Schwarz. Um,

[13:14] » yes. I'm not quite as good as Alderman Columbo is with Google Earth, but uh so

[13:20] I'm just going to go back and I'm going to I'm going to echo his his sentiment

[13:24] and I think that one to 200 puts them on par with

[13:30] municipal buildings, trade schools, vocational schools, college and

[13:36] universities. And I don't think that the property that

[13:41] we're talking about is consistent with those three that I just cited.

[13:49] » Sure. >> Alderman Doss.

[13:52] » Um I heard a lot of wisdom from the other side of the table. So my question

[13:57] to you, Michael, is PNZ passed this unanimously. Was this parking issue

[14:03] discussed in PNZ at all to your recollection?

[14:06] » No. Not much conversation, just a lot of

[14:09] nodding of heads of the split of uses, not not a lot of dialogue overall.

[14:16] » Thank you, >> Alderman Freriedman.

[14:19] » Um, I'm just wondering why athletic

[14:23] » microphone microphone. >> Yes, I'm sorry.

[14:27] » My apologies. Um, athletic training facilities indoor is permitted in

[14:33] LCGCLI, which which I think is fine. Um, fitness

[14:39] center health and amusement center outdoor

[14:43] are only in commercial but not LI. Is there a reason for that?

[14:48] » They just seem much more like commercial operations where much more people go in

[14:51] and out. That seemed more commercial than industrial despite this use.

[14:56] Usually work for a day. You don't see that in and out like you see in these

[14:59] commercial areas >> and

[15:04] sports complex indoor or outdoor is not permitted in any is that so

[15:14] » we we say that we don't think that's appropriate anywhere in the city

[15:19] » exactly and I think it's a perfect format for this discussion right now

[15:22] unless you see that different it was more defining the two and saying that

[15:26] the athletic indoor is not a sports facility indoor. I'm not aware of like

[15:31] our comprehensive plan or or some sort of guiding document that said these

[15:35] large facilities would be in these certain areas. We're largely a built

[15:39] environment. These typically are larger, but that's a perfect opportunity right

[15:42] now unless we, you know, we see this as being appropriate somewhere.

[15:47] » Yeah. So, I mean, I look at our driving range and I think we've got some

[15:52] instructional there

[15:56] and that I mean, so doesn't that make it a sports complex,

[16:02] indoor, outdoor with training areas? >> I would say with all our parks, we

[16:06] consider them our parks. We usually don't zone them into like commercial

[16:09] designations. >> Is there a reason why that isn't why we

[16:12] it's not permitted in parks and open spaces? And

[16:16] » yeah, looking at this and Mike and I talked about this a lot. The I think the

[16:21] crux of these um sports complexes is that they are there to generate

[16:25] spectators and that's listed in the definition where these are you're trying

[16:29] to get a lot of people there. So you see these giant volleyball uh you know

[16:34] complexes where there's 30, 40, 50 courts and they're all operating on one

[16:39] day at the same time and it's the intent is to draw people in there. In looking

[16:45] at the city of Sunset Hills, I'm not sure where we would fit something of

[16:49] that size. When you look at the actual complex and then the parking that is

[16:52] required and is never enough at those types of facilities. Um, and to Mike's

[16:57] point, we can continue to talk about this. If if the board disagrees, we're

[17:01] certainly open to that conversation, but just looking at the city of Sunset

[17:04] Hills, where we're located, our current open space for development, I'm not sure

[17:09] where that would ever fit. And we certainly wanted to pull out these

[17:13] recreational or athletic training facilities from that because they are

[17:17] truthfully operating under two different very modes.

[17:20] » Okay. And there's no problem with our parks department doing that, but we tell

[17:26] other people they can't. >> There's not a legal problem. They are

[17:31] they're designated as parks and open space and they operate under the

[17:34] municipal park operations. >> Okay. Well, I just I I mean when we've

[17:39] so I don't know how closely the other

[17:44] aldermen have looked at this, but when you've got sports complex indoor or

[17:47] outdoor as a use and there's no little P's or C's across the little grid, that

[17:54] means uh-uh. So, >> correct.

[17:58] » Yeah. >> And and that was certainly the

[17:59] intention. Again, we're we're open to conversation. Um, but that was the

[18:03] intention was to leave those defined and then not allow them or not permit them.

[18:07] » And may I just ask when when this comes up, can we put the the use chart? I had

[18:13] to write my own little notes about what >> district it was in. The use chart

[18:19] doesn't show it in the ordinance. >> So that would just be helpful

[18:23] » in the draft ordinance. Yeah. Like a supplementary exhibit

[18:25] » out a little. It's because we just pulled that and it's but it would still

[18:30] be >> I we understand And I can even make it a

[18:32] supplementary chart exhibit. Yeah. >> Thank you,

[18:37] » Alderman Columbbo. >> Alderman Freeman, I you know, since I

[18:40] kind of brought this to the >> microphone,

[18:42] » I just want to say I was purposeful and not trying to lump sports complexes in

[18:47] because I'm a user of those and I realize how much traffic they generate

[18:53] and I just thought, hey, let's just keep it simple for now, you know, and and

[18:57] address what >> Yeah. the existing non-conforming uses

[19:01] were rather than bring in new uses. So, >> and I tend to favor that approach. I

[19:07] just wanted go through the exercise. Thank you,

[19:11] » Alderman Fernandez. >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. Um, Mr. N. I just

[19:14] want to confirm um I have two separate questions. One is any of this how it

[19:18] relates to we do have an approval obviously for the bombers activity down

[19:21] at Bander Park and a park. So, is that the pure distinction there on why that

[19:27] is different? It's operating through our lease, right?

[19:30] » It is operating through a lease. Um the use obviously just like any other change

[19:36] to our UDO, the the existing items are grandfathered in. So any any change to

[19:40] this won't impact existing facilities or um sports complex operations.

[19:45] » Great. Thank you. And then second one very different. Um the thing about the

[19:48] residential areas, obviously since the UDO went in, pickle ball became a rage.

[19:53] How would that apply if a subdivision wouldn't put in a pickle ball court or

[19:56] anything else like that this time? >> Those are typical and I say most cities

[20:00] just passive amenities. >> Alderman Fernandez, I didn't hear the

[20:03] question. So, do you mind repeating? >> Absolutely. I'm sorry.

[20:07] » I'm I'm going talk right into this thing. [laughter]

[20:11] » Uh since the UDO went in as pickle balls obviously skyrocketed other paddle

[20:15] sports, I was just curious how that would apply that one provision around

[20:18] residential areas. So, I'd say like um most cities, if you have amenities that

[20:23] are in common ground that are used for your subdivision, they're just common

[20:28] ground. You get a building permit for something like that. They don't have a

[20:30] separate use designation because they're not really a commercial enterprise in

[20:34] those subdivisions. >> Okay. Not advocating for more of those,

[20:38] but yeah. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board?

[20:44] All right. Would anyone from the audience uh have any comments? Mr.

[20:48] better. Do you want to add anything? No. Okay. Anyone else in the audience

[20:54] that would like to comment in the public hearing?

[20:57] All right. >> Thank you very much. Now, close this

[21:01] public hearing [clears throat] >> and we're going to open the next one.

[21:06] The board will consider and discuss a request to amend the text of several

[21:10] sections of the city of Sunset Hills unified development ordinance relating

[21:15] to senior living uses. Mr. Knight. >> Yep. This one is known as PO7 2026

[21:23] um regarding the senior living uses. Uh so just take a step back like we did

[21:28] with the last one, you know, why make the amendments. So, uh, we talked about

[21:33] at the board before Friendship Village acquired some property next to their

[21:37] existing site directly to the east called the Delta Dental Building. Um,

[21:41] and they were also acquiring the commuter lot right next to that Delta

[21:45] Dental Building. Um, and what we found is that there's no clear path for

[21:52] expansion as the senior living uses, the plan retirement care, they're not

[21:56] permitted in our current UDO. Um, I'm not aware of that intentionally being

[22:02] removed from the UDO, meaning I haven't heard conversations of saying let's keep

[22:05] it out, but that's it's omitted. It's it's just like Alderman Freeman said,

[22:10] there's no P on those uses um existing in our code. Um, and we do know we do

[22:15] have existing senior living facilities. So, that could happen not just there.

[22:19] Again, I brought kind of how we got here, but this is other senior living

[22:22] facilities too. Use not user. So, I was going to give you one slide to

[22:27] describe this. I would say that what this text amendment does is it creates

[22:32] an SL senior living district um broadly permitting the senior living uses um

[22:38] verse making them permitted in existing districts. At first when I was looking

[22:42] that I was think well maybe these would be most appropriate in commercial

[22:45] districts being permitted but went with creating a new district specifically for

[22:50] senior living. Um it requires senior living to go through the plan

[22:54] development permit process. So as we know all of the developments that come

[22:57] through the UDO outline that process for commercial office industrial and this

[23:02] would follow that same anything but single family development process. Um it

[23:08] permits plan retirement care centers that is how friendship village was

[23:11] defined in the old uh zoning code. Um also assisted living facilities and

[23:17] nursing homes. Those are the uses that are in our current code just not

[23:21] permitted. It establishes a 5A per minimum. So a minimum lot size uh for

[23:26] the senior living facilities. Um it limits density to 11 residential

[23:32] accommodations or units per acre. Um it adds an open space requirement and a

[23:37] residential uh parking setback requirement. So not just building but

[23:41] the parking setbacks would apply too. Um and establishes a parking formula uh for

[23:47] the planned retirement care centers because those other two uses that were

[23:50] permitted had a parking formula. So just to walk through briefly again a new use

[23:57] is added. So we have our 12 existing districts. This would add senior living.

[24:02] Um we have the district regulations. So this is where we state the 5 acre lot

[24:06] minimum um lot width and setbacks versus maybe the commercial that has the 10

[24:12] 20,000 foot lot minimums. [snorts] Um it adds the plan planned retirement

[24:17] care center back into our code. Again, that's one was defined in our old code

[24:21] that Friendship Village was under. Put it back in under permitted only in those

[24:25] senior living district. Um, put the parking in uh the existing parking one

[24:32] per three beds. I'll say that is pretty common among facilities. Um, but the

[24:36] plan retirement care that's more we'll get to the definition a mixture of

[24:40] retirement from independent to senior to assisted. Um and you'll see and so it

[24:46] said one space per dwelling unit and one space per three beds knowing that these

[24:50] developments would go through that plan development process right and outline

[24:54] their parking. [snorts] It also has a use provision and the use provision

[24:59] talks about these kind of those additional standards that we put on some

[25:03] uses like a car wash something specific and it says all the uses would have the

[25:07] density would also have an open space requirement of 50% and it would have uh

[25:12] parking setbacks uh no closer than any 30 ft.

[25:18] This is where we put it in the plan development process. We would add senior

[25:22] living. These are the definitions. there in your packet. But again, it defines

[25:26] assisted living and nursing home the same, but brings that planned retirement

[25:29] care center uh definition that was in our previous zoning code back into this

[25:34] code.

[25:38] So, um currently senior living the

[25:42] regulations, they're not permitted in any of our current districts. We know

[25:45] that. Um regardless, all of these senior living facilities may continue to

[25:49] operate today under their current entitlements. it's only when they look

[25:52] to expand significant change when they would need a site development allowance

[25:57] something like that they'd be required to go into a new district um this

[26:00] creates a separate zoning district remember at first I was thinking is it

[26:03] permitted in another one this creates its own district um plan development

[26:07] process will remain this adds density open space and those are largely based

[26:12] off friendship village I didn't do a lot of research on new but really the

[26:15] accommodations of the existing facility when I was looking at density and open

[26:19] space that's where I got those numbers Um at PNZ there was a robust discussion

[26:24] about this just from lot sizes to um where they would be how it would work.

[26:30] We had a pretty healthy um discussion. Uh they did recommend to approve

[26:35] unanimously there. They did have a couple recommendations that are in your

[26:39] packet right there that you see again the public hearing. This is why we're

[26:43] here today especially for the public. It's for me to receive feedback from

[26:46] you. Understand the ordinance amendment that I put in front. receive feedback

[26:50] from of course the board, the general public. No actions scheduled tonight,

[26:55] but what are your thoughts and concerns? This one? Yeah, that concludes my

[27:00] presentation and I can answer any questions.

[27:02] » Any questions from the board? Alderman Freriedman?

[27:06] » I think it's interesting. >> I'm sorry,

[27:10] » Mr. Harding. I think it's interesting that we are looking at this approach

[27:17] after we just went through a very abbreviated and I think proper way to

[27:23] handle you know we we've got an issue with training indoor training centers

[27:29] » and we're not setting up an athletic zone because we don't have a

[27:36] comprehensive athletic zone. Mhm. [clears throat]

[27:39] » We could just as easily and I think more conservatively and more properly

[27:45] address the the friendship village issue and any other

[27:54] homes um rehab centers, assisted living facilities by putting

[28:02] little P's and C's in our use chart. Um, you know, I've I've spoken to um Mr.

