[0:00] I'd like to call the meeting of September 8th, 2026 to order at 6 pm.

[0:06] Would you please all stand for the pledge of allegiance [clears throat]

[0:12] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[0:17] stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:23] for all. >> Roll call, please.

[0:27] Patricia Friebus, mayor >> here.

[0:30] » Brian Fernandez, alderman, ward one, >> present.

[0:34] » Natalie Akens, alderman, ward one, >> here.

[0:37] » Davis, alderman W two, >> present.

[0:41] » Alderman W two, >> here.

[0:43] » Greg Columbo, alderman Ward three, >> present.

[0:46] » Angie Wigel, alderman W three. >> Okay. Kathy Freriedman, alderman ward

[0:53] four. Alderman Ward 4

[0:58] » here. >> Britney Gillette, city administrator

[1:01] » here. >> Jeff Trentman, director of finance.

[1:05] » Mike Knight, director of planning and public works.

[1:08] » Here, director of parks and recreation.

[1:12] » Steven Dodge, chief of police. >> Erin Cely, city attorney.

[1:17] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Mrs. Stone. Now, do I have a

[1:21] motion for the approval of the agenda?

[1:26] A second. >> Motion was made by Alderman Davis,

[1:29] seconded by Alderman Akens. All in favor?

[1:32] » I oppose. >> Approval of the agenda passes. Uh now

[1:37] I'm asking for a motion for approval of the minutes of the August 11th, 2026

[1:42] regular.

[1:46] » Oppose. Are you okay for the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Knight?

[1:49] » I believe so. I'm checking right now.

[2:19] We're on. It's But I'm not seeing it though, Britney.

[2:21] » Okay. >> Okay. So, you're okay with Okay. What

[2:26] has been accomplished? All right. All right. Do I motion for the uh consent

[2:30] agenda? >> It's all moved.

[2:35] » Second. >> Motion was made by Alderman Davis,

[2:38] seconded by Alderman Akens. All in favor of the consent agenda.

[2:43] » I >> oppose. Consent agenda passes.

[2:47] This time we're going into the public hearing to establish the annual rate of

[2:52] tax levy for the year of 2026 on all property within the city of Sunset

[2:57] Hills, Missouri. Mr. Trenton, would you like to address this?

[3:10] Is it on now? Okay. >> Yes. Perfect.

[3:13] » Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. Yep. This is part of our annual process for approving

[3:17] our uh 2026 tax rates. That's what we're here tonight for. Uh before I go over

[3:23] the tax rates, which haven't changed from last year. Um I thought I'd just go

[3:27] through the procedure real quick in case anybody here is not familiar with the

[3:30] procedure of how the rates are obtained. So every year the St. Louis County gives

[3:35] out their they do their assessments. They pro

[3:41] sorry I'm trying we plug in those assessment values of all the assessment

[3:46] values and then the new construction into the state auditor's website their

[3:51] portal. Give it about a day and then the state auditor gives us a what's called a

[3:55] proforma report that tells us what the rates should be in order to get the

[4:00] amount of revenue that is consistent with prior years. And so we take those

[4:05] reports that have the tax rates. I bring them to you all. We have this meeting.

[4:09] You all pro uh approve the ordinance with the tax rates and then I certify

[4:14] them and then we send them off to St. Louis County and then you get your

[4:16] property tax bills in a couple months. Um and then the tax rates need to be

[4:22] certified and to the county by October 1st, which is why we're asking, we

[4:27] always ask every year for two readings in September so that we can get the

[4:31] rates to county in time. Um, as far as the assessments go,

[4:36] compared to last year, it hasn't changed by much compared to, um, overall.

[4:42] Residential, the assessed valuations have only changed by about 350,000.

[4:46] That's out of 380 million. Uh, agricultural hasn't changed at all.

[4:51] Commercial is up about 4.5 million. And then personal property is down 3.2

[4:56] million. Um, as far as the rates go, as I mentioned, the 2026 rates are the same

[5:02] as the 2025 post BOE rates. So, residential is per $100 is 040,

[5:11] the agricultural is 035, commercial 043,

[5:18] and personal property is 0.60. So, very low in St. in um city cent

[5:26] hills. Um estimated tax revenue based off of those tax rates and the assessed

[5:31] valuations is about $257,993 which is last year we were at 256

[5:38] something say they they make us keep it pretty consistent. So that's where the

[5:43] rates and all the information comes from and how it gets to you all and your role

[5:47] in the process. Do you guys have any questions or anybody has any comments?

[5:52] » I have a question. How did the senior tax freeze on their tax, their personal

[5:56] property taxes on their home? >> Last year, we had a credit uh that I

[6:02] backed out of our um estimated revenue. [gasps]

[6:07] » I'm trying to remember the exact numbers for you, mayor, but I can't. But it was

[6:10] not significant. >> Uh

[6:12] » it's interesting. >> It surprised me as well. I was expecting

[6:15] a higher credit value, but it was not as high as I was expecting. But we do not

[6:19] get that information during this time period. I got that at like the end of

[6:24] the the end of the year is when I received that information. So I won't I

[6:28] won't know that for 2026 yet. >> Okay. Any other questions?

[6:33] » Alderman Columbo comment. So, out of all of our Sunset

[6:38] Hills residents combined real estate tax bills, personal property tax bills that

[6:43] we pay, the total from Sunset Hills residents is only $257,000.

[6:50] » It's amazingly low, >> right?

[6:53] » Incredibly low. >> Right. Residents, commercial,

[6:56] everything. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[6:59] » I think my tax bill is about $7,500. I pay $52 to Sunset Hills. Right.

[7:07] » 1.3% I believe out of my >> bill. Every year when we do the popular

[7:13] annual financial report, I make sure to have a section in there that details

[7:17] here's your property tax bill and this is how much goes to Sunset Hills and you

[7:20] can pretty clearly see the small fraction out of your entire bill that

[7:24] goes here. >> Any other questions or comments? All

[7:28] right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much.

[7:30] » We will now close this public hearing and move on to public comments. Uh, do

[7:35] we have any from the audience? I have two that have been emailed to me.

[7:46] Since this person came in person, we're going to let him go. Let her go first.

[7:51] Esther Gear, would you please come forward, state your name and address,

[7:54] and you have three minutes. >> Yes. Thank you.

[7:58] » My [clears throat] name is Esther Gear. Um, I'm a longtime resident of Sunset

[8:02] Hills. My address is 9420 Sappington Estates Drive.

[8:07] [clears throat] So say 36 years. Um I just wanted to come tonight to add some

[8:16] support. I am on uh the parks board and um I don't think it is often said what a

[8:25] fantastic job that Gerald does for our parks board. And I know

[8:31] there was some level of discussion in the last alderatic meeting that I didn't

[8:37] attend, but I wanted to be very clear. I think I've been on the parks board since

[8:44] about 2015. I've been a member of the Sunset Hills

[8:48] Garden Club for um 28 years. And um we have really made great strides in

[8:58] beautifying Sunset Hills. If you look at the police station, if you look right

[9:03] here at city hall, if you look uh what Gerald does on the streets also up and

[9:09] down Lindberg and his group also helps us with our

[9:13] triangle garden there by um Sunset Country Club and Guyire [snorts] Road.

[9:20] So, I don't know the exact number, but if

[9:24] you all knew how many grants this man has written and how much money this city

[9:33] has gotten based on those grants, it would be shocking. He would be highly

[9:39] regarded in any municipality and I don't want um to not support him.

[9:48] And also Gerald's the last one that compliments himself and his staff. He uh

[9:54] plays that down and right now his staff is short because everybody's gone back

[10:00] to school, but they um they do an amazing job. You ask any one of them for

[10:07] something and one if not several step up to the plate. So I I know that the a lot

[10:16] of money does go to the parks department for from the

[10:22] [clears throat] storm water situation in the last tax um vote that we took that

[10:29] first one with Mayor Huner years ago. Uh you know, we also at the parks

[10:35] department got a nice sum there. But I just wanted to thank Gerald for his

[10:40] efforts here. I hope he stays at Sunset Hills until he retires. And uh I I think

[10:46] that people should really be aware of all the grant money that this city has

[10:51] gotten based on Gerald's great writing and being on many boards that he is. So

[10:57] I just wanted to say that. Thank you for your comment. Mhm.

[11:01] » Next item I have is a comment um from Peter Rodic and his address is 9522

[11:10] Sunny Creek Lane. If it's not too late, I'd love to have the following read at

[11:15] the this evening's board of alderman meeting. Uh good evening. Though I wish

[11:20] I could be present to make this statement, I didn't want to miss the

[11:23] opportunity to advocate for a more walkable Sunset Hills. As the board

[11:27] continues its conversations about sidewalk plans, my family and I have

[11:32] made previous appearances at these meetings to advocate for increased

[11:36] walkability in our own neighborhood. Sunny Creek Lane and Robine Road and a

[11:42] parenthesis. And it remains an important goal for myself and my neighbors to see

[11:46] our neighborhoods better connected. Windy, sometimes hilly treeline roads

[11:52] make our community desirable to pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists. It's

[11:57] one of the many reasons my family chose to live here. However, in the absence of

[12:02] proper pathways, these same characteristics make it unsafe. Some

[12:06] intrepid pedestrians take a calculated risk every day on low visibility,

[12:11] sidewalkless, and shoulderless roads like Robine and

[12:16] Rot. Many others presumably abstain because of the lack of safe routes. Kids

[12:22] do not have a natural or safe place to wait for the bus along these routes. A

[12:27] couple years ago, I plotted every house that cannot ex access any other

[12:32] neighborhood along Robine/Route route without walking on Robine/ route.

[12:39] Many of us are isolated on foot. Not only does this restrict kids ability to

[12:45] visit neighbors and friends, but it prohibits safe access to parks, schools,

[12:51] the aquatic center, etc. As the newest member of the Parks and Recreation

[12:56] Commission, I'd very much like our residents to have easy and safe access

[13:01] to all of our parks and facilities. None of us created this problem. Our city

[13:06] expanded during a time when walkability was not a priority, but recent resident

[13:12] surveys have made it clear that walkability is our community's number

[13:16] one priority today. The fact that it is our resident's number one desire

[13:21] indicates that it is currently our community's number one deficiency.

[13:26] Though retrofitting a community with sidewalks and trails is a costly and

[13:31] complicated undertaking, the resident stated desire coupled with the public

[13:36] health and safety benefits makes it a wholly worthwhile

[13:42] parenthesis I'd argue mandatory and a parenthesis undertaking. We should

[13:47] pursue it aggressively and for as long as it takes. I understand rot near Lmar

[13:53] and under I270 are under construction for side under consideration for

[13:58] sidewalks. I fully support this and hope you will

[14:03] in the notistant future continue to expand Droine eventually across

[14:08] Lindberg. This will connect so many currently disconnected residents to

[14:13] Watson Trail Park, the pool, the recreation center, to Truman Middle,

[14:18] parenthesis, likely eligible for grant funding, and parenthesis. These are all

[14:23] nearby destinations, and we and our kids should be able to safely walk to. Please

[14:28] continue to persistently and creatively pursue grant funding, but I ask that you

[14:34] also supplement that funding with any budget you can allocate from the recent

[14:40] sales tax renewal. Sidewalks are worth it. Thank you, Peter Rodic and family,

[14:45] 9522 Sunny Creek Lane. The next comment is from the president

[14:52] and CEO of Friendship Village, Mr. Terry Walsh.

