[0:02] Patricia Friebus, mayor.

[0:05] >> Ryan Fernandez, alderman Ward One,

[0:07] >> present.

[0:08] >> Natalie Akens, alderman, Ward One,

[0:10] >> here.

[0:11] >> Marie Davis, alderman Ward Two.

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

[0:14] Present.

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

[0:17] >> here.

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

[0:20] >> present.

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

[0:23] >> here.

[0:24] >> Kathy Freriedman, alderman Ward four,

[0:26] >> here. Alderman Ward four here. Britney

[0:30] Gillette, city administrator,

[0:31] >> here.

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

[0:34] >> here.

[0:35] >> Mike Knight, director of planning and

[0:36] public works,

[0:37] >> here.

[0:38] >> Gerald Brown, director of parks and

[0:40] recreation,

[0:40] >> here.

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

[0:43] >> here.

[0:43] >> Aaron Cely, city attorney,

[0:45] >> here.

[0:46] >> Thank you.

[0:46] Mrs. uh Stone. Next item is

[0:49] approval of the agenda. Um, we need to

[0:52] amend it for the motion to add prestige

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

[0:56] make a comment.

[0:57] >> Yes. I just wanted to say for the record

[0:59] that this did come in late. It is an

[1:01] event that we have numerous years. So it

[1:04] is nothing new. Um however the event

[1:06] does occur before the next meeting and

[1:08] therefore as long as you are comfortable

[1:11] we would find good cause to amend the

[1:13] agenda because of the fact that it did

[1:14] come in late. We are not able to provide

[1:16] the 24 hours notice yet the event will

[1:19] occur before you're able to have a

[1:21] meeting. Um, so a motion to amend the

[1:23] agenda would include that good cause

[1:25] finding for less than 24 hours notice.

[1:28] >> I do have a motion to amend the agenda.

[1:30] Alderman Davis,

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

[1:34] in my ward.

[1:36] >> You have a second.

[1:37] >> I'll second then.

[1:39] >> Uh, Alderman Davis made a motion was

[1:41] seconded by Alderman Schwarz. All in

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

[1:46] amendment.

[1:52] Motion passed as amended.

[1:55] Next item is a consent agenda. Bills to

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

[2:02] >> I'll make a motion.

[2:04] >> Second.

[2:05] >> Motion was made by Alderman Atkins,

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

[2:11] favor?

[2:12] >> I

[2:14] >> Madame Mayor, did we miss the minutes or

[2:16] did I skip?

[2:17] >> [laughter]

[2:17] >> I think I crossed them off before we

[2:19] Thank you for bringing that to my

[2:21] attention.

[2:24] » Uh, do I have a motion for the approval

[2:26] of the minutes of the July 14th, 2026

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

[2:32] special session meeting?

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

[2:38] >> Second.

[2:39] >> Motion was made to approve the minutes

[2:42] from Alderman Wiggle and seconded by

[2:44] Alderman Akens. All in favor?

[2:48] Thank you for bringing that to my

[2:49] attention. The consent agenda also

[2:52] passed. Next,

[2:55] public hearings. The board will consider

[2:57] and discuss a request to amend the text

[3:00] of several sections of the city of

[3:02] Sunset Hills unified development

[3:04] ordinance relating to recreational uses.

[3:10] Anyone from the audience that would like

[3:11] to come forward?

[3:13] Mike. Yes.

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

[3:20] ready here.

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

[3:23] [laughter]

[3:24] >> So, we have uh two public hearings

[3:26] tonight. The first one is a text

[3:29] amendment for the city and it's

[3:30] regarding recreational uses.

[3:34] So, a little background, there was the

[3:36] discussion uh at the board um regarding

[3:39] recreational uses in industrial areas

[3:42] and we were specifically talking about

[3:44] at that time indoor athletic training

[3:46] facilities. We were talking about how

[3:48] these recreational facilities were

[3:50] grouped together and maybe there's a

[3:53] potential text amendment to better

[3:55] understand these and how they relate

[3:56] into our code. Um the issue that was in

[3:59] front of us is we had a use that was

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

[4:04] athletic, recreation, amusement

[4:06] facilities, and indoor. And although it

[4:09] was a use, it wasn't defined. So when we

[4:11] regulate zoning, when we have permitted

[4:13] uses, we want a definition. So when

[4:14] these nuance different community members

[4:17] come in, we know exactly, you know, what

[4:19] that use is or how we define it. We also

[4:22] had something called recreation uses

[4:24] that was permitted, but it was only

[4:26] permitted in parks and conditional and

[4:28] residential areas. It wasn't defined. It

[4:31] almost sound like it was a community

[4:33] pool or tennis court or something like

[4:34] that. It didn't really seem applicable

[4:36] here. Didn't make much sense. Actually,

[4:38] we also had some definitions in our code

[4:40] that didn't have uses. And a lot of

[4:42] these were kind of built part of that

[4:43] other use. said talked about recreation

[4:45] facilities indoor. Um where the the

[4:48] trampolines and the indoor driving

[4:50] ranges, um amusement center indoors

[4:53] where they were talking about coin

[4:54] operated game video game machines, more

[4:57] of a classic arcade and then a health

[4:59] facility indoor and that was called kind

[5:02] of a health club and at minimum these

[5:04] definitions need to be revamped with

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

[5:10] into.

[5:12] So staff looked at uh what we have

[5:15] today, looked at the different uses and

[5:16] say how are they most appropriate in

[5:19] today and what we see out in these

[5:22] different areas, where do they match

[5:23] zoning wise? Um the first conversation

[5:26] we had was the athletic training

[5:28] facility indoor, the one we talked about

[5:30] in depth where these youth sports often

[5:32] have these training specific areas. Um

[5:36] sometimes they're in industrial areas.

[5:38] We talked at the board level. Um, so we

[5:41] defined it as athletic training indoor,

[5:44] made it permitted in both the commercial

[5:46] and industrial

[5:48] zoning districts. Um, also put a parking

[5:53] uh, minimum standard in there that we

[5:54] have with all of our uses. Did the five

[5:57] per thousand, I think it says one per

[5:59] 200 gross floor area. I say five per

[6:01] thousand. It's a pretty standard

[6:03] commercial industrial minimum parking

[6:05] standard that you'll see. We also even

[6:08] talked about at the board level and and

[6:10] internally that athletic training indoor

[6:13] is not one of these larger sports

[6:15] complexes. It's not Scott Gallagher.

[6:18] It's not. So we purposfully define these

[6:21] larger more competition

[6:24] um where everybody comes and watches

[6:26] spectator uh use and said specifically

[6:29] the athletic training facility indoor in

[6:32] that definition is not a sports complex

[6:35] indoor and outdoor. and then define the

[6:37] sports complex and did not make it

[6:39] permitted in any of our zoning

[6:41] districts.

[6:43] Then we have those other three we talked

[6:44] about. So we have one called fitness

[6:46] center and health club. It's a permitted

[6:48] use in commercial. Think your gyms, your

[6:50] Planet Fitnesses that you see in these

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

[6:56] thousand

[6:57] uh parking. And then we had the

[6:59] recreational facilities indoor and

[7:02] talked about um you know this is your

[7:04] indoor arcade bowling whether you're

[7:06] urban air or your main event or your

[7:09] bowling mostly always in commercial

[7:11] permitted in commercial districts. Um

[7:14] and then we [clears throat] also defined

[7:15] movement center outdoor. Now these

[7:17] aren't necessarily always on large

[7:19] tracks of land but they are outdoor. Um

[7:22] think of your mini golf or your batting

[7:24] cage maybe we'll call it swing around

[7:25] funtown something like that that you

[7:27] see. Um, so we didn't make it permitted

[7:29] by right, but since it's outdoor, made

[7:31] it conditional in the commercial

[7:33] districts. Um, and then I used one space

[7:37] per 500. That's just a little research

[7:38] when I looked at there's not a lot of

[7:40] these. Look out there. That seemed to be

[7:41] a common metric for our parking knowing

[7:44] that if anybody did come in, they would

[7:45] have that plan development p permit

[7:47] process that we have.

[7:50] So what we did, there was one

[7:52] recreational use classification that was

[7:54] combined. It didn't define the athletic

[7:56] portion of it for sure and it was only

[7:58] permitted in the commercial districts.

[8:00] So, we had also a use called recreation

[8:03] facilities that was only conditional in

[8:04] single family residential areas and it

[8:06] just didn't make much sense. Um, so we

[8:09] created the five distinct recreational

[8:11] facility uses that we mentioned, applied

[8:14] the applicable zoning districts that we

[8:15] felt were most appropriate, provided a

[8:17] parking standard to them, um, removed

[8:20] that recreation use that didn't seem to

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

[8:25] these subdivisions.

[8:27] Um, this was part of it's a text

[8:29] amendment, so it went to the planning

[8:30] and zoning commission. They are your

[8:31] recommending body for all land use and

[8:33] zoning decisions. Um they recommended

[8:36] approval unanimously as it was

[8:38] submitted. Importantly, tonight the

[8:40] distinguished night is a public hearing.

[8:42] So this is an opportunity for staff to

[8:45] describe the ordinance amendment and

[8:46] really receive feedback. Receive

[8:48] feedback from the board, receive

[8:49] feedback from the members of community,

[8:51] whether they're, you know, here tonight

[8:52] or in the future. Um and and no action

[8:56] is scheduled for tonight. This is

[8:57] strictly on for a public hearing. Closes

[9:00] my presentation and of course I can

[9:02] answer any questions. I said I was going

[9:03] to receive feedback, but I left my

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

[9:07] >> Any questions?

[9:08] >> Alderman Columbo,

[9:11] >> how would you define the VETA bubble?

[9:13] >> Alderman Columbo,

[9:16] >> how would you define the the VETA bubble

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

[9:21] >> Right.

[9:22] >> It's not a sports complex because it has

[9:24] multiple tennis courts.

[9:25] >> Yeah. So, I would say no. Good. I never

[9:28] looked specifically into their

[9:29] operation. And I know we've talked about

[9:31] it from my understanding of their

[9:33] operation or being there. This is one

[9:35] and more of those indoor training

[9:36] facilities and not use events. Now I

[9:38] could have new information and find out

[9:40] that they have massive tournaments or

[9:42] something like that. Again, they're

[9:43] existing condition as they are right

[9:45] now. Um, so no change, but the best of

[9:48] my knowledge, it's an indoor training

[9:50] facility, but without reaching out or

[9:52] understanding really their operation, I

[9:53] have to put that caveat in there.

[9:55] >> Secondly, the the parking.

[9:58] >> Mhm. It seems overly restrictive at one

[10:01] per 200. And and I'll give some examples

[10:03] because I believe Veta currently is

[10:05] 45,000 to 50,000 square feet total

[10:08] between the two bubbles in the building.

[10:11] They have 60 spots on hand.

[10:14] >> So that's like a one per 700ish average.

[10:18] Spirit Gymnastics, Crossgra Boy, they

[10:21] lease 14,000 square feet of that 34,000

[10:24] foot building. He has 27 spots for them

[10:28] on one side of the building and then the

[10:30] remainder of that building has 15 on the

[10:32] other side for his industrial uses and

[10:34] there's 15 spots around back.

[10:37] >> So again, you're into like a one per 450

[10:41] area. Um,

[10:44] and I could go on. I the very other

[10:46] examples here of all American Big Bendon

[10:49] 44. That's another

[10:52] >> Yeah. 40 something 50,000 square foot

[10:55] facility. They're about one per 400

[10:58] under parking. Bud Dome I was just

[11:00] talking to somebody about is an 80,000

[11:02] square foot place, one per 4 to 500. Um,

[11:08] uh, Powerhouse is another one where you

[11:11] know all of these places and these are

[11:13] mostly places that are holding events

[11:16] too, not just training facilities. So,

[11:18] they're way advanced. And I guess my

[11:21] point is in Sunset Hills, we're not

[11:22] getting complaints about parking at

[11:24] Spirit Gymnastics. We're not getting

[11:25] complaints about parking at Veta yet.

[11:28] We're coming at one per 200, which

[11:31] great. Now, we've authorized a use, but

[11:34] it's so overly restrictive that we may

[11:37] never be able to utilize that use

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

[11:41] So,

[11:41] >> sure.

[11:42] >> Just thoughts.

[11:43] >> Five per thousand is typically like kind

[11:45] of a lower parking minimum. I'm not a

[11:47] firm believer that, you know,

[11:50] I I you you clearly looked at all these

[11:52] places and all these things, you know

[11:54] what I mean? So, I'm not like debating.

[11:55] I would just say from a overall

[11:56] perspective, five per thousand isn't a

[11:59] high from what I've known, but

[12:01] >> correct. It's that and that's my point.

[12:03] Powerhouse 45,000 ft, 113 spots, one

[12:06] >> and a lot of these I just think uh

[12:08] important comment is it's the mixture of

[12:10] uses within these buildings, right? So,

[12:12] you you look at the other uses. So they

[12:15] may designate X amount of spaces for

[12:17] these uses, but if they're mixed, maybe

[12:19] they're lower in other ones. You you

[12:21] look at the building as a whole, right?

[12:23] You take each use, you say what the

[12:24] requirements are, you see what the

[12:26] >> parking but I guess my point is most of

[12:29] these places get more use than an

[12:31] athletic training facility will ever

[12:33] get, right? Because they're hosting

[12:35] competitions. They're hosting multiple

[12:38] practices and a competition. So, I I if

[12:42] when it comes to time for this ordinance

[12:45] to come up, I I think I'm going to make

[12:47] a motion to amend to be a little less

[12:48] restrictive so that we can actually

[12:50] utilize some of those places versus

[12:52] having something that's allowed but will

[12:54] no longer be practical to use. And I

[12:57] would say part of the public hearing

[12:59] process is to gather feedback and

[13:01] understand. So, I think, you know, I'll

[13:03] do the same. I'll look into it, see what

[13:04] I can find on these nuanced areas and

[13:07] come with that information.

[13:08] >> Yeah. Any other questions from the

[13:11] board?

[13:12] >> Yes,

[13:13] >> Alderman Schwarz. Um,

[13:14] >> yes. I'm not quite as good as Alderman

[13:17] Columbo is with Google Earth, but uh so

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

[13:22] to I'm going to echo his his sentiment

[13:24] and I think that

[13:27] one to 200 puts them on par with

[13:30] municipal buildings, trade schools,

[13:33] vocational schools, college and

[13:36] universities.

[13:37] And I don't think that the property that

[13:41] we're talking about is consistent with

[13:45] those three that I just cited.

[13:49] >> Sure.

[13:51] >> Alderman Doss.

[13:52] >> Um I heard a lot of wisdom from the

[13:55] other side of the table. So my question

[13:57] to you, Michael, is PNZ passed this

[14:00] unanimously. Was this parking issue

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

[14:05] recollection?

[14:06] >> No.

[14:08] Not much conversation, just a lot of

[14:09] nodding of heads of the split of uses,

[14:11] not not a lot of dialogue overall.

[14:16] » Thank you,

[14:18] >> Alderman Freriedman.

[14:19] >> Um,

[14:21] I'm just wondering why athletic

[14:23] >> microphone microphone.

[14:25] >> Yes, I'm sorry.

[14:27] >> My apologies. Um, athletic training

[14:30] facilities indoor is permitted in

[14:33] LCGCLI,

[14:35] which which I think is fine. Um, fitness

[14:39] center health and amusement center

[14:41] outdoor

[14:43] are only in commercial but not LI. Is

[14:46] there a reason for that?

[14:48] >> They just seem much more like commercial

[14:50] operations where much more people go in

[14:51] and out. That seemed more commercial

[14:53] than industrial despite this use.

[14:56] Usually work for a day. You don't see

[14:58] that in and out like you see in these

[14:59] commercial areas

[15:01] >> and

[15:04] sports complex indoor or outdoor is not

[15:08] permitted in any is that so

[15:14] » we we say that we don't think that's

[15:16] appropriate anywhere in the city

[15:19] >> exactly and I think it's a perfect

[15:20] format for this discussion right now

[15:22] unless you see that different it was

[15:23] more defining the two and saying that

[15:26] the athletic indoor is not a sports

[15:29] facility indoor. I'm not aware of like

[15:31] our comprehensive plan or or some sort

[15:33] of guiding document that said these

[15:35] large facilities would be in these

[15:37] certain areas. We're largely a built

[15:39] environment. These typically are larger,

[15:40] but that's a perfect opportunity right

[15:42] now unless we, you know, we see this as

[15:46] being appropriate somewhere.

[15:47] >> Yeah. So, I mean, I look at our driving

[15:50] range and I think we've got some

[15:52] instructional

[15:54] there

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

[15:59] a sports complex,

[16:02] indoor, outdoor with training areas?

[16:05] >> I would say with all our parks, we

[16:06] consider them our parks. We usually

[16:07] don't zone them into like commercial

[16:09] designations.

[16:10] >> Is there a reason why that isn't why we

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

[16:14] spaces? And

[16:16] >> yeah, looking at this and Mike and I

[16:19] talked about this a lot. The I think the

[16:21] crux of these um sports complexes is

[16:24] that they are there to generate

[16:25] spectators and that's listed in the

[16:27] definition where these are you're trying

[16:29] to get a lot of people there. So you see

[16:31] these giant volleyball uh you know

[16:34] complexes where there's 30, 40, 50

[16:37] courts and they're all operating on one

[16:39] day at the same time and it's the intent

[16:41] is to draw people in there. In looking

[16:45] at the city of Sunset Hills, I'm not

[16:47] sure where we would fit something of

[16:49] that size. When you look at the actual

[16:50] complex and then the parking that is

[16:52] required and is never enough at those

[16:54] types of facilities. Um, and to Mike's

[16:57] point, we can continue to talk about

[16:59] this. If if the board disagrees, we're

[17:01] certainly open to that conversation, but

[17:03] just looking at the city of Sunset

[17:04] Hills, where we're located, our current

[17:06] open space for development, I'm not sure

[17:09] where that would ever fit. And we

[17:10] certainly wanted to pull out these

[17:13] recreational or athletic training

[17:15] facilities from that because they are

[17:17] truthfully operating under two different

[17:19] very modes.