[28:10] Knight about this and he said his initial concern was that,

[28:16] you know, if you if you made it available in uh

[28:22] commercial districts that any commercial district could have

[28:27] a senior living um you know the this is our map, our zoning map. I don't think

[28:35] we ever even look at it. The thing that I think jumps out at you is yellow.

[28:40] There's a bunch of yellow, light yellow and dark yellow. That's res. That's R1

[28:46] and R2. That's the bulk of our our city. And when you look at

[28:55] commercial and commercial, it's the red and the pink

[29:01] kind of in high traffic areas, I guess, you know, not in

[29:06] the middle of residential. And I I think, you know, planned

[29:12] retirement center, nursing home, assisted living, those are all

[29:15] commercial enterprises, and I think they properly belong in commercial

[29:20] enterprises. I agree that, you know, we should probably tighten up the um the

[29:26] definitions. Um but I think that is a more conservative and a better approach.

[29:31] And Mr. night has told me that that was his initial thoughts about this and um I

[29:40] think his um initial instincts were the right ones. So,

[29:47] you know, I'm happy to to hear others thoughts, but

[29:52] » can I >> Alderman Davis?

[29:55] » Um, isn't French village a religiously based um run company nonprofit

[30:02] » and the same thing with the one that is next to Lommire uh the Christian I don't

[30:08] know what >> Peace Haven.

[30:09] » Okay, so those are both religiously run. How does that affect all of this?

[30:14] » From a use perspective, it wouldn't. You know, they could sell today to something

[30:18] different. I'm sure there's other implications for these, but from the use

[30:21] operating of an assisted living nursing home

[30:25] » despite ownership. Yeah. Again, there might be other ramifications of having

[30:28] that, but not from a zoning regulation. >> Okay.

[30:32] » Alderman Columbo. >> Yeah. I [clears throat] think about it

[30:36] kind of like that because if you look at like a peace haven, it's scattered out

[30:39] amongst the residential district. condos at Lomire Place or in a

[30:44] residential district. The is it Kindred Senior Center next to that in a

[30:50] residential area. >> I mean, these all seem to fit very well

[30:54] throughout our community. I don't I I I personally like the senior living zoning

[30:59] designation because these things are a benefit for to our community. It's nice

[31:03] to have them spread out around versus just all stuck in one particular area.

[31:08] And I I mean I think Friendship Village is just a perfect example of a well-run

[31:13] facility that that really blends into our, you know, our our city. So

[31:19] » I think we're very blessed to have a lot of choices in our community to stay in

[31:22] Sunset Hills as we age. Well, and I would add to that the

[31:27] courtyards and Sunset Grove being two places that are in such high demand to

[31:32] get into that unless you're willing to really pay over ask, you're you can't

[31:37] touch those. So, all of those places I think have benefited Sunset Hills and

[31:41] brought some diversity amongst the the senior crowd. And so, yeah, I'm really

[31:47] in favor of this. >> Mr. Knight, I say I can expand a little

[31:52] bit because I think Alderman Freeman said it well, but just again

[31:54] I think they absolutely can be in commercial districts. I think you can

[31:57] put permitted and and I think a lot of cities do operate that way, especially

[32:00] if you have a downtown area and you have all these different things. My thought

[32:04] process was just like we we talked about, you know, the seventh amended

[32:09] plan reusing these areas and if we're saying you are now a commercial zoning

[32:14] district which has all these P's and things as re reuse, are we looking at

[32:19] these areas as commercial areas or we envisioning them? Are we really just

[32:24] talking about senior living? And that's how I went. I think it could operate in

[32:29] both, but let's say we'll just not use French village the across the street

[32:34] chest rehab. You know, let's say they take down the house that requires

[32:38] reszoning. They're commercial now. They have all these different permits. Yes,

[32:41] they still need a plan. Yes, they still need further approvals, but you are

[32:45] saying as a city, this is a commercial area. Now, yes, we have to meet your

[32:50] requirements, but all of the other permitted uses you're telling me that

[32:54] are permitted here as long as you have meet the code and those plans. That's

[32:59] how my thought process were 100% right. I did start with permitted. I think it

[33:03] works either way, but that's where my thought process went is as you start

[33:09] calling these local commercial or general commercial and they change reuse

[33:13] over time, are we considering these commercial now? on what would that do?

[33:19] » Any other questions or comments from the board? Alderman Akens.

[33:23] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um I think I heard you say that you use Friendship

[33:27] Village to build the specifications here on like five plus acres and such, but do

[33:32] the other um facilities, senior living facilities in Sunset Hills meet those

[33:36] specifications? And are these pretty standard? Cuz

[33:40] » yeah, these can go across the board depending on your community in terms of

[33:44] standardization. Originally I add three because I want to say there's one that's

[33:50] four, five, eight and 50, right? So we just see the gamut of of how these

[33:54] operate. Um

[33:58] I I think any of them work I think when we talk about our existing facilities

[34:02] too when they go through the they can request a site development allowance

[34:06] when they come in. So if you do have a 3 acre spot and you are requesting some a

[34:11] modest change, it's up to the board obviously, but it's

[34:15] an existing condition that we've dealt with before as codes change and adapt

[34:19] where when you look at new facilities, you're saying, "Hey, this is our set

[34:22] standard." So I think I think it can operate in any direction. I think five

[34:28] accommodates three of them right now and that one if there was a change that

[34:35] needed to be made they could request to say this is the reason why four makes

[34:40] sense for me because I'm in an existing condition again just if that kind of

[34:44] helps that discussion >> thank you and then one other thing and I

[34:47] didn't notice it when you went through this presentation so you might have

[34:50] might have already updated it but in the materials that were sent out to us we

[34:54] had removed senior housing as a permitted use,

[34:57] » but on section six in the parking table, it was still listed as a standalone row.

[35:02] So, just wanted to make you aware. >> Yeah. Was it taken out of the parking?

[35:10] » So, sorry, I just thought about that. So, senior housing I don't think was

[35:14] removed from our code. We just didn't make it permitted and that's why it

[35:18] would stay in the parking because if it was ever activated, not that we

[35:21] couldn't, but I think that's why that happened.

[35:24] » That makes sense. Thank you. Mhm. >> Any other questions from the board?

[35:29] » Freriedman. >> So,

[35:32] Mr. Knight mentioned that you know if you've got a commercial district that

[35:37] it's open to anything friendship village or anybody would come

[35:42] and say I want to operate this business un and they'd go under section 7 of the

[35:49] UDO to develop a plan development and part of that plan development is you

[35:56] know we've dealt with them we're going to do all of these things and there's

[36:01] going to be this much open space and you know we'll have this much parking and we

[36:07] can't maintain this buffer because it's just too much and it would be better if

[36:12] it was were smaller. We can make accommodations

[36:16] and when we issue the the planned development

[36:23] that does not allow just any old commercial use in the planned

[36:29] development. the what governs that planned development is the ordinance.

[36:36] So, it's not like Friendship Village could put a car wash

[36:42] on the property. And I think Friendship Village is a wonderful

[36:50] um campus, a wonderful business, um uh a wonderful place to live. The residents

[36:57] there are, you know, >> are very happy there. I think it's a

[37:02] model, but it is, you know, 50 acres. This would be 5 acres. And the reason

[37:11] why we've got Peace Haven at 5 acres is because Peace Haven was there before the

[37:17] city incorporated. So, they were grandfathered in. And I

[37:21] think it behooved the city for them to do the great up upkeep up updating that

[37:27] they did uh um

[37:32] six years ago, eight years ago. Mhm. >> And the lawnmire is a matter of, you

[37:38] know, just trying to fix a problem that went bad that, you know, that was

[37:43] supposed to be condos and the development

[37:47] was underwater and that got put in. you know, if we go with senior living, I

[37:52] think to have these, you know, little pockets of areas that you can string

[37:57] together two or three lots or, you know, five lots, it

[38:03] I think we all think of Friendship Village and it's great and it is and we

[38:09] want to help them expand. I don't think having a senior

[38:15] living district is going to do that. And you know the section 7 says that

[38:25] once a um once a plan district is approved or

[38:31] disappro if once a plan district is approved that the zoning map shall shall

[38:38] be amended to include the district. So on this zoning map you can see little

[38:44] hash marks. Those hash marks are planned dis or planned developments. So, it's it

[38:51] I don't see that the city would be opening itself to any problems if

[38:58] Friendship Village came to the city and said, "Okay, we've got this Delta Dental

[39:03] building and we want to add it on and that entails a reasonzoning and then we

[39:10] will go forward with this plan development." Those things all happen

[39:16] at one time. you know, we'll have four ordinances on the docket or the

[39:23] agenda >> that would handle all of them. So, I I

[39:28] just don't see the need to put, you know, another

[39:34] district on the map. Um because we because at this point there's

[39:41] a very good um corporate

[39:48] citizen of Sunset Hills that houses, you know, a lot of Sunset Hills residences

[39:56] residents very happily. Um, I don't see that's the reason that's a reason for

[40:02] just expanding another expanding our code to include another district. Thank

[40:09] you. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, listening

[40:14] to you, Michael, and to Alderman [clears throat] Freriedman, here is my

[40:18] question I would go ask one of you to answer.

[40:22] So, someone buys

[40:25] 5 acres in an R1 or R2 district.

[40:31] They've combined the property. Can they under some of these rules that

[40:36] you're showing us tonight in a residential district that

[40:41] encompasses five acres put this kind of facility there? It would be no different

[40:46] if there was an LSL district or a planned commercial district. Anybody can

[40:52] request to zone anywhere. We have a comprehensive plan that says this is the

[40:57] single family residential areas. This is, you know, so like that's a guiding

[41:01] document. Um but it whether you went SL or you went permitted in commercial,

[41:08] it'd be the same conversation. You' just be requesting a different district. Oh,

[41:12] yeah. You'd have to resone either way. it would just be which district are you

[41:15] reszoning to. >> But I think to to Mr. Knight's point

[41:20] earlier, if you do go the commercial route with the P's and C's across the

[41:24] youth table and that that happens, um, now you've got you have a commercial

[41:30] zoning in the middle of a residential, in the middle of a light industrial, in

[41:35] the middle of wherever that ends up being reszoned. And for today, that use

[41:39] might fit, right? It might be a memory care facility. That does make sense

[41:42] right outside of a neighborhood where there was an open 5 acres. But once you

[41:46] have that zoning, that zoning is there. The plan development to Alderman

[41:50] Freriedman's point does govern what happens with within that lot. But our

[41:56] use table is going to govern the use. So, we could not have a store come up

[42:02] and say we want to, you know, purchase the property that was the existing

[42:05] memory care facility and we want to use it as a store, which we've got permitted

[42:09] in our commercial districts. We won't be able to say no because of that use. We

[42:13] could tweak their plan. We could say you need this many parking spaces, your

[42:16] setbacks are too small. All of those things are governed by that plan

[42:19] development, but the use is governed by the use table. So when you start calling

[42:24] things commercial and just plugging in other uses, we have to remember that in

[42:28] 5, 10, 30 years from now, if that use is still permitted in a commercial, it it

[42:33] could become that other thing. And >> this is not an overlay.

[42:39] » The the PD is not an overlay. It becomes its own district. the the board shall

[42:45] direct the city administrator

[42:50] to update the zoning map to include that district.

[42:56] » If it is zoned commercial, the the permitted uses within the commercial are

[43:00] are permitted. >> You're saying it's not an over you're

[43:06] saying it is an overlay. our our plan developments, those plans

[43:11] do operate as an overlay. They do um you've got your uses within

[43:17] » We had we had um vigorous discussion on this when we passed the UDO and the

[43:23] decision was it would not be an overlay. >> I I understand what you're saying. I

[43:27] understand what the code says, but we're not creating a new zoning district every

[43:31] time a plan development comes in. And and that's essentially what you're

[43:35] saying. We aren't creating a new >> The map would beg to differ.

[43:42] I I understand the map. We have a use table if it's zoned general commercial

[43:47] and there's a PD on top of it that allows for the Home Depots and the and

[43:50] all those things and the Bass Pro I think is technically but you're going to

[43:55] have a very hard time denying something that was reszoned for a memory care

[44:01] facility and now wants to become something else that is general

[44:04] commercial. you're going to it's going to be far more difficult than if you

[44:08] create its own zoning district and you say the only thing allowed in these

[44:12] spots is senior living. You can never become a Walmart. You can never become a

[44:16] QT. And it's just going to be far more restrictive that way now and in the

[44:21] future. So if if we made a senior living district

[44:27] and

[44:31] village fell into the ground, the only thing that could go there is a

[44:38] nursing home or >> assuming they reszoned. I don't know

[44:41] what their existing zoning is, but assuming they did reszone into a senior

[44:44] living, they they redeveloped whatever. Yes. They fell into the ground. The only

[44:48] thing that can go into that spot without the board approving a reasonzoning would

[44:51] be a senior living facility within those uses,

[44:56] [clears throat] >> which wouldn't be the same if it was

[44:58] commercial with just a permitted use.

