November 9, 2021 — Meeting Transcript

There we go. All right, so I'm just going to start with an overview for anyone that may be watching that's not too familiar with it but entertainment district that overlay allows entertainment uses as a principal use through approval of a conditional use permit. And it's currently those boundaries are within our central business district. We have a definition for an entertainment use. And you can see that here, any establishment, indoors or outdoors, where entertainment, either passive or active, is provided for the pleasure of patrons. And then we have a list of examples of entertainment uses. And then down here, it's very clear that this definition does not include private clubs, health clubs, country clubs, golf courses, et cetera, et cetera. So the entertainment district basically does two things. The first is on noise provisions for outdoor entertainment. We allow outdoor entertainment, including recorded or live music, if you have an approved outdoor dining permit for that location within the district. There are some restrictions that are still in place even though we allow outdoor entertainment or outdoor music. If you're within 500 feet of a residence, outdoor music and entertainment is allowed from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., so essentially the morning part doesn't matter as much, but if you had an establishment within this district, you were within 500 feet of a residence, you would need to shut down any music outdoors at 10 o'clock, and then on the alcohol provisions, this is where the biggest difference lies. If you have an entertainment use or a if you have an entertainment use, the ratio between alcohol and food changes. So in any other place in the city, you would be required to have at least 50% of your receipts come from the sale of food. Within the entertainment district boundaries, the amount is changed where you can have up to 75% of your sales receipts come from alcoholic beverages and 25% from food. So it changes that ratio. And so here's an outline of the current entertainment district boundary. You can see here, Maryland Avenue to the north is a boundary. And then this direct frontage here along Forsyth is the southern boundary. And then we have these other frontages here along Merrimack and then on Beamiston. So for reference, City Hall is here. This would be the edge of Forsyth Point. And we have Seven Gables over here, the Graybar Building. And then on the south, we get into the property that's owned by Montgomery Bank over here. I'm sorry. That would be over here on central. And this is Napoli over here on this corner within that hatched area. So these are the existing boundaries for the entertainment district. And as a frame of reference, we also have the downtown area. design guidelines project that's underway with H3 Studios. There's a meeting on Friday with that steering committee where the final recommendations are going to go to the plan commission and hopefully get this adopted. But I think it's important to understand where the boundaries are for that particular study And then overlay those downtown design guideline boundaries, which is the black hatched line overlaying the entertainment district on top of that. So you can see how the interplay is between the two of those. One important thing to point out is on North Central here, you've got the Ceylon building and it's this area that's kind of carved out. of the downtown design guidelines boundary. And we've talked about modifying that, drawing that line straight across, but this is Ceylon here, that's developed. We know what's there, that's not going to change. This half block is the Bemiston Place development that's been approved. They do have a restaurant use on this particular corner. However, a large portion of this is developed, recently developed, and there's not much in the way of development opportunity going forward. a lot of the development opportunity within the downtown area actually lies to the south of the current entertainment boundary. And that would be that property over here with the county parking lot, potentially over here, the Montgomery property where World News occupies that corner. So we're seeing long-term as far as the potential for development, it really lies outside of that current entertainment boundary. So today we want to discuss for a little bit a possible expansion of that boundary to take in some of these other areas that are more set up for development going forward, but also to potentially pull some of these uses further away from the residential area up in Clayton Gardens here in Old Town along Maryland. So we get into a kind of a heavy residential area. just north of here. And of course, when we're talking about outdoor music and things, the more distance you have, probably the better. But we could see a possible expansion into this zone. So we have two expansion zones. The first coming down through that property that's owned by Montgomery Bank and the county property. We actually pull it over to the corner here. This is where Sterling Bank is located. And then you have Louie's over here, Napoli on the corner. And then on this side, this is the Forsyth Point development. And this would incorporate the entire Forsyth Point Development and also take in the front edge of the Shell Park Plaza building that's on the corner here where Bruce Chris used to be. The reason for going this direction and heading west with it is Forsyth Point has a requirement within their development agreement that they provide an entertainment use. So to us, it made sense if we're talking about possibly expanding these boundaries to incorporate that project site as well and make sure that the entertainment overlay is in alignment with the potential entertainment use on this property here. So that's the reason for that particular expansion. So just a few questions, things to really talk through. Of course, in order to get this approved, you would have to go through the plan commission, the public hearing process there. They would make a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen. David McGoldrick, M.D.: : And then the Board of ultimate alderman would ultimately decide whether or not to pass it. David McGoldrick , M.D.: : But the question for tonight is whether or not that district boundaries should be expanded this is something we want to explore and, if so, you know, do you want to. David McGoldrick, M.D. Go ahead and start that process and start those conversations with the plan Commission and gather Community input for it so i'll just kind of open it up there i'll switch to this slide which shows those proposed expansion areas. and just let the board discuss it for a little bit, and hopefully receive a little bit of direction on this. So any questions? And we do have Gary Carter here as well, our Director of Economic Development, who has certainly more institutional knowledge on these conversations than I do. So if there's any kind of background or history needed, Gary would be a good resource for that.

David, my question is, let's assume in one of these expanded areas someone wanted to to do a larger scale project and it was a PUD. And as part of that process, as I understand it, if part of their proposal was for example, to include a restaurant of some kind, they to some extent would be incentivized to think about a restaurant that has more of an entertainment focus and more alcohol potential rather than food. So that would be an incentive. Would the fact that this is part of the entertainment district, would that mandate somehow in their PUD that they would address this type of entertainment use or is this strictly more of an incentive as opposed to a requirement as part of a future PUD?

So it is not a requirement. It is a separate overlay. So a PUD would change that underlying zoning to plan unit development. However, that overlay is still in place. So a user within that plan unit developer, that PUD, if they wanted an entertainment use, they were within the overlay boundary, then they could apply for that conditional use permit in order to put it in place. But it certainly doesn't require that they do so.

Thank

you.

So just to be clear, when someone wants to do a venue that conforms to the entertainment district ideals, do they have to get a permit for that special use?

Yes, sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. Yes, the permits that would be required, it would be a conditional use permit in order to change that ratio to go from 50-50 food alcohol to 75-25. That requires a conditional use permit. And then on top of that, if they want to have outdoor music, then they would be required to get an outdoor dining permit for the establishment as well. And that conditional use permit process does carry with it the requirement for a public hearing at both the Planning Commission and the Board of Aldermen.

Okay, great. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

David, you know, I wonder, and I'm not sure if I remember that we were okay with establishments that actually faced Maryland were actually as part of that geographic location I personally would be in favor of us deciding not to have any establishment that might face the residential neighborhood across Maryland, that they would not be included. I

don't think they are. Are they included?

I didn't think they were, but you had a red line there.