[17:20] >> Okay. And there's no problem with our

[17:24] parks department doing that, but we tell

[17:26] other people they can't.

[17:29] >> There's not a legal problem. They are

[17:31] they're designated as parks and open

[17:32] space and they operate under the

[17:34] municipal park operations.

[17:36] >> Okay. Well, I just I I mean when we've

[17:39] so

[17:42] I don't know how closely the other

[17:44] aldermen have looked at this, but when

[17:45] you've got sports complex indoor or

[17:47] outdoor as a use and there's no little

[17:51] P's or C's across the little grid, that

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

[17:57] >> correct.

[17:58] >> Yeah.

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

[17:59] intention. Again, we're we're open to

[18:01] conversation. Um, but that was the

[18:03] intention was to leave those defined and

[18:05] then not allow them or not permit them.

[18:07] >> And may I just ask when when this comes

[18:09] up, can we put the the use chart? I had

[18:13] to write my own little notes about what

[18:17] >> district it was in. The use chart

[18:19] doesn't show it in the ordinance.

[18:21] >> So that would just be helpful

[18:23] >> in the draft ordinance. Yeah. Like a

[18:24] supplementary exhibit

[18:25] >> out a little. It's because we just

[18:26] pulled that and it's but it would still

[18:30] be

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

[18:32] supplementary chart exhibit. Yeah.

[18:36] >> Thank you,

[18:37] >> Alderman Columbbo.

[18:38] >> Alderman Freeman, I you know, since I

[18:40] kind of brought this to the

[18:41] >> microphone,

[18:42] >> I just want to say I was purposeful and

[18:45] not trying to lump sports complexes in

[18:47] because I'm a user of those and I

[18:50] realize how much traffic they generate

[18:53] and I just thought, hey, let's just keep

[18:55] it simple for now, you know, and and

[18:57] address what

[18:59] >> Yeah. the existing non-conforming uses

[19:01] were rather than bring in new uses. So,

[19:04] >> and I tend to favor that approach. I

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

[19:10] Thank you,

[19:11] >> Alderman Fernandez.

[19:12] >> Thanks, Madam Mayor. Um, Mr. N. I just

[19:14] want to confirm um I have two separate

[19:16] questions. One is any of this how it

[19:18] relates to we do have an approval

[19:20] obviously for the bombers activity down

[19:21] at Bander Park and a park. So, is that

[19:24] the pure distinction there on why that

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

[19:28] lease, right?

[19:30] >> It is operating through a lease. Um the

[19:34] use obviously just like any other change

[19:36] to our UDO, the the existing items are

[19:38] grandfathered in. So any any change to

[19:40] this won't impact existing facilities or

[19:43] um sports complex operations.

[19:45] >> Great. Thank you. And then second one

[19:46] very different. Um the thing about the

[19:48] residential areas, obviously since the

[19:50] UDO went in, pickle ball became a rage.

[19:53] How would that apply if a subdivision

[19:55] wouldn't put in a pickle ball court or

[19:56] anything else like that this time?

[19:58] >> Those are typical and I say most cities

[20:00] just passive amenities.

[20:01] >> Alderman Fernandez, I didn't hear the

[20:03] question. So, do you mind repeating?

[20:06] >> Absolutely. I'm sorry.

[20:07] >> I'm I'm going talk right into this

[20:09] thing. [laughter]

[20:11] >> Uh since the UDO went in as pickle balls

[20:14] obviously skyrocketed other paddle

[20:15] sports, I was just curious how that

[20:17] would apply that one provision around

[20:18] residential areas. So, I'd say like um

[20:21] most cities, if you have amenities that

[20:23] are in common ground that are used for

[20:26] your subdivision, they're just common

[20:28] ground. You get a building permit for

[20:29] something like that. They don't have a

[20:30] separate use designation because they're

[20:32] not really a commercial enterprise in

[20:34] those subdivisions.

[20:35] >> Okay. Not advocating for more of those,

[20:38] but yeah. Thank you.

[20:41] >> Any other questions from the board?

[20:44] All right. Would anyone from the

[20:46] audience uh have any comments? Mr.

[20:48] better. Do you want to add anything?

[20:52] No. Okay. Anyone else in the audience

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

[20:55] hearing?

[20:57] All right.

[20:59] >> Thank you very much. Now, close this

[21:01] public hearing [clears throat]

[21:04] >> and we're going to open the next one.

[21:06] The board will consider and discuss a

[21:08] request to amend the text of several

[21:10] sections of the city of Sunset Hills

[21:12] unified development ordinance relating

[21:15] to senior living uses. Mr. Knight.

[21:19] >> Yep. This one is known as PO7 2026

[21:23] um regarding the senior living uses. Uh

[21:26] so just take a step back like we did

[21:28] with the last one, you know, why make

[21:30] the amendments. So, uh, we talked about

[21:33] at the board before Friendship Village

[21:35] acquired some property next to their

[21:37] existing site directly to the east

[21:39] called the Delta Dental Building. Um,

[21:41] and they were also acquiring the

[21:43] commuter lot right next to that Delta

[21:45] Dental Building. Um, and what we found

[21:49] is that there's no clear path for

[21:52] expansion as the senior living uses, the

[21:55] plan retirement care, they're not

[21:56] permitted in our current UDO. Um, I'm

[22:00] not aware of that intentionally being

[22:02] removed from the UDO, meaning I haven't

[22:04] heard conversations of saying let's keep

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

[22:10] there's no P on those uses um existing

[22:13] in our code. Um, and we do know we do

[22:15] have existing senior living facilities.

[22:17] So, that could happen not just there.

[22:19] Again, I brought kind of how we got

[22:20] here, but this is other senior living

[22:22] facilities too. Use not user.

[22:25] So, I was going to give you one slide to

[22:27] describe this. I would say that what

[22:29] this text amendment does is it creates

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

[22:35] permitting the senior living uses um

[22:38] verse making them permitted in existing

[22:41] districts. At first when I was looking

[22:42] that I was think well maybe these would

[22:43] be most appropriate in commercial

[22:45] districts being permitted but went with

[22:47] creating a new district specifically for

[22:50] senior living. Um it requires senior

[22:52] living to go through the plan

[22:54] development permit process. So as we

[22:56] know all of the developments that come

[22:57] through the UDO outline that process for

[23:00] commercial office industrial and this

[23:02] would follow that same anything but

[23:04] single family development process. Um it

[23:08] permits plan retirement care centers

[23:10] that is how friendship village was

[23:11] defined in the old uh zoning code. Um

[23:15] also assisted living facilities and

[23:17] nursing homes. Those are the uses that

[23:19] are in our current code just not

[23:21] permitted. It establishes a 5A per

[23:24] minimum. So a minimum lot size uh for

[23:26] the senior living facilities. Um it

[23:29] limits density to 11 residential

[23:32] accommodations or units per acre. Um it

[23:35] adds an open space requirement and a

[23:37] residential uh parking setback

[23:40] requirement. So not just building but

[23:41] the parking setbacks would apply too. Um

[23:44] and establishes a parking formula uh for

[23:47] the planned retirement care centers

[23:49] because those other two uses that were

[23:50] permitted had a parking formula. So just

[23:53] to walk through briefly again a new use

[23:57] is added. So we have our 12 existing

[23:58] districts. This would add senior living.

[24:02] Um we have the district regulations. So

[24:04] this is where we state the 5 acre lot

[24:06] minimum um lot width and setbacks versus

[24:10] maybe the commercial that has the 10

[24:12] 20,000 foot lot minimums. [snorts]

[24:15] Um it adds the plan planned retirement

[24:17] care center back into our code. Again,

[24:19] that's one was defined in our old code

[24:21] that Friendship Village was under. Put

[24:23] it back in under permitted only in those

[24:25] senior living district. Um, put the

[24:29] parking in uh the existing parking one

[24:32] per three beds. I'll say that is pretty

[24:33] common among facilities. Um, but the

[24:36] plan retirement care that's more we'll

[24:38] get to the definition a mixture of

[24:40] retirement from independent to senior to

[24:43] assisted. Um and you'll see and so it

[24:46] said one space per dwelling unit and one

[24:48] space per three beds knowing that these

[24:50] developments would go through that plan

[24:52] development process right and outline

[24:54] their parking. [snorts] It also has a

[24:57] use provision and the use provision

[24:59] talks about these kind of those

[25:01] additional standards that we put on some

[25:03] uses like a car wash something specific

[25:05] and it says all the uses would have the

[25:07] density would also have an open space

[25:09] requirement of 50% and it would have uh

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

[25:15] 30 ft.

[25:18] This is where we put it in the plan

[25:20] development process. We would add senior

[25:22] living. These are the definitions. there

[25:24] in your packet. But again, it defines

[25:26] assisted living and nursing home the

[25:28] same, but brings that planned retirement

[25:29] care center uh definition that was in

[25:33] our previous zoning code back into this

[25:34] code.

[25:38] So,

[25:40] um currently senior living the

[25:42] regulations, they're not permitted in

[25:43] any of our current districts. We know

[25:45] that. Um regardless, all of these senior

[25:48] living facilities may continue to

[25:49] operate today under their current

[25:51] entitlements. it's only when they look

[25:52] to expand significant change when they

[25:55] would need a site development allowance

[25:57] something like that they'd be required

[25:58] to go into a new district um this

[26:00] creates a separate zoning district

[26:02] remember at first I was thinking is it

[26:03] permitted in another one this creates

[26:04] its own district um plan development

[26:07] process will remain this adds density

[26:10] open space and those are largely based

[26:12] off friendship village I didn't do a lot

[26:14] of research on new but really the

[26:15] accommodations of the existing facility

[26:17] when I was looking at density and open

[26:19] space that's where I got those numbers

[26:22] Um at PNZ there was a robust discussion

[26:24] about this just from lot sizes to um

[26:28] where they would be how it would work.

[26:30] We had a pretty healthy um discussion.

[26:34] Uh they did recommend to approve

[26:35] unanimously there. They did have a

[26:38] couple recommendations that are in your

[26:39] packet right there that you see again

[26:42] the public hearing. This is why we're

[26:43] here today especially for the public.

[26:45] It's for me to receive feedback from

[26:46] you. Understand the ordinance amendment

[26:48] that I put in front. receive feedback

[26:50] from of course the board, the general

[26:52] public. No actions scheduled tonight,

[26:55] but what are your thoughts and concerns?

[26:56] This one? Yeah, that concludes my

[27:00] presentation and I can answer any

[27:01] questions.

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

[27:04] Freriedman?

[27:06] >> I think it's interesting.

[27:09] >> I'm sorry,

[27:10] >> Mr. Harding. I think it's interesting

[27:13] that we are looking at this approach

[27:17] after we just went through a very

[27:19] abbreviated and I think proper way to

[27:23] handle you know we we've got an issue

[27:26] with training indoor training centers

[27:29] >> and we're not setting up an athletic

[27:33] zone because we don't have a

[27:36] comprehensive athletic zone. Mhm.

[27:39] [clears throat]

[27:39] >> We could just as easily and I think more

[27:42] conservatively and more properly

[27:45] address the the friendship village issue

[27:50] and any other

[27:54] homes um rehab centers,

[27:58] assisted living facilities by putting

[28:02] little P's and C's in our use chart. Um,

[28:07] you know, I've I've spoken to um Mr.

[28:10] Knight about this and he said his

[28:13] initial concern was that,

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

[28:22] commercial districts

[28:25] that any commercial district could have

[28:27] a senior living um you know the this is

[28:32] our map, our zoning map. I don't think

[28:35] we ever even look at it. The thing that

[28:37] I think jumps out at you is yellow.

[28:40] There's a bunch of yellow, light yellow

[28:42] and dark yellow. That's res. That's R1

[28:46] and R2. That's the bulk of our our city.

[28:51] And when you look at

[28:55] commercial and

[28:59] commercial, it's the red and the pink

[29:01] kind of in high

[29:04] traffic areas, I guess, you know, not in

[29:06] the middle of residential.

[29:09] And I I think, you know, planned

[29:12] retirement center, nursing home,

[29:13] assisted living, those are all

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

[29:18] properly belong in commercial

[29:20] enterprises. I agree that, you know, we

[29:22] should probably tighten up the um the

[29:26] definitions. Um but I think that is a

[29:29] more conservative and a better approach.

[29:31] And Mr. night has told me that that was

[29:35] his initial thoughts about this and um I

[29:40] think his um initial instincts were the

[29:43] right ones. So,

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

[29:50] thoughts, but

[29:52] >> can I

[29:53] >> Alderman Davis?

[29:55] >> Um, isn't French village a religiously

[29:58] based um run company nonprofit

[30:02] >> and the same thing with the one that is

[30:05] next to Lommire uh the Christian I don't

[30:08] know what

[30:08] >> Peace Haven.

[30:09] >> Okay, so those are both religiously run.

[30:12] How does that affect all of this?

[30:14] >> From a use perspective, it wouldn't. You

[30:16] know, they could sell today to something

[30:18] different. I'm sure there's other

[30:19] implications for these, but from the use

[30:21] operating of an assisted living nursing

[30:24] home

[30:25] >> despite ownership. Yeah. Again, there

[30:27] might be other ramifications of having

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

[30:31] >> Okay.

[30:32] >> Alderman Columbo.

[30:34] >> Yeah. I [clears throat] think about it

[30:36] kind of like that because if you look at

[30:37] like a peace haven, it's scattered out

[30:39] amongst the residential district.

[30:42] condos at Lomire Place or in a

[30:44] residential district. The is it Kindred

[30:47] Senior Center next to that in a

[30:50] residential area.

[30:52] >> I mean, these all seem to fit very well

[30:54] throughout our community. I don't I I I

[30:57] personally like the senior living zoning

[30:59] designation because these things are a

[31:01] benefit for to our community. It's nice

[31:03] to have them spread out around versus

[31:05] just all stuck in one particular area.

[31:08] And I I mean I think Friendship Village

[31:10] is just a perfect example of a well-run

[31:13] facility that that really blends into

[31:15] our, you know, our our city. So

[31:19] >> I think we're very blessed to have a lot

[31:21] of choices in our community to stay in

[31:22] Sunset Hills as we age.

[31:25] Well, and I would add to that the

[31:27] courtyards and Sunset Grove being two

[31:30] places that are in such high demand to

[31:32] get into that unless you're willing to

[31:35] really pay over ask, you're you can't

[31:37] touch those. So, all of those places I

[31:39] think have benefited Sunset Hills and

[31:41] brought some diversity amongst the the

[31:43] senior crowd. And so, yeah, I'm really

[31:47] in favor of this.

[31:50] >> Mr. Knight, I say I can expand a little

[31:52] bit because I think Alderman Freeman

[31:53] said it well, but just again

[31:54] I think they absolutely can be in

[31:56] commercial districts. I think you can

[31:57] put permitted and and I think a lot of

[31:59] cities do operate that way, especially

[32:00] if you have a downtown area and you have

[32:02] all these different things. My thought

[32:04] process was just like we we talked

[32:07] about, you know, the seventh amended

[32:09] plan reusing these areas and if we're

[32:12] saying you are now a commercial zoning

[32:14] district which has all these P's and

[32:16] things as re reuse, are we looking at

[32:19] these areas as commercial areas or we

[32:22] envisioning them? Are we really just

[32:24] talking about senior living? And that's

[32:27] how I went. I think it could operate in

[32:29] both, but let's say we'll just not use

[32:32] French village the across the street

[32:34] chest rehab. You know, let's say they

[32:36] take down the house that requires

[32:38] reszoning. They're commercial now. They

[32:40] have all these different permits. Yes,

[32:41] they still need a plan. Yes, they still

[32:43] need further approvals, but you are

[32:45] saying as a city, this is a commercial

[32:46] area. Now, yes, we have to meet your

[32:50] requirements, but all of the other

[32:52] permitted uses you're telling me that

[32:54] are permitted here as long as you have

[32:56] meet the code and those plans. That's

[32:59] how my thought process were 100% right.

[33:01] I did start with permitted. I think it

[33:03] works either way, but that's where my

[33:07] thought process went is as you start

[33:09] calling these local commercial or

[33:10] general commercial and they change reuse

[33:13] over time, are we considering these

[33:15] commercial now? on what would that do?

[33:19] >> Any other questions or comments from the

[33:21] board? Alderman Akens.

[33:23] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um I think I

[33:26] heard you say that you use Friendship

[33:27] Village to build the specifications here

[33:29] on like five plus acres and such, but do

[33:32] the other um facilities, senior living

[33:34] facilities in Sunset Hills meet those

[33:36] specifications? And are these pretty

[33:37] standard? Cuz

[33:40] >> yeah, these can go across the board

[33:42] depending on your community in terms of

[33:44] standardization. Originally I add three

[33:47] because I want to say there's one that's

[33:50] four, five, eight and 50, right? So we

[33:52] just see the gamut of of how these

[33:54] operate.