[45:04] » Question, Alderman Davis. So, I have my five acres and I decide

[45:11] that I want to have an apartment building or I want to have a condo

[45:16] building, but if it's not zone senior living only, that can happen, right?

[45:22] » No. So, >> we don't have multif family permit.

[45:25] » So, multif family wouldn't be what we're talking about. And again, you're it

[45:29] sounds like we're talking about a single family zone subdivision. There's there's

[45:33] no change that you get entitlements to. You'd be requesting into a new district,

[45:38] just like you'd be requesting to an LC if you wanted commercial, SL, senior

[45:42] living, LI if you wanted industrial.

[45:48] Yeah. And again, I just sorry, I do think it'll work either way. Like I I

[45:54] don't want to act like one way is vastly different. I think she did a great point

[45:58] just explaining my thought process of reuse over time and calling it

[46:02] commercial if we're not truly seeing these areas of commercial. Even though I

[46:06] do know senior living operates as commercial. That's what I'm saying. I

[46:09] get it. And to echo and I I won't go far just you do require a plan. That's the

[46:14] plan development. You need to get a plan approved. It's just if you meet the code

[46:18] requirements and you have a plan and and that's the zoning district,

[46:22] that's what you're looking at. I will say too from another perspective of not

[46:26] just future redevelopment of these senior living facilities but our our

[46:30] commercial districts are are not very large right we are we are highly

[46:35] residential we're a neighborhood community the city thrives very well on

[46:38] it but I think it is important you know for the fiscal responsibility of us in

[46:43] this community is to ensure that we do protect those those commercial districts

[46:47] that we have and we allow them to continue operating and to continue

[46:50] bringing in sales tax dollars to the city so we can continue to be as great

[46:54] as we are. And so keeping that separate where they and not to be, you know, too

[47:00] abrasive, but they they don't bring in tax dollars. And so keeping those

[47:03] outside of those districts is going to protect those existing commercial

[47:06] zonings and make sure that use is exactly what that's for. And then those

[47:11] can operate, the senior living facilities can operate in other spaces

[47:14] that are less commercial attractive.

[47:19] » Alderman Davis. So there are two 5 acre maybe 5 acre plus uh sections across

[47:27] from Thomas Jefferson school um that right now one is completely it's all

[47:32] trees it's never been developed at all and one has five houses on it I think so

[47:38] how can that can those be changed to be senior living um areas or not

[47:44] » the owners could apply for a reasonzoning if they wished to do that

[47:48] under under this they would meet that 5 acre requirement. Obviously, we'd have

[47:52] to look at their plan. And that's the thing, too. Now, you're talking about a

[47:55] complete resoning, which is a heftier process. The board has a lot more

[47:58] authority on saying no to a resoning than you would on something that's

[48:02] permitted, even if it's conditional. Um, but to answer your question, anybody

[48:06] could apply and if at that time the board thought that that was a suitable

[48:10] use for that space, you all would approve a reszoning and then essentially

[48:14] eventually a plan development. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions

[48:19] from the board? >> Just a comment if we're going to key and

[48:23] I I think it is appropriate if we're going to look to Friendship Village as

[48:29] um an inspiration for how we move forward. You know, that the existing

[48:35] size of that is 50 acres and that's what makes it such a beautiful campus with so

[48:40] many amenities. Um and it's adding on another

[48:44] six acres. Um, I think five acres is woefully small for if you're going to um

[48:53] set up a whole new zoning district. Thank you.

[48:57] » Any other comments from the board? Alderman Columbo? I I think I would add

[49:02] that Peace Haven is also a model of how to upgrade and build and that is on five

[49:06] acres and I I not to say that like Lommy Place condos and that's not necessarily

[49:12] a senior thing but that's less than a 5 acre piece. I mean so tasteful things

[49:17] can be done on five acre >> pieces of property that look very nice

[49:22] and blend in with our community. >> Okay. Anyone from the audience have any

[49:28] comments during our public hearing?

[49:33] Mr. Hardy

[49:41] Frank Hardy 421 Raburn. I have a hodgepodge just listen to you all a lot

[49:48] of thoughts. Um, I talked to Mike a little bit before this meeting began and

[49:54] the five acre issue uh uh came up. Uh, as you probably know, you have four

[50:01] senior living facilities in the city right now. Uh, one of them is uh 3 acres

[50:07] in Friendship Village is 50 acres. He didn't know what the next one is above

[50:13] uh three acres. So I'm I'm questioning, you know, you you think about Friendship

[50:19] Village and also think about Lar Park or Lomar U

[50:24] » [clears throat] >> uh senior living there and is 5 acres

[50:30] large enough? Um and also am concerned about the uh

[50:36] setbacks that are listed here. Um when LMAR uh was was built, yes, it was

[50:43] supposed to be condos uh and it was changed to senior living. Um but there

[50:49] was a number of issues uh as it was being built. I happened to be an

[50:54] alderman at the time and Doug Magcguire happens to be here at this meeting uh

[51:00] was an alderman and also the trustee on Merit Drive. And there were some

[51:05] residents that backed up to uh that facility and they had a whole bunch of

[51:11] issues and uh justified issues too. So um I'm also thinking back to when I was

[51:20] an alderman years ago. Uh some uh residents in Sunset Manor approached me

[51:26] about reszoning that area. um they were zoned at R5, which is 7,500

[51:34] square ft. And so if they wanted to do anything to

[51:38] their homes, uh their lots were too small. The average lot uh in uh Sunset

[51:46] Matter is 50 by 132, which calculates to just over 5,000 ft. So, uh, the majority

[51:56] of those people had to jump through hoops just to do, uh, some improvements

[52:01] to their homes. So we uh decided the board back then to

[52:08] uh reduce or create a new zoning uh classification of R six which is 5,000

[52:15] square ft which uh for most of it uh uh that satisfied

[52:22] um them allowing to do things and having not to jump over a couple of hurdles to

[52:28] do those improvements. There were some that still had to fill out forms and and

[52:34] uh uh jump over those hurdles uh to do those improvements to their home. But

[52:41] the question is what is the right size? Obviously, you think about uh Friendship

[52:47] Village being a model here, but I understand that there are smaller ones,

[52:54] but places like Larmore are bigger than than uh uh that 5 acres, too. So,

[53:03] and I asked Mike, uh you know, there's nothing proposed, but where are you

[53:07] thinking of putting uh these uh senior living facilities? And because

[53:13] nothing has been proposed yet, he didn't have an answer for that. But there's a

[53:18] whole lot of uh concern here. Uh I'd ask that you uh not read this uh for a

[53:26] second time tonight and possibly hold the uh public hearing open till till

[53:31] next month so other residents uh might be able to come and add their comments.

[53:38] Uh but um think about what's the appropriate size uh for this

[53:46] and what are the appropriate measurements, building size, setbacks,

[53:51] all that kind of stuff um that goes into something like this. Uh I don't have the

[53:57] answers uh but I I want to call that to your attention to uh consent. So thank

[54:05] you for your time. >> Mr. Hardy, I also had the pleasure of

[54:07] serving on the board of alderman with you and Dr. Magguire during the process.

[54:12] » Yeah. >> of Lomar.

[54:15] » Thank you. >> I'm not that old.

[54:17] » I'm not either. >> That's a lie. [laughter]

[54:21] » Are any other comments from the audience?

[54:25] » All right. We'll now close the public hearing and move on to public comment.

[54:29] Dr. Magcguire.

[54:37] Doug Maguire, 12501 Merit Drive. Isn't that right? Isn't that where I have to

[54:42] go? [laughter] Okay. I get lost sometime. Big deal. Anyway, I came up.

[54:47] Some of you don't always Friendship Village or Peace Haven or [laughter]

[54:52] » Please, not quite yet. Maybe next week.

[54:57] Anyway, um some people here probably don't know me, but I just retired last

[55:04] month, uh in June after serving for 20 years, and I started out behind the

[55:10] desk. I was an alderman with the aforementioned mayor, who I'm

[55:15] so proud of, and and thank you for putting up with me [laughter] for so

[55:21] many years. We did a lot of good. But uh I also uh want to thank my old I called

[55:29] him the boss Gerald. What a work this man is. He is such a valuable asset to

[55:35] this city. The man not only does everybody like him, especially the

[55:40] people that work for him. But that's not just here, it's everywhere we go, you

[55:46] know, around the state. Everyone likes Gerald. and and I really respect him for

[55:52] all the work he does. I know he's on top of every single grant that we can get,

[55:58] which is what a modern-day parks board is supposed to be all about. And he

[56:03] certainly fits that bill. And if this city ever loses him, we will be in a bad

[56:09] place. He will be very hard to replace. not as hard as me. But [laughter]

[56:17] but I also wanted to tell you that I've recently found myself in four major

[56:22] categories these days. I'm a 20enter. I'm a 4enter. I'm a 1enter and I'm a

[56:31] less than 1enter. Now the 20% is I'm one of the 20% people

[56:37] that can drive a stick shift. 80% of the people nowadays cannot drive

[56:43] a stick shift car anymore, which is ridiculous, but so I think, but what do

[56:48] I know? And the the less than 1%. I've spent 20 years working for the

[56:53] city. Guess what? Nobody else. Hardly anyone else. Well, sorry, Frank. You're

[56:59] in that group [laughter] and the mayor, but there's very, very

[57:03] few that get that far. the [snorts] other ones.

[57:08] Um, [clears throat] 1% I got drafted into the army in 1970

[57:14] and only 1% of the United States population serves in the military. Now,

[57:21] I'm not telling you I wanted to go. Vietnam was still cooking and if you got

[57:26] drafted, you know where you were going to go. And uh, it was not a pleasant

[57:31] thing. And it was even worse when we got home. Back in those days, I could not

[57:36] have stood up here and talked. They would have told me to hit the door. We

[57:40] were They all thought we were going to freak out and blow everybody up.

[57:45] Whatever. Anyway, but my 4% is something we could all do. I'm one of the 4% of

[57:51] Americans who give blood regularly. And I would love to see this make

[57:57] America great again. You want to make America great? Give your blood. give

[58:01] your organs. These are the things that make America great. It's not money. It's

[58:06] not all this crazy stuff that's going on. And I don't want to tell you the

[58:10] president was a draft dodger. Don't want to say that cuz I did my duty. Anyway,

[58:16] again, thank you, mayor, for all the years. Gerald couldn't be happier with

[58:21] what we did and how things went. It's going to continue. Oh, one more thing.

[58:27] Please utilize the art committee when things go through that are art related.

[58:33] I think they should go through the art committee.

[58:37] They need more to do too, you know, just keep them busy. They have good ideas,

[58:41] but always more to do. Thank you everyone. Hope you have a pleasant

[58:45] evening. >> Thank you for your service, Dr.

[58:48] Magcguire.

[58:53] » Have any other public comments? [laughter]

[58:59] Do we have any other public comments? Mrs. Gillette, have you received any?

[59:03] Mrs. Stone, have you received any email? Okay, moving on now to old business.

[59:10] We have none. City official and committee reports, city clerk, city

[59:15] administrator, Mrs. Gillette. That'll be hard to follow. Um, just a reminder that

[59:20] we do have two meetings next month. We will have our regularly scheduled board

[59:23] of alderman meeting and then we will have our work session. We'll do that

[59:26] with the finance committee. That one typically starts at 5:30 on the 4th

[59:29] Tuesday. Thank you. >> Director of finance, Mr. Tman.

[59:37] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, as I've been talking about for the last several

[59:41] months, tonight is the 2026 midyear budget adjustment is in front of you. Um

[59:46] it was presented at the finance committee in July and they unanimous

[59:50] unanimously recommended uh for your approval. It's on there for a second

[59:54] reading tonight which is per usual that we do. Uh the overall adjustment is

[59:59] favorable but favorable by 130,800. Next month as Britney mentioned we'll

[1:00:05] have the two meetings. At the first meeting we'll have the public hearing

[1:00:09] for the real estate and personal property tax rates. Um, and then we'll

[1:00:13] put the ordinance in that meeting as well to be read. And then as Britney

[1:00:17] mentioned, uh, the second meeting is the budget. So, right now, that's what

[1:00:21] finance is involved in. That's what my head's been in all day is 2027's budget.

[1:00:26] The city staff are preparing all their capital uh, five-year capital plans. I'm

[1:00:31] consolidating all that data and we're putting it all together so that staff

[1:00:34] can review all of that, put together all the information for you all next month.

[1:00:39] So, it's a busy time right now for us. Thank you all for your time.

[1:00:43] » Thank you very much, Chief of Police. Chief Dodge.