[14:58] Dear Mayor Friebus and members of the board, we are in receipt of tonight's

[15:02] meeting agenda and staff memorandum regarding the senior living commercial

[15:06] district discussion. We agree with Mr. Knight's memo that require Friendship

[15:11] Village or any other senior living to reszone to a commercial zoning district

[15:17] for any future expansions would be extremely problematic and would be met

[15:22] with firm opposition by neighboring property owners. through creation of new

[15:28] senior living parenthesis SL and a parenthesis district is good planning

[15:34] and the appropriate procedure for senior living facilities to operate within the

[15:39] city. We welcome the alderman to move forward with the second reading and

[15:43] passing of bill number 151. Sincerely, Terry Walsh, president, CEO, Friendship

[15:50] Village. And those are the only comments I have. And I believe Alderman Wigel is

[15:56] online right now. >> Okay. Thank you.

[15:59] » Uh any other comments from the audience? Okay. Moving on now to old business.

[16:07] Bill number 150. Would you please read that for us? Alderman Fernandez.

[16:12] » Yes, Madame Mayor. Bill number 150, an ordinance amending various sections of

[16:16] the Unified Development Ordinance relating to recreational land uses.

[16:20] Second reading. A motion to approve. Motion was made by Alderman Fernandez,

[16:28] seconded by Alderman Davis. Roll call vote, please.

[16:31] » Alderman Fernandez, >> I.

[16:33] » Alderman Akens, >> I.

[16:36] » Alderman Davis, >> I. Alderman Schwarz.

[16:40] » I

[16:44] » Alderman Wigle. >> I

[16:50] » I wiggle. We need to see your face in our

[16:54] to verify your vote, please. >> I I I have my video on

[16:59] » to get it on. Let me try. >> Alderman Wagle, I saw you pop up. Can

[17:05] you say something here for me? I I >> Okay, now we see you.

[17:10] » Okay. Hello. Sorry. Did you hear? >> We can't hear you now.

[17:14] » Technical difficulties. >> Yes, I I'm voting yes.

[17:18] » See if I can do it. >> She has her audio. Oh,

[17:26] got one. Now, >> keep trying. Hello. Now we can hear you.

[17:30] » Okay. Sorry. Yes. I >> Thank you. Thank you,

[17:35] » Alderman Freriedman. >> I,

[17:38] » Alderman Daw, >> I.

[17:39] » Eight eyes's. >> Thank you. Bill number 150 becomes

[17:43] ordinance number 2429.

[17:47] » Perfect. Thanks.

[17:53] » City official and committee reports. City clerk, city administrator, Mrs.

[17:58] Gillette. >> Thank you. Just one more reminder, we

[18:00] will have our joint work session with the finance committee. It does start at

[18:04] 5:30 on the 22nd. Thank you. >> Director of Finance, Mr. Trentman.

[18:17] » Hello. And as Britney had mentioned, finances in the middle of budget season

[18:21] right now. So, we've been meeting with the department heads, going over their

[18:24] needs, um, assessing their capital plans, their operating budgets, putting

[18:28] that all together so that we will have a draft for you all, as Britney stated on

[18:31] September 22nd. Um, other than that, the finance issued an RFP last week for

[18:38] auditing services because our contract with Sikitch ended at the end of last

[18:41] year. Um, so firms have until September 25th to submit a bid for the next three

[18:47] fiscal years and bid specs are available on the website underneath the news flash

[18:53] um if they're interested that or they welcome to email myself and then we have

[18:57] a advertisement going out u here shortly as well. That's all I have right now.

[19:03] » All right, thank you very much Chief Dodge Chief Police.

[19:12] Thank you, mayor. Uh, this Thursday we have a uh Custard with a Cop event at

[19:16] Andy's Frozen Custard, 9535 Watson Road from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. So, it

[19:23] should be a nice event. We're doing it with uh the Crestwood Police Department.

[19:26] So, whoever can make it should be nice. So, any questions about anything else?

[19:33] when when it is. >> It's this Thursday, which is the 10th,

[19:37] and it's from 6 uh p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Andy's Frozen Custard on Watson.

[19:44] » Sounds like fun. Thank you very much.

[19:48] » City Attorney, Mrs. Cely.

[19:54] » Um, yes. I really don't have anything. I mean, my interesting fact, I guess, is

[19:58] the St. Louis Municipal League has been asking cities and they're looking to do

[20:01] an independent audit of the St. Louis County on their distribution of the pool

[20:06] sales tax. Um, so we'll see if that actually gets any traction and if that

[20:10] goes forward. Um, but that's kind of the only rumblings that's happening besides

[20:14] all the other news incidents. So, um, unless there's any questions, that's all

[20:18] I have. >> All right.

[20:21] » Thank you so much. >> Director of Planning and Public Works,

[20:24] Mr. Knight. That's myself. Just a couple updates for

[20:31] you. So, Kennerly Road, remember we had the aging storm water infrastructure

[20:35] required a 4-day road closure on Kennerly Road, a constrained rideway,

[20:40] and we we had a 20,000 pound uh structure that we set in, but it was

[20:45] completed in those four days. Uh the job is complete and it's looking good. Uh

[20:50] jumping into West Watson phase two. So, remember email go out. We were hitting

[20:53] the subgrade right in the beginning. We didn't know if it was going to be 20 ft

[20:57] or the full 800. Um, besides that initial area, we got uh I think 250

[21:05] layer feet so far with no issue. So, we're we're in good clay. We're doing

[21:08] good. We don't have a change order proposed yet, but at any point in time,

[21:13] you know, we may hit this bad soil um and which we'll have to address

[21:16] accordingly. West Watson phase three, we received our

[21:20] first set of preliminary plans. Um, good news is nothing jumped out on those

[21:25] plans. There wasn't any rideway needed or any additional storm water that

[21:29] jumped out. Um, there's some storm water features, but nothing additional.

[21:34] Onyx. So, that'll be uh one of our final road projects this year. It's an Onyx

[21:39] surface treatment on Sunland Fairland Parkland

[21:43] uh next Thursday at its earliest. We're a little bit They're in Columbia,

[21:46] Missouri right now. They're coming to us next. So, probably a little over a week.

[21:49] And once we get closer to that date, we'll be sure to let everybody know.

[21:54] Guyire speed detection. So, as you're aware, we reduced the speed limits on

[21:58] Guyire. We also put up some speed detection signs if you haven't seen

[22:01] them. Um, so far they're up. I have seen cars kind of slow down when they hit

[22:06] them. Um, but as we talked about at public works committee, we'll, you know,

[22:09] Denny and Guyire do another speed study after some time goes by just we can kind

[22:13] of see pre and post since we do a speed study before any of these traffic cal

[22:17] measures. Let's say, oh, residential solid waste.

[22:22] So, as you are aware, uh we went out to bid because it's five years. We were up

[22:25] to go out to bid. We received two bids um just fairly recently. We had it on to

[22:31] the public works committee for recommendation and it'll be to this

[22:33] board of alderman next month for action. That's all I have unless there's another

[22:39] questions. >> Any questions from the board?

[22:43] » Very much. Mr. Knight, director of parks and recreation, Mr. Brown.

[22:50] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, just a few items. Tennis courts are open. However,

[22:54] we are going to close courts one and two next week. Uh, there's some unleveling

[22:58] situations that we've got to correct. So, there's going to be some sanding

[23:01] being done, a new polymer that'll be placed down. Um, then they'll repaint.

[23:05] So, that's only a 3 to 4 day procedure. Um, but again, the kids have been using

[23:09] it, the teams have been using it the last few weeks. So, they are playable.

[23:13] They're just not um to our standard, I should say. Uh, Bander Fishing Lake.

[23:18] It's going very well. The grading should be done this week. Uh, the next step

[23:22] would be seed sod silt fencing to keep that um that grading where it's at. Uh,

[23:27] the next step would be putting some rock down where we're going to put the

[23:30] asphalt trail that would go around the lake so that way you could have access

[23:34] to the actual fishing as well as we're looking at possibly putting in an

[23:38] agricultural well. So, we've been getting some bids on that to see if we

[23:41] can keep the water levels at the right level year round. So, more information

[23:46] will be coming as we find out more. Um, a lot of questions about the pool season

[23:50] this this year. The end of the year has been a struggle for the my entire time

[23:55] here. As you can imagine, college kids go back to school. Uh, lifeguards, you

[24:00] lose them. High school, if they're athletes, we lose them. We don't have

[24:04] them through the week. So, we struggle. So, every year is different. So, some

[24:08] years we can stay open full-blown all the way up until Labor Day, no issues.

[24:12] other years it's it's tough to even get open on the weekends. So, as you can

[24:16] imagine, we had a lot of closures. We had a lot of people upset. Uh there

[24:19] wasn't a lot of programming, riverw walk, lap swimming. We did everything

[24:23] humanly possible. How we'll combat that is uh next year we're going to try to

[24:27] get more guards as well as I hate to say we'll try to get non-athletic ones, but

[24:31] maybe that aren't on high school teams where we actually have more guards

[24:37] available to utilize. So, that's what I anticipate. as well as maybe we'll do a

[24:42] little more incentive pay for the last two to three weeks of the season. Maybe

[24:46] pay them, you know, time and a half or something to work those shifts that we

[24:50] that we need them. So, that's all I have unless there's any questions.

[24:55] » Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Moving on now to committee reports. Finance

[25:00] Committee, Alderman Fernandez. >> Um, thank you, Madam Mayor. We did not

[25:04] meet last month, so nothing to report. Uh, we'll have some fun in a couple

[25:06] weeks, though. Look forward to it. Parks and Recreation Commission.

[25:11] Alderman Davis. >> Well, I want to compliment Brian on an

[25:15] excellent report in the horizon. If you if you don't get it by email, make sure

[25:22] you come over to the community center and stand and pick it up. It's

[25:24] wonderful. There's a calendar in there that tells you everything that's

[25:28] happening in September. It's amazing how many things we're going to be doing. And

[25:32] I'm not sure how I'm gonna how I'm gonna get into a kids fishing tournament, but

[25:36] if you are a kid or have a kid or have a grandkid, make sure they come on in the

[25:41] derby on the 12th. And we've got a dog splash. I don't have a dog, but can I

[25:45] bring my cats? Would that be okay? On the 9th and the 11th, they're going to

[25:49] have dog splash time. And then uh there's a big garage sale coming up

[25:55] soon. So, most of us have something we could certainly sell. And I think that's

[26:00] about it. Mr. night. I just want to thank you for allowing me to look over

[26:04] your shoulder cuz my machine still doesn't work.

[26:09] It doesn't work today. So, I'm just going to peek over your shoulder. Okay.

[26:15] And then let's see if there's anything else. I really appreciated what Terry

[26:18] Walsh had to say about our upcoming UDO changes.

[26:23] And uh I did resign from a board recently that made a decision to

[26:28] continue to have their meetings on the same night as the parks and recreation

[26:32] commission for the city. So I had to resign from the other board because my

[26:35] my love is my city, not other boards. So here I am and I'll be here every time

[26:40] this time. Okay. And that's all I have to report.

[26:44] » Thank you very much. Alderman Davis, Police Advisory Board, Alderman Columbo.

