[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.