[1:00:50] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh we finished up with our last uh phone scam presentation uh

[1:00:54] last month. Uh overall, it was pretty successful. We had uh over 40 people

[1:00:59] attend um between the two presentations, about 40 minutes of presentation, and

[1:01:06] then about a half hour of of question uh afterwards. So, everyone was really um

[1:01:12] paying attention and into it and so hopefully uh it, you know, it helped and

[1:01:16] we might do this again sometime in the near future. Um we did conduct some

[1:01:20] active shooter training at Chestnut Rehab uh conducted by Officer Greg

[1:01:24] Schnitker and Detective Sergeant Pisker. Um talked to him about what our response

[1:01:29] would be, what they can do if god forbid ever happens there. Um this is something

[1:01:33] we have done for for businesses and schools and and other entities. So

[1:01:37] certainly if anybody is is interested in that, just contact the PD and that's

[1:01:42] something we can help them out with. Um and then lastly, we uh have our uh body

[1:01:47] cams and our new radios all up and operational. A lot of hard work by

[1:01:51] Lieutenant Greg's Vital and uh Jeff Morris um getting those systems up and

[1:01:55] running. Um so they really are a nice upgrade from what we had before. So

[1:01:59] we're very appreciative for that as well because I know the board approved that.

[1:02:02] So thank you on that one. And if anyone has any questions,

[1:02:06] » Alderman Davis. >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:02:08] » Okay. I've been I think all of us probably have been receiving those

[1:02:11] messages about flop cameras and the audio being used and being and some

[1:02:17] people doing things they shouldn't be doing with them. So, how do we audit

[1:02:22] that? What's the process in Sunset Hills? Well, we do have we do have a uh

[1:02:26] policy concerning all our systems, whether it's Flock,

[1:02:31] um our body cams, uh Regis, any kind of database that we are that we do have, we

[1:02:38] we have a policy that says they are for official use only and any use beyond

[1:02:43] that can result in discipline up to and including termination. So what we also

[1:02:49] have done recently is we had all the sergeants address this issue obviously

[1:02:53] because it is a hot button issue with all the officers at all the roll calls

[1:02:56] to let them know hey this is something that's obviously people are paying a lot

[1:03:01] of attention to and again you know readise them of the policy so to speak.

[1:03:07] I myself has put have put out emails concerning latest incidents that have

[1:03:12] happened in the news that we've seen that have resulted in officers getting

[1:03:15] charged and fired and whatnot and just reemphasized them to them. Hey, this is

[1:03:20] just an very important database to us. It really is. I asked our detectives

[1:03:24] today. I said, "Hey, what percentage do you think of our cases that we go out

[1:03:27] and solve do we utilize this flock system?" And they said just about every

[1:03:31] one of them. Um I know it it also prevented, you know, stop. We had car

[1:03:34] clottings really bad up at the Grand View neighborhood. I don't know if you

[1:03:37] remember that. they were getting hammered and uh including one incident

[1:03:40] where they uh had a subject go into one of the garages armed with a pistol and

[1:03:44] that was caught on camera. A flock system was put into that neighborhood by

[1:03:47] that neighborhood and we haven't had a problem since. Um same goes with the

[1:03:52] Gravo Industrial neighborhood. We had uh we they put in a flock system down

[1:03:56] there. We were getting hit there a couple times a week. Haven't had a

[1:03:59] problem. So we really emphasize to the officers, hey, this is too important of

[1:04:03] a system for us to mess up because if this keeps on happening, that's that's

[1:04:07] what will happen. People will take it away. Now, we do have an audit system in

[1:04:10] place that is uh uh Mary Eler is the one who who gets a report at the end of the

[1:04:15] month. Every time you uh pull up a do a flock search, you have to give a reason

[1:04:22] and it has to have be a law enforcement reason. And so those are reviewed every

[1:04:26] month by uh Mary and also the lieutenants as well. So this is

[1:04:30] something we take very seriously and we understand the concern too. Okay.

[1:04:34] Privacy is very important to people but this system is so important to us that

[1:04:37] we want to make sure that we have tight controls on it to where people's

[1:04:41] privacies are are respected and we're able to utilize this very important

[1:04:45] tool. >> How how widespread is the flock camera

[1:04:48] used in Sunset Hills in subdivisions? >> Well, we only have well we only have two

[1:04:52] cameras. The city itself only has two cameras. Um but there's several

[1:04:57] neighborhoods I want to say. Yeah, there's a I don't want to really put

[1:05:00] them out there right now because these things are getting cut down left and

[1:05:03] right, but um because that's that's a big problem we have right now is the

[1:05:07] vandalism with these things. They're starting to uh cut cut them vandalize

[1:05:10] them and do and other things to them. So, we're aware of that and if that

[1:05:14] happens, we will investigate that, too. But, uh there are a lot of neighborhoods

[1:05:18] that have utilized these that are utilized these and they they're paid for

[1:05:21] by the neighborhoods, just so we're clear on that. um that can, you know,

[1:05:25] alert us if if a stolen car comes in in the neighborhood or something like that

[1:05:29] because that that's the big thing about a lot of the crimes are being committed.

[1:05:32] They use stolen cars to commit these crimes. And so, you know, if we get hit

[1:05:36] for a stolen car in a neighborhood, hey, that's something we're going to want to

[1:05:38] go and get there as quickly as possible. So, it really is just a critical system

[1:05:42] for us. So, we want to do everything we can to make sure it's not abused and

[1:05:46] that we can keep using the system. >> So, I think I heard you say that more

[1:05:50] than one person reviews if there's an issue. It's not just you making the

[1:05:54] decision, it's you plus. Is that correct?

[1:05:56] » Yeah, we have we have we we just recently it's started this because of

[1:06:00] everything that's going on. We've always had the policy policyy's always been

[1:06:03] there, but yeah, it it's a there's a report that's that's generated at at the

[1:06:07] end of every month and it goes over who's using the system and for what

[1:06:11] » and who reviews that. >> Right now we have uh Mary Eler is kind

[1:06:14] of our uh flock person, but then it can also be she'll do that with a

[1:06:19] conjunction of lieutenants as well. Thank you.

[1:06:24] » Any other questions for the chief? >> This one goes I do have one. Go ahead.

[1:06:28] » This one is about drones. Are we considering having drones?

[1:06:32] » No. >> Okay.

[1:06:35] » Alderman Akens. >> Thank you. I just had a quick question.

[1:06:38] I noticed that Ward One accounts for nine of July's 12 larsenies. And I was

[1:06:44] just wondering if there was a pattern that Ward One residents need to know

[1:06:48] about. Like is this one neighborhood? Is this like random vehicle breakins? Just

[1:06:52] anything that our residents need to know?

[1:06:55] » Well, I think uh if I'm not mistaken, that incorporates some of the business

[1:06:59] area. Correct. That's uh Home Depot and that area in there. So, yeah, that's

[1:07:04] that's just I think I'm I'm almost sure. I'd have to look through it and I can

[1:07:07] get an answer for you, but I'm pretty sure that's going to be like a lot of

[1:07:09] shopliftings and that kind of thing. >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:07:14] Alderman Freriedman. We um incorporated uh double fines on

[1:07:21] » Denny are and it are the are any double fine tickets being written or I know

[1:07:27] that's a discret discretionary thing. >> Well, I know the a bunch of tickets have

[1:07:32] written have been written on there and the officers are aware. I haven't

[1:07:34] specifically checked the tickets to see which ones have have been marked double

[1:07:38] fine, but I think as far as I know they they probably most of them have been. I

[1:07:43] but that's something I can look into. >> That is some certainly that we can check

[1:07:47] with the prosecutor as well. >> Thank you very much, Chief.

[1:07:52] » Thank you, >> city attorney, Mrs. Cely.

[1:07:58] » Um, yes, I really don't have much report. Still working on some things in

[1:08:01] the background. So hopefully we'll be able to bring some code amendments to

[1:08:03] you as we move those. But unless there's any questions, that's all I have for

[1:08:07] tonight. Okay. >> Any questions for Mrs. Celely?

[1:08:11] » All right. >> Thank you so much. Director of Planning

[1:08:13] and Public Works, Mr. Knight. >> I'm back. Um, just a couple things

[1:08:19] tonight. Uh, one thing I want to make the the board aware of is every 5 years

[1:08:24] we go out to bid for our trash, our solid waste. Um, we have gone out to

[1:08:28] bid. Um, it's out there as once we get our bids returned, we'll return back to

[1:08:33] committee and the board. Um, as we typically would, uh, we've been talking

[1:08:38] about another city entrance sign at committee. you know, our city entrance

[1:08:41] signs that sit on Lindberg at both entrances. There's another location

[1:08:46] where we have an existing one on Watson um just right as you cross the Crestwood

[1:08:51] border heading west talking to that property owner about uh putting one on

[1:08:56] their property because they have to be out of rightway. They're agreeable.

[1:08:59] We're just going out there talking to them and then u we'll program that in to

[1:09:03] the budget for next year or put it for them. Um, so two projects. One,

[1:09:08] Kennerly, we talked about Kennerly Road and the storm water infrastructure

[1:09:12] replacement that is needed. We had a pre-construction meeting. Um, they

[1:09:17] talked about how this would be done. It'll be a 4-day approach in which

[1:09:21] they'll have to close down the road for 4 days from 9:00 a.m. to 300 p.m. Um, we

[1:09:27] will get there the the big piece of infrastructure is in production. So once

[1:09:32] we know it's completed, which should happen very soon, we'll have at least a

[1:09:36] week's notice that we'll start um communicating to the public of this road

[1:09:41] closure. Um it's a 4 day, so we want to start on a Monday. So we'll have, you

[1:09:45] know, however works out for that week and start on a Monday. Um and which

[1:09:49] again, it'll only be closed right at that spot, but message boards, Facebook,

[1:09:53] all the ways that we communicate these road closures um will implement. West

[1:09:59] Watson phase two. Again, we've been talking about that one. So, we're at the

[1:10:03] first phase of phase two. We were uh Spire last time. They are currently

[1:10:08] moving their infrastructure out of their way. T-Hill is moving everywhere they

[1:10:12] can until they can close in, which is where they were going to start and

[1:10:16] finish up. At earliest, we're projecting end of September. Um and again, we

[1:10:22] talked at committee level. We say within two weeks once we get close enough to

[1:10:26] where we can define a timeline but we're two weeks back we'll start communicating

[1:10:30] the second phase of that closure from Pagata to the we'll call it the overpass

[1:10:37] updates on both of those unless there's any questions that's what I have

[1:10:42] contract >> so end of this year so January 2027 is

[1:10:47] when it would start to 31 >> Alderman Schwarz Yeah, Mike, can you

[1:10:53] give me an update on the Onyx schedule as well as the solar lights, speeds

[1:10:58] lights? >> Oh, yes. So, I'll I'll start with the

[1:11:00] solar lights because Jerry just mentioned today that um he either just

[1:11:04] got them or he knows a date. So, remember that was either next year or

[1:11:07] this year. We had funds in the budget, so we did order them. So, that should

[1:11:11] happen fairly soon. Once he gets them, he'll put them up. Um Onyx, we're still

[1:11:15] looking at that September date, early September. It hasn't changed since then.

[1:11:20] » Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. Any other questions for Mr. Knight?

[1:11:24] All right. Thank you very much. Director of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Brown.

[1:11:30] » Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of items. One is our tennis court. We will

[1:11:34] be holding our ribbon cutting ceremony this Saturday at 10:00 a.m. Uh the

[1:11:38] actual ribbon cutting will take place at 10:30. We're going to hold um clinics,

[1:11:42] pickle ball clinics and tennis clinics. They'll start at 10:00. They'll run till

[1:11:45] noon. So, if you've never played tennis or you want to understand how to play

[1:11:48] pickle ball, we have people there to show everyone. We'll also have barbecue

[1:11:52] for anyone that shows up after the actual ribbon cutting. So, or if you

[1:11:56] haven't been by, there's two courts that are 100% complete. Um, and by Friday,

[1:12:00] we're supposed to have the other two 100% complete. Uh, they look fantastic.

[1:12:05] I will say that the two that are completely done look fantastic. So, um,

[1:12:10] unfortunately, the tennis team couldn't get on them today. They had still had to

[1:12:12] dry. U, but they're they're um they're wanting to get on them very quickly. So,

[1:12:18] uh, Sunset Nights, it's our annual machine madness event. That's going to

[1:12:22] be held next Wednesday, August 19th, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. It's going to be held

[1:12:25] at Minihaha Park. Compared to, in the past, we've always held it here. It's

[1:12:29] very cramped. A lot of large trucks, dump trucks, mail trucks, army vehicles,

[1:12:34] police vehicles, fire trucks, you name it, we have it where the kids can

[1:12:37] actually go in, hit the horn, so forth. Um, that'll be from 6:00 to 8 on next

[1:12:42] Wednesday. We also have food trucks and we have live music as well. So happy to

[1:12:46] answer any other questions.