[26:49] » So we did discuss a couple of things. Uh the big item was a proposing a pay

[26:55] matrix for communication dispatch personnel. Um current pay structure is

[27:01] definitely below comparable cities and call centers. So it's something that's

[27:06] going to the current structure is impeding recruitment efforts. So we

[27:10] really need to look at that. I think at the joint finance session be another

[27:13] time to talk about this um because there will be obviously some financial cost to

[27:19] it which think we'll be able to share some of that with Crestwood as our

[27:23] current contract with them will be coming up for renewal so it wouldn't be

[27:29] all on Sunset Hills. Um, other than that, we also discussed um

[27:36] using part of our all of our Blue Shield City Award money uh to go towards a new

[27:42] computer aided dispatching system. Um, the current system is somewhere in that

[27:46] 15 to 20 years old. We're going to be losing technical support for that new

[27:51] system is a an upgrade to Motorola which integrates with our new Motorola

[27:56] equipment I think we received just last year. And um it's got some nice

[28:02] features, a regional use, customized mapping, crime analysis and reporting

[28:07] functions. Um definitely improved reliability, techn technical support

[28:12] along with automated report generation once information's entered from an

[28:18] incident. So it becomes very user friendly for the officers. So um both

[28:25] things that we discussed got unanimous support from the committee. And so we're

[28:28] going to try and move that forward and discuss those in the September finance

[28:32] work session. That's all I have to report.

[28:35] » Thank you very much Columbbo. Next is public works committee. Alderman doss.

[28:40] » Thank you madam mayor. As usual Michael, you gave a very clear concise report.

[28:45] I'll just discuss for a moment some of the actual discussion points we had in

[28:52] uh in our committee. First thing uh was sidewalks and we discussed sidewalks

[29:00] I would say for a good 10 or 15 minutes and one of the things that came up I

[29:06] think which which was good was discussing funding of said sidewalks and

[29:14] how that might occur. There were three comments made I want to share with

[29:19] everyone. Number one, where sidewalks might connect one park to another.

[29:27] There was discussion that the parks budget should cover said sidewalks

[29:33] because that was in the park's master plan

[29:37] within a neighborhood that did not connect a park, but that neighborhood

[29:42] would want a sidewalk that could be paid by public works funds.

[29:48] Um, another comment was made that if we

[29:53] wanted as a city to make a commitment to sidewalks,

[29:58] we need to put some money in a rears each year. Maybe it's not spent so it

[30:04] builds. So when the time comes that we want to do a sidewalk, the money is

[30:08] already there. Uh we also discussed phase three for

[30:13] West Watson and Mike shared with us that these

[30:18] grants that we receive or shall we say no sure thing and that

[30:25] there were a hundred grants that were given for phase two

[30:31] and number 96 of those. We barely made it into that and so there's no guarantee

[30:39] on phase three that we would get the grant but as a committee we agreed that

[30:45] make following up with phase three given we've already done phase one and process

[30:50] for phase two made sense. So we Greg a comment there.

[30:57] » Phase four. >> Phase four.

[30:59] » Yes. Three is already funded. >> Yes. Phase four. So uh that was

[31:04] discussed at at great length. And then on trash collection

[31:09] uh we discussed the Meridian proposal and the American Eagle proposal and

[31:15] essentially the numbers were very close. Mhm.

[31:19] » And I would say that the decision from your committee was essentially

[31:27] the devil we know is better than the devil we don't and that we were

[31:31] supporting American Eagle. Is there any other comments from the rest of the

[31:36] committee? Did I cover everything? Okay, Mark, please.

[31:40] » I think we also had a little bit of question about the search charge that

[31:44] could be applied to the Meridian contract.

[31:48] Oh, the fuel search charge. Yeah, >> the fuel search charge which was up to

[31:52] 6% if I believe >> eight first year

[31:58] » substantially >> saw in detail that

[32:02] I know it'll be a shock to all of you but the senior rate that I enjoy on

[32:06] trash collection was more competitive with American Eagle than it was with

[32:11] Meridian. >> Definitely.

[32:14] » That's the end of my report. very much, Alderman Doss. Moving on now

[32:20] to new business, bill number 152. Would you please read that for us, Alderman

[32:25] Akens? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Bill number

[32:29] 152, an ordinance establishing the annual rate of tax levy for the year

[32:34] 2026 on all property within the city of Sunset Hills. First reading.

[32:41] Motion to suspend the rules.

[32:46] So moved. >> You made a second.

[32:50] » Okay. A motion was made to suspend the rules by Alderman Aikens, seconded by

[32:55] Alderman Davis. Roll call vote, please. >> Alderman Aikens,

[33:00] » I. >> Alderman Davis,

[33:02] » I. >> Alderman Schwarz,

[33:05] » I. >> Columbbo, hi.

[33:08] » Alderman Wigel, >> I.

[33:11] » Alderman Freriedman, >> hi. Alderman Daws.

[33:14] » Hi. >> Alderman Fernandez.

[33:16] » I. >> Eight eyes.

[33:19] » Please read bill number 152 for a second reading. Alderman Akens.

[33:24] » Yes. >> Mayor. Bill number 152.

[33:30] » An ordinance establishing an ordinance establishing the annual

[33:36] rate of tax levy for the year 2026 on all property within the city of Sunset

[33:41] Hills. Second reading. Roll call vote. Oh,

[33:45] motion.

[33:48] » Motion to approve. >> Motion was made by Alderman Columbo,

[33:53] seconded by Alderman Akins. Roll call vote, please.

[34:02] » I, >> Alderman Fernandez,

[34:04] » I. >> Alderman Daw,

[34:06] » I. >> Alderman Freriedman. Hi.

[34:09] » Alderman Wigel. I >> Alderman Columbbo.

[34:13] » I >> Alderman Schwarz.

[34:15] » I >> Alderman Davis.

[34:17] » I >> Eight eyes's.

[34:19] » Bill number 152 becomes ordinance number 2430.

[34:26] Next item on the agenda is appointments. There's only one Sherry Schmidt,

[34:30] chairman of the Gump Commission term to expire September 8th, 2029.

[34:39] Move to approve. >> Second.

[34:42] » Was made by Alderman Daws, seconded by Alderman Columbo. All in favor?

[34:46] » I >> oppose.

[34:49] All right. We're very happy to continue. Sherry Schmidt is chairman of the

[34:53] commission. General discussion at this time. The first item on the agenda is

[34:57] court consolidation. Mrs. Gillette. >> Thank you very much. Um, based on the

[35:03] board's direction, we have put a draft agreement within your agenda for you all

[35:08] to review. Uh, the attorneys still are working on details of this agenda.

[35:12] However, uh, as directed, this keeps the conversation open and moving forward and

[35:17] complete transparency for the public should they have any uh, concerns or

[35:21] wish to speak on the topic. We're here to answer any questions tonight. Any

[35:25] direction would just be to continue on with this conversation. The next steps

[35:30] would be to place the final agreement which they are quickly getting to onto

[35:36] um the following agenda in October for first reading.

[35:41] » All right, Mrs. Gillette, how are our courts moving along at this point?

[35:47] » I think they're moving along very efficiently and effectively at this

[35:51] point. >> Okay, any questions or comments?

[35:56] » Yes, question there. Uh [clears throat] yes. Do you see an

[36:00] urgency in moving forward with this proposal?

[36:03] » No, I don't see any urgency. >> Thank you.

[36:07] » Alman Freriedman. [clears throat] in discussions with um with um Miss

[36:14] Gillette this afternoon, she explained something to me that I had not been

[36:19] aware of, and that is that um we do not and cannot have a backup among our

[36:28] existing staff in the event that there is um an illness, an injury, an illness

[36:35] or an absence uh of the city clerk. Um, and that is because of the need to have

[36:42] access to the Regis system. >> Correct.

[36:45] » Am I you're you're absolutely correct. >> And I had not really realized I assumed

[36:51] that if something happened to the clerk that Ms. Stone could step in um or

[36:59] somebody on staff. And that is not the case.

[37:03] » It's not. we we're able to help transactionally um when the court clerk

[37:08] is out. So, taking money at the window or simply directing customers on how to

[37:15] pay online or minor administrative direction from there. But outside of

[37:20] that, there is no one on staff who can access Reges from a court yes

[37:24] perspective. And when I asked what would happen if [clears throat] the court

[37:27] clerk were not available for court, Miss Gillette said that has never

[37:32] happened in her tenure here. But we don't know what we'd do. We we would

[37:38] have to cancel court. So with that in mind, I think the

[37:44] consolidation with Crestwood would give us Crestwood would add a second clerk

[37:52] and that would give um a fall, you know, a deeper bench to provide services for

[37:59] our residents and Crestwood's residents. it and that the only way to provide that

[38:07] deeper bench in Sunset Hills would be to hire another clerk.

[38:12] » Correct. I I believe prior to me starting there was a part-time

[38:16] individual. Um I I'm not sure they were a full clerk. I I think it was more

[38:21] administrative in nature. I'm not sure that person could have even stepped in

[38:24] if our court clerk was absent on a court night. Um but but you are correct. It

[38:30] was Crestwood's direction that they would hire a part-time person in

[38:34] addition to their existing full-time court clerk in order to take on the

[38:39] additional workload and have that backup plan

[38:45] inclined to continue to to move forward with the

[38:49] consolidation. Um, it's something we've talked about and I

[38:54] I know we've got half of the board now is our are new members. It's something

[38:59] that we've been talking about um for years and I think it would give our

[39:07] residents as well as Crestwoods an added level of service.

[39:15] » Any other comments from the board? [clears throat]

[39:21] » Alderman Akens. >> Thank you.

[39:28] And I um we did see a significant increase in cost over the last five

[39:33] years. So I just wanted to say that I did do some digging into that. So thank

[39:36] you Mr. Tman, Mr. Le for providing me that information. Um but from my

[39:40] analysis I saw that the primary cost driver is from personnel. Um so the

[39:46] expenses of salary and the benefits associated with that. Um most of the

[39:51] growth that you see from 2021 to 2022 you see a big jump. So I did look into

[39:57] that as well. Um that is due 2021 is just like an artificially low number.

[40:03] COVID was still kind of happening. So it was ramping up that year. Um and then

[40:07] the jump in 2022 was due to um it looks like we moved some of the the benefit

[40:15] lines moved over to the court budget or perhaps they were new. I don't know if

[40:19] you can see. >> Correct. No, these are not new. I don't

[40:21] know if um many of you will probably recall, we used to have um an 019,000

[40:27] um fund which actually housed the entire city's benefit. So all of this FICA

[40:32] expense, your health insurance, your employee benefit administration fees,

[40:35] those were all excuse [clears throat] me housed separately. In 22, we decided,

[40:40] excuse me, to get a better departmental picture of of actual personnel costs.

[40:44] And so we started splitting those out instead of lumping them all together. So

[40:47] that's why you see that jump. those those costs still existed. They were

[40:51] likely very very similar within that department, but we broke it out

[40:55] departmentally instead of just housing it as its own employee benefit fund.

[41:00] [clears throat]

[41:02] » Any other questions or comments?

[41:08] » What was the difference in that? The numbers from

[41:12] » Right. So 20 21 was 106,000 and some change. 22 was 129,000 and some change

[41:18] and just very quickly ballparking the I mean you're looking at about 17,000 in

[41:23] those benefits alone that would have come from that other fund though they

[41:27] did exist elsewhere in the budget. Okay. [clears throat]

[41:34] » So, Britney, are you looking for direction

[41:39] from us as to whether we want to move forward in discussing this in earnest

[41:46] and make a decision within the next couple of months?