They are. This is how it was adopted and this is how it's shown within the zoning code.

Yeah, I would be in favor of eliminating that seriously. But expanding it further south, as you've suggested.

So pulling a line across here?

Right, right. Putting that out. I think that's just asking for trouble.

That would be a problem for the folks that want to put that... Um, restaurant on the corner there of Maryland and central. It's

so they've proposed it for this portion of the site, right? It would allow their use, but it would limit them to being a restaurant, meaning their, their receipts would have to be at least 50% food.

If they only, if they closed off the Maryland side and only faced Fort central. In other words, the outdoor part was somehow only on Central?

We could write a provision that way. Rather than pull the line back off of Maryland for the boundary of the actual district, we could just simply put that in the text that you couldn't have the use directly facing Maryland. However, if you remember the design for that building, it does have the roll-up or the... I guess it's a swinging door that will open up. So it's an open-air restaurant.

Right, but that's a restaurant. That's not an entertainment venue that they've applied for SPUP on.

But I think they talked about having music, you know, not a concert, but musicians. And it's a corner, like Napoli, it's a corner restaurant.

So restaurants can have music today, right? Right. And what this conditional use permit for an entertainment designation allows them to really switch their focus from being a restaurant to being like a bar lounge where the primary focus is like music or entertainment as opposed to eating. Right. So that's what we're talking about here. Not in any way limiting or changing how we allow or permit restaurants, but places like we actually don't have an example of this right now. Right. So that might be why it's hard for us to think about it because we don't have one. Right. But yeah. Yeah, I mean, I fully support the expansion. I'd be open to considering backing off on the south side of Maryland if there's like neighborhood interest in that or concerns. But otherwise, you know, given that a lot of that is already developed or we know you know, we'll have the opportunity to evaluate as projects come along too. I don't know how necessary that is.

Yeah, I mean, I would, you know, in similar fashion, I would be certainly supportive of moving everything south. You know, I think, and I, you know, I'm definitely supportive of the entertainment district. But we have two really high-end apartment buildings that have outdoor spaces that face central and we also are going to have homes. And I know, you know, we've already talked about not having anything face Maryland, but I would just be open to the idea of certainly exploring pulling at least you know, along Central pulling the boundary to the alley so that we don't have a lot of, you know, again, just exploring the idea. I know that we always, that given, you know, that these establishments require a permit, so if somebody were to come to us that we were not in favor of the use, we could say no. But I would at least, you know, I get a lot of complaints from people. Barcelona was a huge issue for neighbors north of Maryland because people were really loud until midnight. And I'm not talking about during COVID, I'm talking beforehand. And I think the police department would support me in that. So I just think it's worth exploring and talking to people about um maybe bringing it down to the alley so that you know these high-end apartment buildings that we're going to build um you know people have outside space that will overlook central um all around the building so i just um i think it's certainly worth looking at

you know i could i'm just gonna say just to build on that bridget um You make a good point about taking it back to the alley. As I recall, Mr. Brown said very specifically, and I can't remember if it was the alderman or the plan commission, that he wants to lease all these apartments. And the last thing he's going to do is put a bunch of noisy bar underneath them. So I don't think he will be upset by just having, by not having the entertainment district itself as part of his development. And I don't know what's over on the other side that might, I mean, that's Graybar. This is Graybar in

Ceylon, right? Yeah.

So if you pull that back to the alley, gosh, that actually makes a nice clean street. clean district that doesn't affect anybody that's really upset, would be upset by it. Go

ahead,

Kevin. I'm sorry to intrude, but as much to prove I've been listening as anything else. There is a nuance about where the district is located that I think has been overlooked and it was in part a compromise to some of the same discussion when this was approved back in 2019. And that is that under section 410.850A sub four, any venue or use to be used pursuant to the entertainment district overlay must have its primary interest within the overlay boundaries but cannot have its primary interest located on Maryland Avenue. Oh, okay.

Great. I knew there

was something about

it. I thought so too. That was already taken care of. I did.

So the location is within the district, but it cannot have its primary entrance on Maryland. Very good.

Thank you, Kevin. I can't see anything other than this presentation. So thank you for looking at the ordinance there.

I'm wondering also, and I can support what Bridget says. I mean, I understand that and I think that's probably not a bad idea. But what I would like to do though is to see if we could expand to other areas that do not have and won't have necessarily an impact on some heavily residential areas. I'm wondering about, you know, we talked about Forsyth Point over there. What about even further areas further west, I know that there's Brown Shoe was looking to sell their property and so that could be a development area where we could consider an entertainment district. Am I wrong? Well,

you got the Barton.

I can think of one individual that lives over on Topton Way that will be already upset about this expansion. We hear from very frequently.

Well, one thing we could do you guys is just. I understand. We could do it incrementally and see how it goes, you know, because quite honestly, we haven't had anybody take us up on this yet. Anyway. Except. Foresight point. Well, you know, but they were going to do entertainment. Without the, you know, just straight out. So that was before this.

And I agree with that kind of a layperson's view too is if we're looking at an entertainment district, we probably would hope that someday it feels like a district. And the more, if we take it step by step, we don't want it to be, you know, one thing over here and then we don't want to sprawling.

I love the idea of it, of it being concentrated in an area, but we don't even have one yet. I mean,

I look forward to these problems. Right.

I mean, that's a problem you want to have, you know, but right now we don't have anything. And, you know, we have the area east of there along Forsyth, you know, where Centene has all of its stuff. I mean, you know, I mean, what if they wanted to put in a music venue without, you know, and change the alcohol food ratios? you know, why not? I mean, I, you know, I'm just saying the more the better. And

we looked at individually, right?

Yeah, you know.

I think another important thing to consider is something that H3 pointed out a few times when we looked at these different little areas. Is there connectivity? You know, it may not be all on one street, but can people come and go to wherever and and then kind of take a walk and go to the next place or cut through the alley and go to the place. And I think this, what the staff is suggesting here about these additions, I think does that. And when we get beyond that, I don't know, I just think we have to think about what's the connectivity then. I'm okay with pulling it back to the alley. I mean, I really don't want it to affect the connection the concept or the establishment that Bemis in Place is trying to provide on the corner.

I would point out, while this is Graybar, you've got 8000 Maryland, which is a high-rise building here. This is where Time Cares is at, and this is where Sun Gables is at over here. I don't know if they have any desire for Well, they'll be within 500 feet of a residence so they'll still be under that noise ordinance. I was just trying to think if there's any kind of negative impact on potentially this site or the site here.

Yeah,

going forward, where central is the area where you know to the alley we're really taken up with residential at this point.

I have a question for, I

guess, for Kevin. Could we add a provision in this entertainment district description that would provide for anyone outside of this district to request a CUP that would allow them to operate as an entertainment?