[1:12:51] » Oh, thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

[1:12:53] » Mr. Brown, >> one question

[1:12:55] » for Brian. >> Are we going to be able to fish in that

[1:12:58] lake anytime soon? >> So, where we're at with that project, we

[1:13:04] we had a survey conducted to do a grading plan. Uh the issue at hand has

[1:13:09] always been about the watershed. We've had numerous people out there, different

[1:13:13] contractors, architects, engineers trying to do the calculations. Do we

[1:13:17] attract enough water to keep the water level at a certain height? So, there's

[1:13:21] been discussion of putting an agricultural well to help feed that to

[1:13:25] offset that. Uh, but what we did was we did a survey. We hired a company to come

[1:13:29] in and actually just do a grading plan, very inexpensive survey, just to have

[1:13:32] them come in, do a little light survey where grading needs to be done and

[1:13:36] pushed. Um, I hope to have a proposal by the end of this week and we hope to

[1:13:40] start to move dirt. You'll start to see some movement. Um, will we be able to

[1:13:45] fish in it this year? >> I [laughter] I don't know. I I I don't

[1:13:50] want to say yes, but maybe in December. It might be uh fishing in December, but

[1:13:55] » ice fishing. >> And they're referring to the Bander

[1:13:58] Property Fishing Lake for children. That is correct.

[1:14:01] » That the foundation is supporting. >> Correct. And Mr. and the steering

[1:14:06] family. So, >> so it is it's moving along and I do

[1:14:10] apologize for the delay. It's just been a bigger project than we anticipated it

[1:14:15] to be trying to do it in-house. So, >> well, we are making interest on the

[1:14:20] money sitting there. So, that's good. >> Yeah, it wasn't the intention. The

[1:14:23] intention was we really thought we could do it all in house and it's just been

[1:14:27] become a bigger job than our six guys doing it. So,

[1:14:31] » thank you, Mr. Brown. Moving on to committee reports, finance committee,

[1:14:35] Alderman Fernandez. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Appreciate

[1:14:37] that. And it is open for swimming. Uh [laughter]

[1:14:41] mumbo, if you're right down. Yes. So, as uh Mr. Treman noted, we met on

[1:14:47] the 27th of July and spent a fair amount of time going through the budget

[1:14:51] adjustments. Uh that's important because year to year, these things are just hard

[1:14:54] to follow. Uh there's just timing delays and things. Um but to his point,

[1:14:57] unanimously approved those. So, thank you. Um, additionally, we did spend a

[1:15:01] fair amount of time also talking about Prop P and everything that's coming

[1:15:04] ahead. I know we have a steering committee is dealing with that, but

[1:15:06] really diving deeply in these numbers and the committee is really excited um

[1:15:10] to do some work on that. So, appreciate that. More to report next month.

[1:15:14] » Any questions for Alderman Fernandez. Okay. Thank you very much. Parks and

[1:15:19] Recreation Commission. Alderman Davis. >> Thank you. Um, our August meeting is

[1:15:24] going to be a walkthrough of Watson Trail Park. in case you haven't been

[1:15:28] there recently. It looks fabulous. Thank you, sir, for all the work you're doing.

[1:15:32] Can't believe your head's not this big already from what Doug said. So, we also

[1:15:38] have repair going on in both Minihaha and Watson Trail with asphalt and

[1:15:45] overlays. And we have a day the day camp ended. We had 80 children attend on a

[1:15:51] weekly basis. And our annual dog splash event will be September 9th and 11th.

[1:15:58] And that's all I have to report. >> Thank you very much. Police Advisory

[1:16:02] Board, Alderman Columbo. >> We will meet next Tuesday, but I would

[1:16:06] like to add I had lunch with the police chief of Maplewood today and he is going

[1:16:11] to have to go in front of his board to justify keeping the flock cameras and he

[1:16:15] actually thinks he's going to lose. So, it's thankful to our alderman, our

[1:16:20] residents, the support they show our law enforcement that we get to keep tools

[1:16:24] like that to keep our community safer. So, it is very important that we

[1:16:29] maintain those >> very much public works committee

[1:16:33] alderman dos. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:16:35] » Uh, Mr. Knight, you were very uh concise in your report, so I edited a lot of my

[1:16:41] notes. So, here are the things that Mike didn't bring up. So, I give you new

[1:16:46] information. Uh, during the public comment time, Alderman Freeman led a

[1:16:51] discussion on city assistance for private street maintenance in terms of

[1:16:55] specifications and bid costing. It was a very good discussion.

[1:16:59] » Turn on your mic, please turn on your mic.

[1:17:05] » I thought I was loud enough anyway, but okay.

[1:17:08] » Usually, you are. >> Yeah, I know. I know. [laughter]

[1:17:12] Um we then move to a discussion on contractor selection results concerning

[1:17:18] chip seal and the difference in results between

[1:17:22] residential streets versus higher traffic arterial streets. It was very

[1:17:27] good discussion. We then talked about contract

[1:17:32] communication to our residents and we talked about what has been on the

[1:17:38] past and what we were doing moving forward. And as Mike alluded to, but we

[1:17:41] discussed it, it seems the sweet spot was two weeks. So, we all agreed on

[1:17:47] that. Um, I brought up Weber Hill traffic.

[1:17:52] That's in Ward 4. And some of the residents would like to see a no through

[1:18:00] traffic sign on West Watson for people that are turning from Highway 30 because

[1:18:06] they don't know after they've turned they don't know that it's no through

[1:18:11] traffic many times till they get to Weber Hill. So where are they going to

[1:18:16] go? They're either going to back up or going to go up Weber Hill. So I think

[1:18:21] it's important for that. Um on waste collection, we had a resident come and

[1:18:27] talk to us about his bad experiences with Eagle. Uh my experiences personally

[1:18:34] have been very good, but his were not. And he wanted us to consider a second

[1:18:40] vendor as well as getting options for two pickups a week as well as getting

[1:18:46] options for bulk pickup on demand. So, I've talked a little bit about that with

[1:18:54] Britney and we can discuss this if you all want to, but those were some of the

[1:19:00] points made there. And um that's about it. Thank you, Madame Mayor.

[1:19:06] » Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on now to new business, bill number 149. Would

[1:19:11] you please read that for us, Alderman Doss?

[1:19:15] » It's on, Frank. [laughter]

[1:19:19] 149, an ordinance approving and adopting a budget adjustment for the 2020 2026

[1:19:26] budget. Move to suspend the rules.

[1:19:33] » Second. >> Motion was made by Alderman Doss,

[1:19:36] seconded by Alderman Aikens to suspend the rules for bill number 149. Roll call

[1:19:41] vote, please. >> Alderman Daw,

[1:19:43] » discussion. >> Oh, discussion. Alderman Freeman.

[1:19:46] » This is budget adjustments. Um, why did the

[1:19:50] » I'm sorry, Frank. [laughter] Why did the pension contribution rate

[1:19:55] increase? >> It changes every year.

[1:20:00] » Okay. And is that a statutory? I Is it a statutory thing? Is it a formula thing?

[1:20:06] » It's a formula thing. It's based on the valuation of our plan and the age of our

[1:20:10] employees and it just changes every year.

[1:20:12] » And who increases it? >> Loggers. Yes, ma'am.

[1:20:16] And how is there a loss on the cell phone tower? What is PV adjustment?

[1:20:22] » Go ahead. >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:20:25] » So, that is a present value adjustment that I had to do for our Sorry, I

[1:20:30] [clears throat] lost my voice a couple days ago and I'm still recovering. Um,

[1:20:34] we have our cell tower lease with AT&T, >> right?

[1:20:37] » And we receive checks from them every month. Well, they have a portion of

[1:20:42] those checks is for like dish revenue, and we were informed in February of this

[1:20:48] year that $550 that we got every month that was part of a rent check uh payment

[1:20:53] is no longer going to be continuing into the future. And this lease goes through

[1:20:57] 2039, the beginning of 24th. So, I had to recalculate what the receivable is

[1:21:03] for that entire lease. And by doing that, by removing that 550 every month,

[1:21:08] that's the adjustment to get it to a new present value for for our balance sheet.

[1:21:15] » Okay, that that's an asset though. I mean, that gets you to the asset.

[1:21:19] » Setting liability is deferred income, >> right?

[1:21:24] » Okay. >> Right. So,

[1:21:25] » so we're going to get $550 less a month. >> Yes.

[1:21:29] » Okay. That's just going to happen. Okay. But we had already showed it as an asset

[1:21:34] on the >> I had to reduce the asset the liability

[1:21:37] offsetting. That was the difference. >> Okay. And how about correcting the

[1:21:44] $25,000 correcting wage allocation? >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:21:48] » On full-time aquatic. >> Yes, ma'am. Uh I would say that was just

[1:21:53] an error on my part. I had we had another employee that got added to the

[1:21:57] pool this last year and when I had their salaries the other employee had their

[1:22:01] salaries split between general and pool and I copied that formula down and then

[1:22:06] I discovered the error here. So that's correcting that error.

[1:22:09] » Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second to suspend

[1:22:15] the rules. Roll call vote, please. >> Alderman Dawze.

[1:22:18] » I. >> Alderman Freriedman I.

[1:22:20] » Alderman Wagel >> I.

[1:22:22] » Alderman Columbbo. I >> Alderman Schwarz.

[1:22:25] » I >> Alderman Davis.

[1:22:27] » I >> Alderman Akens.

[1:22:29] » I >> Alderman Fernandez.

[1:22:31] » I >> Eight eyes's.

[1:22:32] » Thank you. Alderman Daws, would you please read bill number 149 for a second

[1:22:37] reading? >> Bill number 149, an ordinance approving

[1:22:41] and adopting a budget adjustment for the 2026 budget. Move to approve.

[1:22:48] » Second. >> She was made by Alderman Daws, seconded

[1:22:51] by Alderman Davis. Roll call vote, please.

[1:22:54] » Alderman Fernandez, >> I.

[1:22:56] » Alderman Akens, >> I.

[1:22:58] » Alderman Davis, >> I.

[1:23:00] » Alderman Schwarz, >> I.

[1:23:04] » Hi. >> Wigle.

[1:23:06] » I. >> Alderman Freriedman.

[1:23:08] » I. >> Alderman Daws. Eight eyes.

[1:23:12] » Thank you,

[1:23:19] Mrs. Stone. I don't have the sheet to write that down on. So, we will have to

[1:23:24] uh >> I think it's 24. Let me look it up

[1:23:26] really quick, mayor. Sorry. >> Oh, wait a minute. It's hidden. I'm

[1:23:28] sorry. >> You get it?

[1:23:29] » Yes. Bill number 149 becomes ordinance number 2428.

[1:23:35] » Perfect. >> It's stuck under my agenda.

[1:23:38] Bill number 150. Would you please read that for us? Alderman Freriedman.

[1:23:43] » Madame Mayor. Bill number 150, an ordinance amending various sections of

[1:23:48] the unified development ordinance relating to recreational land use. First

[1:23:53] reading. >> Alderman Columbo.

[1:23:57] » Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to amend that or

[1:24:03] it's in relation to the parking requirement. Um, with the one per 200

[1:24:07] being too restrictive, one per 600 too liberal,

[1:24:11] I'd like to figure out a balance somewhere in there um that would be

[1:24:15] acceptable to all, whether that's one per 400, one per 350, or one per 300.

[1:24:22] Um, and if I go back off of my notes,

[1:24:32] you had a one per 400, a one per 480, a one per 335, a one per 700, a one per

[1:24:39] 600. >> Um, at the other places that I sort of

[1:24:46] looked into that were similar. Um, I I don't know. I'm I'm I'm willing to

[1:24:52] hear from. >> Do you have any recommendations?

[1:24:55] » I said during the public hearing I can look into it, but five per thousand is

[1:24:58] what I went with, but I gladly do, but I don't have another number like pocketed

[1:25:03] ready to go. >> Do you have a number you'd buy?

[1:25:04] » I I mean, I don't know that one per 400

[1:25:09] might seem a little high, so maybe one per 350. I think that kind of splits it

[1:25:13] a little bit where it it's not so restrictive that will you know and what

[1:25:19] I go off of is like Spirit Gymnastics if if that if

[1:25:24] they were to try and do now what they've been doing with their

[1:25:29] 14,000 square ft you know currently have 27 spots and they're they are utilizing

[1:25:34] a couple of spots just random them around the back so say an extra five

[1:25:38] spots 32 spots just by our ordinance, they'd

[1:25:42] have to have 70 just for the gymnastics portion and then still provide for the

[1:25:47] other 20,000 square feet of light and you know

[1:25:51] so it it gets really burdensome to try and meet that threshold so that maybe

[1:25:56] one per 350 I mean it seems

[1:26:04] I'm sorry Fred >> I don't want to interrupt you

[1:26:10] just wanted to hear what you had to safe. But

[1:26:11] » do we Okay, if we did, how many parking spots are there right now? Can we get

[1:26:17] into some actual data? >> I think we should be very careful not to

[1:26:21] focus solely on one >> user while we're talking about amending

[1:26:27] as a whole for the whole thing. >> What you're saying could be very very

[1:26:30] reasonable. I just don't have a concept of what is reasonable. Well, and that's

[1:26:35] why I was trying to give examples that we currently have in those areas, you

[1:26:38] know, like Veta 60 spots and that's including, I believe, three handicap

[1:26:43] spots for 45 to 50,000 square feet. So, that's very they're they're above the

[1:26:49] one per 600, but I don't know that it's ever full or not full. I just you never

[1:26:55] hear anybody. May I f may I follow up with something just Okay. So listening

[1:27:01] to the gentleman in the previous meeting, I think I have a pretty good

[1:27:05] concept of what is being proposed. When I've gone to a facility like this

[1:27:12] in Denver with my grandchildren, there are various pitching components

[1:27:18] that are pretty much one onone with with the teacher and and and things. There's

[1:27:23] a catcher, of course. There is probably in the Denver place

[1:27:28] there were probably three or four maybe yeah three or four at the most batting

[1:27:32] stations. In those there might have been 10, 12,

[1:27:37] 13, 14 kids and a number of instructed. Once they got into the cage they

[1:27:42] obviously swung but they worked with them out of the cage. So if you multiply

[1:27:49] that, there might have been between the pitching and the batting maybe

[1:27:55] 40 50 kids there. I don't know how many parking spots that would require.