[33:56] Um

[33:58] I I think any of them work I think when

[34:00] we talk about our existing facilities

[34:02] too when they go through the they can

[34:04] request a site development allowance

[34:06] when they come in. So if you do have a 3

[34:08] acre spot and you are requesting some a

[34:11] modest change,

[34:13] it's up to the board obviously, but it's

[34:15] an existing condition that we've dealt

[34:17] with before as codes change and adapt

[34:19] where when you look at new facilities,

[34:21] you're saying, "Hey, this is our set

[34:22] standard." So I think I think it can

[34:26] operate in any direction. I think five

[34:28] accommodates three of them right now and

[34:32] that one if there was a change that

[34:35] needed to be made they could request to

[34:38] say this is the reason why four makes

[34:40] sense for me because I'm in an existing

[34:42] condition again just if that kind of

[34:44] helps that discussion

[34:45] >> thank you and then one other thing and I

[34:47] didn't notice it when you went through

[34:49] this presentation so you might have already updated it but in the

[34:52] materials that were sent out to us we

[34:54] had removed senior housing as a

[34:56] permitted use,

[34:57] >> but on section six in the parking table,

[35:00] it was still listed as a standalone row.

[35:02] So, just wanted to make you aware.

[35:03] >> Yeah. Was it taken out of the parking?

[35:10] » So, sorry, I just thought about that.

[35:12] So, senior housing I don't think was

[35:14] removed from our code. We just didn't

[35:16] make it permitted and that's why it

[35:18] would stay in the parking because if it

[35:20] was ever activated, not that we

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

[35:23] happened.

[35:24] >> That makes sense. Thank you. Mhm.

[35:25] >> Any other questions from the board?

[35:29] >> Freriedman.

[35:30] >> So,

[35:32] Mr. Knight mentioned that you know if

[35:34] you've got a commercial district that

[35:37] it's open to anything

[35:40] friendship village or anybody would come

[35:42] and say I want to operate this business

[35:46] un and they'd go under section 7 of the

[35:49] UDO to develop a plan development

[35:54] and part of that plan development is you

[35:56] know we've dealt with them we're going

[35:59] to do all of these things and there's

[36:01] going to be this much open space and you

[36:04] know we'll have this much parking and we

[36:07] can't maintain this buffer because it's

[36:10] just too much and it would be better if

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

[36:14] accommodations

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

[36:20] development

[36:23] that does not allow just any old

[36:27] commercial use in the planned

[36:29] development. the what governs that

[36:33] planned development is the ordinance.

[36:36] So, it's not like

[36:39] Friendship Village could put a car wash

[36:42] on the property. And I think Friendship

[36:45] Village is a wonderful

[36:50] um campus, a wonderful business, um uh a

[36:55] wonderful place to live. The residents

[36:57] there are, you know,

[36:59] >> are very happy there. I think it's a

[37:02] model, but it is, you know, 50 acres.

[37:07] This would be 5 acres. And the reason

[37:11] why we've got Peace Haven at 5 acres is

[37:14] because Peace Haven was there before the

[37:17] city incorporated.

[37:19] So, they were grandfathered in. And I

[37:21] think it behooved the city for them to

[37:24] do the great up upkeep up updating that

[37:27] they did

[37:29] uh um

[37:32] six years ago, eight years ago. Mhm.

[37:35] >> And the lawnmire is a matter of, you

[37:38] know, just trying to fix a problem that

[37:41] went bad that, you know, that was

[37:43] supposed to be condos and the

[37:45] development

[37:47] was underwater and that got put in. you

[37:50] know, if we go with senior living, I

[37:52] think to have these, you know, little

[37:55] pockets of areas that you can string

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

[38:00] five lots, it

[38:03] I think we all think of Friendship

[38:05] Village and it's great and it is and we

[38:09] want to help them

[38:12] expand. I don't think having a senior

[38:15] living district is going to do that. And

[38:20] you know the section 7 says that

[38:25] once a um

[38:28] once a plan district is approved or

[38:31] disappro if once a plan district is

[38:33] approved that the zoning map shall shall

[38:38] be amended to include the district. So

[38:42] on this zoning map you can see little

[38:44] hash marks. Those hash marks are planned

[38:46] dis or planned developments. So, it's it

[38:51] I don't see that the city would be

[38:54] opening itself to any problems if

[38:58] Friendship Village came to the city and

[39:00] said, "Okay, we've got this Delta Dental

[39:03] building and we want to add it on and

[39:07] that entails a reasonzoning and then we

[39:10] will go forward with this plan

[39:12] development." Those things all happen

[39:16] at one time. you know, we'll have

[39:19] four ordinances on the docket or the

[39:23] agenda

[39:25] >> that would handle all of them. So, I I

[39:28] just don't see

[39:30] the need to put, you know, another

[39:34] district on the map. Um

[39:38] because we because at this point there's

[39:41] a very good

[39:45] um corporate

[39:48] citizen of Sunset Hills that houses, you

[39:52] know, a lot of Sunset Hills residences

[39:56] residents very happily. Um, I don't see

[40:00] that's the reason that's a reason for

[40:02] just expanding another expanding our

[40:06] code to include another district. Thank

[40:09] you.

[40:12] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. So, listening

[40:14] to you, Michael, and to Alderman

[40:16] [clears throat] Freriedman, here is my

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

[40:20] answer.

[40:22] So,

[40:23] someone buys

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

[40:31] They've combined the property.

[40:34] Can they under some of these rules that

[40:36] you're showing us tonight

[40:39] in a residential district that

[40:41] encompasses five acres put this kind of

[40:44] facility there? It would be no different

[40:46] if there was an LSL district or a

[40:50] planned commercial district. Anybody can

[40:52] request to zone anywhere. We have a

[40:55] comprehensive plan that says this is the

[40:57] single family residential areas. This

[40:59] is, you know, so like that's a guiding

[41:01] document. Um but it whether you went SL

[41:05] or you went permitted in commercial,

[41:08] it'd be the same conversation. You' just

[41:10] be requesting a different district. Oh,

[41:12] yeah. You'd have to resone either way.

[41:14] it would just be which district are you

[41:15] reszoning to.

[41:17] >> But I think to to Mr. Knight's point

[41:20] earlier, if you do go the commercial

[41:22] route with the P's and C's across the

[41:24] youth table and that that happens, um,

[41:28] now you've got you have a commercial

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

[41:33] in the middle of a light industrial, in

[41:35] the middle of wherever that ends up

[41:37] being reszoned. And for today, that use

[41:39] might fit, right? It might be a memory

[41:41] care facility. That does make sense

[41:42] right outside of a neighborhood where

[41:44] there was an open 5 acres. But once you

[41:46] have that zoning, that zoning is there.

[41:48] The plan development to Alderman

[41:50] Freriedman's point does govern what

[41:53] happens with within that lot. But our

[41:56] use table is going to govern the use.

[41:59] So, we could not have a store come up

[42:02] and say we want to, you know, purchase

[42:03] the property that was the existing

[42:05] memory care facility and we want to use

[42:07] it as a store, which we've got permitted

[42:09] in our commercial districts. We won't be

[42:11] able to say no because of that use. We

[42:13] could tweak their plan. We could say you

[42:15] need this many parking spaces, your

[42:16] setbacks are too small. All of those

[42:18] things are governed by that plan

[42:19] development, but the use is governed by

[42:21] the use table. So when you start calling

[42:24] things commercial and just plugging in

[42:26] other uses, we have to remember that in

[42:28] 5, 10, 30 years from now, if that use is

[42:31] still permitted in a commercial, it it

[42:33] could become that other thing. And

[42:36] >> this is not an overlay.

[42:39] >> The the PD is not an overlay. It becomes

[42:41] its own district. the the board shall

[42:45] direct

[42:47] the city administrator

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

[42:54] district.

[42:56] >> If it is zoned commercial, the the

[42:58] permitted uses within the commercial are permitted.

[43:03] >> You're saying it's not an over you're

[43:06] saying it is an overlay.

[43:08] our our plan developments, those plans

[43:11] do operate as an overlay. They do um

[43:15] you've got your uses within

[43:17] >> We had we had um vigorous discussion on

[43:20] this when we passed the UDO and the

[43:23] decision was it would not be an overlay.

[43:26] >> I I understand what you're saying. I

[43:27] understand what the code says, but we're

[43:29] not creating a new zoning district every

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

[43:35] saying. We aren't creating a new

[43:37] >> The map would beg to differ.

[43:42] I I understand the map. We have a use

[43:44] table if it's zoned general commercial

[43:47] and there's a PD on top of it that

[43:49] allows for the Home Depots and the and

[43:50] all those things and the Bass Pro I

[43:52] think is technically but you're going to

[43:55] have a very hard time denying something

[43:58] that was reszoned for a memory care

[44:01] facility and now wants to become

[44:03] something else that is general

[44:04] commercial. you're going to it's going

[44:06] to be far more difficult than if you

[44:08] create its own zoning district and you

[44:09] say the only thing allowed in these

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

[44:14] become a Walmart. You can never become a

[44:16] QT. And it's just going to be far more

[44:19] restrictive that way now and in the

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

[44:26] district

[44:27] and

[44:31] village fell into the ground,

[44:34] the only thing that could go there is a

[44:38] nursing home or

[44:39] >> assuming they reszoned. I don't know

[44:41] what their existing zoning is, but

[44:42] assuming they did reszone into a senior

[44:44] living, they they redeveloped whatever.

[44:46] Yes. They fell into the ground. The only

[44:48] thing that can go into that spot without

[44:50] the board approving a reasonzoning would

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

[44:53] uses,

[44:56] [clears throat]

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

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

[45:04] » Question, Alderman Davis.

[45:07] So, I have my five acres and I decide

[45:11] that I want to have an apartment

[45:13] building or I want to have a condo

[45:16] building, but if it's not zone senior

[45:19] living only, that can happen, right?

[45:22] >> No. So,

[45:23] >> we don't have multif family permit.

[45:25] >> So, multif family wouldn't be what we're

[45:27] talking about. And again, you're it

[45:29] sounds like we're talking about a single

[45:31] family zone subdivision. There's there's

[45:33] no change that you get entitlements to.

[45:36] You'd be requesting into a new district,

[45:38] just like you'd be requesting to an LC

[45:40] if you wanted commercial, SL, senior

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

[45:48] Yeah. And again, I just sorry, I do

[45:52] think it'll work either way. Like I I

[45:54] don't want to act like one way is vastly

[45:57] different. I think she did a great point

[45:58] just explaining my thought process of

[46:00] reuse over time and calling it

[46:02] commercial if we're not truly seeing

[46:04] these areas of commercial. Even though I

[46:06] do know senior living operates as

[46:08] commercial. That's what I'm saying. I

[46:09] get it. And to echo and I I won't go far

[46:12] just you do require a plan. That's the

[46:14] plan development. You need to get a plan

[46:16] approved. It's just if you meet the code

[46:18] requirements and you have a plan and and

[46:20] that's the zoning district,

[46:22] that's what you're looking at. I will

[46:25] say too from another perspective of not

[46:26] just future redevelopment of these

[46:28] senior living facilities but our our

[46:30] commercial districts are are not very

[46:33] large right we are we are highly

[46:35] residential we're a neighborhood

[46:36] community the city thrives very well on

[46:38] it but I think it is important you know

[46:41] for the fiscal responsibility of us in

[46:43] this community is to ensure that we do

[46:45] protect those those commercial districts

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

[46:49] continue operating and to continue

[46:50] bringing in sales tax dollars to the

[46:52] city so we can continue to be as great

[46:54] as we are. And so keeping that separate

[46:57] where they and not to be, you know, too

[47:00] abrasive, but they they don't bring in

[47:01] tax dollars. And so keeping those

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

[47:05] protect those existing commercial

[47:06] zonings and make sure that use is

[47:09] exactly what that's for. And then those

[47:11] can operate, the senior living

[47:12] facilities can operate in other spaces

[47:14] that are less commercial attractive.

[47:19] » Alderman Davis. So there are two 5 acre

[47:23] maybe 5 acre plus uh sections across

[47:27] from Thomas Jefferson school um that

[47:30] right now one is completely it's all

[47:32] trees it's never been developed at all

[47:34] and one has five houses on it I think so

[47:38] how can that can those be changed to be

[47:40] senior living um areas or not

[47:44] >> the owners could apply for a

[47:46] reasonzoning if they wished to do that

[47:48] under under this they would meet that 5

[47:50] acre requirement. Obviously, we'd have

[47:52] to look at their plan. And that's the

[47:53] thing, too. Now, you're talking about a

[47:55] complete resoning, which is a heftier

[47:57] process. The board has a lot more

[47:58] authority on saying no to a resoning

[48:00] than you would on something that's

[48:02] permitted, even if it's conditional. Um,

[48:04] but to answer your question, anybody

[48:06] could apply and if at that time the

[48:09] board thought that that was a suitable

[48:10] use for that space, you all would

[48:12] approve a reszoning and then essentially

[48:14] eventually a plan development.

[48:16] >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions

[48:19] from the board?

[48:20] >> Just a comment if we're going to key and

[48:23] I I think it is appropriate if we're

[48:25] going to look to Friendship Village as

[48:29] um an inspiration for how we move

[48:32] forward. You know, that the existing

[48:35] size of that is 50 acres and that's what

[48:37] makes it such a beautiful campus with so

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

[48:43] another

[48:44] six acres. Um, I think five acres is

[48:48] woefully small for if you're going to um

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

[48:55] Thank you.

[48:57] >> Any other comments from the board?

[48:59] Alderman Columbo? I I think I would add

[49:02] that Peace Haven is also a model of how

[49:04] to upgrade and build and that is on five

[49:06] acres and I I not to say that like Lommy

[49:10] Place condos and that's not necessarily

[49:12] a senior thing but that's less than a 5

[49:15] acre piece. I mean so tasteful things

[49:17] can be done on five acre

[49:20] >> pieces of property that look very nice

[49:22] and blend in with our community.

[49:26] >> 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

[49:44] hodgepodge just listen to you all a lot

[49:48] of thoughts. Um, I talked to Mike a

[49:51] little bit before this meeting began and

[49:54] the five acre issue uh uh came up. Uh,

[49:58] as you probably know, you have four

[50:01] senior living facilities in the city

[50:03] right now. Uh, one of them is uh 3 acres

[50:07] in Friendship Village is 50 acres. He

[50:10] didn't know what the next one is above

[50:13] uh three acres. So I'm I'm questioning,

[50:16] you know, you you think about Friendship

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

[50:23] Lomar U

[50:24] >> [clears throat]

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

[50:30] large enough? Um

[50:33] and also am concerned about the uh

[50:36] setbacks that are listed here. Um

[50:40] when LMAR uh was was built, yes, it was

[50:43] supposed to be condos uh and it was

[50:46] changed to senior living. Um but there

[50:49] was a number of issues uh as it was

[50:52] being built. I happened to be an

[50:54] alderman at the time and Doug Magcguire

[50:57] happens to be here at this meeting uh

[51:00] was an alderman and also the trustee on

[51:03] Merit Drive. And there were some

[51:05] residents that backed up to uh that

[51:08] facility and they had a whole bunch of

[51:11] issues and uh justified issues too. So

[51:17] um I'm also thinking back to when I was

[51:20] an alderman years ago. Uh some uh

[51:23] residents in Sunset Manor approached me

[51:26] about reszoning that area.

[51:30] um they were zoned at R5, which is 7,500

[51:34] square ft.

[51:36] And so if they wanted to do anything to

[51:38] their homes, uh their lots were too

[51:41] small. The average lot uh in uh Sunset

[51:46] Matter is 50 by 132, which calculates to

[51:51] just over 5,000 ft. So, uh, the majority

[51:56] of those people had to jump through

[51:57] hoops just to do, uh, some improvements

[52:01] to their homes.

[52:03] So we uh decided the board back then to

[52:08] uh reduce or create a new zoning uh

[52:11] classification of R six which is 5,000

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

[52:20] that satisfied

[52:22] um them allowing to do things and having

[52:25] not to jump over a couple of hurdles to

[52:28] do those improvements. There were some

[52:31] that still had to fill out forms and and

[52:34] uh uh jump over those hurdles uh to do

[52:38] those improvements to their home. But

[52:41] the question is what is the right size?

[52:45] Obviously, you think about uh Friendship

[52:47] Village being a model here, but I

[52:51] understand that there are smaller ones,

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

[53:03] and I asked Mike, uh you know, there's

[53:05] nothing proposed, but where are you

[53:07] thinking of putting uh these uh

[53:11] senior living facilities? And because

[53:13] nothing has been proposed yet, he didn't

[53:15] have an answer for that. But there's a

[53:18] whole lot of uh concern here. Uh I'd ask

[53:22] that you uh not read this uh for a

[53:26] second time tonight and possibly hold

[53:28] the uh public hearing open till till

[53:31] next month so other residents uh might

[53:35] be able to come and add their comments.

[53:38] Uh but um think about

[53:43] what's the appropriate size uh for this

[53:46] and what are the appropriate

[53:48] measurements, building size, setbacks,

[53:51] all that kind of stuff um that goes into

[53:55] something like this. Uh I don't have the

[53:57] answers uh but I I want to call that to

[54:01] your attention to uh consent. So thank

[54:05] you for your time.

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

[54:07] serving on the board of alderman with

[54:09] you and Dr. Magguire during the process.

[54:12] >> Yeah.

[54:14] >> of Lomar.

[54:15] >> Thank you.

[54:16] >> I'm not that old.

[54:17] >> I'm not either.

[54:19] >> That's a lie. [laughter]

[54:21] >> Are any other comments from the

[54:23] audience?

[54:25] >> All right. We'll now close the public

[54:27] hearing and move on to public comment.

[54:29] Dr. Magcguire.

[54:37] Doug Maguire, 12501 Merit Drive. Isn't

[54:41] that right? Isn't that where I have to

[54:42] go? [laughter] Okay. I get lost

[54:44] sometime. Big deal. Anyway, I came up.

[54:47] Some of you don't always Friendship

[54:49] Village or Peace Haven or [laughter]

[54:52] >> Please, not quite yet.