That's a great question. It would be preferred to, I would recommend that the better course would be for someone to request rezoning to the entertainment district and amendment of the entertainment district boundaries to include their area. That places the question of whether to approve that as a legislative decision as opposed to an administrative decision to grant a conditionally used

permit. So if the old, you know, the Kingside Diner, which at one point was a little, I don't know what you called it back then when it was a if that particular location wanted to go back and try that they would have to ask to extend the boundary all the way down to include the whole block and everything

yes sir

okay

well keep in mind keep in mind that they operated finale without an entertainment district ordinance. So that

raises the question-

It didn't serve food, I don't know.

We talked about and I'm interested to know whether we've gathered any data on the actual receipts of our existing establishments and whether they're meeting the 50% or whether they should be applying for the entertainment district designation based on their actual receipts.

I know that we have the ability to enforce that. I can't say in the time that I've been here, I've seen any kind of report from anyone with a liquor license on their food versus alcohol. I don't know that that's a regular practice to audit everyone with a liquor license.

I think like so many things, we operate on the basis of complaints. And so if people are getting out of hand, you know, if the establishment's getting out of hand or something's going wrong and people complain... Um, then that's when we go and check it out usually. Cause that would be so arduous to check every restaurant's receipts every month. Everybody's

all computerized now. It's probably pretty simple to spit it out.

Yeah. But someone has to evaluate it, I guess.

So, so the discussion came up because we were talking about a place that had gathered some complaints. And the fact that perhaps they were actually operating more like an entertainment venue. And if they had gotten the designation entertainment versus restaurant, they would have had different requirements imposed upon them in terms of capacity and restroom facilities and things like that. that could have impacted the complaints. And so I thought that we had kind of suggested that maybe we do some kind of inquiry to get an idea for how are people generating business and what are the uses that people are going out and partaking in, in Clayton? Is it 50-50? food or is it not? And should we adjust based on that? I think without that data, I think that data could help inform this discussion and then also help our community members and business owners ensure that they're operating appropriately and just under the right designation. I'm not talking about closing up or anything like that.

Right. Well, I think, and I'm going to add to that, Becky, because in addition to that, is that if we have establishments that are already operating on a 75-25 beverage to food, well, then this whole entertainment district incentive doesn't work. Because nobody has to worry about it. They don't have to worry about having music or having entertainment or any of that stuff if they're just sitting in a situation over time, just with 75-25, and they don't have to worried about anything, any of these other controls that we can place on them. So the incentive was to be able to reduce that ratio. That's the incentive to bring people in and actually have entertainment. If we're not going to have that, if we're allowing establishments to operate without entertainment, but with the 75-25, then we might as well do away with the entertainment district. That's kind of how I see it.

And I agree with that. Becky, I like those suggestions. If there's a way to just see where we stand, have a baseline of the businesses within our districts, it certainly does inform how we handle moving forward on things like this. And there's a much, you know, it's fairness, it's equity between the different businesses, those who are complying. There's the expectation of compliance with the things that we legislate.

That's something we can certainly audit. I would prefer to do it as a snapshot to begin with rather than an ongoing process. audit process, it would be taking place monthly or quarterly. I do think there's going to be some administrative burden on the staff we designate to carry this out. But starting with a snapshot to get a baseline is probably a good thing.

So I'm wondering, is Gary Carter still with us?

He is. I can see him here.

Okay, I'm just going to play a little bit of a devil's advocate. I'm certainly okay with doing that, but given... Maybe it's more of a question of timing of when we would do something like that because I think many of our restaurants are still struggling. And I recently met with a few retailers who are already balking at certain other things we've been doing. I just... I don't want to, I just wonder how they would feel about us now coming in and requiring this and sort of bringing the hammer down on their sales ratios just while COVID is still going and every other thing. So it's just a thought, you guys. I just want to be clear.

I'm not suggesting any hammer. Like I have no hammer with me. I'm asking you to think about it.

They'll think that we're checking and, you know, oh my God, now they're checking this out. We're barely making it anyway. You know, I just, Gary, I wanted to see what you thought.

Mayor, I think the scenario you brought up is a distinct possibility, whether it's asked just for informational purposes or not. I think there will be some antennas that are raised for good or bad with some of the establishments that are borderline

I'm for it I just want to be careful because yeah because it's just been a hard couple years and it's going to continue being difficult for a while So maybe it's just a question of when we would do such a thing.

I guess I would hope that we could just frame it as an inquiry, as we're considering expanding this entertainment distinction, trying to get a better understanding of like what's the baseline for the businesses that we want to continue to support in Clayton, right? So there's a way to ask the question, like we are not trying to drive out any businesses in Clayton. We are trying to understand how the businesses who are here and whether the pandemic are operating, what is that ratio? I mean, we all throw around this 50% number, like it's meaningful, but as far as I can tell, nobody has actually has any idea whether it's close to how a restaurant operates today. Right. And so like, so maybe it'll cause us to adjust our numbers altogether. I mean, who knows, right? Like But we're talking about this data point like it's meaningful, but we don't actually know it. That's all I'm asking, right?

And that makes sense because I think that what we're really doing is we're looking to evolve what the regulations are. If, in fact, our businesses aren't complying, well, we might need to consider more adjustments because it's not a good feeling to have city government dictate certain things and then know that they don't mean anything. We should keep them up to date in supporting the businesses.

If I may, I believe... There are collateral means of enforcement of that 50% food provision. And I'd have to confirm this, but if I'm not mistaken, the state law requirements for a Sunday license require that licensee to provide proof that they have 50% revenue from sales of non-alcoholic, other than for alcoholic beverages. So the fact that someone has a state license for Sunday sales is indicative of their business, the character of their business. Also, the county's smoking regulation has a similar provision and its application. And so those who seek to be exempted and have a smoking establishment that's also a similar trigger point. So there are other agencies and other impacts on the operations of these businesses, which coincide with the municipal standard. I believe we can confirm that for you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Are you kind of suggesting that we take a look at those as indicators instead of taking a survey?

Well, you may wish to know whether or not those are out there and whether therefore there is an agency who is already co-enforcing this standard.

Okay. Well, that seems like a good starting point to me.

It's also interesting because what does that do to our entertainment district businesses if they can't get the state or the county funding? I guess for smoking or Sunday sales, there's an impact there

too. Well, they would not be eligible for Sunday sales, but I'm not sure that that's probably a high profile issue to an entertainment venue. No. So I'll stop.

Okay, well, so... Let's go back. Do we want to just decide to get some more information along the lines of what Kevin suggested first, and then see if we want or need to go further with our inquiries of the businesses? And I mean, I understand, I think we want to go further, but how do we want to go about that? And when do we want to When do you want to decide about possibly moving the northern boundary back to the alley?