[1:28:01] Everything you're saying seems to make sense to me, but I [snorts] have no

[1:28:04] concept. I if you go by the facility that they're

[1:28:09] currently sharing with another baseball group, right?

[1:28:15] They have 27 spots in front of that and that's next door to the basketball

[1:28:19] facility that my daughter goes to. So, I see the parking and they're not spilling

[1:28:23] into our basketball parking utilizing those spots. So, I'm

[1:28:29] comfortable. I mean, it's still going to require them

[1:28:32] 40 spots, I believe, or 50 spots in that particular instance, which is way more

[1:28:36] than what we're requiring Spirit Gymnastics or Vetta to have per square

[1:28:41] foot. So, I that's why I think we just kind of balance it out and let Mike

[1:28:46] maybe verify some of the things that I've seen here, but I would move to

[1:28:50] amend the one per 350. And if it's too liberal, when we go to the second

[1:28:54] reading, we could change it. >> Yeah. I think there's also other

[1:28:59] resources, right? So like there's other cities, they have these in their

[1:29:03] regulations. We can take a look at some other cities. There is just engineering

[1:29:08] transportation manuals that provide numbers. So the IT parking generation

[1:29:12] manual, I think they're on their sixth edition. Let's see what they have. Let's

[1:29:15] see what other cities have. I mean, we we can put one per three, but that's

[1:29:19] just what the draft ordinance will be in front of you. But I can always still

[1:29:21] come back with that information and I think answer some of these questions

[1:29:24] that we're talking about now. >> All right. So, do you want to continue

[1:29:29] tonight to amend it or do you want to wait until next month after more

[1:29:33] research has been completed? >> And I'd make a motion to amend now and

[1:29:37] then figure out if we went >> too too far one way or the other.

[1:29:43] » Motion to amend to that number. Yes. Okay.

[1:29:47] » Okay. There's a motion to amend bill number 150 to allow for parking one to

[1:29:54] 350. one per 350 gross feet area. >> Have a second.

[1:29:58] » Yes. >> Alderman Schwarz made a second to that

[1:30:01] motion. >> Yes.

[1:30:02] » To to the amendment.

[1:30:07] » Um roll call vote for the amendment.

[1:30:14] » Aldering Columbbo. >> That mean

[1:30:17] » you Yes. Voting for the amendment. >> I couldn't hear. [laughter]

[1:30:23] » Hi Davis Bernins >> I

[1:30:28] » Alderman Fernandez >> I

[1:30:30] » Alderman Wel >> I

[1:30:32] » Alderman Freriedman >> Alderman Daws

[1:30:36] » eight eyes. >> So next month bill number 150 will be

[1:30:39] read as amended for the second reading. All right. Bill

[1:30:44] number 151. Will you please read that for us? Alderman Schwarz.

[1:30:49] Bill number 151, an ordinance amending various sections of the unified

[1:30:54] development ordinance relating to creating a senior living SL zoning

[1:31:00] district. First reading >> second

[1:31:07] a motion for the second reading is that >> yes

[1:31:13] can second my motion. I'd like to make a motion to um I know it's the first

[1:31:18] reading to uh ask staff to come back to us with an option for

[1:31:25] looking at this as a use without having a senior living district that we could

[1:31:32] look at it side by side. >> I would second that.

[1:31:37] » And I I don't know if that I'll Okay. [laughter] I was going to say you did.

[1:31:43] » That's a good idea. >> Okay.

[1:31:45] » Second it should second. >> Doss did. Okay. There's a motion.

[1:31:50] » Sorry. >> To uh ask staff to come back and ask for

[1:31:54] an option use without senior living.

[1:32:01] » Did I rephrase that correctly? to to amend the UDO in such a way as to make

[1:32:07] the various nursing home planned retirement

[1:32:13] um permitted or conditional uses rather than establish an entire new zoning

[1:32:18] district. >> Mike, are you comfortable that that's

[1:32:20] not too big of a change? They would have to go back to planning and zoning.

[1:32:24] » So, I understand I was I don't know if that's how the public hearing was

[1:32:27] actually advertised. If it just said senior living uses or the SL district,

[1:32:32] » we would need to start over. >> But would it matter how it advertised?

[1:32:37] Because >> if it just

[1:32:40] » I think it is I >> just because when I

[1:32:44] » because if it's looking at that and it's not a timely issue. I mean

[1:32:52] » no no it's not a time you should want to follow the processes advertised

[1:32:57] appropriately. >> Yeah.

[1:32:59] I mean I think that is fairly different concept

[1:33:03] » right and I think you're right >> yes so then we need updated motion to

[1:33:09] bring it back right >> so would we

[1:33:11] » I would like to make a motion to remand this to public

[1:33:15] » to planning and zoning that would include

[1:33:20] » the option the the ordinance brought to us today along with an optional

[1:33:25] ordinance that would uh present this as planned and conditional uses for

[1:33:33] » in an existing district >> for retireing

[1:33:37] homes assisted. >> Yeah.

[1:33:40] » Mhm. >> We already had a motion and a second.

[1:33:42] Are you withdrawing the first one? >> Yes.

[1:33:46] » Yes. >> Okay. So, now we have another one.

[1:33:49] » Do we have a second? >> Yes. a motion and a second from Alderman

[1:33:56] Donis. Um, would you like that read again so everyone understands please

[1:34:02] what they're voting on? >> Okay. [laughter] Cuz I'm like ah [gasps]

[1:34:07] I will I will try to rephrase this more artfully.

[1:34:12] I'm making a motion to remand this ordinance to planning and zoning

[1:34:19] and include with it a draft ordinance as an alternative that would present

[1:34:25] assisted retirement centers, nursing homes,

[1:34:30] and the other uses >> plan retirement care center. Yes, the

[1:34:34] four uses um as permitted or conditional uses in the commercial districts

[1:34:43] and any amendments, you know, if if section five needed to be amended to

[1:34:49] include that. >> Okay, we have a motion by Alderman

[1:34:53] Freriedman, a second by Alderman Daws. Uh roll call vote. May I ask a

[1:34:59] clarifying question? >> Yes, there discussion. Alderman Akens,

[1:35:02] » I just want to clarify. You're asking for them to bring two different

[1:35:06] versions. Is that correct? >> Well, if you'd rather bring it to the

[1:35:10] board for discussion rather than I understand what you're saying.

[1:35:14] » Yeah. It's just a little confusing to present two ordinances going through the

[1:35:19] public hearing process, but say you get to pick one. That's not okay. The

[1:35:22] standard. I I actually would prefer the idea of bringing it for a discussion and

[1:35:27] then you guys giving us direction from that point if which one you want to move

[1:35:31] forward with. I think that's a lot cleaner.

[1:35:34] » Are you withdrawing are you withdrawing this ordinance and second?

[1:35:38] » Is this the third time? >> Yes, madam. Yes, madame mayor. Yes,

[1:35:42] ma'am. [laughter] [gasps]

[1:35:44] » Okay. So, we're starting fresh now. >> Okay. to direct staff to bring to the

[1:35:50] board an alternative draft ordinance for consideration that

[1:35:57] would include making assisted retirement centers um nursing homes and

[1:36:04] planned retirements assisted living >> nursing homes and um

[1:36:09] » rehabilitation >> planners

[1:36:11] » center >> as permitted andor conditional uses in

[1:36:17] the general general the commercial district.

[1:36:20] » Commercial >> unlimited commercial district.

[1:36:22] » Thank you for destruction. >> All right. Now, do we have a second?

[1:36:29] » Yes, Madam Mayor. >> Thank you.

[1:36:31] » Seconded the motion. >> Okay.

[1:36:35] » So, can I get some clarification? [clears throat]

[1:36:38] » Alderman Columbo. >> So, we just had a first reading of this

[1:36:40] bill. >> So, we'll still have a second reading of

[1:36:43] this bill next month. >> Is that correct?

[1:36:45] » We don't have to. There's nothing that requires it go back on. So I would

[1:36:50] » drawn their motions and their seconds, >> right? So it's still alive.

[1:36:54] » Not this bill though. It's >> the bill is still alive. It does not

[1:36:58] have to be placed on the next agenda. So what we'll do is put both of these on

[1:37:02] for discussion and then if you guys choose to move forward with with the one

[1:37:06] that exists now, we can put that on for second reading at the October meeting.

[1:37:11] If you choose to move forward with the one that allows permitted and

[1:37:14] conditional uses within general commercial districts, that process will

[1:37:18] have to start over because it is too big of a change to say, "Hey, we've already

[1:37:22] advertised this as a public hearing because technically we have not." So,

[1:37:25] we'll start that process back over. It'll just pause bill 151 and it has to

[1:37:30] go back through planning and zoning again. Yeah.

[1:37:32] » Correct. >> Okay. All right. So, do you all

[1:37:35] understand what you're voting on? >> Oh, sure.

[1:37:39] » Okay. Call vote. >> Freriedman.

[1:37:43] » Hi. >> Alderman Daws.

[1:37:44] » Hi. >> Alderman Andez.

[1:37:46] » Hi. >> Alderman Aikens.

[1:37:48] » Hi. >> Alderman Davis.

[1:37:54] [laughter] >> Um. I

[1:38:00] » Aldrick Columbbo. >> Nay.

[1:38:04] » I. [clears throat] >> Seven eyes. One. Nay.

[1:38:10] We'll put it on for discussion in September.

[1:38:13] » All right. Moving on now for appointments. Peter Rodic, Parks and

[1:38:18] Recreation Commission, term to expire 811 2031. That would be in Ward 3. Jill

[1:38:26] Aresky, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission, term to expire 1820.

[1:38:33] And uh would you like to take these together or individually?

[1:38:37] » Together. Um if you said the parks um ward I I

[1:38:44] missed it. I know Mr. Rodic is three >> is Jill Archeski is in Jill. She's

[1:38:50] already on. This is just the appointment of a chairman. This is not a new

[1:38:53] appointment. Yes, we lost our chairman. >> But there's been some confusion about

[1:38:57] wards. So she is she's W >> she's W two and already on the board. So

[1:39:03] it's not filling a vacancy or something. It's just filling the position that Doug

[1:39:06] just left as chairman. She's taking over as chairman, but continuing her term on

[1:39:11] parks and recreation. >> Okay, we have a motion to take them both

[1:39:17] together from Alderman Dawze. Is there a second?

[1:39:19] » Second. >> Motion was made by Alderman Columbo. All

[1:39:22] in favor? >> I oppose. All right, we will notify them

[1:39:27] of their new jobs. Uh any items under general discussion?

[1:39:33] Alderman Freriedman. >> Um yeah, actually a couple. Um the just

[1:39:38] to give an update on uh the steering committee um

[1:39:44] about the uh storm water and parks tax. Um first of all, we keep talking about

[1:39:50] Prop Ps and we already have a Prop P fund. I I'd

[1:39:56] prefer we call this storm water storm water or parks fund or SP but we

[1:40:05] isn't isn't it Prop P funds? Yeah. So >> So there's there will be confusion

[1:40:10] moving forward. I'm afraid there's already Prop Ps for the police

[1:40:14] department. >> Okay. But it is Prop Ps and it's just

[1:40:20] the second phase of it maybe. >> No, they're two very separate things.

[1:40:25] Prop P. >> Prop P doesn't stop. That is effective

[1:40:30] right now until next April. >> No, there are Prop funds

[1:40:35] » account um the county >> fund number 15.

[1:40:39] » You're talking about the funds that go to the police.

[1:40:41] » Correct. The county. >> If we're going to be talking about Prop

[1:40:44] P, we'd have two Prop Ps. I just think calling

[1:40:49] the the storm water parks or park storm water a different thing might be

[1:40:55] » but it was passed as proposition P. >> Okay.

[1:40:58] » So, >> okay. So, we'll have two prop P funds.

[1:41:04] » We call we've always labeled the it parks and stormwater fund on all of your

[1:41:08] account information. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, we met and we gathered

[1:41:12] a lot of information about the current we've met twice. uh current and

[1:41:17] historical uh funding of the parks and recreation department. And when we say

[1:41:21] that, we include pools. Um Natalie has taken two big unwieldy master plans and

[1:41:28] consolidated them into a workbook with um notes that help us to help us focus

[1:41:35] on um relative priorities between the two plans. And Mark has met with Gerald

[1:41:41] to discuss his top Gerald's top priorities. So, thanks to um Britney and

[1:41:47] Jeff and Gerald for all of this advanced information. And a

[1:41:53] couple um things caught our attention. Um first, we need to get our arms around

[1:41:58] how parks is budgeted between the general fund, the capital fund, and the

[1:42:03] storm water tax dollars. From year to year, it appears that different line

[1:42:08] items of the budget are paid from different funds. And it seems to us that

[1:42:14] this should be evaluated and standardized.