[41:52] I would encourage us to consider that's not saying we have to change anything

[41:58] but kicking the can down the road is should not be our motus operande here. I

[42:04] think we either should say to our city administrator and our mayor that we want

[42:08] to move forward and at least consider this consolidation

[42:13] or we're not interested in it and let's move on. But to me, I think there's

[42:21] enough concern here on the board to look at this in detail. And then the last

[42:26] comment I'll make, the city of Sunset Hills

[42:32] has its fire service consolidated. We don't have our own fire service, do we?

[42:39] It's consolidated. Yet, we enjoy a pretty good level of

[42:44] service. our metropolitan sewer system is

[42:49] consolidated for the entire area obviously and we get a pretty good level

[42:53] of service. consolidation in a lot of ways makes

[42:58] sense for a city and so I think looking at this it's at

[43:04] least something we should take a hard look at doesn't necessarily mean we do

[43:09] it but I would encourage everyone we take a hard look at it make a decision

[43:14] and then let's move on >> yeah to answer your question staff does

[43:19] intend to move forward as previously directed so at this point if you want to

[43:24] stop that I I would appreciate a motion to just table this and bring it back up

[43:30] whenever the board is ready. But yeah, at this point we are prepared to

[43:33] continue those conversations with Crestwood City Attorney and bring this

[43:36] back to you for a first reading in October.

[43:39] » Alderman Davis. [clears throat] >> Um question is how do we get the

[43:43] citizens to buy in? Is that important? When are we going to present this to

[43:48] them? How are we going to get a response back?

[43:51] » Can it be done in two months? We, you know, that was the intention of the work

[43:54] session that we held last month. We advertised it in multiple places. We

[44:00] we're doing what we can. I think we're being very transparent with what's on

[44:03] our agenda and why we're doing what we're doing. Again, we created a

[44:06] completely separate event just for this conversation. And so, we're doing what

[44:12] we can to get that buy in. If it if it doesn't come, I'm not sure what else to

[44:16] do. >> Have any of you heard any comments from

[44:19] residents? I heard one comment and he was opposed to the consolidation.

[44:25] I'd like your comments. >> I I have a question or a comment. Sorry,

[44:29] Madam Mayor. >> Alderman Alderman Wagle.

[44:31] » Sorry. Um, do we know how many of our residents are

[44:36] actually using the court versus people that are actually not Sunset Hills

[44:41] residents? >> I don't have a specific report of that.

[44:46] No, we may be able [clears throat] to draw

[44:50] citations via address, but I'd have to see if Regis has that capability. I'm

[44:56] not sure >> because if if the residents are not the

[45:00] offenders, as long as it's done, you know, efficiently, does it matter? You

[45:06] know, I I don't know. It's just a thought.

[45:10] » We have [clears throat] another question. Alderman Davis,

[45:13] » the other question I have is we we have hired a part-time person in the past. If

[45:18] we did that and stayed here, what would that do with the cost of doing it our

[45:23] way versus consolidation? >> Yeah, part-time people, you know,

[45:28] obviously there's no benefits associated with that. So there the fringe benefit

[45:32] cost is is null and void. But you're you're likely looking 30 to 40,000 a

[45:38] year to have somebody who part-time who's qualified to jump in and sort of

[45:42] create that deeper bench as Alderman Freriedman was alluding to. If we wanted

[45:46] just strictly an administrative person be a little bit cheaper than that, but

[45:50] I'm not sure we'd get a whole lot of benefit if we went that route.

[45:53] » And right now we're looking at approximately how much if we consolidate

[45:57] how much we will we will have an advantage in money. Yeah, those those

[46:00] numbers vary and it's hard to look out into the future because the revenue from

[46:05] citations just varies so much from year to year. And that report within your

[46:08] packets was a difference of anywhere from $7,000 or maybe $1,700 all the way

[46:15] up to 50,000 depending on the year and the ticket revenue associated with it.

[46:20] » Okay. >> Oh, thank you.

[46:22] » If you had a part if you had a part-timer, would they be able to access

[46:27] Reaches? If we had a part-timer who, yes, who was court clerk only,

[46:32] absolutely. They couldn't do work for the prosecutor. They couldn't do work

[46:35] for the finance department. All that stuff has to be very segregated. But

[46:38] yes, to answer your question, they could to find somebody who's qualified to do

[46:43] those things. Again, you're looking at the higher end of that part-time budget.

[46:47] » I believe we're writing many more tickets

[46:52] this year than we traditionally have. Is that right? have to have more speed

[46:57] enforcement. >> Do you project that that will continue

[47:03] into the future? Because that would if if if you think there's going to be a

[47:07] fall back, there will be a fall back in revenues. [clears throat]

[47:11] » It's hard to say. The goal is that we increase speed enforcement, but people

[47:15] slow down and then we don't have to write it and then tickets. That's the

[47:19] goal. So, it's kind of hard to say. people tend to be on a hard curve on

[47:23] that necessarily, but >> so so if it works the way it should,

[47:28] we're going to have less revenue >> hopefully

[47:30] » if it is effective. But again, >> right, we'll have less

[47:35] » that's the goal. That's the goal. >> And and do you know if they're residents

[47:38] or non-residents? Do you keep track of that?

[47:41] » We can find out in terms of who we pull over whether or not they're residents

[47:44] because that's something we actually enter into traffic analysis form. So

[47:49] that is something I think we can find out. I I think we've looked at that in

[47:53] the past and it's been ground I want to say 5 to 10% generally speaking terms of

[47:59] our traffic stops it's about 5 to 10% probably closer to five.

[48:07] » Alderman Columbo >> I would just add that there are plenty

[48:09] of roads and there's plenty of speeding. We may slow it down on one but it just

[48:15] continues on another.

[48:18] Now I have another question. >> Davis,

[48:20] » have we considered the wear and tear on our campus by having the court here? I

[48:25] don't know that that's ever been discussed, but I know to clean up the

[48:29] next day. I know there's a lot of things that happen here. Maybe you wouldn't

[48:32] have >> Yeah, we you know, we're fortunate. I

[48:34] think we have a pretty good janitorial system and and they are um they're good

[48:38] at what they do. They clean up. It's there are times, you know, Miss Stone

[48:41] and I have come in in the morning and you can tell there's been court when you

[48:44] walk through the front uh area there, but for the most part, I I think they

[48:49] treat our building well. Now that, you know, since co we've gotten really great

[48:52] with the webinars and folks really do appreciate not having to drive here and

[48:57] so we actually only hold one in in person per month. The other one is

[49:01] online. Uh so that eliminates some of that wear and tear as well. But I I

[49:06] haven't noticed them and we've been very picky, especially since we've redone our

[49:09] building. I haven't noticed them tearing up our facilities or anything like that.

[49:15] » Other comments? Alderman Akens? >> I'm glad you brought the virtual session

[49:19] up because I did do some research and Crestwood does not offer that. Um, but

[49:24] they do have a 247 kiosk where people can like pay fines and stuff. So, a

[49:29] different benefit. >> Yeah. And, uh, Show Me Courts works that

[49:33] way too. You know, if you've gotten on case ever, most of the time if a fine is

[49:36] payable online, that's it's available 247. So, they probably just have some

[49:40] accessibility to that within their lobby or something. Yeah.

[49:44] » Alderman Schwarz, >> could the [clears throat] uh Crestwood

[49:47] could they handle the double fine zones that are designated within Sunset Hills?

[49:53] » Absolutely. They're they're certainly aware and prepared to to do that. Yes,

[49:56] sir. >> Alder Columbbo,

[49:58] » I just have one final question. I mean, when this originally came up, Britney,

[50:03] you were pretty much an advocate for validating with Crestwood.

[50:08] » I think that's fair. >> At this moment, you've kind of softened

[50:11] that stance. We we've we've got some things that have taken place. It seems

[50:16] like the log jam is breaking loose. We're being more efficient moving cases.

[50:24] Is there a need? So, I guess what I'm asking is back to Fred. We continue the

[50:29] discussion, what's left to discuss on it, or are we happy with the progress

[50:34] that's being made and monitor that for a short time and see if things are

[50:40] going to get get to a tenable solution inhouse and we just continue with what

[50:45] we have. >> Yeah, I think that's a very good way to

[50:47] look at it. I I agree. I think we've discussed all of the points and the pros

[50:51] and cons that we can about the consolidation. And to the mayor's point,

[50:54] um I think us continuing to put it on the agenda equals some transparency and

[50:58] to make sure that folks who are concerned or do want to speak on it have

[51:02] the opportunity to do so. So that's I think that's why we've sort of really

[51:05] slow played this. But I I would agree with you. Um there is the opportunity to

[51:10] to put a pin in it and and see how it goes. On paper, I do think we will save

[51:14] a little bit of money if we consolidate what that's worth to the board as far

[51:19] as, you know, keeping these services in house, keeping our own judge. That's up

[51:23] to you guys to say it is worth that much or it's not worth that much. But I do

[51:27] agree softened. I think we have um loosened up on some of those backlogs.

[51:32] I'm seeing a lot of progress in that regard. Um the concern of not having

[51:38] someone here is is gone. So, yeah, I'd agree with you.

[51:44] All right. If there's no further discussion, let's move on.

[51:47] » I'd like to make a motion to direct staff to continue on on this process and

[51:53] bring it to the agenda on in October. Make a decision or not.

[52:01] So, I'll make that motion. >> Do we really need that? I'll second it

[52:05] if we do. We just want them to continue, right?

[52:09] » I don't need it, but if it makes you more comfortable, we can certainly Yeah.

[52:12] » I Well, I don't know. We We're moving on and I feel like I don't know what the

[52:17] next >> It's always been staff's d or the past

[52:19] couple of months it's been staff's direction to to do this and in in

[52:22] October we would bring you the first reading of that draft. So that's how we

[52:25] were planning on continuing. Thank you. If if that is has changed, I would

[52:29] appreciate a motion to say, "Hey, let's not do that for any reason."

[52:32] » Thank you, ma'am. >> You're welcome.

[52:36] » Okay, moving on. The next item on the agenda is senior living. Mr. N

[52:42] » just a couple slides I'll share. Very brief though.