[54:55] Maybe next week.

[54:57] Anyway, um some people here probably

[55:00] don't know me, but I just retired last

[55:04] month, uh in June after serving for 20

[55:07] years, and I started out behind the

[55:10] desk. I was an alderman

[55:13] with the aforementioned mayor, who I'm

[55:15] so proud of, and and thank you for

[55:18] putting up with me [laughter] for so

[55:21] many years. We did a lot of good. But uh

[55:25] I also uh want to thank my old I called

[55:29] him the boss Gerald. What a work this

[55:32] man is. He is such a valuable asset to

[55:35] this city. The man not only does

[55:38] everybody like him, especially the

[55:40] people that work for him. But that's not

[55:43] just here, it's everywhere we go, you

[55:46] know, around the state. Everyone likes

[55:49] Gerald. and and I really respect him for

[55:52] all the work he does. I know he's on top

[55:55] of every single grant that we can get,

[55:58] which is what a modern-day parks board

[56:01] is supposed to be all about. And he

[56:03] certainly fits that bill. And if this

[56:06] city ever loses him, we will be in a bad

[56:09] place. He will be very hard to replace.

[56:13] not as hard as me. But [laughter]

[56:17] but I also wanted to tell you that I've

[56:19] recently found myself in four major

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

[56:26] I'm a 4enter. I'm a 1enter and I'm a

[56:31] less than 1enter.

[56:33] Now the 20% is I'm one of the 20% people

[56:37] that can drive a stick shift.

[56:40] 80% of the people nowadays cannot drive

[56:43] a stick shift car anymore, which is

[56:45] ridiculous, but so I think, but what do

[56:48] I know? And the the less than 1%.

[56:52] I've spent 20 years working for the

[56:53] city. Guess what? Nobody else. Hardly

[56:56] anyone else. Well, sorry, Frank. You're

[56:59] in that group [laughter]

[57:01] and the mayor, but there's very, very

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

[57:05] other ones.

[57:08] Um, [clears throat] 1%

[57:10] I got drafted into the army in 1970

[57:14] and only 1% of the United States

[57:17] population serves in the military. Now,

[57:21] I'm not telling you I wanted to go.

[57:23] Vietnam was still cooking and if you got

[57:26] drafted, you know where you were going

[57:28] to go. And uh, it was not a pleasant

[57:31] thing. And it was even worse when we got

[57:33] home. Back in those days, I could not

[57:36] have stood up here and talked. They

[57:38] would have told me to hit the door. We

[57:40] were They all thought we were going to

[57:42] freak out and blow everybody up.

[57:45] Whatever. Anyway, but my 4% is something

[57:48] we could all do. I'm one of the 4% of

[57:51] Americans who give blood regularly.

[57:54] And I would love to see this make

[57:57] America great again. You want to make

[57:59] America great? Give your blood. give

[58:01] your organs. These are the things that

[58:03] make America great. It's not money. It's

[58:06] not all this crazy stuff that's going

[58:08] on. And I don't want to tell you the

[58:10] president was a draft dodger. Don't want

[58:12] to say that cuz I did my duty. Anyway,

[58:16] again, thank you, mayor, for all the

[58:18] years. Gerald couldn't be happier with

[58:21] what we did and how things went. It's

[58:24] going to continue. Oh, one more thing.

[58:27] Please utilize the art committee when

[58:30] things go through that are art related.

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

[58:35] committee.

[58:37] They need more to do too, you know, just

[58:39] keep them busy. They have good ideas,

[58:41] but always more to do. Thank you

[58:44] everyone. Hope you have a pleasant

[58:45] evening.

[58:46] >> Thank you for your service, Dr.

[58:48] Magcguire.

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

[58:55] [laughter]

[58:59] Do we have any other public comments?

[59:01] Mrs. Gillette, have you received any?

[59:03] Mrs. Stone, have you received any email?

[59:06] Okay, moving on now to old business.

[59:10] We have none. City official and

[59:13] committee reports, city clerk, city

[59:15] administrator, Mrs. Gillette. That'll be

[59:17] hard to follow. Um, just a reminder that

[59:20] we do have two meetings next month. We

[59:22] will have our regularly scheduled board

[59:23] of alderman meeting and then we will

[59:24] have our work session. We'll do that

[59:26] with the finance committee. That one

[59:27] typically starts at 5:30 on the 4th

[59:29] Tuesday. Thank you.

[59:31] >> Director of finance, Mr. Tman.

[59:37] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, as I've

[59:39] been talking about for the last several

[59:41] months, tonight is the 2026 midyear

[59:44] budget adjustment is in front of you. Um

[59:46] it was presented at the finance

[59:47] committee in July and they unanimous

[59:50] unanimously recommended uh for your

[59:53] approval. It's on there for a second

[59:54] reading tonight which is per usual that

[59:56] we do. Uh the overall adjustment is

[59:59] favorable but favorable by 130,800.

[1:00:03] Next month as Britney mentioned we'll

[1:00:05] have the two meetings. At the first

[1:00:07] meeting we'll have the public hearing

[1:00:09] for the real estate and personal

[1:00:10] property tax rates. Um, and then we'll

[1:00:13] put the ordinance in that meeting as

[1:00:15] well to be read. And then as Britney

[1:00:17] mentioned, uh, the second meeting is the

[1:00:19] budget. So, right now, that's what

[1:00:21] finance is involved in. That's what my

[1:00:23] head's been in all day is 2027's budget.

[1:00:26] The city staff are preparing all their

[1:00:28] capital uh, five-year capital plans. I'm

[1:00:31] consolidating all that data and we're

[1:00:33] putting it all together so that staff

[1:00:34] can review all of that, put together all

[1:00:36] the information for you all next month.

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

[1:00:42] Thank you all for your time.

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

[1:00:45] Chief Dodge.

[1:00:50] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh we finished up with

[1:00:52] our last uh phone scam presentation uh

[1:00:54] last month. Uh overall, it was pretty

[1:00:57] successful. We had uh over 40 people

[1:00:59] attend um between the two presentations,

[1:01:04] about 40 minutes of presentation, and

[1:01:06] then about a half hour of of question uh

[1:01:09] afterwards. So, everyone was really um

[1:01:12] paying attention and into it and so

[1:01:14] hopefully uh it, you know, it helped and

[1:01:16] we might do this again sometime in the

[1:01:18] near future. Um we did conduct some

[1:01:20] active shooter training at Chestnut

[1:01:22] Rehab uh conducted by Officer Greg

[1:01:24] Schnitker and Detective Sergeant Pisker.

[1:01:27] Um talked to him about what our response

[1:01:29] would be, what they can do if god forbid

[1:01:31] ever happens there. Um this is something

[1:01:33] we have done for for businesses and

[1:01:35] schools and and other entities. So

[1:01:37] certainly if anybody is is interested in

[1:01:39] that, just contact the PD and that's

[1:01:42] something we can help them out with. Um

[1:01:44] and then lastly, we uh have our uh body

[1:01:47] cams and our new radios all up and

[1:01:49] operational. A lot of hard work by

[1:01:51] Lieutenant Greg's Vital and uh Jeff

[1:01:53] Morris um getting those systems up and

[1:01:55] running. Um so they really are a nice

[1:01:58] upgrade from what we had before. So

[1:01:59] we're very appreciative for that as well

[1:02:01] because I know the board approved that.

[1:02:02] So thank you on that one. And if anyone

[1:02:04] has any questions,

[1:02:06] >> Alderman Davis.

[1:02:07] >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:02:08] >> Okay. I've been I think all of us

[1:02:10] probably have been receiving those

[1:02:11] messages about flop cameras and the

[1:02:14] audio being used and being and some

[1:02:17] people doing things they shouldn't be

[1:02:19] doing with them. So, how do we audit

[1:02:22] that? What's the process in Sunset

[1:02:24] Hills? Well, we do have we do have a uh

[1:02:26] policy concerning all our systems,

[1:02:29] whether it's Flock,

[1:02:31] um our body cams, uh Regis, any kind of

[1:02:35] database that we are that we do have, we have a policy that says they are for

[1:02:41] official use only and any use beyond

[1:02:43] that can result in discipline up to and

[1:02:46] including termination. So what we also

[1:02:49] have done recently is we had all the

[1:02:51] sergeants address this issue obviously

[1:02:53] because it is a hot button issue with

[1:02:54] all the officers at all the roll calls

[1:02:56] to let them know hey this is something

[1:02:59] that's obviously people are paying a lot

[1:03:01] of attention to and again you know

[1:03:05] readise them of the policy so to speak.

[1:03:07] I myself has put have put out emails

[1:03:10] concerning latest incidents that have

[1:03:12] happened in the news that we've seen

[1:03:14] that have resulted in officers getting

[1:03:15] charged and fired and whatnot and just

[1:03:18] reemphasized them to them. Hey, this is

[1:03:20] just an very important database to us.

[1:03:22] It really is. I asked our detectives

[1:03:24] today. I said, "Hey, what percentage do

[1:03:25] you think of our cases that we go out

[1:03:27] and solve do we utilize this flock

[1:03:29] system?" And they said just about every

[1:03:31] one of them. Um I know it it also

[1:03:33] prevented, you know, stop. We had car

[1:03:34] clottings really bad up at the Grand

[1:03:36] View neighborhood. I don't know if you

[1:03:37] remember that. they were getting

[1:03:37] hammered and uh including one incident

[1:03:40] where they uh had a subject go into one

[1:03:42] of the garages armed with a pistol and

[1:03:44] that was caught on camera. A flock

[1:03:46] system was put into that neighborhood by

[1:03:47] that neighborhood and we haven't had a

[1:03:49] problem since. Um same goes with the

[1:03:52] Gravo Industrial neighborhood. We had uh

[1:03:54] we they put in a flock system down

[1:03:56] there. We were getting hit there a

[1:03:58] couple times a week. Haven't had a

[1:03:59] problem. So we really emphasize to the

[1:04:01] officers, hey, this is too important of

[1:04:03] a system for us to mess up because if

[1:04:05] this keeps on happening, that's that's

[1:04:07] what will happen. People will take it

[1:04:08] away. Now, we do have an audit system in

[1:04:10] place that is uh uh Mary Eler is the one

[1:04:14] who who gets a report at the end of the

[1:04:15] month. Every time you uh pull up a do a

[1:04:19] flock search, you have to give a reason

[1:04:22] and it has to have be a law enforcement

[1:04:24] reason. And so those are reviewed every

[1:04:26] month by uh Mary and also the

[1:04:28] lieutenants as well. So this is

[1:04:30] something we take very seriously and we

[1:04:31] understand the concern too. Okay.

[1:04:34] Privacy is very important to people but

[1:04:36] this system is so important to us that

[1:04:37] we want to make sure that we have tight

[1:04:40] controls on it to where people's

[1:04:41] privacies are are respected and we're

[1:04:43] able to utilize this very important

[1:04:45] tool.

[1:04:46] >> How how widespread is the flock camera

[1:04:48] used in Sunset Hills in subdivisions?

[1:04:51] >> Well, we only have well we only have two

[1:04:52] cameras. The city itself only has two

[1:04:54] cameras. Um but there's several

[1:04:57] neighborhoods I want to say. Yeah,

[1:04:59] there's a I don't want to really put

[1:05:00] them out there right now because these

[1:05:02] things are getting cut down left and

[1:05:03] right, but um because that's that's a

[1:05:05] big problem we have right now is the

[1:05:07] vandalism with these things. They're

[1:05:08] starting to uh cut cut them vandalize

[1:05:10] them and do and other things to them.

[1:05:12] So, we're aware of that and if that

[1:05:14] happens, we will investigate that, too.

[1:05:16] But, uh there are a lot of neighborhoods

[1:05:18] that have utilized these that are

[1:05:20] utilized these and they they're paid for

[1:05:21] by the neighborhoods, just so we're

[1:05:23] clear on that. um that can, you know,

[1:05:25] alert us if if a stolen car comes in in

[1:05:28] the neighborhood or something like that

[1:05:29] because that that's the big thing about

[1:05:30] a lot of the crimes are being committed.

[1:05:32] They use stolen cars to commit these

[1:05:34] crimes. And so, you know, if we get hit

[1:05:36] for a stolen car in a neighborhood, hey,

[1:05:37] that's something we're going to want to

[1:05:38] go and get there as quickly as possible.

[1:05:40] So, it really is just a critical system

[1:05:42] for us. So, we want to do everything we

[1:05:44] can to make sure it's not abused and

[1:05:46] that we can keep using the system.

[1:05:48] >> So, I think I heard you say that more

[1:05:50] than one person reviews if there's an

[1:05:52] issue. It's not just you making the

[1:05:54] decision, it's you plus. Is that

[1:05:56] correct?

[1:05:56] >> Yeah, we have we have we we just

[1:05:58] recently it's started this because of

[1:06:00] everything that's going on. We've always

[1:06:01] had the policy policyy's always been

[1:06:03] there, but yeah, it it's a there's a

[1:06:05] report that's that's generated at at the

[1:06:07] end of every month and it goes over

[1:06:08] who's using the system and for what

[1:06:11] >> and who reviews that.

[1:06:12] >> Right now we have uh Mary Eler is kind

[1:06:14] of our uh flock person, but then it can

[1:06:17] also be she'll do that with a

[1:06:19] conjunction of lieutenants as well.

[1:06:22] Thank you.

[1:06:24] >> Any other questions for the chief?

[1:06:26] >> This one goes I do have one. Go ahead.

[1:06:28] >> This one is about drones. Are we

[1:06:30] considering having drones?

[1:06:32] >> No.

[1:06:33] >> Okay.

[1:06:35] >> Alderman Akens.

[1:06:36] >> Thank you. I just had a quick question.

[1:06:38] I noticed that Ward One accounts for

[1:06:41] nine of July's 12 larsenies. And I was

[1:06:44] just wondering if there was a pattern

[1:06:46] that Ward One residents need to know

[1:06:48] about. Like is this one neighborhood? Is

[1:06:50] this like random vehicle breakins? Just

[1:06:52] anything that our residents need to

[1:06:54] know?

[1:06:55] >> Well, I think uh if I'm not mistaken,

[1:06:57] that incorporates some of the business

[1:06:59] area. Correct. That's uh Home Depot and

[1:07:01] that area in there. So, yeah, that's just I think I'm I'm almost sure.

[1:07:06] I'd have to look through it and I can

[1:07:07] get an answer for you, but I'm pretty

[1:07:08] sure that's going to be like a lot of

[1:07:09] shopliftings and that kind of thing.

[1:07:11] >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:07:14] Alderman Freriedman. We um incorporated

[1:07:18] uh double fines on

[1:07:21] >> Denny are and it are the are any double

[1:07:25] fine tickets being written or I know

[1:07:27] that's a discret discretionary thing.

[1:07:30] >> Well, I know the a bunch of tickets have

[1:07:32] written have been written on there and

[1:07:33] the officers are aware. I haven't

[1:07:34] specifically checked the tickets to see

[1:07:36] which ones have have been marked double

[1:07:38] fine, but I think as far as I know they probably most of them have been. I

[1:07:43] but that's something I can look into.

[1:07:45] >> That is some certainly that we can check

[1:07:47] with the prosecutor as well.

[1:07:51] >> Thank you very much, Chief.

[1:07:52] >> Thank you,

[1:07:53] >> city attorney, Mrs. Cely.

[1:07:58] » Um, yes, I really don't have much

[1:07:59] report. Still working on some things in

[1:08:01] the background. So hopefully we'll be

[1:08:02] able to bring some code amendments to

[1:08:03] you as we move those. But unless there's

[1:08:05] any questions, that's all I have for

[1:08:07] tonight. Okay.

[1:08:08] >> Any questions for Mrs. Celely?

[1:08:11] >> All right.

[1:08:11] >> Thank you so much. Director of Planning

[1:08:13] and Public Works, Mr. Knight.

[1:08:17] >> I'm back. Um, just a couple things

[1:08:19] tonight. Uh, one thing I want to make

[1:08:21] the the board aware of is every 5 years

[1:08:24] we go out to bid for our trash, our

[1:08:26] solid waste. Um, we have gone out to

[1:08:28] bid. Um, it's out there as once we get

[1:08:31] our bids returned, we'll return back to

[1:08:33] committee and the board. Um, as we

[1:08:35] typically would, uh, we've been talking

[1:08:38] about another city entrance sign at

[1:08:40] committee. you know, our city entrance

[1:08:41] signs that sit on Lindberg at both

[1:08:44] entrances. There's another location

[1:08:46] where we have an existing one on Watson

[1:08:49] um just right as you cross the Crestwood

[1:08:51] border heading west talking to that

[1:08:53] property owner about uh putting one on

[1:08:56] their property because they have to be

[1:08:57] out of rightway. They're agreeable.

[1:08:59] We're just going out there talking to

[1:09:00] them and then u we'll program that in to

[1:09:03] the budget for next year or put it for

[1:09:05] them. Um, so two projects. One,

[1:09:08] Kennerly, we talked about Kennerly Road

[1:09:10] and the storm water infrastructure

[1:09:12] replacement that is needed. We had a

[1:09:14] pre-construction meeting. Um, they

[1:09:17] talked about how this would be done.