[1:42:17] Second, as we were looking at this information, it it occurred that all of

[1:42:23] this falls into the larger picture of funding priorities across the city. Um,

[1:42:30] you know, there were 30 or 32 people that that said their top priority in the

[1:42:37] comments were sidewalks. So that that falls into you know kind of the larger

[1:42:43] city and the the best practice we think is to understand the obligations the

[1:42:50] city has on its books now in the form of existing assets particularly

[1:42:57] aging assets and assess the budgetary needs that are going to be required to

[1:43:03] maintain them properly into the future. And the

[1:43:07] priority may well be to move some expenses from the general some some of

[1:43:14] the park expenses, traditional park expenses from the general fund and the

[1:43:19] capital fund to the stormwater parks or park storm water tax bucket to give the

[1:43:25] city greater flexibilities to address all of the priorities citywide.

[1:43:32] um and this would comport with the surveys finding that the highest scoring

[1:43:36] priority um is to focus over the next 20 years on um maintenance and it's

[1:43:43] something that Mr. Dunl from Cochran um advocated when he made his presentation

[1:43:49] to the board. Um, so at this point it may be better it may

[1:43:56] be a better place for the finance committee to look into these issues to

[1:44:00] evaluate and standardize how line items are paid from respective funds. assess

[1:44:06] the financial obligations of the city to maintaining existing assets and budget

[1:44:13] expenses um appropriately from each fund to

[1:44:18] achieve the most impactful um results and then we can understand then after

[1:44:23] we've understood these existing obligations and funding for them explore

[1:44:28] priorities across the city. Um, Alderman Fernandez is

[1:44:35] is that something that sounds

[1:44:39] » very much so um >> within the wheelhouse of the finance

[1:44:41] committee? >> Yes. and they're very willing to do

[1:44:43] that. Um, as part of the discussion we had at the last committee meeting is

[1:44:46] they're kind of asking what more can we do and this is an area of focus for

[1:44:49] everyone and I think from my lens it would be in

[1:44:53] conjunction with obviously the the finance department because they're going

[1:44:56] to have the data and I think we're going to need both some answers and maybe a

[1:44:59] collaboration through the whole group. >> Alderman Davis. So, how does all this

[1:45:06] meld together with our master plan that we approved a couple months ago?

[1:45:14] » Well, I think I guess and I'll I'll go on record of clarifying when we approve

[1:45:18] the master plan as approving the plan, not any of those priorities underneath

[1:45:21] there is like that they were actually going to happen. So, that was part of

[1:45:24] the discussion we had is that we need to evaluate these what do they really cost?

[1:45:28] What do we have to the point of existing liabilities? in one example and that

[1:45:31] would be out of the dollars that we've learned kind of looking at these is

[1:45:36] portions of the storm water and parks dollars have been spent on things like

[1:45:40] salary not necessarily capital projects through time. So we need to evaluate

[1:45:45] what is that that are fixed costs we're already committed to. So when we look at

[1:45:48] the dollars we're have available they may not be as great as we think. We need

[1:45:51] to understand at least what that looks like going forward. So it's some of

[1:45:54] those things and and I appreciate the finance firm may know a lot of these

[1:45:57] answers already. It's a lot of us looking at it new and trying to

[1:46:00] understand how those things are laying out.

[1:46:02] » So those things that are aging out that need replenished that will be very well

[1:46:08] considered. Right. I'm just thinking about the pool for example

[1:46:12] because the so we have so many citizens that really absolutely would just go

[1:46:19] berserko if we took away their lazy river opportunity.

[1:46:23] » Well and I think again from our lens it's sort of what are we committed to

[1:46:27] already? Um and obviously since this whole one um came about we've committed

[1:46:31] a lot more to parts over time. So we need to understand that along with then

[1:46:35] how do we think about adding new after that like what actually do we have at

[1:46:39] our disposal to do that and on what timeline I think that's the other part

[1:46:42] and I think is you know you guys know way better than we do on some of the

[1:46:45] infrastructure even buildings like those are massive projects that we may need to

[1:46:48] do. >> So can we put in trolleys that take us

[1:46:51] from park to park to park? >> One in Delmar we could look into

[1:46:55] probably. I know it >> might be for sale. Yeah,

[1:46:58] » horseback. [laughter]

[1:47:01] I would like to make a comment. Um I'm excited to hear that there were that

[1:47:06] many comments about sidewalks because most of you sitting up here have known

[1:47:08] that that's one of my big priorities. So I'm excited to work with Brian about

[1:47:14] spending some money on sidewalks in these upcoming years.

[1:47:17] » I believe there may be a misunderstanding and 32 is not exactly a

[1:47:21] sampling size. Um but we're very willing to look at all priorities. I'd like to

[1:47:25] add >> that to the agenda for the next public

[1:47:27] works meeting, please. >> Well, and I think what it gets down to

[1:47:33] is what we're trying to say is everybody wants their lazy river pool

[1:47:39] and that's great and everybody wants sidewalks and a lot of people want

[1:47:44] things and they they probably can't have them all. we have to priorities at this

[1:47:50] time. we do have a pool that is in use and we want to maintain and what's that

[1:47:57] going to cost into the future and is that where is the priority and that's

[1:48:04] kind of where we think the finance committee can do a deeper dive and

[1:48:11] understand the existing obligations before we go out and add more assets and

[1:48:18] and financial obligations. And I concur to that end. It's something

[1:48:24] we haven't really put that work into some of the things in the past that we

[1:48:28] certainly could and being a board member up here when you know knowing we're

[1:48:31] asked to do things without having as much information by nobody's fault. It's

[1:48:35] just this is the biggest thing I think we've seen in front of us and I'd go

[1:48:39] back to cyworks sidewalks versus like roads that we know maybe need some

[1:48:42] attention that we haven't dealt with. We don't really I don't have a really good

[1:48:46] handle on that. So, as the finance committee helping advise this group, I

[1:48:49] know we could do a better job than what we've done so far.

[1:48:52] » So, when is our budgeting committee meeting occurring that we're

[1:48:56] » fourth fourth Tuesday in September? >> Fourth Tuesday in September.

[1:49:02] » Fourth Tuesday. Okay. Thank you.

[1:49:10] » I can [snorts] I can add one comment. Marian, I've met with Gerald or Mr.

[1:49:15] Brown and uh I don't think we either one of us have uh had any discussion about

[1:49:20] taking away the lazy river. >> That is good news. [laughter]

[1:49:27] » Thank you. >> Any other comments for general

[1:49:31] discussion? >> Alderman Freriedman. Um, as we were

[1:49:35] looking through, you know, these budgetary items, it came

[1:49:40] to our attention that there is, um, a lease on the building at Watson Trails

[1:49:47] and the lease was entered into in 2019 for 2 years and it's renewable.

[1:49:55] Um, subsequent to that time, uh, there was an ordinance passed that any lease

[1:50:02] has to be, um, approved by ordinance, and this has not come up before the

[1:50:07] board. Um, I I don't know a whole lot about the lease. It's two pages. It

[1:50:13] doesn't look very leasy. I'm not sure who signed it and it may be the best

[1:50:20] idea in the world, but I don't think it it doesn't address the kind of things

[1:50:26] that we saw when we went through the BMX. Um, so I' I'd like to ask Aaron to

[1:50:34] take a look at the lease and, you know, I don't know if, you know, I don't know

[1:50:40] whether to put Aaron on it first or have staff kind of outline to us what's

[1:50:47] really happening behind the lease. Um, but I think I think it's incumbent on

[1:50:54] us. there's a city asset that's being leased that I didn't know about and I've

[1:51:01] asked specifically a lot about leases. So, I I'd like to understand this and if

[1:51:08] we're, you know, and and get it into a proper

[1:51:14] document that that um protects the city there. There's

[1:51:20] no cross insurance in it. Um,

[1:51:26] so I'd like to understand that better and I'd like to direct I don't know if

[1:51:29] the starting point is Aaron looking at it or if the starting point is staff ex

[1:51:34] you know explaining this you know how this operates in real in the real world.

[1:51:40] I I can't speak to what happened in 2019. Um but the Open Space Council is a

[1:51:47] nonprofit organization. They have been renting a room at our park maintenance

[1:51:50] facility since 2019. We have treated it like a like a room

[1:51:56] rental at the community center. Um, and I I do understand what the paperwork

[1:52:00] says, but that's that's how it's been treated historically. We can certainly

[1:52:04] move forward with something more formal. And at that point, yes, I would

[1:52:07] recommend getting our city attorney involved.

[1:52:13] » Are you finished? >> Well, I don't know.

[1:52:15] » Oh, no. I I'm asking, are you finished? Alderman Freeman,

[1:52:18] » hear what Alderman has to say. Say it with your big booming voice, Fred.

[1:52:23] » Microphone's still on. Um, we passed an ordinance on leases

[1:52:30] that the finance committee would review before the city signed them. And I don't

[1:52:35] know what has happened between 2019 and today. And I'm not going to try to go

[1:52:39] down that road and point fingers, but I would like to see the finance committee

[1:52:43] review this lease. From the financial perspective, yes, but

[1:52:49] also support from the legal having gone through this prior with BMX as you

[1:52:52] noted. Yeah, certainly to understand what it is and financially whether it's

[1:52:56] again know our role was to look at it, make sure it feasibly made sense from

[1:52:59] that and we weren't giving something away. So, kind of a different lens.

[1:53:03] » Is this an lease that just runs forever or did it have a termination date on it?

[1:53:07] » I believe it said there was a two-year option, but it's been just roll. So

[1:53:11] you're you're just handling it like a a leased room at the community center,

[1:53:15] » a rented room at the community center. The income goes into community center

[1:53:19] revenue. It is handled exactly like that. But I it is continuous and it

[1:53:23] would not hurt to have our city attorney take a look at it. And then yes, it

[1:53:27] would now follow the process of a lease space which was done after 2019 which is

[1:53:32] why I assume that it did not go through that process then

[1:53:36] » but it will in the future take care of that.

[1:53:38] » Yeah. I >> I would like to make sure they have

[1:53:41] insurance and that, you know, we're covered if something would happen

[1:53:43] because that's a could be a liability. >> Okay. If they continue to lease or if

[1:53:48] they're just renting the room like they do at the community center, do they need

[1:53:52] insurance? >> If they're renting a room at the

[1:53:54] community center, they do not. But if we do, if we move forward with a lease in

[1:53:59] our park maintenance building, yes, we would recommend there would be insurance

[1:54:03] within the lease. >> Okay, we'll take care of that. Any other

[1:54:07] general discussion items?

[1:54:11] » Somebody just raised their hand. [laughter]

[1:54:14] » Does anybody else have anything? >> Alderman Freriedman.

[1:54:16] » Yeah. Also in the course of uh of looking into

[1:54:22] you know doing due diligence for the steering committee, I wanted to go back

[1:54:26] and um hear the and review the meetings for the parks um department and

[1:54:35] the finance department, planning and zoning, the public works department all

[1:54:41] have meetings that are accessible by Zoom and they're recorded. And you know,

[1:54:47] last year we had $5.6 million out of $13 million of the city budget spent on

[1:54:54] parks. And there's nothing on they're not it's not recorded. It's not

[1:55:00] accessible to the public. And [snorts] I I'd like to um make a motion that moving

[1:55:06] forward all parks and recrecks um meetings be held with a Zoom option and

[1:55:14] with the meeting recorded so that it is um available on the website, you know,

[1:55:20] as a matter of transparency like we do with all of our other committees.

[1:55:25] Alderman Akens. As a member of the parks committee, I

[1:55:29] just want to say that we often meet at the parks and we walk through them and I

[1:55:33] think that's a very important thing that we do and during those meetings I don't

[1:55:38] know how it would be possible to record those and have a zoom but otherwise when

[1:55:42] we meet here that that makes sense to >> well the the agenda items can be

[1:55:46] discussed in chambers and then and then the um and I think it is important for

[1:55:53] the committee members to to walk the parks But I don't think they're mutually

[1:55:58] exclusive. And for, you know, 42 43% of our budget to be spent and and we can't

[1:56:09] hear what's going on in that committee. I think I think we can improve upon

[1:56:13] that. So, I would make a motion that parks

[1:56:20] conduct meetings that are accessible by Zoom and um

[1:56:25] uh posted on the web recorded and posted on the website.

[1:56:29] » Alderman Columbo. >> So, I'm I'm curious how that works when

[1:56:33] they meet at Minihaha to to do their meeting and walk.

[1:56:38] » They start their meeting here and then they go to Minihaha.

[1:56:41] You know, I >> statistically it doesn't make a lot of

[1:56:44] sense. >> Well, how often does that happen?