[52:49] [clears throat]

[53:01] All right. So, uh last time we were here, we talked about the senior living

[53:05] zoning. Um, and at that meeting, uh, it was brought up as I had the senior

[53:11] living zoning uses in its own senior living district. Uh, we said, "Let's

[53:16] bring it back to the next meeting under general discussion and talk about what

[53:19] that would look like if the senior living uses were in a commercial zoning

[53:23] district." Um, so I think the two approaches regulate the senior living in

[53:30] the same way. Um the primary difference the the zoning would be in originally

[53:35] would be a a senior living zoning district. They would have only the three

[53:39] uses the plan retirement care the nursing home and the assisted living

[53:43] where if it was permitted in the general commercial we have two different

[53:47] commercial local and and general. I picked general just based on their

[53:50] description. It said if you're basically only local uh uses you're in the local

[53:56] commercial. If you're visiting from outside of the area, which I thought was

[53:59] maybe a little more appropriate to senior living people visiting, it'd be

[54:02] general commercial. But your minimum lot size, 5 acres,

[54:07] minimum lot width, your height, your density, open space, out structured

[54:11] exactly the same. The sole difference would be whether it would be in the

[54:15] senior living district or permitted use in the general commercial zoning

[54:19] district. So the the key dis the key difference

[54:24] being the underlying zoning. I think um you know in the senior living district

[54:30] existing facilities have the path forward for a change in enhancement

[54:34] which was how we started this conversation without adding a full depth

[54:37] or range of of uses if someone were to move further. But we also brought up

[54:42] that future senior living locations would then require a zoning uh decision,

[54:47] say a new one. We we're really talking about the existing facilities, but if

[54:50] there were a new one, it would require a zoning change. Um, for the being

[54:55] permitted in the GC um you know, the existing facilities reszoned to GC could

[55:01] later become something else, right? So, there are a list of permitted and

[55:05] conditional uses. Once that zoning is defined, they would still have to go

[55:08] through our plan development process. it would still have to meet all those

[55:11] development requirements, but the zoning mechanism would already be there if we

[55:16] reszoned into that general commercial district. Um, and then the light switch

[55:21] would go on for any existing general commercial that senior living would be a

[55:25] planned would be a permitted use in that district. So, if we have, which we do

[55:29] have some existing uh general commercial, if we were going to move it

[55:33] in, if this were to go through, senior living would be permitted in that

[55:38] district. So again, I I said I would set it pretty brief. It was a little bit

[55:42] more in detail in the memo. Um but I really think we started this discussion

[55:46] with providing a path forward for the existing facilities. That's kind of how

[55:49] we got there. There wasn't a new development coming in. Um I think both

[55:53] of these approaches provide a path forward. They really do. It's the same

[55:56] development requirements. You could still have a path forward whether you go

[55:59] into general commercial or a new uh senior living district. They both apply

[56:04] the same development standard. So there's nothing new there that we talked

[56:07] about. I think it's really about the land use behind it. So I think the

[56:12] general commercial they may offer greater flexibility for the development

[56:15] itself because they have these potential uses and the reuse of the property where

[56:20] the senior living district that provides more long-term predictability for

[56:24] neighboring residential. So if you were a neighbor or what whatever neighbor you

[56:29] were to some of these existing facilities and they said we're just

[56:32] going to change our facility. Well, you know it's only senior living

[56:36] then. Whereas if it was general commercial, there could be potential

[56:40] reuse of that site that was different than a senior living facility. Again,

[56:45] just a few slides I think just kind of summarizes the memo I put forward, but I

[56:49] can answer any questions or discussion at the board level, however you choose.

[56:53] » Is I'm thinking of all of our senior living facilities that we have in Sunset

[56:57] Hills now. Peace Haven, Friendship Village,

[57:00] » um Lamar. >> Mhm.

[57:03] » Uh it used to be Sunset Hills. Yeah, now it's just now I think it's another name,

[57:09] the one on Kennerly Road. >> I think of all those and they're very

[57:13] near residential. I would certainly hate to see that zone

[57:19] commercial

[57:22] because we protect our residential >> faithfully, adamantly. We we are

[57:28] forceful with our residential. That's my personal opinion.

[57:34] » Any comments? Alderman Freriedman?

[57:41] If Friendship Village or Peace Haven or

[57:46] anything, >> get closer at least

[57:48] » fell into the ground >> and they're gone. What happens to that

[57:53] zoning district? >> Is this if they already went into a

[57:59] senior living or general commercial or just permanently right now they came to

[58:02] the ground >> tomorrow morning? Yeah, I think they

[58:05] would have their well they would have their existing zoning entitlements,

[58:08] right? And then someone moving in unless they had that same operation, same use,

[58:13] they would have to zone in to what they saw appropriate, you know, a developer,

[58:17] someone it's would be a private entity would least likely be a public entity.

[58:22] » So that zoning district is still there. the PMXD.

[58:31] » Yeah, it would take a it would we would have to for a zoning district to change

[58:35] it would have to come before you and follow the statutory process and public

[58:39] hearing. >> In the case of Friendship Village, it

[58:41] would be PDM mixed in the case of um >> Yeah. PDLC is one of them and Yeah.

[58:47] » Lawmire PDLC. >> Yeah.

[58:52] because and I don't see why it would be

[58:56] different if we had we don't have an overlay system

[59:03] of zoning

[59:07] a a public I'm sorry a plan development is

[59:12] its own district. So if if the underlying if the business

[59:19] goes away,

[59:22] what can continue is what's there and it can be reszoned

[59:31] as the board would see fit in response to a developer.

[59:37] The the big issue that I see with the general um putting this in general

[59:45] commercial is that general commercial is always there and it's a boogeyman that

[59:50] can come up and and >> you know uh get the residents.

[59:56] » That's true. But if a plan development goes in there,

[1:00:01] then what follows in the event that that business goes

[1:00:07] away would have to conform to that plan development.

[1:00:12] It's not just commercial. >> Correct. You have a plan development

[1:00:18] permit, right? So if they weren't if >> so it so the commercial the general

[1:00:25] commercial

[1:00:28] uh zoning doesn't just pop up that what I understand

[1:00:34] » not for that >> the benefit that you see

[1:00:39] » is that if something goes ary with the the

[1:00:46] business the entity that

[1:00:50] that's just open game for general commercial. And what I see because it's

[1:00:56] not an overlay is that PD would and this is an important thing not not for this

[1:01:04] particular it's important to understand >> how our zoning works.

[1:01:13] » Yeah. I don't know if I 100% understand the question is yes if someone were to

[1:01:18] reszone the property they pick what zoning district they want and they have

[1:01:21] a series of permitted uses but it's not by right we have to have a plan

[1:01:25] development permit and that solidifies all those things that we bring together

[1:01:29] with the site plan the landscape plan the lighting plan and it says this

[1:01:33] authorizes this use >> you still have an underlying zoning

[1:01:37] district whether it be GC or let's say we put it in LC right And they all and

[1:01:43] all the different zoning districts have different uses, but the plan development

[1:01:47] permit authorizes the plan. It's not conventional zoning. You have to have a

[1:01:51] plan with you when you reszone the property.

[1:01:54] » Am I answering? And I don't know if it's a fear as as much as it's different.

[1:02:00] Yeah, it's different, right? One would just look at these areas for senior

[1:02:04] living, right, with those three uses. and the other one has other entitlements

[1:02:09] into our code with the P's and C's as you mentioned before

[1:02:12] » the plan development becomes the zoning if there's not an overlay am I

[1:02:18] misapprehending this so >> miss

[1:02:23] » you have plan development but the plan is still in the guise of it's still

[1:02:27] commercial use commercial zoning because that's where he's getting the setbacks

[1:02:31] that's I mean there can be modifications to it and you can't do the use until you

[1:02:35] have the plan, but you're still choosing from those uses within the commercial

[1:02:39] district. You're still choosing whether or not you're going to meet the setback,

[1:02:43] whether or not you're going to meet the building height. You're allowed through

[1:02:46] the plan development permit to get modifications to those and that will

[1:02:50] become the zoning. The plan development commercial

[1:02:55] » okay so would be the zoning still have an underlying zoning

[1:03:01] » question. Alderman Davis.

[1:03:05] » So, if one of your senior living facilities like Friend of Village

[1:03:09] decides to turn into a commercial condominium complex or an apartment

[1:03:14] complex, can they do it or can they not? And what would they have to do in order

[1:03:19] to make that switch over? >> Yeah, neither of the SL or the GC have

[1:03:23] the multifamily element. They're not in either. But there are other I'm just

[1:03:27] going to say what's some common commercial a bank, right? Or maybe a

[1:03:31] pharmacy. those could be adjacent or even any of those other ones that were

[1:03:34] in that use table. I think to your point that doesn't mean by right they can just

[1:03:39] go in they have to submit that plan development permit that goes through

[1:03:43] this process but the underlying zoning is one of those eight or 12 that we had

[1:03:48] on the screen LIGC LC

[1:03:52] and then your assortment of residential >> and from a a legal perspective please

[1:03:58] correct me if I'm wrong once you have that underlying zoning while we do

[1:04:02] require them to come through their plan development permit and it we require it

[1:04:05] all inclusively. We're going to have a very difficult time saying no to that

[1:04:11] use just because of that use if it's already allowed within our use table.

[1:04:15] » Okay. still reszoning, but you're so you still have the legislative discretion,

[1:04:19] but you are now there is you're taking property that is not currently zoned

[1:04:24] commercial that is next to residential property and you are now if you do a

[1:04:28] general commercial, you are requiring to reszone that commercial right next to

[1:04:34] residential zone property, then do development permit on it, which is

[1:04:40] you're now adding commercial property to the city of Sunset that was not there

[1:04:45] rather than having >> okay the the plan developments on the

[1:04:49] map are standalone districts zoning districts

[1:04:54] » they still the way you guys do it is a reszoning but you still refer to the

[1:04:59] underlying districts because that is where you're still getting the setback.

[1:05:02] So when you unless there's modifications to the setbacks you don't put the

[1:05:08] setback in the plan development permit because they are complying with the

[1:05:12] general commercial setback. Some cities they will put the setback every single

[1:05:16] time. They'll put the green space every single time. This you have kind of like

[1:05:20] your base and of saying this is what you want to see for this area. But we can we

[1:05:25] can with the plan development you can put greater. It's like you know actually

[1:05:29] setback is 35 but we want more because of the use. So it gives you a little

[1:05:34] more flexibility that way but it also can give the developer flexibility of

[1:05:37] having a less setback but the your code is kind of the base of it. the

[1:05:42] developers like yep I'm in comply or no I need modifications from that so it is

[1:05:46] a separate reszoning but you're using that as your kind of base

[1:05:52] » so for instance uh tapoing golf course is in PD mixed

[1:06:00] and appendix A says that this is not an

[1:06:04] overlay this is a standalone

[1:06:08] um district so If Tapoingo decided that they didn't want to own a golf course

[1:06:17] anymore, what would happen?

[1:06:21] » They either need to reszone the property or have someone who still wants to own

[1:06:25] it as a golf course because the zoning would stay there, but you have said you

[1:06:29] can't that zoning is no longer alive. So, while all of that is in there and

[1:06:33] that one it is the setback, everything is listed in there. um you would have to

[1:06:38] either comply with that or reszone to a district that is alive still and then

[1:06:45] get your plan development permit for the use that you wanted to do within that

[1:06:49] district. >> Alderman Columbo,

[1:06:53] [clears throat] >> so my concern with the commercial route

[1:06:58] goes back to the $7,000 we collect in tax, real estate

[1:07:05] and personal property tax. But we collect almost $4 million in sales tax

[1:07:09] between our capital improvement tax and our Prop Ps and stormwater tax from our

[1:07:14] commercial districts. [clears throat] If some of those

[1:07:18] commercial districts or areas were now picked off to become senior living,

[1:07:25] we're now >> reducing

[1:07:27] » at risk of our $4 million a year in sales tax revenue.

[1:07:32] » Right? It's the same conversation everybody's had when big box stores are

[1:07:35] going away and they're being filled with gyms and storage units that these things

[1:07:39] aren't adding revenue to those otherwise revenue generating districts. Yes.

[1:07:43] » So it becomes a real fiscal threat to our

[1:07:46] » current model because we are funded so heavily through the sales tax model.

[1:07:51] » Correct.