[1:09:19] It'll be a 4-day approach in which

[1:09:21] they'll have to close down the road for

[1:09:24] 4 days from 9:00 a.m. to 300 p.m. Um, we

[1:09:27] will get there the the big piece of

[1:09:30] infrastructure is in production. So once

[1:09:32] we know it's completed, which should

[1:09:34] happen very soon, we'll have at least a

[1:09:36] week's notice that we'll start um

[1:09:39] communicating to the public of this road

[1:09:41] closure. Um it's a 4 day, so we want to

[1:09:44] start on a Monday. So we'll have, you

[1:09:45] know, however works out for that week

[1:09:47] and start on a Monday. Um and which

[1:09:49] again, it'll only be closed right at

[1:09:51] that spot, but message boards, Facebook,

[1:09:53] all the ways that we communicate these

[1:09:55] road closures um will implement. West

[1:09:59] Watson phase two. Again, we've been

[1:10:01] talking about that one. So, we're at the

[1:10:03] first phase of phase two. We were uh

[1:10:06] Spire last time. They are currently

[1:10:08] moving their infrastructure out of their

[1:10:10] way. T-Hill is moving everywhere they

[1:10:12] can until they can close in, which is

[1:10:14] where they were going to start and

[1:10:16] finish up. At earliest, we're projecting

[1:10:19] end of September. Um and again, we

[1:10:22] talked at committee level. We say within

[1:10:24] two weeks once we get close enough to

[1:10:26] where we can define a timeline but we're

[1:10:28] two weeks back we'll start communicating

[1:10:30] the second phase of that closure from

[1:10:33] Pagata to the we'll call it the overpass

[1:10:37] updates on both of those unless there's

[1:10:40] any questions that's what I have

[1:10:42] contract

[1:10:44] >> so end of this year so January 2027 is

[1:10:47] when it would start to 31

[1:10:51] >> Alderman Schwarz Yeah, Mike, can you

[1:10:53] give me an update on the Onyx schedule

[1:10:56] as well as the solar lights, speeds

[1:10:58] lights?

[1:10:58] >> Oh, yes. So, I'll I'll start with the

[1:11:00] solar lights because Jerry just

[1:11:02] mentioned today that um he either just

[1:11:04] got them or he knows a date. So,

[1:11:06] remember that was either next year or

[1:11:07] this year. We had funds in the budget,

[1:11:09] so we did order them. So, that should

[1:11:11] happen fairly soon. Once he gets them,

[1:11:13] he'll put them up. Um Onyx, we're still

[1:11:15] looking at that September date, early

[1:11:17] September. It hasn't changed since then.

[1:11:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:11:21] >> Mhm. Any other questions for Mr. Knight?

[1:11:24] All right. Thank you very much. Director

[1:11:26] of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Brown.

[1:11:30] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple of

[1:11:32] items. One is our tennis court. We will

[1:11:34] be holding our ribbon cutting ceremony

[1:11:36] this Saturday at 10:00 a.m. Uh the

[1:11:38] actual ribbon cutting will take place at

[1:11:40] 10:30. We're going to hold um clinics,

[1:11:42] pickle ball clinics and tennis clinics.

[1:11:44] They'll start at 10:00. They'll run till

[1:11:45] noon. So, if you've never played tennis

[1:11:47] or you want to understand how to play

[1:11:48] pickle ball, we have people there to

[1:11:50] show everyone. We'll also have barbecue

[1:11:52] for anyone that shows up after the

[1:11:54] actual ribbon cutting. So, or if you

[1:11:56] haven't been by, there's two courts that

[1:11:57] are 100% complete. Um, and by Friday,

[1:12:00] we're supposed to have the other two

[1:12:02] 100% complete. Uh, they look fantastic.

[1:12:05] I will say that the two that are

[1:12:06] completely done look fantastic. So, um,

[1:12:10] unfortunately, the tennis team couldn't

[1:12:11] get on them today. They had still had to

[1:12:12] dry. U, but they're they're um they're

[1:12:15] wanting to get on them very quickly. So,

[1:12:18] uh, Sunset Nights, it's our annual

[1:12:20] machine madness event. That's going to

[1:12:22] be held next Wednesday, August 19th,

[1:12:24] 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. It's going to be held

[1:12:25] at Minihaha Park. Compared to, in the

[1:12:27] past, we've always held it here. It's

[1:12:29] very cramped. A lot of large trucks,

[1:12:31] dump trucks, mail trucks, army vehicles,

[1:12:34] police vehicles, fire trucks, you name

[1:12:35] it, we have it where the kids can

[1:12:37] actually go in, hit the horn, so forth.

[1:12:39] Um, that'll be from 6:00 to 8 on next

[1:12:42] Wednesday. We also have food trucks and

[1:12:44] we have live music as well. So happy to

[1:12:46] answer any other questions.

[1:12:51] » Oh, thank you.

[1:12:52] >> Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

[1:12:53] >> Mr. Brown,

[1:12:54] >> one question

[1:12:55] >> for Brian.

[1:12:56] >> Are we going to be able to fish in that

[1:12:58] lake anytime soon?

[1:13:01] >> So, where we're at with that project, we had a survey conducted to do a

[1:13:06] grading plan. Uh the issue at hand has

[1:13:09] always been about the watershed. We've

[1:13:11] had numerous people out there, different

[1:13:13] contractors, architects, engineers

[1:13:16] trying to do the calculations. Do we

[1:13:17] attract enough water to keep the water

[1:13:20] level at a certain height? So, there's

[1:13:21] been discussion of putting an

[1:13:23] agricultural well to help feed that to

[1:13:25] offset that. Uh, but what we did was we

[1:13:28] did a survey. We hired a company to come

[1:13:29] in and actually just do a grading plan,

[1:13:31] very inexpensive survey, just to have

[1:13:32] them come in, do a little light survey

[1:13:34] where grading needs to be done and

[1:13:36] pushed. Um, I hope to have a proposal by

[1:13:38] the end of this week and we hope to

[1:13:40] start to move dirt. You'll start to see

[1:13:43] some movement. Um, will we be able to

[1:13:45] fish in it this year?

[1:13:48] >> I [laughter] I don't know. I I I don't

[1:13:50] want to say yes, but maybe in December.

[1:13:52] It might be uh fishing in December, but

[1:13:55] >> ice fishing.

[1:13:56] >> And they're referring to the Bander

[1:13:58] Property Fishing Lake for children. That

[1:14:01] is correct.

[1:14:01] >> That the foundation is supporting.

[1:14:04] >> Correct. And Mr. and the steering

[1:14:06] family. So,

[1:14:07] >> so it is it's moving along and I do

[1:14:10] apologize for the delay. It's just been

[1:14:13] a bigger project than we anticipated it

[1:14:15] to be trying to do it in-house. So,

[1:14:18] >> well, we are making interest on the

[1:14:20] money sitting there. So, that's good.

[1:14:22] >> Yeah, it wasn't the intention. The

[1:14:23] intention was we really thought we could

[1:14:25] do it all in house and it's just been

[1:14:27] become a bigger job than our six guys

[1:14:29] doing it. So,

[1:14:31] >> thank you, Mr. Brown. Moving on to

[1:14:33] committee reports, finance committee,

[1:14:35] Alderman Fernandez.

[1:14:36] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Appreciate

[1:14:37] that. And it is open for swimming. Uh

[1:14:40] [laughter]

[1:14:41] mumbo, if you're right down. Yes.

[1:14:45] So, as uh Mr. Treman noted, we met on

[1:14:47] the 27th of July and spent a fair amount

[1:14:50] of time going through the budget

[1:14:51] adjustments. Uh that's important because

[1:14:53] year to year, these things are just hard

[1:14:54] to follow. Uh there's just timing delays

[1:14:56] and things. Um but to his point,

[1:14:57] unanimously approved those. So, thank

[1:14:59] you. Um, additionally, we did spend a

[1:15:01] fair amount of time also talking about

[1:15:02] Prop P and everything that's coming

[1:15:04] ahead. I know we have a steering

[1:15:05] committee is dealing with that, but

[1:15:06] really diving deeply in these numbers

[1:15:08] and the committee is really excited um

[1:15:10] to do some work on that. So, appreciate

[1:15:12] that. More to report next month.

[1:15:14] >> Any questions for Alderman Fernandez.

[1:15:16] Okay. Thank you very much. Parks and

[1:15:19] Recreation Commission. Alderman Davis.

[1:15:21] >> Thank you. Um, our August meeting is

[1:15:24] going to be a walkthrough of Watson

[1:15:26] Trail Park. in case you haven't been

[1:15:28] there recently. It looks fabulous. Thank

[1:15:30] you, sir, for all the work you're doing.

[1:15:32] Can't believe your head's not this big

[1:15:34] already from what Doug said. So, we also

[1:15:38] have repair going on in both Minihaha

[1:15:42] and Watson Trail with asphalt and

[1:15:45] overlays. And we have a day the day camp

[1:15:48] ended. We had 80 children attend on a

[1:15:51] weekly basis. And our annual dog splash

[1:15:54] event will be September 9th and 11th.

[1:15:58] And that's all I have to report.

[1:16:00] >> Thank you very much. Police Advisory

[1:16:02] Board, Alderman Columbo.

[1:16:03] >> We will meet next Tuesday, but I would

[1:16:06] like to add I had lunch with the police

[1:16:08] chief of Maplewood today and he is going

[1:16:11] to have to go in front of his board to

[1:16:13] justify keeping the flock cameras and he

[1:16:15] actually thinks he's going to lose. So,

[1:16:17] it's thankful to our alderman, our

[1:16:20] residents, the support they show our law

[1:16:22] enforcement that we get to keep tools

[1:16:24] like that to keep our community safer.

[1:16:26] So, it is very important that we

[1:16:29] maintain those

[1:16:31] >> very much public works committee

[1:16:33] alderman dos.

[1:16:34] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor.

[1:16:35] >> Uh, Mr. Knight, you were very uh concise

[1:16:39] in your report, so I edited a lot of my

[1:16:41] notes. So, here are the things that Mike

[1:16:44] didn't bring up. So, I give you new

[1:16:46] information. Uh, during the public

[1:16:48] comment time, Alderman Freeman led a

[1:16:51] discussion on city assistance for

[1:16:54] private street maintenance in terms of

[1:16:55] specifications and bid costing. It was a

[1:16:58] very good discussion.

[1:16:59] >> Turn on your mic, please turn on your

[1:17:02] mic.

[1:17:05] » I thought I was loud enough anyway, but

[1:17:07] okay.

[1:17:08] >> Usually, you are.

[1:17:09] >> Yeah, I know. I know. [laughter]

[1:17:12] Um we then move to a discussion on

[1:17:15] contractor selection results concerning

[1:17:18] chip seal

[1:17:20] and the difference in results between

[1:17:22] residential streets versus higher

[1:17:25] traffic arterial streets. It was very

[1:17:27] good discussion.

[1:17:30] We then talked about contract

[1:17:32] communication to our residents

[1:17:35] and we talked about what has been on the

[1:17:38] past and what we were doing moving

[1:17:39] forward. And as Mike alluded to, but we

[1:17:41] discussed it, it seems the sweet spot

[1:17:44] was two weeks. So, we all agreed on

[1:17:47] that. Um, I brought up Weber Hill

[1:17:50] traffic.

[1:17:52] That's in Ward 4. And some of the

[1:17:56] residents would like to see a no through

[1:18:00] traffic sign on West Watson for people

[1:18:03] that are turning from Highway 30 because

[1:18:06] they don't know after they've turned

[1:18:09] they don't know that it's no through

[1:18:11] traffic many times till they get to

[1:18:14] Weber Hill. So where are they going to

[1:18:16] go? They're either going to back up or

[1:18:18] going to go up Weber Hill. So I think

[1:18:21] it's important for that. Um on waste

[1:18:25] collection, we had a resident come and

[1:18:27] talk to us about his bad experiences

[1:18:31] with Eagle. Uh my experiences personally

[1:18:34] have been very good, but his were not.

[1:18:37] And he wanted us to consider a second

[1:18:40] vendor as well as getting options for

[1:18:43] two pickups a week as well as getting

[1:18:46] options for bulk pickup on demand. So,

[1:18:52] I've talked a little bit about that with

[1:18:54] Britney and we can discuss this if you

[1:18:57] all want to, but those were some of the

[1:19:00] points made there. And um that's about

[1:19:04] it. Thank you, Madame Mayor.

[1:19:06] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on now

[1:19:08] to new business, bill number 149. Would

[1:19:11] you please read that for us, Alderman

[1:19:12] Doss?

[1:19:15] >> It's on, Frank. [laughter]

[1:19:19] 149, an ordinance approving and adopting

[1:19:21] a budget adjustment for the 2020 2026

[1:19:26] budget.

[1:19:28] Move to suspend the rules.

[1:19:33] » Second.

[1:19:33] >> Motion was made by Alderman Doss,

[1:19:36] seconded by Alderman Aikens to suspend

[1:19:39] the rules for bill number 149. Roll call

[1:19:41] vote, please.

[1:19:42] >> Alderman Daw,

[1:19:43] >> discussion.

[1:19:44] >> Oh, discussion. Alderman Freeman.

[1:19:46] >> This is budget adjustments. Um, why did

[1:19:49] the

[1:19:50] >> I'm sorry, Frank. [laughter]

[1:19:53] Why did the pension contribution rate

[1:19:55] increase?

[1:19:58] >> It changes every year.

[1:20:00] >> Okay. And is that a statutory? I Is it a

[1:20:04] statutory thing? Is it a formula thing?

[1:20:06] >> It's a formula thing. It's based on the

[1:20:08] valuation of our plan and the age of our

[1:20:10] employees and it just changes every

[1:20:12] year.

[1:20:12] >> And who increases it?

[1:20:14] >> Loggers. Yes, ma'am.

[1:20:16] And how is there a loss on the cell

[1:20:18] phone tower? What is PV adjustment?

[1:20:22] >> Go ahead.

[1:20:23] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:20:25] >> So, that is a present value adjustment

[1:20:27] that I had to do for our Sorry, I

[1:20:30] [clears throat] lost my voice a couple

[1:20:31] days ago and I'm still recovering. Um,

[1:20:34] we have our cell tower lease with AT&T,

[1:20:37] >> right?

[1:20:37] >> And we receive checks from them every

[1:20:40] month. Well, they have a portion of

[1:20:42] those checks is for like dish revenue,

[1:20:45] and we were informed in February of this

[1:20:48] year that $550 that we got every month

[1:20:50] that was part of a rent check uh payment

[1:20:53] is no longer going to be continuing into

[1:20:55] the future. And this lease goes through

[1:20:57] 2039, the beginning of 24th. So, I had

[1:21:01] to recalculate what the receivable is

[1:21:03] for that entire lease. And by doing

[1:21:06] that, by removing that 550 every month,

[1:21:08] that's the adjustment to get it to a new

[1:21:10] present value for for our balance sheet.

[1:21:15] >> Okay, that that's an asset though. I

[1:21:18] mean, that gets you to the asset.

[1:21:19] >> Setting liability is deferred income,

[1:21:21] >> right?

[1:21:24] >> Okay.

[1:21:25] >> Right. So,

[1:21:25] >> so we're going to get $550 less a month.

[1:21:28] >> Yes.

[1:21:29] >> Okay. That's just going to happen. Okay.

[1:21:32] But we had already showed it as an asset

[1:21:34] on the

[1:21:35] >> I had to reduce the asset the liability

[1:21:37] offsetting. That was the difference.

[1:21:40] >> Okay. And how about correcting the

[1:21:44] $25,000 correcting wage allocation?

[1:21:48] >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:21:48] >> On full-time aquatic.

[1:21:50] >> Yes, ma'am. Uh I would say that was just

[1:21:53] an error on my part. I had we had

[1:21:55] another employee that got added to the

[1:21:57] pool this last year and when I had their

[1:21:59] salaries the other employee had their

[1:22:01] salaries split between general and pool

[1:22:04] and I copied that formula down and then

[1:22:06] I discovered the error here. So that's

[1:22:08] correcting that error.

[1:22:09] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. We

[1:22:13] have a motion and a second to suspend

[1:22:15] the rules. Roll call vote, please.

[1:22:16] >> Alderman Dawze.

[1:22:18] >> I.

[1:22:18] >> Alderman Freriedman I.

[1:22:20] >> Alderman Wagel

[1:22:22] >> I.

[1:22:22] >> Alderman Columbbo. I

[1:22:24] >> Alderman Schwarz.

[1:22:25] >> I

[1:22:26] >> Alderman Davis.

[1:22:27] >> I

[1:22:28] >> Alderman Akens.

[1:22:29] >> I

[1:22:30] >> Alderman Fernandez.

[1:22:31] >> I

[1:22:31] >> Eight eyes's.

[1:22:32] >> Thank you. Alderman Daws, would you

[1:22:34] please read bill number 149 for a second

[1:22:37] reading?

[1:22:39] >> Bill number 149, an ordinance approving

[1:22:41] and adopting a budget adjustment for the

[1:22:44] 2026 budget. Move to approve.

[1:22:48] >> Second.

[1:22:49] >> She was made by Alderman Daws, seconded

[1:22:51] by Alderman Davis. Roll call vote,

[1:22:53] please.

[1:22:54] >> Alderman Fernandez,

[1:22:55] >> I.

[1:22:56] >> Alderman Akens,

[1:22:57] >> I.

[1:22:58] >> Alderman Davis,

[1:22:59] >> I.

[1:23:00] >> Alderman Schwarz,

[1:23:02] >> I.

[1:23:04] >> Hi.

[1:23:05] >> Wigle.

[1:23:06] >> I.

[1:23:06] >> Alderman Freriedman.

[1:23:08] >> I.

[1:23:08] >> Alderman Daws. Eight eyes.

[1:23:12] >> Thank you,

[1:23:19] Mrs. Stone. I don't have the sheet to

[1:23:21] write that down on. So, we will have to

[1:23:24] uh

[1:23:24] >> I think it's 24. Let me look it up

[1:23:26] really quick, mayor. Sorry.

[1:23:27] >> Oh, wait a minute. It's hidden. I'm

[1:23:28] sorry.