[1:56:47] » Minutes. It's good weather. We a lot in the summer.

[1:56:50] » Here, the park complex, Minihaha, Watson Trails,

[1:56:53] » and at the pool, >> Windstone.

[1:56:56] » Yeah, we really only meet here like in the winter. And we have meeting minutes

[1:57:01] and I think we're happy to record it when we're here, but I think the park

[1:57:04] committee being in the parks is very important

[1:57:06] » and Gerald records the minutes at every meeting. And we don't

[1:57:10] » I I've just I mean having been on it for 5 years, I don't think you're missing

[1:57:14] anything. >> Oh, [laughter] I'm missing something.

[1:57:22] » I understand that we go that our committee goes to parks and wants to

[1:57:26] review maintenance or potential improvements. That makes a lot of sense.

[1:57:32] But I don't know if you're meeting at a park in a

[1:57:38] pavilion or whatever, you can certainly come back and meet here or

[1:57:44] decisions of spending money or proposals could be then tabled to the next meeting

[1:57:49] when you're in chambers. We, you know, the logistics of of the

[1:57:55] park. I understand that that's not something that I have to worry about

[1:58:00] with public works, but that's a logistic issue that you have to work around in

[1:58:06] order to communicate. We've heard the word here tonight,

[1:58:11] the word transparency, that we want a transparent city. Well,

[1:58:18] when it comes to the parks committee, without the minutes, without recording,

[1:58:24] without anything, >> we have minutes.

[1:58:26] » There are minutes. Sorry. >> Well, I'm just saying I'm not seeing I'm

[1:58:31] not seeing the transparency that we have in other committees

[1:58:35] » and the public is welcome to every single meeting.

[1:58:38] » Well, Greg, if we made that, then we don't really need to record public works

[1:58:44] either. They're welcome to every meeting. I mean, the meetings are open

[1:58:47] to everybody, >> not public works because they're not

[1:58:50] held in person. >> So, it would be impossible. And we could

[1:58:53] switch that, >> of course.

[1:58:55] » How about if at all possible, Mr. Brown, would this be possible when you have a

[1:58:59] meeting here in the wintertime, you offer it to Zoom to anyone and then when

[1:59:03] you go out in the field at parks or the pool advisory or whatever that you just

[1:59:09] say that in the meeting, say we're being excused now to go look at this park or

[1:59:14] that park or whatever. And I mean I I was on parks for what 24 years and I

[1:59:21] mean we were always out in the field looking at things. Mhm.

[1:59:24] » We would maybe discuss things first and then go out or else go out when the

[1:59:31] light was still the sun was still out and then come back here and discuss

[1:59:34] things. But I don't know how you'd run the Zoom.

[1:59:39] Um >> how can you not

[1:59:41] » because well with everyone talking how would

[1:59:44] they all have their microphones and everything?

[1:59:48] » I mean I I think we could do this. I could record it at a park. I mean I

[1:59:53] don't know about Zoom. I mean, I could record it and then

[1:59:56] » again, I don't know our system. If I could put a recording on there from what

[1:59:59] takes place, um the business that we have like in a shelter,

[2:00:04] I'm guessing. >> Also wondering how much you're going to

[2:00:07] be able to hear people because often, you know,

[2:00:09] » yeah, they're not each going to have a microphone like this.

[2:00:11] » We've got nine microphones here and there's nine people on parks and Gerald

[2:00:16] could use that microphone. I think we I and I I think we can do better. And for

[2:00:23] instance, one of the things I wanted to see was the you know, we had a

[2:00:28] stakeholders meeting and that was the the parks committee met to review the

[2:00:34] parks master plan. So I went to listen to the minutes and they they weren't

[2:00:40] there. I read the minutes and the minutes said that Gary C um I'm sorry,

[2:00:45] Mr. Dunl appeared and made a presentation. it doesn't reflect any

[2:00:49] discussion that was made or questions or you know and I think that that would

[2:00:57] have been helpful for me to understand. So my motion stands.

[2:01:03] [snorts] >> Okay. And you have um Alderman Akens who

[2:01:07] attend who's on parks and she can probably answer any question that you

[2:01:12] want to know from the parks meeting. >> Yes.

[2:01:17] and she's on the steering committee. So, >> believe it or not, I listen to a lot of

[2:01:24] recordings and and I can't listen to any of those

[2:01:29] and that is last year it was 42% of our budget.

[2:01:36] » I would second the motion. >> Okay, you're seconding the motion for

[2:01:43] Can we repeat the motion? Oh, >> are you

[2:01:47] » from what we're voting for? >> You're taking people out of the parks.

[2:01:50] Do you realize that? I just >> No, I'm What I'm What I'm proposing

[2:01:54] » roll call and people can vote no or vote yes.

[2:01:57] » Yeah. >> I'm proposing that the parks committee

[2:02:01] record and give detailed minutes of their meetings

[2:02:07] moving forward. And I think if that means that you have to

[2:02:12] we don't have a big city. If you have to go to a park and then come here to

[2:02:17] actually have your meeting, I don't think that is a big

[2:02:23] problem. Is it

[2:02:25] » our part of our meeting >> from the point of view of people that

[2:02:28] have been serving on it that have that meet at parks and walk through them

[2:02:32] rather than meet here, hold a meeting, now leave, go to a park. Do we adjourn

[2:02:37] the meeting? Do we have to come back to adjourn? I just I think you guys

[2:02:42] » part of our meeting >> a logistical problem overburdensome and

[2:02:45] you're going to find people don't want to serve if they have to keep coming

[2:02:48] here instead of being in the parks. So you're going to probably lose some

[2:02:51] committee members. It would be my guess. >> And the meeting continues when we're at

[2:02:55] the park, right? We're walking around. We're looking at things. So it doesn't

[2:02:58] just end >> not adjourn and then go continue to

[2:03:01] conduct business elsewhere. Alderman

[2:03:06] Fernandez, >> I just have a logistical legal question.

[2:03:08] So, is it a requirement of the committees to be recorded or to be or

[2:03:12] open to the public like every other >> requirement to have minutes post an

[2:03:15] agenda? It is not a requirement to be recorded.

[2:03:18] » I just thought it was a good practice of transparency.

[2:03:22] » Me, too. >> So, how many of us have actually read

[2:03:26] the master plan that we approved? Have we all read it? And were there

[2:03:32] questions still that needed to be answered that we now need to think about

[2:03:36] over the next couple of years? I mean, like our art committee, we have

[2:03:42] anyone's welcome to come. We have the minutes written down, but there's a lot

[2:03:47] of discussion that I don't even know how you would put it down and just let

[2:03:51] people hear because a lot of it is and >> and that's what we record.

[2:03:56] » Okay.

[2:04:04] All right, >> we have a motion and a second. We have a

[2:04:07] motion and a second. Do you all understand what you're voting on or do

[2:04:09] you want the motion read?

[2:04:13] » Well, I think Alderman Dos's interpretation and Alderman Freriedman's

[2:04:18] interpretation are I'm not clear as to which one I I would

[2:04:23] be voting on. >> Okay. So, could we have the motion read

[2:04:27] again, Mrs. Stone. >> Uh, the motion that I wrote down was

[2:04:31] » use your microphone, please.

[2:04:38] » Available via Zoom. That's what I >> All right. Is that the second?

[2:04:43] » No. No, >> that that was not the motion.

[2:04:46] » Okay. So the motion was to for their meetings to be in chambers or in

[2:04:52] chambers or in the meeting place available via Zoom and with the

[2:04:57] recording posted on on the website as the other committee [clears throat]

[2:05:03] meetings the the other committee recordings are posted.

[2:05:11] » Yes. >> Is that the um motion? That's my

[2:05:16] understanding as well. >> And you're going to second that. I

[2:05:18] second that. >> So a motion was made by Alderman

[2:05:20] Friedman, seconded by Alderman Doss. >> Do we want to do a roll call vote? Let's

[2:05:27] do a roll call vote. Mrs. Stone, please.

[2:05:32] » Nay. [clears throat]

[2:05:35] » Nay.

[2:05:39] » Nay.

[2:05:42] » Nay.

[2:05:46] Nay. >> Alderman.

[2:05:50] » Hi. >> Alderman Friedman.

[2:05:53] » I [snorts] also

[2:06:02] » Okay. Motion fails. All right. Any other items under general

[2:06:07] discussion? >> Alderman Fernandez.

[2:06:10] » This is Thank you, Madam Probably out of order. Um, knowing that that did not

[2:06:16] pass, I would ask though that the committee does a much deeper thorough

[2:06:20] job on the minutes potentially if that's been an issue where we can't discern

[2:06:23] some of the information and especially like presentations and any of the

[2:06:26] dialogue. >> Yes, I I can cover that.

[2:06:29] » The past I mean Gerald gets the minutes out the next morning, right? So, they're

[2:06:32] fresh, they're concise, and they're spot on.

[2:06:35] » I've never read them, so I don't that should not be an indictment uh at all.

[2:06:38] So, but if if that were an issue or has been an issue, I would like to see that.

[2:06:42] » Yeah. and I >> the next day and he asked if there's any

[2:06:46] correction corrections or additions. So al all

[2:06:51] » I'll just add when we do meet here I am in favor of recording when we can. I

[2:06:55] just don't want to take the parks committee out out of the parks

[2:07:00] » and I will add I mean we have had zoom for several of the meetings over the

[2:07:05] last couple of years. I I mean I know that but I don't know what the special

[2:07:09] occasion was why we used it but there were times whether it was the park

[2:07:13] master plan which obviously it wasn't cuz Kathy would have known but I know

[2:07:17] we've had some. So that's the case. May I make a motion

[2:07:23] that any um parks meetings that are held um indoors be available via Zoom and

[2:07:33] recorded and with the recording posted on the city website.

[2:07:38] » That could work. >> Can we be specific to here in the

[2:07:42] chamber? We do meet other places that are indoors that might not you might not

[2:07:45] be able to hear us where we don't have microphones

[2:07:48] » and we we always record our minutes. Those can be how do you how do you

[2:07:54] handle that when it's not verbal? It's just written. So what do we do? How do

[2:07:58] we place that in the public's hands >> on the website?

[2:08:02] » Posted on the website. >> So those can be posted

[2:08:06] » and that's the way they're always >> there. any questions that come up at the

[2:08:09] next meeting then we can rectify it in some way

[2:08:15] » because we always have we always um do written minutes there's always someone

[2:08:21] taking minutes >> so are the meetings that are held

[2:08:26] indoors can they be held somewhere where we have the zoom capability and or are

[2:08:31] there locations that you go to >> this is the only room that we have the

[2:08:35] zoom room within um the public works committee. We typically use a laptop

[2:08:40] which isn't great but we make it work. But this is the only room that has that

[2:08:44] Zoom room capability. >> What are we doing for finance?

[2:08:49] » Finance. I'm sorry. Did I say public works? We're always I apologize. Finance

[2:08:53] is when we're in the public works. That's why we're in the public works um

[2:08:57] conference room and that's where we use a laptop which again not not great and I

[2:09:01] know sometimes the the sound isn't great but we make it work. Um, we don't have

[2:09:06] that capability in other spaces.

[2:09:12] » Did you make a motion? >> Did you make it?

[2:09:15] » I did. >> Okay, I'll second her. K.

[2:09:18] » A motion was made by Alderman Freriedman. Second by Alderman Schwarz.

[2:09:22] And do you want to read that motion again so everyone knows what they're

[2:09:25] voting on, please? Mrs. Stone

[2:09:34] are In chambers. >> All right. Roll call vote.

[2:09:39] » That you said in chambers. In chambers. You

[2:09:41] » didn't say every place. You just said in chambers.

[2:09:43] » When the meetings are held in the chambers, they will be recorded and the

[2:09:48] recording will be posted and Zoom accessible.

[2:09:54] » Roll call vote, please.

[2:09:58] » Alens. I

[2:10:02] Davis. >> Hi.

[2:10:06] Hi.

[2:10:09] » Hi. >> Michael.

[2:10:12] » Hi. >> Alman Fre,

[2:10:17] » I

[2:10:23] » All right. Any other items under general discussion? I'm afraid to look over

[2:10:27] here. [laughter]

[2:10:30] » I'm kidding. >> No, you're not. That's okay. [laughter]

[2:10:35] » Back to my line. >> We all have to have a sense of

[2:10:38] » meeting. >> All right. If not, do I have a motion to

[2:10:41] » We did this. >> We did.

[2:10:42] » Oh, we did that. Never mind. [laughter] >> Amended the agenda.

[2:10:47] » It was It was >> They didn't know if we needed to vote on

[2:10:50] it. >> It was included in the consent agenda.

[2:10:54] » A motion to adjurnn, please. >> I make the motion.

[2:10:57] » I'll second. Motion was made by Alderman Donna, seconded by Alderman Wigle. All

[2:11:02] in favor of adjournment >> I

[2:11:04] » I >> have a great evening. We adjourned at

[2:11:06] 811.

Sunset Hills Board of Aldermen 8/12/2026

Transcript