[1:07:58] At this point, we're looking for direction from the board on which one

[1:08:01] you would prefer to move forward with. We've, you know, we've looked at both

[1:08:04] options on whether it's creating an SL district or if we want to go ahead and

[1:08:08] click permitted or conditional uses in within the GC district for senior living

[1:08:13] facilities, but >> we do need direction on on how to manage

[1:08:16] the existing and and possibly future senior living facilities within the

[1:08:20] city. [clears throat] Alderman Columbo. Do we need to make a

[1:08:25] motion to bring one back? I'd make a motion to bring the SL

[1:08:29] » back for a second reading at the next meeting.

[1:08:32] » I'll second that. Motion was made by Alderman Columbo, seconded by Alderman

[1:08:37] Aikens. All in favor? >> I

[1:08:41] » oppose.

[1:08:44] » But since it's coming back, can I ask a couple questions?

[1:08:49] » Yep. I was just going to make sure Alderman Wigle could be present. I just

[1:08:53] since I shared. >> Yes, I hear. Yes.

[1:08:56] » Okay, perfect. >> Did we get your vote? I'm sorry.

[1:09:00] » Yes. Or I >> Okay, thank you. So, six six to two,

[1:09:05] » Mrs. She was an I >> 7 to1.

[1:09:10] » I'm sorry. >> Thanks, Mayor.

[1:09:15] » [clears throat] >> Um

[1:09:17] the senior section two of your proposed amendment

[1:09:24] for senior living. >> Yes. It says that planned senior living

[1:09:31] communities and associated support services off um in a coordinated manner

[1:09:39] uh promotes compatibility.

[1:09:44] Can we change communities to commercial enterprise? Just to emphasize that this

[1:09:52] these senior living models are truly what we see now. Nursing homes,

[1:10:01] retirement centers, assisted living

[1:10:06] and that the supportive services are offered by that commercial enterprise.

[1:10:11] Um

[1:10:16] don't know if you what I would like to avoid is

[1:10:24] having >> one of the uh facilities

[1:10:30] put in a standalone I don't you beauty salon.

[1:10:36] » Okay. Yeah. >> Car wash. not a,

[1:10:41] » you know, something that's supported. But um and I I mean I understand

[1:10:46] friendship village is a wonderful place because it has all of those but those

[1:10:51] are offered by you know that's not >> Mhm.

[1:10:56] » they're not bringing in a Chick-fil-A kiosk or you know

[1:11:04] » on section three we've got five acres right now. the the ordinance for

[1:11:10] Friendship, the underlying ordinance for Friendship Village calls for a minimum

[1:11:14] of 10 acres. And I think that's more a more appropriate,

[1:11:19] you know, there's too many areas in Sunset Hills that you could string

[1:11:23] together two or three houses and come up with five acres.

[1:11:28] That's >> We do have multiple facilities within

[1:11:33] the city that are right at that 5 acre mark. So my concern would be if if any

[1:11:37] one of them wanted to amend in any way, shape or form, they would no longer

[1:11:41] conform or comply with the senior living district. And I correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:11:46] I thought that was our impetus. >> We attempted we attempted to match the

[1:11:50] existing uh you know based on lot size and most of the bulk requirements um off

[1:11:55] Friendship Village was most descriptive. Um they would run into an issue to

[1:12:00] change, but they would go through that plan development permit process and ask

[1:12:03] for flexibility. Not guaranteed, but I think we all understand what the process

[1:12:07] would be, >> right? Yeah. It wouldn't

[1:12:10] I don't think Peace Haven would come to us and ask to

[1:12:16] change something in their plan development and we would tell them that

[1:12:19] they needed to buy five acres of the park.

[1:12:23] » You know, >> this is they could expand. They could go

[1:12:28] to the county and pick up some of Lmire and all of a sudden Yeah,

[1:12:34] » that's right. My point is, >> yeah,

[1:12:36] » if we have this minimum, we can work around it in the planned development,

[1:12:44] » right? This is just what the the zoning district the minimum size of the

[1:12:52] zoning district per se. >> I I think 10 10 acres and I'm sorry. Go

[1:12:59] ahead. >> Can we have our cake and eating too? can

[1:13:05] be grandfather >> right

[1:13:07] » existing senior living facilities at their five acres that we're talking

[1:13:12] about but a new facility >> would have to be a minimum of 10 acres

[1:13:17] » they already will be we you can't work backwards when you are reszoning or

[1:13:22] making amendments to a zoning code or setbacks or things like that so that

[1:13:25] they're immediately grandfathered in. We're not going to knock on their door

[1:13:28] and tell them they're no longer large enough to be in the city of Sunset

[1:13:30] Hills. But if they were to ever amend their plan for any reason, and our our

[1:13:35] code can be fairly strict on when it requires uh you know, site plan

[1:13:39] amendments or even full-on amendments, they would no longer conform with that.

[1:13:45] And and while I would hope, you know, exactly what Alderman Friedman said,

[1:13:48] there is the opportunity to deny based on the fact that they no longer conform

[1:13:51] with the existing code. >> So for reference, the uh

[1:13:57] » Peace Haven off of Rot Road is just over five acres. Um, Fountain Care, which I

[1:14:02] think is the formerly Cedar He is just over 7 and a half acres.

[1:14:10] » The existing ordinance is 10. And I I would think that that's appropriate. Um,

[1:14:19] and Mr. Knight, I see that you've got the um

[1:14:24] under multifamily dwellings. they used to be under temporary dwellings and I

[1:14:30] think that >> okay

[1:14:32] » that that would be a more appropriate place to to house that. Um

[1:14:40] and finally you and I have Oh, senior housing

[1:14:47] is >> not per

[1:14:51] » Yeah, but you you do need to keep it. It will stay in there then.

[1:14:55] » Yep. So I mean no not in there. >> So the density you and I have gone

[1:15:02] around with this. >> Yeah.

[1:15:06] » Yeah. I think it was one of the >> is a minimum [snorts]

[1:15:09] 11 dwellings per acre. >> Which matches the requirement of

[1:15:14] Friendship Village. >> Okay. Um,

[1:15:16] » we worried about a maximum because a a dwelling unit

[1:15:22] by definition is a not a house, but a a dwelling unit

[1:15:29] that has a kitchen of all things. Not a bathroom, but a kitchen. And

[1:15:35] many of these apartments or rooms or whatever are not

[1:15:41] going to have kitchens. So, and I guess if there's no maximum, do we

[1:15:48] do we care about a maximum?

[1:15:53] » I I mean,

[1:15:57] how many beds? >> I thought it was the most difficult part

[1:16:00] was the density when looking at this because it's really difficult depending

[1:16:03] on the operation. It shows 11 dwelling units per prayer because it matched

[1:16:07] Friendship Village and we were Yeah, exactly. And that was kind of the spirit

[1:16:12] of how do we make these things still work but not try to recreate the wheel.

[1:16:16] » It was the definition of dwelling units was my biggest part that was um I put a

[1:16:22] line in that defined dwelling unit. I just don't

[1:16:26] know if I have it in this comparison. It it did not

[1:16:30] » I don't think it's in the >> it might not now that we're saying it

[1:16:33] too. Um >> I think it was in the previous agenda.

[1:16:37] Yeah. >> Um it was I found something and and I do

[1:16:43] think it's relative. Um that was again that was my when I was looking at the

[1:16:46] most difficult part was how do we match this density and work that it fits in

[1:16:50] because again you can have three people in a room and some you can have one you

[1:16:54] can have more conduct.

[1:16:58] It's really just kind of your what your community wants.

[1:17:01] » I do have a definition. Um again I don't I think you're right. I don't think it

[1:17:05] was in this packet, but it was in the previous cuz I was just doing the

[1:17:08] comparison here saying they're the same. >> Yeah.

[1:17:12] » Yeah. Okay. Well, I didn't see it in this one.

[1:17:15] » So, we need to clean up that Yeah. >> definition. And

[1:17:19] » I'm I'm just still really struggling. I And And I get it. We're We're moving

[1:17:23] forward with SL. >> Mhm.

[1:17:26] » Um the density is >> Yeah. Unfortunat Yeah.

[1:17:32] » Okay. >> vetting that out.

[1:17:35] Wait. Alderman Columbo had his hand up first and then Alderman Davis.

[1:17:38] » Okay. Alderman Davis. >> Most homes don't have kitchens in their

[1:17:43] room facilities. Like Mary Cobber has 27 >> bedrooms, but they don't have kitchens

[1:17:49] in those bedrooms. >> And this didn't go by kitchen. It's in

[1:17:52] the previous packet. It was like a room where one or more beds may be in in

[1:17:56] which someone lives in a retirement, you know, like it it tried to capture when

[1:17:59] you walk by where all these units are. Um, and some cities do beds, but that's

[1:18:04] not how it previously was done. Um, >> Mary Culver, which is in Kirkwood,

[1:18:09] some ladies share a restroom. They're they're they have their own room, but

[1:18:15] they have they share, >> what is it, whatever they call Jack and

[1:18:18] Jill. >> Yeah, a Jack and Jill. Okay. So, I'm

[1:18:21] assuming that other nursing homes are the same way. So, so when you say 11 per

[1:18:26] acre, you're saying 11 rooms, you're saying 11 beds, you're saying 11,

[1:18:30] » it functioned as essentially as rooms, but it took it accounted for that we

[1:18:34] know they can add and subtract beds in these rooms as their operations involved

[1:18:38] over time. I just don't have it in front of me, but point taken. I will make sure

[1:18:43] that is I'll look at it again and make sure it's very transparent as we if we

[1:18:48] bring it back forward. >> Columbo,

[1:18:51] » I just had a procedural question. I've made a motion to bring back senior

[1:18:54] living. It was seconded the way it was and now we've talked about changes. So,

[1:19:00] are the changes voted on or we just saying that

[1:19:03] » I think given that it it's going to be a second reading next time a motion would

[1:19:07] be appropriate for these changes. Yes. >> Well, and

[1:19:11] » so but >> right so that's why I'm

[1:19:14] » eventually I >> I guess my question

[1:19:16] » I'm taking this as discussion at the moment.

[1:19:18] » The motion was made. It was seconded. Would we vote on that motion and then we

[1:19:21] vote on a separate motion to add these individual changes that we haven't

[1:19:26] really looked over per this discussion? >> Mrs. Cely,

[1:19:32] » there was a motion made and seconded and a vote taken to bring it back

[1:19:36] » the existing >> Yeah. to bring it back as an SL. And so

[1:19:41] I can I can make a motion. You know, >> I guess what I'm saying is where does

[1:19:46] the motion to bring it back the way it was stand? We needed to vote on that.

[1:19:50] » You did. >> We did.

[1:19:51] » You voted for that. >> And then

[1:19:54] » and then if there's a motion to make amendments, there can be a second motion

[1:19:59] and and subsequent vote. Yes. But are we making them

[1:20:03] » these individual changes or all these changes lumped together or

[1:20:07] » or is it just a >> that's up to whoever wants to make the

[1:20:09] motion >> because I'm still

[1:20:12] » as it stands right now we're bringing back the original bill

[1:20:18] for a second reading next month and it will be voted on. Now if someone wants

[1:20:23] to make a an an amendment to that bill they can do that at that time. Correct.

[1:20:29] can make a motion now if they choose to, which at that point would bring back a

[1:20:33] clean second reading, which >> I think is preferable and more

[1:20:37] transparent. >> Do we have enough data to do?