So we're not in a huge hurry for any of this. But what I would suggest is we just start with checking those state regulations and seeing which entities might already have that data, as Kevin had suggested. So let's see how far we can go there. If we don't have anything that we can draw from another entity, then we can We can consider a self-initiated audit and see what that would take on our end. And then from that discussion, it looks like the board's looking for that information prior to adjustments of the boundaries, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't personally actually feel like that's necessary. I think these discussion topics are related, but in my mind, I don't have to know what percentage of our current restaurants have what percentage of sales, right? Like to know that yes, I want to expand the idea of this entertainment district. Like I know that, I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable sending that to the plan commission and asking them to review it further and make a recommendation to us.

I apologize if I misunderstood there.

No, yeah, it's fine.

TAB, Mark McIntyre:" If the board like to draw that boundary at the the alley, we can certainly work on that now. TAB, Mark MCIntyre:" But there is. TAB, It looks like

everybody's agreeing on the expansion piece so i'm not sure I think everybody's kind of feeling like join it back to the alley is good, but I want to make sure.

TAB, yeah drawn the line straight across here.

TAB, I think. TAB, Alex Weinheimer-

makes any. TAB,

happen on Maryland so knowing it can't happen on Maryland i'm not sure. But I like I don't have a strong feeling about that part of it. Rich.

I was just gonna say, I mean at this point i'm not sure I I agree with it in concept, I wish we thought of it earlier but. At this point, I'm not sure it makes a difference whether we pull that back. It might be better to just make the expansion and leave the other parts for under that aspect that they can't face Maryland, then they have to go through the planning commission to get approved anyway.

Yeah. You know, there are entertainment concepts that aren't all that noisy, right? It could be, and maybe even Bemis in place will want in some of their other parcel, other units here to do something. And then they wouldn't be able to. So I don't know. I can see both sides. I think I'm landing on the side of not changing that for now.

Gary has a hand up. Gary.

I just wanted to bring up the point that Alderman Lentz brought up earlier. Unlike the Crescent where the retail is separate by condo from the residential, both Bemiston Place and the Ceylon are one ownership. So as Mr. Brown indicated when he was going through his process, he wasn't going to put something detrimental because he owns both spaces. He owns both the retail and the residential piece. So it's highly unlikely that he would put something that would upset his tenants. So I think that's just something to consider because you are right, Mayor. There are other concepts other than loud. There's indoor golf simulators. There are all kinds of things that aren't necessarily noisy but do lend themselves to alcohol sales.

Right.

Leave

it

We've come full circle.

So leave that boundary and add the blue boundaries? Yep. Expanded area?

Yes.

Okay. Sounds good. We will draw that up and get it ready for the plan commission, and then as a separate effort, we'll look into those, whatever state liquor control may have for the county as far as audits. Anything else on that? I think we've got direction there.

I wanted to raise a question, which is probably again because I'm new to the dance, but I'm sure this has been discussed from time to time, but it still seems to me that part of what would make an entertainment district viable would be getting cars off the street on Fridays and Saturdays on some ability to close off part of this area on weekends so that you could really have people out on the street and moving from one venue to another. I know there's a host of problems associated with that, but to the extent we haven't had anyone bite on the entertainment district, I think part of it is that sort of the vision of what this was going to be would sure be a lot more exciting if there was some way to make at least a portion of this district vehicular free on Friday and Saturday nights.

Boy, Gary, I totally agree with that. The pushback has always come from, of course, the retailers who might be open during that time. But I think in the evening time for having no cars available, would really be very inviting to a venue big time. I totally agree with that. So it's a good point. I'm

just thinking about the art fair as an example. And when we did Shakespeare in the Street five or six years ago, it closed off the street. That makes a tremendous difference about the appeal of this area as a place for people to hang out. As long as we have cars parked there, cars driving up and down the street, we're going to have a hard time ever treating this as a true entertainment district, no matter what you call it.

And that's correct. I was just over in Denver. They've got a couple of streets closed off and they do have a whole bunch of restaurants all along those areas, not even in some entertainment. I mean, it just makes for much more vibrancy and much more inviting to pedestrians. So, I mean, we need to really consider that. So appreciate that. That was a good point.

Yeah, really good point. I think that's something we can work toward as these places start to populate. It just depends. We've closed the streets before, as Gary mentioned, for various things and we even closed them for dining last summer before this and it was, I thought, really successful. There was music in the street. It was great. People loved it. The restaurants did well but those restaurants have to be Well, they don't have to be, but it's nice if they're willing and supportive of doing something like that. And sometimes they aren't. So it's just something to work on, something for us to work toward. I

agree. And wasn't parties in the street? Wasn't that also with closed off parking?

Parties in the park? Well, it was in the

street, but parties in the park. Yeah, I don't know. I

think so. I'm not sure. I think so

in a block or two closed.

OK. All right. I think we wrapped that subject and put a bow on it. So how about the next topic?

So the next topic is the discussion of the naming of city parks. And June, if you could bring Patty DeForest over, I would appreciate it. And so I sent out a copy of our donation policy that deals with facility naming this morning. And so we've had some discussion here about what this policy could potentially look like. I'm going to share my screen again. and show that policy so everyone can see what we're talking about. So there's already a facility naming policy in place. And again, this is related to donations that the city would receive or CCF would receive and then ultimately end up with the city. And so our suggestion would be to use this as a starting point for this discussion because there is some benefit to having these processes be similar, if not the same. So this simple adjustment, it looks like a lot of red, is just changing the word facility within the donation policy to park facility. So it just talks about being early in the process when you're discussing this. naming which reflects historical significance to the city of Clayton, that any individual corporation has made a significant contribution to or for the benefit of the city of Claydon through civic service or prolonged period of time and donation. So either one would qualify not being named for a currently serving elected or appointed official. And that's a pretty standard definition that you see in a lot of these naming policies in other places may not be appropriate to name a permanent park facility after a particular individual corporation such as athletic events, scholarships or amenities associated with that may be an appropriate alternative. So not necessarily naming the facility but things that take place there after individuals or corporations. And then in this area here we talk about the process. So the process for a facility naming related to a donation David McGoldrick, M.D.: : Is that the suggestions for names would be sent to the city clerk talks about an application form, we would need to tweak something a little bit for this. David McGoldrick , M.D.: : But, and then after the city clerk receives those then it would go on to the board of aldermen for action what we would suggest here is that if we're looking at a parks facility that the parks and recreation Commission. actually receive all of those names, the suggestions and vet those suggestions, send them to any other affected advisory board, depending on the park itself or the names we're receiving or the process. And then take the feedback from that advisory board and then make a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen prior to any formal action on the namings. So I just wanted to point this out as an existing policy that's in place. We don't have to utilize this if the board wants to go a different direction with it, but I figured it would be a good starting point for this discussion. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up. Patty, I don't know if you have any comments before the board starts to discuss this or any kind of... I guess, guidance with what you've seen in the past for our naming. You know, most of our parks are just named after streets. And certainly Maryland Park, which is kind of driving this, that Projects on the Horizon here has derived its name from the street on which it's located. So Patty, anything to add before the board starts?