[1:23:29] >> You get it?

[1:23:29] >> Yes. Bill number 149 becomes ordinance

[1:23:32] number 2428.

[1:23:35] >> Perfect.

[1:23:36] >> It's stuck under my agenda.

[1:23:38] Bill number 150. Would you please read

[1:23:40] that for us? Alderman Freriedman.

[1:23:43] >> Madame Mayor. Bill number 150, an

[1:23:46] ordinance amending various sections of

[1:23:48] the unified development ordinance

[1:23:50] relating to recreational land use. First

[1:23:53] reading.

[1:23:55] >> Alderman Columbo.

[1:23:57] >> Yeah, I'd like to

[1:23:59] make a motion to amend that or

[1:24:03] it's in relation to the parking

[1:24:04] requirement. Um, with the one per 200

[1:24:07] being too restrictive, one per 600 too

[1:24:10] liberal,

[1:24:11] I'd like to figure out a balance

[1:24:13] somewhere in there um that would be

[1:24:15] acceptable to all, whether that's one

[1:24:18] 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

[1:24:35] one per 335, a one per 700, a one per

[1:24:39] 600.

[1:24:42] >> Um, at the other places that I sort of

[1:24:46] looked into that were similar. Um,

[1:24:50] I I don't know. I'm I'm I'm willing to

[1:24:52] hear from.

[1:24:53] >> Do you have any recommendations?

[1:24:55] >> I said during the public hearing I can

[1:24:56] look into it, but five per thousand is

[1:24:58] what I went with, but I gladly do, but I

[1:25:01] don't have another number like pocketed

[1:25:03] ready to go.

[1:25:03] >> Do you have a number you'd buy?

[1:25:04] >> I I

[1:25:07] mean, I don't know that one per 400

[1:25:09] might seem a little high, so maybe one

[1:25:10] per 350. I think that kind of splits it

[1:25:13] a little bit where it it's not so

[1:25:16] restrictive that will you know and what

[1:25:19] I go off of is

[1:25:21] like Spirit Gymnastics if if that if

[1:25:24] they were to try and do now

[1:25:27] what they've been doing with their

[1:25:29] 14,000 square ft you know currently have

[1:25:32] 27 spots and they're they are utilizing

[1:25:34] a couple of spots just random them

[1:25:36] around the back so say an extra five

[1:25:38] spots

[1:25:39] 32 spots just by our ordinance, they'd

[1:25:42] have to have 70 just for the gymnastics

[1:25:44] portion and then still provide for the

[1:25:47] other

[1:25:49] 20,000 square feet of light and you know

[1:25:51] so it it gets really burdensome to try

[1:25:54] and meet that threshold so that maybe

[1:25:56] one per 350 I mean it seems

[1:26:04] I'm sorry Fred

[1:26:06] >> I don't want to interrupt you

[1:26:10] just wanted to hear what you had to

[1:26:11] safe. But

[1:26:11] >> do we Okay, if we did, how many parking

[1:26:14] spots are there right now? Can we get

[1:26:17] into some actual data?

[1:26:19] >> I think we should be very careful not to

[1:26:21] focus solely on one

[1:26:24] >> user while we're talking about amending

[1:26:27] as a whole for the whole thing.

[1:26:28] >> What you're saying could be very very

[1:26:30] reasonable. I just don't have a concept

[1:26:33] of what is reasonable. Well, and that's

[1:26:35] why I was trying to give examples that

[1:26:36] we currently have in those areas, you

[1:26:38] know, like Veta 60 spots and that's

[1:26:41] including, I believe, three handicap

[1:26:43] spots for 45 to 50,000 square feet. So,

[1:26:48] that's very they're they're above the

[1:26:49] one per 600, but I don't know that it's

[1:26:53] ever full or not full. I just you never

[1:26:55] hear anybody. May I f may I follow up

[1:26:58] with something just Okay. So listening

[1:27:01] to the gentleman in the previous

[1:27:03] meeting, I think I have a pretty good

[1:27:05] concept of what is being proposed.

[1:27:09] When I've gone to a facility like this

[1:27:12] in Denver with my grandchildren,

[1:27:15] there are various pitching components

[1:27:18] that are pretty much one onone with with

[1:27:21] the teacher and and and things. There's

[1:27:23] a catcher, of course.

[1:27:26] There is probably in the Denver place

[1:27:28] there were probably three or four maybe

[1:27:30] yeah three or four at the most batting

[1:27:32] stations.

[1:27:34] In those there might have been 10, 12,

[1:27:37] 13, 14 kids and a number of instructed.

[1:27:40] Once they got into the cage they

[1:27:42] obviously swung but they worked with

[1:27:44] them out of the cage. So if you multiply

[1:27:49] that, there might have been between the

[1:27:52] pitching and the batting maybe

[1:27:55] 40 50 kids there. I don't know how many

[1:27:59] parking spots that would require.

[1:28:01] Everything you're saying seems to make

[1:28:02] sense to me, but I [snorts] have no

[1:28:04] concept.

[1:28:06] I if you go by the facility that they're

[1:28:09] currently sharing with another

[1:28:12] baseball group, right?

[1:28:15] They have 27 spots in front of that and

[1:28:17] that's next door to the basketball

[1:28:19] facility that my daughter goes to. So, I

[1:28:21] see the parking and they're not spilling

[1:28:23] into our basketball parking

[1:28:26] utilizing those spots. So, I'm

[1:28:29] comfortable. I mean, it's still going to

[1:28:30] require them

[1:28:32] 40 spots, I believe, or 50 spots in that

[1:28:35] particular instance, which is way more

[1:28:36] than what we're requiring Spirit

[1:28:38] Gymnastics or Vetta to have per square

[1:28:41] foot. So, I that's why I think we just

[1:28:44] kind of balance it out and let Mike

[1:28:46] maybe verify some of the things that

[1:28:48] I've seen here, but I would move to

[1:28:50] amend the one per 350. And if it's too

[1:28:52] liberal, when we go to the second

[1:28:54] reading, we could change it.

[1:28:58] >> Yeah. I think there's also other

[1:28:59] resources, right? So like there's other

[1:29:01] cities, they have these in their

[1:29:03] regulations. We can take a look at some

[1:29:04] other cities. There is just engineering

[1:29:08] transportation manuals that provide

[1:29:09] numbers. So the IT parking generation

[1:29:12] manual, I think they're on their sixth

[1:29:13] edition. Let's see what they have. Let's

[1:29:15] see what other cities have. I mean, we can put one per three, but that's

[1:29:19] just what the draft ordinance will be in

[1:29:20] front of you. But I can always still

[1:29:21] come back with that information and I

[1:29:23] think answer some of these questions

[1:29:24] that we're talking about now.

[1:29:27] >> All right. So, do you want to continue

[1:29:29] tonight to amend it or do you want to

[1:29:31] wait until next month after more

[1:29:33] research has been completed?

[1:29:35] >> And I'd make a motion to amend now and

[1:29:37] then figure out if we went

[1:29:40] >> too too far one way or the other.

[1:29:43] >> Motion to amend to that number. Yes.

[1:29:46] Okay.

[1:29:47] >> Okay. There's a motion to amend bill

[1:29:50] number 150 to allow for parking one to

[1:29:54] 350. one per 350 gross feet area.

[1:29:57] >> Have a second.

[1:29:58] >> Yes.

[1:29:59] >> Alderman Schwarz made a second to that

[1:30:01] motion.

[1:30:02] >> Yes.

[1:30:02] >> To to the amendment.

[1:30:07] » Um roll call vote for the amendment.

[1:30:14] » Aldering Columbbo.

[1:30:16] >> That mean

[1:30:17] >> you Yes. Voting for the amendment.

[1:30:20] >> I couldn't hear. [laughter]

[1:30:23] >> Hi Davis Bernins

[1:30:27] >> I

[1:30:28] >> Alderman Fernandez

[1:30:29] >> I

[1:30:30] >> Alderman Wel

[1:30:31] >> I

[1:30:32] >> Alderman Freriedman

[1:30:34] >> Alderman Daws

[1:30:36] >> eight eyes.

[1:30:37] >> So next month bill number 150 will be

[1:30:39] read as amended

[1:30:42] for the second reading. All right. Bill

[1:30:44] number 151. Will you please read that

[1:30:46] for us? Alderman Schwarz.

[1:30:49] Bill number 151, an ordinance amending

[1:30:52] various sections of the unified

[1:30:54] development ordinance relating to

[1:30:56] creating a senior living SL zoning

[1:31:00] district. First reading

[1:31:04] >> second

[1:31:07] a motion for the second reading is that

[1:31:10] >> yes

[1:31:13] can second my motion. I'd like to make a

[1:31:15] motion to um I know it's the first

[1:31:18] reading to uh ask staff to come back to

[1:31:22] us with an option for

[1:31:25] looking at this as a use without having

[1:31:29] a senior living district that we could

[1:31:32] look at it side by side.

[1:31:34] >> I would second that.

[1:31:37] >> And I I don't know if that I'll Okay.

[1:31:42] [laughter] I was going to say you did.

[1:31:43] >> That's a good idea.

[1:31:44] >> Okay.

[1:31:45] >> Second it should second.

[1:31:47] >> Doss did. Okay. There's a motion.

[1:31:50] >> Sorry.

[1:31:51] >> To uh ask staff to come back and ask for

[1:31:54] an option

[1:31:56] use without senior living.

[1:32:01] >> Did I rephrase that correctly? to to

[1:32:04] amend the UDO in such a way as to make

[1:32:07] the various nursing home planned

[1:32:10] retirement

[1:32:13] um permitted or conditional uses rather

[1:32:15] than establish an entire new zoning

[1:32:18] district.

[1:32:19] >> Mike, are you comfortable that that's

[1:32:20] not too big of a change? They would have

[1:32:22] to go back to planning and zoning.

[1:32:24] >> So, I understand I was I don't know if

[1:32:26] that's how the public hearing was

[1:32:27] actually advertised. If it just said

[1:32:29] senior living uses or the SL district,

[1:32:32] >> we would need to start over.

[1:32:35] >> But would it matter how it advertised?

[1:32:37] Because

[1:32:38] >> if it just

[1:32:40] >> I think it is I

[1:32:42] >> just because when I

[1:32:44] >> because if it's looking at that and it's

[1:32:48] not a timely issue. I mean

[1:32:52] >> no no it's not a time you should want to

[1:32:54] follow the processes advertised

[1:32:57] appropriately.

[1:32:58] >> Yeah.

[1:32:59] I mean I think that is fairly different

[1:33:02] concept

[1:33:03] >> right and I think you're right

[1:33:06] >> yes so then we need updated motion to

[1:33:09] bring it back right

[1:33:10] >> so would we

[1:33:11] >> I would like to make a motion to remand

[1:33:13] this to public

[1:33:15] >> to planning and zoning that would

[1:33:18] include

[1:33:20] >> the option the the ordinance brought to

[1:33:22] us today along with an optional

[1:33:25] ordinance that would uh present this as

[1:33:28] planned and conditional uses for

[1:33:33] >> in an existing district

[1:33:35] >> for retireing

[1:33:37] homes assisted.

[1:33:39] >> Yeah.

[1:33:40] >> Mhm.

[1:33:40] >> We already had a motion and a second.

[1:33:42] Are you withdrawing the first one?

[1:33:45] >> Yes.

[1:33:47] >> Okay. So, now we have another one.

[1:33:49] >> Do we have a second?

[1:33:52] >> Yes. a motion and a second from Alderman

[1:33:56] Donis. Um, would you like that read

[1:34:00] again so everyone understands please

[1:34:02] what they're voting on?

[1:34:03] >> Okay. [laughter] Cuz I'm like ah [gasps]

[1:34:07] I will I will try to rephrase this more

[1:34:10] artfully.

[1:34:12] I'm making a motion to remand

[1:34:16] this ordinance to planning and zoning

[1:34:19] and include with it a draft ordinance as

[1:34:22] an alternative that would present

[1:34:25] assisted retirement centers, nursing

[1:34:28] homes,

[1:34:30] and the other uses

[1:34:32] >> plan retirement care center. Yes, the

[1:34:34] four uses um as permitted or conditional

[1:34:38] uses in the commercial districts

[1:34:43] and any amendments, you know, if if

[1:34:46] section five needed to be amended to

[1:34:49] include that.

[1:34:51] >> Okay, we have a motion by Alderman

[1:34:53] Freriedman, a second by Alderman Daws.

[1:34:56] Uh roll call vote. May I ask a

[1:34:59] clarifying question?

[1:35:00] >> Yes, there discussion. Alderman Akens,

[1:35:02] >> I just want to clarify. You're asking

[1:35:04] for them to bring two different

[1:35:06] versions. Is that correct?

[1:35:08] >> Well, if you'd rather bring it to the

[1:35:10] board for discussion rather than I

[1:35:12] understand what you're saying.

[1:35:14] >> Yeah. It's just a little confusing to

[1:35:17] present two ordinances going through the

[1:35:19] public hearing process, but say you get

[1:35:20] to pick one. That's not okay. The

[1:35:22] standard. I I actually would prefer the

[1:35:25] idea of bringing it for a discussion and

[1:35:27] then you guys giving us direction from

[1:35:29] that point if which one you want to move

[1:35:31] forward with. I think that's a lot

[1:35:33] cleaner.

[1:35:34] >> Are you withdrawing are you withdrawing

[1:35:37] this ordinance and second?

[1:35:38] >> Is this the third time?

[1:35:39] >> Yes, madam. Yes, madame mayor. Yes,

[1:35:42] ma'am. [laughter]

[1:35:44] [gasps]

[1:35:44] >> Okay. So, we're starting fresh now.

[1:35:47] >> Okay. to direct staff to bring to the

[1:35:50] board an alternative

[1:35:53] draft ordinance for consideration that

[1:35:57] would include making assisted

[1:36:00] retirement centers um nursing homes and

[1:36:04] planned retirements assisted living

[1:36:07] >> nursing homes and um

[1:36:09] >> rehabilitation

[1:36:10] >> planners

[1:36:11] >> center

[1:36:13] >> as permitted andor conditional uses in

[1:36:17] the general general

[1:36:19] the commercial district.

[1:36:20] >> Commercial

[1:36:20] >> unlimited commercial district.

[1:36:22] >> Thank you for destruction.

[1:36:26] >> All right. Now, do we have a second?

[1:36:29] >> Yes, Madam Mayor.

[1:36:30] >> Thank you.

[1:36:31] >> Seconded the motion.

[1:36:33] >> Okay.

[1:36:35] >> So, can I get some clarification?

[1:36:37] [clears throat]

[1:36:38] >> Alderman Columbo.

[1:36:39] >> So, we just had a first reading of this

[1:36:40] bill.

[1:36:41] >> So, we'll still have a second reading of

[1:36:43] this bill next month.

[1:36:44] >> Is that correct?

[1:36:45] >> We don't have to. There's nothing that

[1:36:47] requires it go back on. So I would

[1:36:50] >> drawn their motions and their seconds,

[1:36:52] >> right? So it's still alive.

[1:36:54] >> Not this bill though. It's

[1:36:56] >> the bill is still alive. It does not

[1:36:58] have to be placed on the next agenda. So

[1:37:00] what we'll do is put both of these on

[1:37:02] for discussion and then if you guys

[1:37:04] choose to move forward with with the one

[1:37:06] that exists now, we can put that on for

[1:37:08] second reading at the October meeting.

[1:37:11] If you choose to move forward with the

[1:37:13] one that allows permitted and

[1:37:14] conditional uses within general

[1:37:16] commercial districts, that process will

[1:37:18] have to start over because it is too big

[1:37:20] of a change to say, "Hey, we've already

[1:37:22] advertised this as a public hearing

[1:37:23] because technically we have not." So,

[1:37:25] we'll start that process back over.

[1:37:27] It'll just pause bill 151 and it has to

[1:37:30] go back through planning and zoning

[1:37:32] again. Yeah.

[1:37:32] >> Correct.

[1:37:33] >> Okay. All right. So, do you all

[1:37:35] understand what you're voting on?

[1:37:38] >> Oh, sure.

[1:37:39] >> Okay. Call vote.

[1:37:42] >> Freriedman.

[1:37:43] >> Hi.

[1:37:43] >> Alderman Daws.

[1:37:44] >> Hi.

[1:37:45] >> Alderman Andez.

[1:37:46] >> Hi.

[1:37:47] >> Alderman Aikens.

[1:37:48] >> Hi.

[1:37:49] >> Alderman Davis.

[1:37:54] [laughter]

[1:37:55] >> Um. I

[1:38:00] » Aldrick Columbbo.

[1:38:01] >> Nay.

[1:38:04] >> I. [clears throat]

[1:38:07] >> Seven eyes. One. Nay.

[1:38:10] We'll put it on for discussion in

[1:38:11] September.

[1:38:13] >> All right. Moving on now for

[1:38:15] appointments. Peter Rodic, Parks and

[1:38:18] Recreation Commission, term to expire

[1:38:20] 811 2031. That would be in Ward 3. Jill

[1:38:26] Aresky, Chairman, Parks and Recreation

[1:38:28] Commission, term to expire 1820.

[1:38:33] And uh would you like to take these

[1:38:35] together or individually?

[1:38:37] >> Together.

[1:38:39] Um if you said the parks um ward I I

[1:38:44] missed it. I know Mr. Rodic is three

[1:38:47] >> is Jill Archeski is in Jill. She's

[1:38:50] already on. This is just the appointment

[1:38:52] of a chairman. This is not a new

[1:38:53] appointment. Yes, we lost our chairman.

[1:38:55] >> But there's been some confusion about

[1:38:57] wards. So she is she's W

[1:39:00] >> she's W two and already on the board. So

[1:39:03] it's not filling a vacancy or something.