[1:20:42] » I don't think we do. >> Not not we've heard enough. I mean, it

[1:20:46] might be in front of Alderman Freeman, but I don't have any of that

[1:20:49] information. >> Yeah.

[1:20:55] » So, Mr. N. And I think two of them I don't know if they're like the

[1:21:00] commercial enter. Well, I shouldn't speak for the board. I'm not I don't

[1:21:02] want to >> I just meant some of them were.

[1:21:06] » Shall I make I would like to make a motion to amend section two

[1:21:13] of the proposed UDO. >> You need to be louder, please.

[1:21:19] » Yeah. Yes, you're right. um to remove the word communities,

[1:21:25] plan senior living communities and make it commercial enterprises

[1:21:32] and associated supported services offered by that commercial enterprise.

[1:21:38] So, you're thinking like a hair shop that's actually inside the building

[1:21:44] where the ladies live >> that they're offering

[1:21:47] » or a car wash that's >> well, not a car wash.

[1:21:51] » That was bad. >> Well, but it's a possibility.

[1:21:54] » Well, it's in your three.

[1:21:58] » The point I'm getting to it with this proposal is that this is not a

[1:22:04] residential community. It's a commercial enterprise, which is what all of these

[1:22:10] are. >> But outsiders don't go to that beauty

[1:22:14] shop. It would just be residents or barber shop in Friendship Village.

[1:22:18] » I just want to clarify to Right. >> There's nothing within this definition

[1:22:22] that would prevent this. It It's just defining these as commercial enterprises

[1:22:28] and not residential locations. By doing this, it's not saying you can't have a

[1:22:32] barber shop on the premises. Okay, if >> if they eventually moved forward or

[1:22:35] included that in their plan development, this definition doesn't

[1:22:38] » remove anything. It's just clarifying that this is a commercial enterprise.

[1:22:42] This is not just a residential multif family district.

[1:22:46] » Okay. And that they have dentist whatever they need

[1:22:49] » and that the services offered there are offered by the commercial enterprise for

[1:22:54] their residents >> for their exclusive

[1:22:57] » exclusively for their residents. >> Right.

[1:23:00] » Right. Or maybe their employees too. I don't know.

[1:23:04] » But I know where Alderman Freriedman is going and I agree with that. It it has

[1:23:07] to be >> within the

[1:23:11] community to offer. They can offer whatever services they would like to

[1:23:16] » right >> but not put that out to the public at

[1:23:18] large

[1:23:22] » to the residents within the community. So that to my point, yeah, we're

[1:23:26] changing the verbiage and obviously you've seen it, you've thought about it,

[1:23:30] we're hearing it and saying, >> I would suggest we need to see some of

[1:23:36] these things actually in writing >> first.

[1:23:39] » And I think we'd be much more comfortable with that, wouldn't we?

[1:23:44] » I think that's a great idea. >> Yeah.

[1:23:47] » And that's fine. I just, you know, if if we're going the senior living

[1:23:53] zoning district route, that's fine. That's what we're doing. But there's, as

[1:23:59] as I've looked at this and thought about it, and what we see here is missing the

[1:24:06] definition of a dwelling, you know, it it's using dwelling unit, which

[1:24:12] really skews [clears throat] >> Yeah.

[1:24:14] » counts. We've got within the ordinance. It says for the purpose of calculating

[1:24:19] density under this section, a dwelling unit shall mean a room, suite,

[1:24:23] apartment, cottage, or other residential accommodation designed for occupancy by

[1:24:28] one or more residents within the senior living use.

[1:24:31] » Perfect. I didn't know if I had it in the comparison. I knew I said I had it.

[1:24:35] I just >> on page three with three asterisks in

[1:24:37] front of it. So by one or more, that's one or as many

[1:24:43] as you want to put into a said dwelling unit.

[1:24:49] » Okay, >> I understand.

[1:24:52] » I'm sorry, Mike. I >> Alderman Davis said that there can be

[1:24:55] jack and gills and those things. I understand that.

[1:24:58] » But I think there needs to be some level of reason there in what a welling

[1:25:03] unit should be able to contain.

[1:25:11] So, if we only have dwelling units, that's where I sleep.

[1:25:16] Can I have a therapy room that's outside?

[1:25:21] What's that called? Because like like at the nursing home where I am on the

[1:25:24] board, we have a therapy room that is leased to a therapy group that comes

[1:25:29] there to do therapy for the women. That would not by by this definition. It

[1:25:34] says it's designed for occupancy by one or more residents. So from a residential

[1:25:39] perspective, occupancy means that's where they're staying. That's where

[1:25:42] they're sleeping. Not necessarily a use room.

[1:25:46] » Okay. Yeah. >> Right. The other alternative would be

[1:25:49] beds. It's just I don't have a calculation of beds or know how these

[1:25:52] beds like that would be another common way to do it. I just I was trying to

[1:25:57] match what was there in the spirit 11 dwelling units and I was understanding

[1:26:01] what's the best way I can describe dwelling unit without that kitchen

[1:26:05] reference and just take the units can be different sizes. I understand that they

[1:26:09] fluctuate in senior living but that's where the 11 came from.

[1:26:13] » Yeah. And the parking spaces are tied to beds. So

[1:26:16] » Mhm. Yeah. And that's how they were again.

[1:26:19] » Yeah. And do you have >> I've looked at quite a few and a lot of

[1:26:22] parking is tied to beds and again some senior living tie it to beds and you

[1:26:26] have a lot of controlling mechanisms through the space right you know you

[1:26:29] have 50% open space you have the height so you're you're you're showing the form

[1:26:33] too um yeah those like I said it was probably the most difficult part was

[1:26:38] trying to itemize that but I was leaning on what was there today and not trying

[1:26:43] to reinvent the wheel and saying let's kind of mirror these existing facilities

[1:26:51] No, >> we can provide these in a red line if

[1:26:53] you wish and put it back on for discussion at the next meeting.

[1:26:57] » I'm not sure how else to do it to ensure you guys are able to see this before

[1:27:01] we've put it on for a second reading.

[1:27:06] » My [clears throat] other question is did are we leaving it at the five acres? I

[1:27:09] mean, there was talk of that. I think the five acres has been proven to work

[1:27:13] in our community without tying up big parcels of land to turn into more thing.

[1:27:19] I >> that is completely up to you all.

[1:27:22] » Yeah, >> Alderman Wel,

[1:27:24] » I like the 10 acres, but [clears throat] that was my question.

[1:27:32] » So again, the motion was made and approved to bring it back the way it

[1:27:36] » was the way it is written. hash it out when we have some definitions in front

[1:27:40] of us at the next meeting. >> Okay. Okay.

[1:27:44] Any other comments on senior living? >> One one other question.

[1:27:49] » Alderman dos. >> Um so Michael

[1:27:53] with all the work you've done towards to get us to this point.

[1:27:58] » Can you share with us what some other municipalities of similar size do with

[1:28:04] some of these things or have you already done that?

[1:28:07] » Oh. you were well you were suggesting mirrors was already being done

[1:28:12] » right so I I looked in quite a few different existing facil existing cities

[1:28:17] especially when I previously worked where they had a lot of senior living

[1:28:19] and went through those changes also looked at what our current entitlements

[1:28:23] were and said are any of them far off far different again we're right in line

[1:28:28] with the parking in terms of other cities from my recollection

[1:28:32] um we have I think some more open space than others but more open space is kind

[1:28:36] of the standard that we've had. So, it all made sense. Um,

[1:28:41] I think parking even gets tricky, too, just because the amount of visitors you

[1:28:45] have and stuff. But, no, that the hardest part was that density function

[1:28:49] because I was mirroring it off these existing facilities. That was the

[1:28:52] language that chose. I didn't really know how to calculate beds to make it

[1:28:57] similar to what we had is maybe look at other parking counts. Yeah. No, I looked

[1:29:00] at all of them and and all seemed within typical, nothing atypical that jumped

[1:29:05] out. One last comment and and I promise it's

[1:29:10] the last one.

[1:29:14] » I'm not going to get specific, but we all know where there is open space in

[1:29:17] our city. I was going to ask >> and

[1:29:22] I would like to see that open space especially as it exists in major

[1:29:27] thorough affairs remain as an opportunity for us to have

[1:29:33] commercial development because as Alderman Columbo said that's

[1:29:38] the straw that s stirs the drink the drink. So,

[1:29:43] um I think we just need to be careful there. This 5 acre thing that also

[1:29:49] concerns me with some of the parcels that I'm looking at. If it was 10,

[1:29:56] that couldn't happen. And it would seem to me to be a shame

[1:30:01] even though yes, we have residents that want these services. I won't argue that,

[1:30:06] » right? But it would seem me to be a shame with our limited availability of

[1:30:10] commercial development that that could get soaked up with senior living new

[1:30:18] facilities. I think it's 10 acres. I'm much more

[1:30:22] comfortable with that not happen. >> Thank you, M. I'm sorry.

[1:30:28] » Thank you, Alderman Davis. >> My last quote as well. So, there are

[1:30:33] places in Sunset Hills where a residential area, a resident has 5

[1:30:37] acres, but I don't see how that you can stop

[1:30:43] that resident from selling the property to someone who wants to put in a senior

[1:30:48] living because we have to go through the process no matter what.

[1:30:51] » They'd have to reszone into a senior living district as they're essentially

[1:30:55] right now a residential district which is separate. So, the board would have

[1:30:58] the opportunity to deny that reszoning. Yeah.

[1:31:03] » Okay. >> Any other comments on senior living? If

[1:31:07] not, are there any other items under general discussion tonight? Alderman

[1:31:11] Columbo, [clears throat]

[1:31:14] » at the last meeting there was a lot of mention of

[1:31:18] transparency and

[1:31:23] along with transparency for me most important is factual.

[1:31:27] Um,

[1:31:31] we talked about

[1:31:34] article on the call motion allowing virtual access Sunills parks and reading

[1:31:39] board meeting fails. Immediately after it failed, it passed.

[1:31:43] But the headline becomes that versus what actually happened.

[1:31:48] So in in in this sense, I'm calling out the call for just being inaccurate with

[1:31:53] that or not listening to the last five minutes of our meeting and understand

[1:31:57] that we did pass that. >> Secondly,

[1:32:04] another article in the call from May 26, Sunset Hills approved stormwater master

[1:32:10] plan and they quote alderman Freeman, "We've made promises residents for

[1:32:14] parks, but we've been collecting $1.8 8 million for the storm water parks fund

[1:32:18] and I don't see that for 20 years any of it has gone to storm water.

[1:32:23] Well, that's not correct at all. When the bond passed in 2009,

[1:32:30] $4.375 million of that initial bond went to stormwater projects.

[1:32:37] » So, for however long we have been we put money towards it and we've been paying

[1:32:41] on debt towards stormwater projects.

[1:32:47] When it comes to the budget, we also talked about budget numbers. 5.3 or 5.6

[1:32:53] million out of a budget 13 million which was thrown around last meeting. Well,

[1:32:57] our total budget for 25 was 14.6 million, not 13. And why does it matter?

[1:33:03] Because when you use percentages and you say, well, it was 42 or 43% of the

[1:33:08] budget. Well, technically it's 38%. It's not 42 or 43, which some around say

[1:33:15] almost half of our budget is going the parks. Well, that's not the case.