Yeah, I would just echo what you said. You know, we don't have a lot of history of this. We don't add a lot of parks. Whitburn Park was the only JoAnne Hanrahan, Real woodburn and Anderson Parker to that have been added during my tenure woodburn was named after the streets it went to parks and rec Commission and never had any other name suggested. JoAnne Hanrana- And that really that that part grew out of a neighborhood request and they called it with burn park from the beginning. JoAnne hanrahan, Anderson park obviously you know that was named after a fight a donor so. I do believe with this park in particular, we tried to get donations with naming rights attached and we did not. So there's been a lot of discussion at different committees at CCF of different themes. I would advise that no matter what we do, some of the grants we've applied for, we have talked quite a bit about it being located in close proximity to the library We've met with them and they are planning to do programming there and cooperatively with us. So I don't wanna lose sight of the way the park was designed and that there is an intention to connect it to the library. But certainly, when David brought this up, I thought, oh yeah, we do have a naming policy. It just was embedded in the donation policy. So I do think this process would work. could have started sooner, but I always felt like a name would have come through by this point. So I don't, you know, the others, Henry Wright Park was renamed. It used to be Alamo, named after the road, renamed after Mr. Henry Wright. But there is sort of a mix mash of how ours are named.

So, Patty, and I'm thinking now about White Island Park and if I recall I've been here for 20 years and I think it's had five names. It's only

ever officially been called the White Island Park it is sometimes called the acorn park or the dog park. in literature, but it's only officially ever been called Wydown.

So when you say officially called, so that's what I was trying to find out. So is there an ordinance that establishes its name or is there some other place where somebody can go to find out what is the official name of the park?

Well, on the city's website, we have park histories and all of those talk about the start of the park and how it got named. I don't necessarily in my files have a history of something like White Island, which was there when I got here. But there is as much history as we were able to come up with. I do have a history of each of the parks.

Right. My question was, what makes it an official name? Is there an archives? Is there some? I'm just trying to figure out because we do have Maryland coming up. I understand Maryland Park. Yeah. And there's going to be a lot of discussion about that.

Yeah. Anderson Park was named through a donation and there was board action to do that. Henry Wright Park was renamed by board action. HAB-Juliette Boone, Whitburn part was established through it a request for board action we didn't and where we just called it Whitburn Parker didn't really talk about the naming of it but, but they did approve it through that so. HAB-Julie Petersen, There is some documentation I know you know, there is some documents on Shell Parker that was named after a mayor. In fact, and so I do have some of that it just depends on what I have in the history of the part some are some it appears to me like for the most part, they were established by the board.

And this policy as it's drafted here would also require board action

yeah.

I can ask a question. It's water over the dam because it's long been named, but would Chapman Plaza or the Barry Way Miller Pavilion, would those be considered park facilities?

They were named according to the donation policy, which they were handled as a facility.

Which they clearly are. I'm just wondering whether this term going forward is a little bit vague or would that, I guess my point would be, I assume that if these projects were to come forward now, they would simply be deemed park facilities because they're both within a park and they're a facility within a park. Is that really the intent? Or is this really about naming a park after someone or something?

the policy, the original policy?

No, the policy that we're looking at now is that, is the real intent here how we name parks in the future or is it intended to be more broadly parks and facilities within a park? Is it intended?

Well, I think what you're talking about is how people in Parks and Rec refer to facilities. A park is considered a facility, a restroom is a facility, a field is a facility. they're all classified as facilities. So I think that's why Dave is using that term of park facilities. I think it would be clear to a parks and rec person that that's what you mean. But if you wanted to say park and park facilities, you could do that, I suppose.

I'm not sure if this is where Gary was going, but like this policy existed without the park up, right? and in fact was followed in the naming of existing and current park facilities. They are facilities, right? And so I would question the necessity of limiting like creating an additional policy which is essentially the same in my mind but is more specifically specifying parks. And as far as I can tell, the only like substantive addition or change is to clarify going through Parks and Rec, which I think is important, but also probably happened in those other situations. What am I missing

here? So this is different because the existing policy is embedded within the donation policy. So the only way that comes into play is if somebody's donating money essentially for that facility. In this particular case, we don't have anything that addresses the naming of a park

facility

if a donation is not involved. So that's why we felt it was important to keep the aspects that are in the donation policy, but then have this be a standalone instrument where if we had a park that we wanted to name for any other reason, It would fall under this set of guidelines, which we don't have currently.

So what if we want to name our new public works building when we build it? Like, why not keep this generic?

We

could separate it from the need or the tie to a donation.

Yeah, we could strike that right there and just call it facility naming.

Because we could do, you know, like the pool at the center of Clayton or the HAB-Juliette Boone, Anything to be named. HAB-Julie Peters- So

I think it is important to like and then we call out parks and REC because we're talking about parks, but. HAB-Judy Nogg, If we say that all forms are going to go through the appropriate advisory board or Commission there's no doubt that something tied to a park should go through parks and REC I hope, and if we're not sure that that's obvious in the more broad statement, we can add that. as a specification,

but. Yes, we could certainly do that.

Well, so you can take that a step further too in that it may, you know, so let's say it's a park and let's say the name wants to be after a historical figure, then should, and, you know, should that then be put, you know, discussed with the landscape, the commemorative landscape task force? or should it be discussed in history? So I think there will be times when different groups will want different groups input. And so I don't know whether that means you should list everything or keep it just general and then decide at the time.

Can I ask something? Yeah. That's what I was going to ask earlier. If this is simply about parks, it does seem that it should be vetted by... landscape, a task force or whomever. But it'd be nice with that language. It sounds like all the recommendations that are coming back to the Board of Alderman. And just to clarify, I think what we're envisioning is that whatever body it is, let's say it's a park, it's parks and rec, it'll be vetted by other interested organizations, but then it would come back to parks and rec to them bring to the Board of aldermen. Is that what you see to keep it centralized versus coming in all directions? Yeah. Okay. The other question I had is, especially when you talk about the library next door and it's kind of a literary figure, and also with overlooked individuals or populations, when we say The tie to Clayton, I don't remember the language. If it's a literary figure, there may be a Missouri tie. There may be something else or it may be somebody who has been overlooked through history that you want or an event that's been overlooked that we want to do it in. So I think in that language, you just have to be aware that there may be circumstances when it may not be a former mayor of Clayton or somebody who did something specifically and very visibly for Clayton. We may want a little more breadth in choosing that name.