[1:39:04] It's just filling the position that Doug

[1:39:06] just left as chairman. She's taking over

[1:39:08] as chairman, but continuing her term on

[1:39:11] parks and recreation.

[1:39:15] >> Okay, we have a motion to take them both

[1:39:17] together from Alderman Dawze. Is there a

[1:39:19] second?

[1:39:19] >> Second.

[1:39:20] >> Motion was made by Alderman Columbo. All

[1:39:22] in favor?

[1:39:24] >> I oppose. All right, we will notify them

[1:39:27] of their new jobs. Uh any items under

[1:39:30] general discussion?

[1:39:33] Alderman Freriedman.

[1:39:34] >> Um yeah, actually a couple. Um the just

[1:39:38] to give an update on uh the steering

[1:39:41] committee um

[1:39:44] about the uh storm water and parks tax.

[1:39:47] Um first of all, we keep talking about

[1:39:50] Prop Ps

[1:39:52] and we already have a Prop P fund. I I'd

[1:39:56] prefer we call this storm water or parks fund or SP but we

[1:40:05] isn't isn't it Prop P funds? Yeah. So

[1:40:08] >> So there's there will be confusion

[1:40:10] moving forward. I'm afraid there's

[1:40:12] already Prop Ps for the police

[1:40:14] department.

[1:40:17] >> Okay. But it is Prop Ps and it's just

[1:40:20] the second phase of it maybe.

[1:40:22] >> No, they're two very separate things.

[1:40:25] Prop P.

[1:40:26] >> Prop P doesn't stop. That is effective

[1:40:30] right now until next April.

[1:40:32] >> No, there are Prop funds

[1:40:35] >> account um the county

[1:40:36] >> fund number 15.

[1:40:39] >> You're talking about the funds that go

[1:40:41] to the police.

[1:40:41] >> Correct. The county.

[1:40:42] >> If we're going to be talking about Prop

[1:40:44] P, we'd have two Prop Ps. I just think

[1:40:47] calling

[1:40:49] the the storm water parks or park storm

[1:40:52] water a different thing might be

[1:40:55] >> but it was passed as proposition P.

[1:40:58] >> Okay.

[1:40:58] >> So,

[1:41:00] >> okay. So, we'll have two prop P funds.

[1:41:04] >> We call we've always labeled the it

[1:41:06] parks and stormwater fund on all of your

[1:41:08] account information.

[1:41:09] >> Yeah. Okay. Well, we met and we gathered

[1:41:12] a lot of information about the current

[1:41:15] we've met twice. uh current and

[1:41:17] historical uh funding of the parks and

[1:41:19] recreation department. And when we say

[1:41:21] that, we include pools. Um Natalie has

[1:41:24] taken two big unwieldy master plans and

[1:41:28] consolidated them into a workbook with

[1:41:32] um notes that help us to help us focus

[1:41:35] on um relative priorities between the

[1:41:38] two plans. And Mark has met with Gerald

[1:41:41] to discuss his top Gerald's top

[1:41:44] priorities. So, thanks to um Britney and

[1:41:47] Jeff and Gerald for

[1:41:50] all of this advanced information. And a

[1:41:53] couple um things caught our attention.

[1:41:55] Um first, we need to get our arms around

[1:41:58] how parks is budgeted between the

[1:42:01] general fund, the capital fund, and the

[1:42:03] storm water tax dollars. From year to

[1:42:06] year, it appears that different line

[1:42:08] items of the budget are paid from

[1:42:11] different funds. And it seems to us that

[1:42:14] this should be evaluated and

[1:42:16] standardized.

[1:42:17] Second, as we were looking at this

[1:42:20] information, it it occurred that all of

[1:42:23] this falls into the larger picture of

[1:42:25] funding priorities across the city. Um,

[1:42:30] you know, there were 30 or 32 people

[1:42:34] that that said their top priority in the

[1:42:37] comments were sidewalks. So that that

[1:42:41] falls into you know kind of the larger

[1:42:43] city and the the best practice we think

[1:42:47] is to understand the obligations the

[1:42:50] city has on its books now in the form of

[1:42:54] existing assets particularly

[1:42:57] aging assets and assess the budgetary

[1:43:00] needs that are going to be required to

[1:43:03] maintain them

[1:43:05] properly into the future. And the

[1:43:07] priority may well be to move some

[1:43:10] expenses from the general some some of

[1:43:14] the park expenses, traditional park

[1:43:16] expenses from the general fund and the

[1:43:19] capital fund to the stormwater parks or

[1:43:22] park storm water tax bucket to give the

[1:43:25] city greater flexibilities to address

[1:43:29] all of the priorities citywide.

[1:43:32] um and this would comport with the

[1:43:34] surveys finding that the highest scoring

[1:43:36] priority um is to focus over the next 20

[1:43:40] years on um maintenance and it's

[1:43:43] something that Mr. Dunl from Cochran um

[1:43:47] advocated when he made his presentation

[1:43:49] to the board. Um,

[1:43:52] so at this point it may be better it may

[1:43:56] be a better place for the finance

[1:43:57] committee to look into these issues to

[1:44:00] evaluate and standardize how line items

[1:44:03] are paid from respective funds. assess

[1:44:06] the financial obligations of the city to

[1:44:09] maintaining existing assets and budget

[1:44:13] expenses

[1:44:15] um appropriately from each fund to

[1:44:18] achieve the most impactful um results

[1:44:21] and then we can understand then after

[1:44:23] we've understood these existing

[1:44:25] obligations and funding for them explore

[1:44:28] priorities across the city. Um, Alderman

[1:44:32] Fernandez is that something

[1:44:38] that sounds

[1:44:39] >> very much so um

[1:44:40] >> within the wheelhouse of the finance

[1:44:41] committee?

[1:44:42] >> Yes. and they're very willing to do

[1:44:43] that. Um, as part of the discussion we

[1:44:45] had at the last committee meeting is

[1:44:46] they're kind of asking what more can we

[1:44:48] do and this is an area of focus for

[1:44:49] everyone

[1:44:51] and I think from my lens it would be in

[1:44:53] conjunction with obviously the the

[1:44:54] finance department because they're going

[1:44:56] to have the data and I think we're going

[1:44:57] to need both some answers and maybe a

[1:44:59] collaboration through the whole group.

[1:45:03] >> Alderman Davis. So, how does all this

[1:45:06] meld together with our master plan that

[1:45:09] we approved a couple months ago?

[1:45:14] >> Well, I think I guess and I'll I'll go

[1:45:16] on record of clarifying when we approve

[1:45:18] the master plan as approving the plan,

[1:45:19] not any of those priorities underneath

[1:45:21] there is like that they were actually

[1:45:22] going to happen. So, that was part of

[1:45:24] the discussion we had is that we need to

[1:45:26] evaluate these what do they really cost?

[1:45:28] What do we have to the point of existing

[1:45:30] liabilities? in one example and that

[1:45:31] would be out of the dollars that we've

[1:45:34] learned kind of looking at these is

[1:45:36] portions of the storm water and parks

[1:45:38] dollars have been spent on things like

[1:45:40] salary not necessarily capital projects

[1:45:43] through time. So we need to evaluate

[1:45:45] what is that that are fixed costs we're

[1:45:46] already committed to. So when we look at

[1:45:48] the dollars we're have available they

[1:45:49] may not be as great as we think. We need

[1:45:51] to understand at least what that looks

[1:45:52] like going forward. So it's some of

[1:45:54] those things and and I appreciate the

[1:45:56] finance firm may know a lot of these

[1:45:57] answers already. It's a lot of us

[1:45:59] looking at it new and trying to

[1:46:00] understand how those things are laying

[1:46:01] out.

[1:46:02] >> So those things that are aging out that

[1:46:05] need replenished that will be very well

[1:46:08] considered. Right. I'm just thinking

[1:46:10] about the pool for example

[1:46:12] because the so we have so many citizens

[1:46:15] that really absolutely would just go

[1:46:19] berserko if we took away their lazy

[1:46:21] river opportunity.

[1:46:23] >> Well and I think again from our lens

[1:46:25] it's sort of what are we committed to

[1:46:27] already? Um and obviously since this

[1:46:29] whole one um came about we've committed

[1:46:31] a lot more to parts over time. So we

[1:46:33] need to understand that along with then

[1:46:35] how do we think about adding new after

[1:46:37] that like what actually do we have at

[1:46:39] our disposal to do that and on what

[1:46:41] timeline I think that's the other part

[1:46:42] and I think is you know you guys know

[1:46:44] way better than we do on some of the

[1:46:45] infrastructure even buildings like those

[1:46:46] are massive projects that we may need to

[1:46:48] do.

[1:46:49] >> So can we put in trolleys that take us

[1:46:51] from park to park to park?

[1:46:53] >> One in Delmar we could look into

[1:46:55] probably. I know it

[1:46:56] >> might be for sale. Yeah,

[1:46:58] >> horseback.

[1:47:01] [laughter]

[1:47:01] I would like to make a comment. Um I'm

[1:47:04] excited to hear that there were that

[1:47:06] many comments about sidewalks because

[1:47:07] most of you sitting up here have known

[1:47:08] that that's one of my big priorities. So

[1:47:12] I'm excited to work with Brian about

[1:47:14] spending some money on sidewalks in

[1:47:16] these upcoming years.

[1:47:17] >> I believe there may be a

[1:47:18] misunderstanding and 32 is not exactly a

[1:47:21] sampling size. Um but we're very willing

[1:47:23] to look at all priorities. I'd like to

[1:47:25] add

[1:47:26] >> that to the agenda for the next public

[1:47:27] works meeting, please.

[1:47:30] >> Well, and I think what it gets down to

[1:47:33] is what we're trying to say is

[1:47:36] everybody wants their lazy river pool

[1:47:39] and that's great and everybody wants

[1:47:42] sidewalks and a lot of people want

[1:47:44] things and they they probably can't have

[1:47:48] them all. we have to priorities at this

[1:47:50] time. we do have a pool that is in use

[1:47:53] and we want to maintain and what's that

[1:47:57] going to cost into the future and is

[1:48:00] that where is the priority and that's

[1:48:04] kind of where we think the finance

[1:48:08] committee can do a deeper dive and

[1:48:11] understand the existing obligations

[1:48:14] before we go out and add more assets and financial obligations.

[1:48:22] And I concur to that end. It's something

[1:48:24] we haven't really put that work into

[1:48:26] some of the things in the past that we

[1:48:28] certainly could and being a board member

[1:48:30] up here when you know knowing we're

[1:48:31] asked to do things without having as

[1:48:33] much information by nobody's fault. It's

[1:48:35] just this is the biggest thing I think

[1:48:37] we've seen in front of us and I'd go

[1:48:39] back to cyworks sidewalks versus like

[1:48:41] roads that we know maybe need some

[1:48:42] attention that we haven't dealt with. We

[1:48:44] don't really I don't have a really good

[1:48:46] handle on that. So, as the finance

[1:48:47] committee helping advise this group, I

[1:48:49] know we could do a better job than what

[1:48:50] we've done so far.

[1:48:52] >> So, when is our budgeting committee

[1:48:54] meeting occurring that we're

[1:48:56] >> fourth fourth Tuesday in September?

[1:49:00] >> Fourth Tuesday in September.

[1:49:02] >> Fourth Tuesday. Okay. Thank you.

[1:49:10] » I can [snorts] I can add one comment.

[1:49:12] Marian, I've met with Gerald or Mr.

[1:49:15] Brown and uh I don't think we either one

[1:49:17] of us have uh had any discussion about

[1:49:20] taking away the lazy river.

[1:49:22] >> That is good news. [laughter]

[1:49:27] » Thank you.

[1:49:29] >> Any other comments for general

[1:49:31] discussion?

[1:49:32] >> Alderman Freriedman. Um, as we were

[1:49:35] looking through,

[1:49:37] you know, these budgetary items, it came

[1:49:40] to our attention that there is, um, a

[1:49:43] lease on the building at Watson Trails

[1:49:47] and the lease was entered into in 2019

[1:49:52] for 2 years and it's renewable.

[1:49:55] Um, subsequent to that time, uh, there

[1:49:58] was an ordinance passed that any lease

[1:50:02] has to be, um, approved by ordinance,

[1:50:05] and this has not come up before the

[1:50:07] board. Um, I I don't know a whole lot

[1:50:10] about the lease. It's two pages. It

[1:50:13] doesn't look very leasy. I'm not sure

[1:50:16] who signed it and it may be the best

[1:50:20] idea in the world, but I don't think it doesn't address the kind of things

[1:50:26] that we saw when we went through the

[1:50:28] BMX. Um, so I' I'd like to ask Aaron to

[1:50:34] take a look at the lease and, you know,

[1:50:37] I don't know if, you know, I don't know

[1:50:40] whether to put Aaron on it first or have

[1:50:45] staff kind of outline to us what's

[1:50:47] really happening behind the lease. Um,

[1:50:51] but I think I think it's incumbent on

[1:50:54] us. there's a city asset that's being

[1:50:57] leased that I didn't know about and I've

[1:51:01] asked specifically a lot about leases.

[1:51:04] So, I I'd like to understand this and if

[1:51:08] we're, you know, and and get it into a

[1:51:11] proper

[1:51:14] document 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

[1:51:27] and I'd like to direct I don't know if

[1:51:29] the starting point is Aaron looking at

[1:51:31] it or if the starting point is staff ex

[1:51:34] you know explaining this you know how

[1:51:37] this operates in real in the real world.

[1:51:40] I I can't speak to what happened in

[1:51:43] 2019. Um but the Open Space Council is a

[1:51:47] nonprofit organization. They have been

[1:51:48] renting a room at our park maintenance

[1:51:50] facility since 2019.

[1:51:53] We have treated it like a like a room

[1:51:56] rental at the community center. Um, and

[1:51:58] I I do understand what the paperwork

[1:52:00] says, but that's that's how it's been

[1:52:02] treated historically. We can certainly

[1:52:04] move forward with something more formal.

[1:52:06] And at that point, yes, I would

[1:52:07] recommend getting our city attorney

[1:52:09] involved.

[1:52:13] » Are you finished?

[1:52:14] >> Well, I don't know.

[1:52:15] >> Oh, no. I I'm asking, are you finished?

[1:52:17] Alderman Freeman,

[1:52:18] >> hear what Alderman has to say. Say it

[1:52:20] with your big booming voice, Fred.

[1:52:23] >> Microphone's still on. Um, we passed an

[1:52:26] ordinance on leases

[1:52:30] that the finance committee would review

[1:52:31] before the city signed them. And I don't

[1:52:35] know what has happened between 2019 and

[1:52:37] today. And I'm not going to try to go

[1:52:39] down that road and point fingers, but I

[1:52:42] would like to see the finance committee

[1:52:43] review this lease.

[1:52:47] From the financial perspective, yes, but

[1:52:49] also support from the legal having gone

[1:52:50] through this prior with BMX as you

[1:52:52] noted. Yeah, certainly to understand

[1:52:54] what it is and financially whether it's

[1:52:56] again know our role was to look at it,

[1:52:58] make sure it feasibly made sense from

[1:52:59] that and we weren't giving something

[1:53:01] away. So, kind of a different lens.

[1:53:03] >> Is this an lease that just runs forever

[1:53:05] or did it have a termination date on it?

[1:53:07] >> I believe it said there was a two-year

[1:53:09] option, but it's been just roll. So

[1:53:11] you're you're just handling it like a a

[1:53:13] leased room at the community center,

[1:53:15] >> a rented room at the community center.

[1:53:17] The income goes into community center

[1:53:19] revenue. It is handled exactly like

[1:53:21] that. But I it is continuous and it

[1:53:23] would not hurt to have our city attorney

[1:53:25] take a look at it. And then yes, it

[1:53:27] would now follow the process of a lease

[1:53:29] space which was done after 2019 which is

[1:53:32] why I assume that it did not go through

[1:53:35] that process then

[1:53:36] >> but it will in the future take care of

[1:53:38] that.

[1:53:38] >> Yeah. I

[1:53:39] >> I would like to make sure they have

[1:53:41] insurance and that, you know, we're

[1:53:42] covered if something would happen

[1:53:43] because that's a could be a liability.

[1:53:46] >> Okay. If they continue to lease or if

[1:53:48] they're just renting the room like they

[1:53:51] do at the community center, do they need

[1:53:52] insurance?

[1:53:53] >> If they're renting a room at the

[1:53:54] community center, they do not. But if we

[1:53:57] do, if we move forward with a lease in

[1:53:59] our park maintenance building, yes, we

[1:54:01] would recommend there would be insurance

[1:54:03] within the lease.

[1:54:04] >> Okay, we'll take care of that. Any other

[1:54:07] general discussion items?

[1:54:11] » Somebody just raised their hand.

[1:54:13] [laughter]

[1:54:14] >> Does anybody else have anything?

[1:54:15] >> Alderman Freriedman.

[1:54:16] >> Yeah.

[1:54:18] Also in the course of uh of looking into

[1:54:22] you know doing due diligence for the

[1:54:23] steering committee, I wanted to go back

[1:54:26] and um hear the and review the meetings

[1:54:30] for the parks um department and

[1:54:35] the finance department, planning and

[1:54:37] zoning, the public works department all

[1:54:41] have meetings that are accessible by

[1:54:43] Zoom and they're recorded. And you know,

[1:54:47] last year we had $5.6 million out of $13

[1:54:51] million of the city budget spent on

[1:54:54] parks. And there's nothing on they're

[1:54:58] not it's not recorded. It's not

[1:55:00] accessible to the public. And [snorts] I

[1:55:03] I'd like to um make a motion that moving

[1:55:06] forward all parks and recrecks um

[1:55:10] meetings be held with a Zoom option and

[1:55:14] with the meeting recorded so that it is

[1:55:17] um available on the website, you know,

[1:55:20] as a matter of transparency like we do

[1:55:22] with all of our other committees.