[1:33:19] Secondly, if you deduct out the 32% of the bond issue from that, so you're

[1:33:24] paying on the on the principal interest note,

[1:33:30] now you're at 36% of budget went to parks. But we also failed to address

[1:33:35] that parks brought in $3.4 million last year through Prop P.

[1:33:41] um all the revenues and others. So I I wanted to be fair to

[1:33:50] parks that we're getting it correct and not just throwing out things that catch

[1:33:54] a headline, get an article and are not factual to what's actually happening.

[1:34:02] Um, lastly, something back in 2007

[1:34:08] prior to Prop P getting passed. So, there's a couple of

[1:34:13] things that were talked about. Information from the city indicates that

[1:34:16] Prop P funds would provide for an additional construction of facilities

[1:34:20] that would link city's parks to the entire city. [clears throat]

[1:34:24] Sounds to me like there was a plan, >> sidewalks or whatever, some sort of

[1:34:29] connectivity. Another article from March 3rd, 2007,

[1:34:34] Mayor Huner at the time, "Money's generated will be used to improve or

[1:34:37] expand the parks and recreation facilities in Sunset Hills purchase

[1:34:41] additional parkland, construct new facilities, athletic fields, and

[1:34:44] additional trails interlinking the entire city." So, back in 2007, there

[1:34:50] was already a plan that was being floated around for this

[1:34:54] connectivity. So part of my point for that is

[1:35:01] when they were talking about passing Prop P back then in April of 2007,

[1:35:06] they were talking about connecting sidewalks and what have you. So I think

[1:35:11] some of these sidewalk opportunities could see funding from Prop P because

[1:35:17] the original intent of Prop P when it was passed back then was there. So, I

[1:35:24] think as we move forward with our steering committee and our discussions

[1:35:28] at public works and what have you that we can look at some of these sidewalk

[1:35:32] things and know that there should be funding a probably just through Prop P

[1:35:37] for it and also some of these streets where there are

[1:35:42] storm water challenges that sidewalks there's another opportunity to use Prop

[1:35:47] P money to solve those issues as well. And that's where I'll leave.

[1:35:57] » Alderman Aens. >> Thank you.

[1:36:01] » Thank you, Mayor. [laughter] [clears throat]

[1:36:05] You had me thinking and with the um the comment tonight from our resident. We

[1:36:09] are hearing it very clearly that our residents want sidewalks or trails

[1:36:13] connectivity. Um so I think it would be great for us to have a plan on what that

[1:36:20] looks like. It seems like right now we're kind of approving things on the

[1:36:23] one-off. Um I would really love to see I know we have a a sidewalk map of Sunset

[1:36:27] Hills of what sidewalks exist, but where can we connect parks and connect people

[1:36:32] to schools and actually start to have a plan on how we make this happen? And I

[1:36:38] don't know how we do that, but I think it would be good for us to have. years

[1:36:41] ago when I was um chairman of public works as an alderman, we did devise a

[1:36:47] plan, a priority plan for sidewalks, connecting our parks, connecting our

[1:36:52] schools, connecting um different facilities in our city. I think in

[1:36:58] public works, Mr. Knight, maybe you could look that up. And uh we did have

[1:37:02] some residents come to our public works meeting asking for sidewalks for paths

[1:37:08] for students walking home from school, etc. And we did address those when it

[1:37:13] was a high priority for our residents. Um we also established trying to put

[1:37:18] aside $200,000 a year in our budget for sidewalks and um I think maybe that's uh

[1:37:26] something we need to look into. So I agree with you. I don't think it was a

[1:37:30] line item. It was just put into our general budget. And then we also devised

[1:37:35] the uh the principle that when a new development went in, if they could at

[1:37:41] all possible put sidewalks in, they were required to. Uh if it was impossible,

[1:37:48] » then they had to pay into the the general fund the amount that the

[1:37:51] sidewalks would cost. So, I think we need to look into that and see if we

[1:37:57] want to make the sidewalks a line item to keep that just for sidewalks. If

[1:38:01] that's Mr. Trenton, that would be something you'd look into. I know you

[1:38:05] don't like all these line items, but >> a little more work, but it's it's good.

[1:38:11] Um, I think we need to maybe readress that in public works again, Mr. Alderman

[1:38:16] Dons, and see if we can go back to that that listing that we created a lot of

[1:38:22] time. We we spent a lot of time on where would sidewalks be the most used and the

[1:38:28] and for safe connectivity in our city and um that was probably 15 years ago or

[1:38:37] more 16 years ago. So Alderman Doss

[1:38:42] » um I think that's all great things and I would support those. Couple comments.

[1:38:47] Um, five years ago when I first ran, I

[1:38:52] walked my ward and

[1:38:57] I asked about sidewalks and I to me, how could you not want a

[1:39:04] sidewalk? I was amazed the response I got on Kennerly and Weber Hill. I wore

[1:39:12] it, no one else's. No, we don't want sidewalks.

[1:39:18] » So, I think we need to be careful here that

[1:39:22] yes, it's a good idea, but if we're going to represent the residents,

[1:39:28] we have to make sure it's what they want in their neighborhood.

[1:39:34] Second comment, what Alderman Columbo said about data is

[1:39:39] really accurate and I support that. But what when you dive down into things as

[1:39:44] we will try to do, I had heard um I believe it was two two

[1:39:51] meetings ago, we were talking about storm water expenditures for the city

[1:39:57] and again talking my neighborhood on West Watson, there were bridge

[1:40:03] replacements desperately needed on a number of streets that tie into

[1:40:11] West Watson. Now, you might think, some of us might

[1:40:15] think, wait a minute, if we need a new bridge,

[1:40:19] that's a public works thing.

[1:40:24] But what I heard when I was when it was being defended, what we had spent on

[1:40:29] storm water, that those bridges were part of a storm water expenditure.

[1:40:37] Now, if they help the creek move more water, I guess you could say that that's

[1:40:44] could be fair. But in a broader sense, you would probably say, "Wait a minute.

[1:40:50] We've moved monies into a public works project and we're

[1:40:55] going to call it storm water remediation, let's say." Well, probably

[1:41:01] not. So where Alderman Columbo makes good

[1:41:05] points, it just depends sometimes on your perspective and how you're going to

[1:41:10] identify what an expenditure is within a given fund.

[1:41:14] So the truth lies in the data, but

[1:41:19] [clears throat] it also lies in our interpretation of set data.

[1:41:24] That's all I got. Madam, thank you. And we did look into sidewalks. When um

[1:41:30] Kennerly Road was resurfaced in the 8020 grant,

[1:41:34] the residents did not want sidewalks. They did not want a safe path for

[1:41:39] joggers, our bikers. They wanted it to be more like a country road and retain

[1:41:44] their front yards. So that's why we had to put the sidewalk from Elnor on to

[1:41:52] meet the 8020 grant and we had to have them stamp the bicycles on Kennerly Road

[1:41:58] to meet the 8020 grant. So uh Men's Hill is the same way. They do not want

[1:42:04] sidewalks. They want it to be a country road.

[1:42:06] » Weber Hill >> Weber Hill is the same way. Weber Hill

[1:42:09] would be virtually impossible to put sidewalks in. It would be a real

[1:42:13] challenge. But um I think we do need to listen to the residents. But connecting

[1:42:18] our parks, connecting our schools, making it safe. We did a sidewalk

[1:42:22] project over by uh Truman School in conjunction with Lindberg and they paid

[1:42:28] for part of it because they have money set aside to make it safer and then they

[1:42:34] save money in the long run because then they don't have to provide buses for

[1:42:38] some of their students and they can walk to school and it's much healthier to

[1:42:41] walk to school uh if they live within a certain range. So I think we do need to

[1:42:46] be careful with a lot of these topics. We want to meet the needs of our

[1:42:50] residents, but we also want to listen to our residents.

[1:42:54] » And mayor, >> Alderman Fernandez,

[1:42:57] » um, a lot of great discussion here. Uh, I do want to at least support from the

[1:43:02] financial side and the finance committee just how complicated all of this is. If

[1:43:06] you look at the line items Mr. Treman has to go through and all the decisions

[1:43:09] that have to be made over time, it is really kind of mind-boggling. Um,

[1:43:14] there's been some great work done by the steering committee and the finance

[1:43:16] committee doing some more work going forward to truly understand these things

[1:43:20] at a deeper level and mumbo I love that you're going back and

[1:43:24] going and getting the data on [clears throat] us trying to be accurate

[1:43:26] because it is really hard. So, I just want to acknowledge that uh we do want

[1:43:29] to get better with this and I do think it's a great opportunity. I will though

[1:43:32] caution also from the financial side the amount of money we're have to spend on

[1:43:36] roads is absolutely incredible. So, as much as sidewalks are very popular and

[1:43:40] something that people are absolutely going to hook on to, when they can't

[1:43:43] drive their roads and issues we're dealing with right now where MODA's not

[1:43:46] fixing things and I wish we could, it's just going to be a balance of all these

[1:43:49] things that we're going to have to look at. And this is a, you know, 5, 10, 20

[1:43:52] year program that we're looking at. So, I think that's the other part that we

[1:43:55] have to just be mindful of as we do go through this important work over the

[1:43:58] next, you know, month, uh, with the budgeting that's coming up. These

[1:44:01] capital plans are great. They're really important, but things move fast also.

[1:44:04] So, we can't just be looking at it as short term. It's both of those things

[1:44:08] together. But again, I love the fact getting back to a deeper level of really

[1:44:11] understanding because it helps us. I think that's the opportunity for us up

[1:44:14] here to get more educated so we can make better decisions.

[1:44:19] » Any other comments? All >> had a question.

[1:44:24] Does anyone remember how much the Eddie Park sidewalk cost and how is that was

[1:44:30] that a mile? Was that uh >> well it was going to be on the other

[1:44:35] side of the street and in the courtyard residents didn't want it in their

[1:44:39] backyard but at the end of the day so it did cost

[1:44:42] » how many lineal feet of our >> it was about 4 to 500,000 I think we had

[1:44:47] 35,000 from the school district >> it was a donation

[1:44:51] » can you repeat that please >> it was about 4 to 500,000 and I believe

[1:44:54] we had about 35,000 granted from the school district

[1:44:57] » okay and said 4 to 500,000 >> 425 500,000. Yes.

[1:45:02] » Yeah. >> And do you know was that a mile or do we

[1:45:06] know how many lineal? >> I'd be surprised if it was a mile. Um

[1:45:09] » at the most at the most. >> Sincerely eyeballing it. I'd go half a

[1:45:12] mile. >> Yeah.

[1:45:14] » Half a mile. >> Yeah. Right up from that bank all the

[1:45:17] way up to the school. I And there was a retaining wall in in involved in that

[1:45:22] with the bank. >> So there's a lot of things to consider.

[1:45:26] » We paid for that with ARPA funds. four years ago.

[1:45:32] » It sounds about right. >> Yep.

[1:45:34] » Thank you. >> Any other questions? Any other items

[1:45:38] under general discussion? If not, I'd ask for a motion to adjourn.

[1:45:42] » I make the motion. [laughter] >> Second. Second.

[1:45:48] » Motion was made from seconded from Alderman Akens. All in favor? Hi.

[1:45:54] » Hi. >> At 7:46.

[1:46:00] Thank you all.

Sunset Hills Board of Aldermen 9/8/2026

Transcript