Yeah. And I know, um, I guess, you know, it would be my hope mayor that, that since we have that commemorative landscape task force, and in my mind, that's very much about how are we, um, using like language and opportunities for naming, um, and honoring, how are we, uh, seizing those opportunities in a way that we think, um, supports our mission. And so I would hope that any chance to name something would go to them as long as they exist, right? And that they would provide their expertise and their historical background and context and to help advise the other groups involved in naming.

I think they should, yeah. So

I think there's no reason why we can't have a number of different groups giving recommendations or thoughts on the subject. And they provide their recommendation to the board of Alderman and, and we make the decision.

I think, you know, depending on the item, if it's in a park, I think it needs to make sure that it goes to parks and rec at some point, if it's not in a park, then I don't know, but, um, I think somehow in this discussion, because we're getting ready, there are our most prominent and near term example is Maryland park. We need to make sure we've got that covered. So whatever language, I think that some kind of language like that should be in there, you know, facilities, but if it's in a park, it has to go to parks and rec and be vetted. Otherwise, I'm not sure if we need to get all that specific on all this stuff because it's going to vary depending with every item that comes forth. And we can always, if we have a difficult situation, we can always amend this policy later.

So this is pretty easy. If we want this to be a blanket facility policy, we've already got one under the donation policy. So Mark Benthien, ECA- What I just did real quick was take the references to park out specifically number six here, I can zoom in a little bit if this is hard to see. Okay. Mark Benthien , ECA- i'm. Let me get this out of the way for me. On number six, when a facility or associated amenity is to be named, suggestions should be sent to the city clerk. We can put that in there where the clerk will always receive the suggestions. And then all forms received will be forwarded to any affected advisory board And then so whatever we're naming, whatever that facility is, we can establish what that process is under this. So in this particular case, we would utilize the Parks and Recreation Commission and also the Mayor's Commemorative Landscape Task Force for the naming of Maryland Park in this particular instance. The rest of this then would all be completely consistent with the donation policy. And it's basically already done. And I know this is already embedded. The only question then outstanding would be Alderwoman Buse's suggestion. This is very Clayton centric here where you have to have had some type of impact directly on the city of Clayton. So if we wanted to open this up or that was not a requirement, there would be some adjustment required for that. I don't know what the feeling of the board is on that particular revision.

it could be done as simply as taking i mean i think it's okay where it says naming for a specific individual um wait a minute where was that i don't remember first versus the absolute um maybe could may be considered if or something like that just softening it so it's not exclusive because i think that certainly parks and rec or whoever's looking at this will certainly take into um account the direct impact on clayton But do we have to exclude what else might come up? Again, next to a library is a good example.

And we could just add a sentence perhaps in number three here stating that if an individual has a significant impact on the state of Missouri or country as a whole, then we could consider naming, add some kind of sentence there.

I think you've got it in number two, David, where it says historical feature or other important community-related action, including state or something. That's where I would...

And also, I think you just generally say if it reflects historical significance to our city, Well, that could be the Emancipation Proclamation. I mean, lots of things are significant for Clayton just like they are for everywhere else. So I think you can add a few words.

Yeah, the only reason I was saying on three is three has some pretty solid language here where it says will only be considered if that individual has made a significant contribution to or for the benefit of the city of Clayton. I

agree.

You've got it. Yep, I feel like we've got it here.

I think we've got it and it's a little bit after seven. So I think we should move to our regular meeting if we're all done with that. Thank you, David and everybody, Patty. Thank you all. And Gary for all of the info tonight in the discussion.

Great.

Okay. Well, we can begin our seven o'clock meeting if June wants to call the roll. Okay.

Alderman Lentz? Here. Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew.

Here.

Alderman Buse.

Here.

Aldermen Patel. Here. Aldeman Gary Feder. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Aldermen Patel. Here. Aldeman Fader. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you.

All right. Could we have a motion for the approval of the October 26th minutes?

I will move to approve the October 26 minutes.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Now is the time on our agenda when we call for public requests and petitions from the audience. And so if there's anyone in the audience that would like to address the board on something that is not on our agenda tonight, please raise your electronic hand. and we will move you to speak. I see no hands, so I'm gonna move on. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. The first item tonight is an ordinance, and this is for a condominium plat at 47 Topton Way. On October 28, 2021, the City of Clayton received an application plat and supporting documents from the owner of 47 Topton Way for an amendment to the previously approved condominium plat for 51 Topton Way, known as the Pearl. The plat depicts a 10-foot wide easement between 47 and 51 Topton Way to be dedicated to the city by separate document for a streetlight electric line. the subject three and a half story building shown on the plat uh the plant application contains eight units the proposed easement and plan application been reviewed by staff and we recommend approval and i do know that mr melman is in the attendee list if you'd like to hear from the applicant

we have we have three mailman oh

there we go which mail we have we have several moments

hello everybody mark do you want to talk about this at all the pearl Okay, talking is permitted for all those people. So Mark, Scott, Blair, anybody have a comment or anything you would like to add before we move to discuss it?

I would just say if this is Blair, by the way, and if Mark is unable to perhaps unmute himself, I'll just kind of try to speak to the group and thank the city and all the staff and all you all as well for all your help throughout the process. Now with the second building completed, we have our first closing This week in that second building with the other seven units to close in the weeks and months ahead. So thank you all very much for the process. And if there's anything else further that either my dad or Scott would like to add, feel free to do so.

Very good. Are all the units spoken for at this point? We are

completely sold out. Yep.

Congratulations on that.

And Scott is here now, too, as well. And I echo Blair's comments. You know, we couldn't be more appreciative of everything all of you in the city of Clayton have done with us and for us. Currently, we're obviously talking here tonight about the 47 topped away and the Remaining eight units that we hopefully can get this plat approved and recorded so that we can continue moving forward with the closing process. So I don't know if my dad is on the

end. He's got his hand up now.

Oh, he's raising his hand. Good. Great. I'm sure he would like to chime in as well. But no, thank you, everybody. And, you know, looking forward to everything going forward with all of you. So thank you.

Good. Hi, Mark. You can speak.

He's muted. You got to unmute first, Mark.

Oh yeah, you are muted.

Okay.

There

he is.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Hey, I did it. So as the father of Scott and Blair, and you guys said it all perfectly. We're just really excited to be a part of another beautiful project with the city of Clayton. And we look forward to hopefully another one in the near future. And thank you again. And we'll look forward to hopefully this approval and the next project. Thank you.

Very good.

Thanks.

Okay. All right, so the board, do you guys have any questions or is there any discussion? Rich.

