Aldermen approve one-year lease for tenant at city-owned 288 Hanley Industrial Court

The Brentwood Board of Aldermen on Aug. 27 approved a one-year lease, with month-to-month continuation after that term, for 13,000 square feet of city-owned space at 288 Hanley Industrial Court.

The lease, approved by a 6-0 roll-call vote on Resolution 15662, covers roughly 12,000 square feet of warehouse space and 1,000 square feet of office space, with the tenant also to use the office restrooms. Dan, a city staff member presenting the item, said the lease would begin Sept. 1 and run for one year, then continue month to month under the terms in the contract.

The lease concerns a building the city purchased last year at 288 Hanley Industrial Court, directly across from the police station. Dan said the building is intended ultimately to be part of a joint campus for Parks and Public Works once those departments relocate from 8330 Manchester. The city attorney drafted the lease, which aldermen had before them for review.

Public comment included support for the prospective tenant. Jeff Coleman, of 8620 Joseph Avenue, said he had known the prospective owners for decades and voiced support: “Just here in support. So I've known Robin Deanna, who are the owners of Pershing Works for decades. And so thought, as they're proposing to put a business in, since y'all don't know them, very much in support.” An unnamed resident also thanked the board and indicated the tenant hoped to begin work the following Tuesday, saying, “I wanna thank everyone for taking time out of their week, this evening to address this special need. We've got a lot of business in house. We need a place to start working, and we look forward to starting, on Tuesday of next week if”.

Roll call for the approval recorded votes as follows: Alderman Plevka — yes; Alderman Goad — yes; Alderman Sims — yes; Alderman Lochmiller — yes; Alderman Gould — yes; Alderman Harter — yes. Aldermen Tice and Erger were recorded absent earlier in the meeting. The presiding official called the motion carried by a vote of 6 to 0.

Discussion during the meeting focused on the basic lease terms and the building's planned future role in housing city operations. No amendments to the lease were recorded during the meeting, and the board gave staff authority to finalize the lease consistent with the resolution and the attorney-drafted contract.

The resolution and the lease document were in the meeting packet for aldermen to review; no additional funding sources, incentive grants, or changes to the city's capital plan were discussed during the approval. The item concluded with the board inviting the tenant to proceed under the approved terms.