[1:55:25] Alderman Akens.

[1:55:27] As a member of the parks committee, I

[1:55:29] just want to say that we often meet at

[1:55:31] the parks and we walk through them and I

[1:55:33] think that's a very important thing that

[1:55:35] we do and during those meetings I don't

[1:55:38] know how it would be possible to record

[1:55:40] those and have a zoom but otherwise when

[1:55:42] we meet here that that makes sense to

[1:55:44] >> well the the agenda items can be

[1:55:46] discussed in chambers and then and then

[1:55:51] the um and I think it is important for

[1:55:53] the committee members to to walk the

[1:55:56] parks But I don't think they're mutually

[1:55:58] exclusive. And for, you know, 42 43% of

[1:56:04] our budget to be spent and and we can't

[1:56:09] hear what's going on in that committee.

[1:56:11] I think I think we can improve upon

[1:56:13] that. So, I would make a motion that

[1:56:16] parks

[1:56:20] conduct meetings that are accessible by

[1:56:22] Zoom and um

[1:56:25] uh posted on the web recorded and posted

[1:56:27] on the website.

[1:56:29] >> Alderman Columbo.

[1:56:31] >> So, I'm I'm curious how that works when

[1:56:33] they meet at Minihaha

[1:56:36] to to do their meeting and walk.

[1:56:38] >> They start their meeting here and then

[1:56:39] they go to Minihaha.

[1:56:41] You know, I

[1:56:43] >> statistically it doesn't make a lot of

[1:56:44] sense.

[1:56:45] >> Well, how often does that happen?

[1:56:47] >> Minutes. It's good weather. We a lot in

[1:56:50] the summer.

[1:56:50] >> Here, the park complex, Minihaha, Watson

[1:56:52] Trails,

[1:56:53] >> and at the pool,

[1:56:54] >> Windstone.

[1:56:56] >> Yeah, we really only meet here like in

[1:56:58] the winter. And we have meeting minutes

[1:57:01] and I think we're happy to record it

[1:57:02] when we're here, but I think the park

[1:57:04] committee being in the parks is very

[1:57:06] important

[1:57:06] >> and Gerald records the minutes at every

[1:57:08] meeting. And we don't

[1:57:10] >> I I've just I mean having been on it for

[1:57:12] 5 years, I don't think you're missing

[1:57:14] anything.

[1:57:15] >> Oh, [laughter] I'm missing something.

[1:57:22] » I understand that we go that our

[1:57:24] committee goes to parks and wants to

[1:57:26] review maintenance or potential

[1:57:29] improvements. That makes a lot of sense.

[1:57:32] But I don't know if you're meeting at a

[1:57:35] park in a

[1:57:38] pavilion or whatever, you can certainly

[1:57:41] come back and meet here or

[1:57:44] decisions of spending money or proposals

[1:57:47] could be then tabled to the next meeting

[1:57:49] when you're in chambers.

[1:57:52] We, you know, the logistics of of the

[1:57:55] park. I understand that that's not

[1:57:59] something that I have to worry about

[1:58:00] with public works, but that's a logistic

[1:58:03] issue that you have to work around in

[1:58:06] order to communicate. We've heard the

[1:58:08] word here tonight,

[1:58:11] the word transparency,

[1:58:14] that we want a transparent city. Well,

[1:58:18] when it comes to the parks committee,

[1:58:21] without the minutes, without recording,

[1:58:24] without anything,

[1:58:25] >> we have minutes.

[1:58:26] >> There are minutes. Sorry.

[1:58:28] >> Well, I'm just saying I'm not seeing I'm

[1:58:31] not seeing the transparency that we have

[1:58:33] in other committees

[1:58:35] >> and the public is welcome to every

[1:58:37] single meeting.

[1:58:38] >> Well, Greg, if we made that, then we

[1:58:40] don't really need to record public works

[1:58:44] either. They're welcome to every

[1:58:45] meeting. I mean, the meetings are open

[1:58:47] to everybody,

[1:58:48] >> not public works because they're not

[1:58:50] held in person.

[1:58:51] >> So, it would be impossible. And we could

[1:58:53] switch that,

[1:58:54] >> of course.

[1:58:55] >> How about if at all possible, Mr. Brown,

[1:58:57] would this be possible when you have a

[1:58:59] meeting here in the wintertime, you

[1:59:01] offer it to Zoom to anyone and then when

[1:59:03] you go out in the field at parks or the

[1:59:05] pool advisory or whatever that you just

[1:59:09] say that in the meeting, say we're being

[1:59:11] excused now to go look at this park or

[1:59:14] that park or whatever. And I mean I I

[1:59:17] was on parks for what 24 years and I

[1:59:21] mean we were always out in the field

[1:59:23] looking at things. Mhm.

[1:59:24] >> We would maybe discuss things first and

[1:59:28] then go out or else go out when the

[1:59:31] light was still the sun was still out

[1:59:32] and then come back here and discuss

[1:59:34] things.

[1:59:35] But I don't know how you'd run the Zoom.

[1:59:39] Um

[1:59:40] >> how can you not

[1:59:41] >> because

[1:59:42] well with everyone talking how would

[1:59:44] they all have their microphones and

[1:59:46] everything?

[1:59:48] >> I mean I I think we could do this. I

[1:59:51] could record it at a park. I mean I

[1:59:53] don't know about Zoom. I mean, I could

[1:59:54] record it and then

[1:59:56] >> again, I don't know our system. If I

[1:59:57] could put a recording on there from what

[1:59:59] takes place, um the business that we

[2:00:02] have like in a shelter,

[2:00:04] I'm guessing.

[2:00:06] >> Also wondering how much you're going to

[2:00:07] be able to hear people because often,

[2:00:08] you know,

[2:00:09] >> yeah, they're not each going to have a

[2:00:10] microphone like this.

[2:00:11] >> We've got nine microphones here and

[2:00:13] there's nine people on parks and Gerald

[2:00:16] could use that microphone. I think we I

[2:00:19] and I I think we can do better. And for

[2:00:23] instance, one of the things I wanted to

[2:00:25] see was the you know, we had a

[2:00:28] stakeholders meeting and that was the parks committee met to review the

[2:00:34] parks master plan. So I went to listen

[2:00:38] to the minutes and they they weren't

[2:00:40] there. I read the minutes and the

[2:00:41] minutes said that Gary C um I'm sorry,

[2:00:45] Mr. Dunl appeared and made a

[2:00:47] presentation. it doesn't reflect any

[2:00:49] discussion that was made or questions or

[2:00:54] you know and I think that that would

[2:00:57] have been helpful for me to understand.

[2:00:59] So my motion stands.

[2:01:03] [snorts]

[2:01:03] >> Okay. And you have um Alderman Akens who

[2:01:07] attend who's on parks and she can

[2:01:10] probably answer any question that you

[2:01:12] want to know from the parks meeting.

[2:01:15] >> Yes.

[2:01:17] and she's on the steering committee. So,

[2:01:22] >> believe it or not, I listen to a lot of

[2:01:24] recordings

[2:01:25] and and I can't listen to any of those

[2:01:29] and that is last year it was 42% of our

[2:01:33] budget.

[2:01:36] » I would second the motion.

[2:01:40] >> Okay, you're seconding the motion for

[2:01:43] Can we repeat the motion? Oh,

[2:01:46] >> are you

[2:01:47] >> from what we're voting for?

[2:01:49] >> You're taking people out of the parks.

[2:01:50] Do you realize that? I just

[2:01:51] >> No, I'm What I'm What I'm proposing

[2:01:54] >> roll call and people can vote no or vote

[2:01:56] yes.

[2:01:57] >> Yeah.

[2:01:58] >> I'm proposing that the parks committee

[2:02:01] record and give detailed minutes of

[2:02:05] their meetings

[2:02:07] moving forward. And I think if that

[2:02:09] means that you have to

[2:02:12] we don't have a big city. If you have to

[2:02:15] go to a park and then come here to

[2:02:17] actually have your meeting, I don't

[2:02:20] think that is a big

[2:02:23] problem.

[2:02:24] Is it

[2:02:25] >> our part of our meeting

[2:02:27] >> from the point of view of people that

[2:02:28] have been serving on it that have that

[2:02:31] meet at parks and walk through them

[2:02:32] rather than meet here, hold a meeting,

[2:02:34] now leave, go to a park. Do we adjourn

[2:02:37] the meeting? Do we have to come back to

[2:02:38] adjourn? I just I think you guys

[2:02:42] >> part of our meeting

[2:02:43] >> a logistical problem overburdensome and

[2:02:45] you're going to find people don't want

[2:02:46] to serve if they have to keep coming

[2:02:48] here instead of being in the parks. So

[2:02:50] you're going to probably lose some

[2:02:51] committee members. It would be my guess.

[2:02:53] >> And the meeting continues when we're at

[2:02:55] the park, right? We're walking around.

[2:02:56] We're looking at things. So it doesn't

[2:02:58] just end

[2:02:58] >> not adjourn and then go continue to

[2:03:01] conduct business elsewhere. Alderman

[2:03:06] Fernandez,

[2:03:07] >> I just have a logistical legal question.

[2:03:08] So, is it a requirement of the

[2:03:10] committees to be recorded or to be or

[2:03:12] open to the public like every other

[2:03:14] >> requirement to have minutes post an

[2:03:15] agenda? It is not a requirement to be

[2:03:17] recorded.

[2:03:18] >> I just thought it was a good practice of

[2:03:20] transparency.

[2:03:22] >> Me, too.

[2:03:24] >> So, how many of us have actually read

[2:03:26] the master plan that we approved?

[2:03:30] Have we all read it? And were there

[2:03:32] questions still that needed to be

[2:03:34] answered that we now need to think about

[2:03:36] over the next couple of years?

[2:03:40] I mean, like our art committee, we have

[2:03:42] anyone's welcome to come. We have the

[2:03:45] minutes written down, but there's a lot

[2:03:47] of discussion that I don't even know how

[2:03:48] you would put it down and just let

[2:03:51] people hear because a lot of it is and

[2:03:54] >> and that's what we record.

[2:03:56] >> Okay.

[2:04:04] All right,

[2:04:05] >> we have a motion and a second. We have a

[2:04:07] motion and a second. Do you all

[2:04:08] 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

[2:04:16] interpretation and Alderman Freriedman's

[2:04:18] interpretation are

[2:04:21] I'm not clear as to which one I I would

[2:04:23] be voting on.

[2:04:25] >> Okay. So, could we have the motion read

[2:04:27] again, Mrs. Stone.

[2:04:28] >> 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

[2:04:42] >> All right. Is that the second?

[2:04:43] >> No. No,

[2:04:44] >> that that was not the motion.

[2:04:46] >> Okay. So the motion was to for their

[2:04:48] meetings to be in chambers or in the meeting place

[2:04:54] available via Zoom and with the

[2:04:57] recording posted on on the website as

[2:05:01] the other committee [clears throat]

[2:05:03] meetings the the other committee

[2:05:06] recordings are posted.

[2:05:11] » Yes.

[2:05:14] >> Is that the um motion? That's my

[2:05:16] understanding as well.

[2:05:17] >> And you're going to second that. I

[2:05:18] second that.

[2:05:19] >> So a motion was made by Alderman

[2:05:20] Friedman, seconded by Alderman Doss.

[2:05:24] >> 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.

[2:05:34] [clears throat]

[2:05:35] >> Nay.

[2:05:48] >> Alderman.

[2:05:50] >> Hi.

[2:05:52] >> Alderman Friedman.

[2:05:53] >> I [snorts] also

[2:06:02] » Okay. Motion fails.

[2:06:05] All right. Any other items under general

[2:06:07] discussion?

[2:06:09] >> Alderman Fernandez.

[2:06:10] >> This is Thank you, Madam Probably out of

[2:06:12] order. Um, knowing that that did not

[2:06:16] pass, I would ask though that the

[2:06:17] committee does a much deeper thorough

[2:06:20] job on the minutes potentially if that's

[2:06:21] been an issue where we can't discern

[2:06:23] some of the information and especially

[2:06:24] like presentations and any of the

[2:06:26] dialogue.

[2:06:27] >> Yes, I I can cover that.

[2:06:29] >> The past I mean Gerald gets the minutes

[2:06:31] out the next morning, right? So, they're

[2:06:32] fresh, they're concise, and they're spot

[2:06:34] on.

[2:06:35] >> I've never read them, so I don't that

[2:06:36] should not be an indictment uh at all.

[2:06:38] So, but if if that were an issue or has

[2:06:40] been an issue, I would like to see that.

[2:06:42] >> Yeah. and I

[2:06:43] >> the next day and he asked if there's any

[2:06:46] correction corrections or additions. So

[2:06:50] al all

[2:06:51] >> I'll just add when we do meet here I am

[2:06:53] in favor of recording when we can. I

[2:06:55] just don't want to take the parks

[2:06:56] committee out out of the parks

[2:07:00] >> and I will add I mean we have had zoom

[2:07:03] for several of the meetings over the

[2:07:05] last couple of years. I I mean I know

[2:07:07] that but I don't know what the special

[2:07:09] occasion was why we used it but there

[2:07:11] were times whether it was the park

[2:07:13] master plan which obviously it wasn't

[2:07:15] cuz Kathy would have known but I know

[2:07:17] we've had some. So

[2:07:21] that's the case. May I make a motion

[2:07:23] that any um parks meetings that are held

[2:07:27] um indoors be available via Zoom and

[2:07:33] recorded and with the recording posted

[2:07:35] on the city website.

[2:07:38] >> That could work.

[2:07:40] >> Can we be specific to here in the

[2:07:42] chamber? We do meet other places that

[2:07:43] are indoors that might not you might not

[2:07:45] be able to hear us where we don't have

[2:07:46] microphones

[2:07:48] >> and we we always record our minutes.

[2:07:52] Those can be how do you how do you

[2:07:54] handle that when it's not verbal? It's

[2:07:56] just written. So what do we do? How do

[2:07:58] we place that in the public's hands

[2:08:01] >> on the website?

[2:08:02] >> Posted on the website.

[2:08:04] >> So those can be posted

[2:08:06] >> and that's the way they're always

[2:08:07] >> there. any questions that come up at the

[2:08:09] next meeting then we can rectify it in

[2:08:12] some way

[2:08:15] >> because we always have we always um do

[2:08:19] written minutes there's always someone

[2:08:21] taking minutes

[2:08:24] >> so are the meetings that are held

[2:08:26] indoors can they be held somewhere where

[2:08:28] we have the zoom capability and or are

[2:08:31] there locations that you go to

[2:08:33] >> this is the only room that we have the

[2:08:35] zoom room within um the public works

[2:08:38] committee. We typically use a laptop

[2:08:40] which isn't great but we make it work.

[2:08:43] But this is the only room that has that

[2:08:44] Zoom room capability.

[2:08:46] >> What are we doing for finance?

[2:08:49] >> Finance. I'm sorry. Did I say public

[2:08:50] works? We're always I apologize. Finance

[2:08:53] is when we're in the public works.

[2:08:54] That's why we're in the public works um

[2:08:57] conference room and that's where we use

[2:08:59] a laptop which again not not great and I

[2:09:01] know sometimes the the sound isn't great

[2:09:03] 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?

[2:09:15] >> Did you make it?

[2:09:15] >> I did.

[2:09:16] >> Okay, I'll second her. K.

[2:09:18] >> A motion was made by Alderman

[2:09:19] Freriedman. Second by Alderman Schwarz.

[2:09:22] And do you want to read that motion

[2:09:24] again so everyone knows what they're

[2:09:25] voting on, please? Mrs. Stone

[2:09:34] are In chambers.

[2:09:37] >> All right. Roll call vote.

[2:09:39] >> That you said in chambers. In chambers.

[2:09:41] You

[2:09:41] >> didn't say every place. You just said in

[2:09:42] chambers.

[2:09:43] >> When the meetings are held in the

[2:09:44] chambers, they will be recorded and the

[2:09:48] recording will be posted and Zoom

[2:09:50] accessible.

[2:09:54] » Roll call vote, please.

[2:09:58] » Alens.

[2:10:00] I

[2:10:02] Davis.

[2:10:03] >> Hi.

[2:10:12] >> Michael.

[2:10:12] >> Hi.

[2:10:14] >> Alman Fre,

[2:10:17] >> I

[2:10:23] » All right. Any other items under general

[2:10:24] discussion? I'm afraid to look over

[2:10:27] here.

[2:10:29] [laughter]

[2:10:30] >> I'm kidding.

[2:10:32] >> No, you're not. That's okay. [laughter]

[2:10:35] >> Back to my line.

[2:10:36] >> We all have to have a sense of

[2:10:38] >> meeting.

[2:10:38] >> All right. If not, do I have a motion to

[2:10:41] >> We did this.

[2:10:42] >> We did.

[2:10:42] >> Oh, we did that. Never mind. [laughter]

[2:10:46] >> Amended the agenda.

[2:10:47] >> It was It was

[2:10:48] >> They didn't know if we needed to vote on

[2:10:50] it.

[2:10:50] >> It was included in the consent agenda.

[2:10:54] >> A motion to adjurnn, please.

[2:10:56] >> I make the motion.

[2:10:57] >> I'll second. Motion was made by Alderman

[2:11:00] Donna, seconded by Alderman Wigle. All

[2:11:02] in favor of adjournment

[2:11:04] >> I

[2:11:05] >> have a great evening. We adjourned at

[2:11:06] 811.

Sunset Hills Board of Aldermen 8/12/2026

Agenda

Transcript