I just have a process question and that's questioning why this wasn't done a long time ago when the project was approved. I mean, there may be some reason for it. I just assumed it was when we approved both buildings, I think. um at one time i just i'm just confused why

why it wasn't done earlier that's all yeah so both buildings uh were shown on that plat however 51 topton way which is the subject property this evening um i'm sorry 47 tops away which was shown as a to be condoed in the future. So I don't know, and Mr. Melman could maybe speak to not knowing where the lines were going to be within the interior layout or something to that effect, but the larger platform, the entire site was approved and then the condo plat for the existing building.

So you need the individual condos before you can do the plat? Correct. And I don't know if that's what caused the separation. Okay. That's good enough.

Yeah, that is correct. So the first building was built. And since that was completed and the second building wasn't even built, we got the first one approved and then the second one was to come later.

Okay. Thank you. Just didn't understand that.

Okay. Any other questions? Comments? All right. Alderman Lentz.

Then I'll introduce bill number 6869 to approve an amendment to the plat for the Pearl Condominium to add a building located at 47 Topton Way to be read for the first time by title owner.

Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6869, first reading an ordinance providing for the approval of an amendment to the plat of the Pearl Condominium, which adds the building located at 47 Topton Way in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

Then I'll ask the board to give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6869 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

And I will introduce Bill 6869 to approve an amendment to the plot for the Pearl Condominium at a building located at 47 Topton Way to be read for the second time by title owner.

Second. Any further discussion?

Okay, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6869, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval of an amendment to the plat of the Pearl Condominium, which adds the building located at 47 Topton Way in the city of Clayton, Missouri. Alderman Lentz?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Buse? Aye. Aldemann Patel? Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder?

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Buse? Aye. Aldemann Patel? Aye. Aldeman Fader?

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay. On to the technology contract, Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me for a second. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, I want to thank you very much. So we do have our, as Blair had mentioned, we do have our first closing on Friday. So tomorrow being Wednesday, and we need to get the MILR picked up and recorded, signed and recorded. is I dropped it off at city managers David Gipson's desk the other day. How would I go about picking that up tomorrow?

Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me for a second. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, I want to thank you very much. So we do have our, as Blair had mentioned, we do have our first closing on Friday. So tomorrow being Wednesday, and we need to get the MILR picked up and recorded, signed and recorded. is I dropped it off at city managers Gibson's desk the other day. How would I go about picking that up tomorrow?

So our city clerk has that plat now. So once that's signed by the city officials, then she'll contact you to pick it up. So I'll let the city clerk make arrangements with the mayor for signature.

Thank you very much.

I can squeeze it in tomorrow.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Okay, bye-bye.

All right. So again, moving on with the technology group solutions.

Okay, so this is another ordinance. This is a contract for the replacement of the core network switches in the city. So the city's fiber network switching has surpassed its useful life of 10 years. To stay supported by the manufacturer and ensure we are utilizing the best practice network protocols, we must upgrade and replace all of the equipment. Funds have been set aside for these purposes in the equipment replacement fund. staff has analyzed our options and decided on a platform through hpe aruba that will utilize network protocols to provide better insight redundancy and predictability over the city's fiber network the proposal includes network switching equipment management software and professional services for the implementation on the network and our staff will be assisting with that implementation, and that will drive down the professional services fee just a little bit. So this project, again, is within the equipment replacement fund and fully funded. This is where we save up for years and years and years, in this case 10 years, knowing that this expense was going to show up, and today we're at that day, but the the money's been set aside. These components are available on state or other cooperative purchasing contracts. And in this case, we will be purchasing under a pre-bid purchasing contract through Technology Group Solutions at a cost of $267,759. There is a summary that was in the packet for your review if you'd like to see the detailed breakdown. We recommend approval of the ordinance authorizing the purchase of the networking equipment, management software and implementation services in the amount of $267,759 for the replacement of the core fiber network switches related services and ongoing support and maintenance. And we have Larry Covey, our Director of Technology Services here to answer any questions you may have about the purchase.

Okay, great. We'll open the discussion. Any questions? Guys?

I have one.

Oh, go ahead. Who is speaking?

I'm just going to ask this covers just the switching within the that the city government uses within its operations. Is that my correct?

Correct. Basically, there's seven top-of-the-rack switches at all the facilities, and then we have two data centers, and there's two larger chassis types, which is one in each data center. And it's what makes the fiber ring around the city that allows for communication between the different buildings. Good. Thank you.

Is there going to be a big learning curve with this for staff?

I don't think so. One of the things that David hit on was the way we're approaching the implementation of this, we're going to sit side by side with them and implement this right along with them. We're going to do a lot of the rack and stacking. It's called basically physically installing the switching, the cabling. There are some new protocols that are getting introduced that provides, you know, better redundancy or it makes the network more predictable. It gives us better insight and that's where there will be a learning curve on the new network protocols, but it's nothing that I'm worried about.

Okay, cool.

I do have one other, and that's, does this affect the other cities that we're doing work for? No,

it doesn't touch the other cities at all. This is just within the city of Clayton and the facilities that the city of Claydon has. Thanks.

Okay, great. With that, Alderman Lentz, would you like to make a motion or introduce the bill?

Sure.

Okay.

I'll introduce bill number 6870 to approve a contract with Technology Group Solutions for the replacement of the core network switches to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6870, first reading an ordinance approving contract with Technology Group solutions for replacement of the city's core network switching equipment and related services.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6870 on the day of its introduction.

All those in favor. Oh, sorry, Ira. All those in favour? Aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right. Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce bill 6870 to approve a contract of technology group solutions for the replacement of the core network switches to read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Thank you, Mayor. Before reading it, the typos in the title and the title Second line of section one will be corrected so that it is cities possessive instead of cities plural. If you would please June before execution. Yes, thank you. With that correction being made, bill number 6870, second reading and consideration for adoption an ordinance approving a contract with technology group solutions for replacement of the city's core network switching equipment and related services. Alderman Lentz.

Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder.

Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay. Next on our agenda is the appointment of the provisional judge.

Thank you, Mayor. The provisions for municipal judge are found in the city's charter. The judge is appointed and approved by the board to a two-year term. On June 22nd, the board approved the appointment of Cynthia Garnholtz as municipal judge, which left a vacancy for a provisional judge. Per the city's charter, whenever the municipal judge is temporarily absent or unable to act, the mayor shall appoint an eligible person to act during such absence or disability. That person is the provisional judge Following the same procedure for municipal judge, the city advertised for a provisional judge and Missouri Lawyers Media publication on September 8th and September 30th with a deadline for applications of October 11th. We received four applications from Angela Gable, Amber Kempf, Brian Sanger, and Thomas Glick. Mayor Harris convened a panel of three, which included herself, Municipal Judge Cynthia Garnholtz, and Professor Peter Joy of Washington University. and they met on November 2nd to review the applications. Upon the panel's review, Mayor Harris presents to the Board of Aldermen a recommendation to appoint Angela Gable as the provisional judge. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman consider the appointment.

Very good. Okay, I'll open the discussion, and this time I think I'll just ask if anybody in our audience has any questions or comments here. Okay. I don't see any. So board, do you have any questions or is there any discussion on this appointment?

Um, I, I kind of, I would just like to know what went in, you know, a little bit of the sausage making how, you know, who are these folks and how did we arrive at this one particular recommendation?

Well, um, I think we had four good applications. I think I'm just repeating what the other two panelists said, because I do not consider myself an expert on this. I think they felt that there were two applications that were more strong, and then obviously this is the strongest in their opinion. And I think we can... The way, you know, if you want to know how we make the sausage, we met on a Zoom call. They had copies of the applications and they went through and I really was listening, just talking through various parts of the experience of each applicant, kind of comparing and seeing what was the best fit for the city of Clayton. You know some things that were considered is you know one thing that's really important is prior experience with municipal court. which Ms. Gobble I think she goes by Gobble has a lot of and so but you know there were other other applicants had some but I think she she was you know clearly out in front with a lot of of the criteria so if you if you I know that everybody got I think everybody got a copy of all those applications and so if you want you know if you want to look through that and compare but I think you know All these people are accomplished in their own right. It's just some were a better fit for this position.

Were they all interviewed?

Yeah,

that was my

question. No, they were not.

They were not?

No, they were all interviewed. They put some pretty extensive applications together. Several pages.

Hmm.

Now, maybe we could add that to our process, but that is not what we did. We looked at the applications pretty much I think like we do many other applications.

I would second. I think what Ira's point is, at least for the future, I would think at least a 15-minute interview with each candidate would be important because a lot of times what you say on paper is important, but sometimes how you come across in a conversation, even via Zoom, I think is of some value in a case like this.

I think that's a good suggestion.

I don't know anyone who would hire somebody without an interview. So it just seems it would be a minimum requirement for us to pursue and get to know somebody a little more than what they put on paper. I do think,

I will say that several of the candidates were known to various people on the panel, but there was not an interview, that's for sure. Yeah.

Now, I'll just add that it's pending. The Equity Commission is really taking from our conversation when we approve the appointment processes for judges certain criteria to take into certain procedures to carry forward to make sure that we capture going forward the things that had been talked about, including that equity lens, including opening up the pool to other people and not just the same old names that everybody knows. I don't know that interview was there, but I will certainly, I think it's on the agenda for Thursday's equity commission meeting. And we'll certainly, I'll certainly toss that out. This is a conversation because you're right. An interview can tell a lot, especially if we're trying to open up an applicant pool. Given that her resume was quite impressive.

Yeah. My apologies if I mispronounced the last name.

No, don't, don't apologize. I did the same thing. Any other discussion about this appointment? Okay. Again, I encourage everybody to go back and look at her application. I think you will be impressed. I don't have it up on my screen in front of me to read some of the things, but she's just got very extensive experience. And I think one of the panelists, not myself, had worked with her before in the past and felt that she would really be so that she would have that equity lens that she had demonstrated that as well, had opportunities to and did. So, okay. Without further ado then- I'll

make a motion to approve the appointment of Angela Gobble as provisional judge. Second.

Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Mr. City Manager.

The next item is disposal of records. It is the recommended guideline of the Secretary of State to formally approve the disposition of records at the Board of Aldermen level and to include a list which describes the record series, including quantity to be disposed in the manner of destruction and the destruction date. A detailed listing of municipal court and finance records to be disposed were included in the Board of Alderman packet. An order of destruction from the 21st Judicial Circuit for the municipal court records was also included. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the disposal of records.

Any discussion? Okay,

Alderman Lentz. I move to approve the destruction of records as listed in the board memo.

Second. Any further discussion or questions? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good. And now the last thing, our Community Equity Commission recommendation for us.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. On October 14th, 2021, the Clayton Community Equity Commission, or CEC, recommended that Clayton's Board of Aldermen request that St. Louis County remove or amend the historical marker located at the county police headquarters to align with the values we share as a proud member of St. Louis County. The CEC recommendation along with images and a transcription of the historical marker have been attached for your review. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen consider the recommendation from the Clayton Community Equity Commission.

All right, any discussion? Any input from the audience? Okay, I don't see any. Any discussion among the board?

I would offer a comment. I am now a member of the commission and I voted in favor of this and I am supportive of it. I do think some thought needs to be given as to how we move forward with this. It's my understanding that efforts were made internally to contact the county and make the county aware that this signage was dated and inappropriate, et cetera. And at least it's my further understanding that we really got no response from that. So with that in mind, I certainly think it makes sense for the board to move forward. On the other hand, I also think we ought to think about how we go about this in a way to hope actually accomplish something. It should be more than simply a written statement of protest, because if we simply send a letter and say, we think you need to take this down or change it, you know what the result's going to be. They're not gonna do anything because it would be a hot button item if it ever made it to the County Council. But I think this is the kind of thing that behind the scenes with maybe a little bit more push from the Board of Aldermen that maybe there could be some meaningful discussion at a staff level, whether it's someone in Dr. Page's office, of someone to sit down and together look at the signage and see what can be done about it. So my concern would simply be to question how we're going to move forward because the recommendation of the commission, which is just write a letter and say take it down or change it, that in and of itself I think is not going to get it done. So, you know, I would hope we would think about, you know, a well thought out letter that says, hey, here's what we've tried to do in the past. We've tried to get your attention. We haven't. It's now reached the board level. We agree with the staff and our commissions that something needs to be addressed here. You know, we strongly request a meeting with the appropriate persons in the next 30 days to go over this and see what can be done, something along those lines so that we don't just make a statement because I think Laura, our chairperson among others agrees that the goal of this is to change the sign. It's not just to make a statement

And I would back that up. We have when this first came up with Jeffrey Ward, as you all know, came because the sign starts off, you know, first visited by white colonists. That was the founding of the county. And we had a different member from the county as liaison on the Equity Commission. And then the current liaison from the county is aware of this. He was on there when it was discussed. He has not made the last couple of meetings. But at each step of the way, as this was presented and approved He has been notified that this is coming to our board and to please give any input he has. And again, he has not been involved the last couple of meetings. I don't know what's going on there. And I agree that we can certainly try that again. And it may well be that if we start with this letter and then follow up with that and perhaps with the task force too, Mayor, where a lot of this has been looked at, that we can kind of push this because it is a county sign in the middle of downtown Clayton. So we have a very legitimate interest in doing it and it's been almost a year and a half now. So thanks for, I'm glad we're looking at this.

Other comments?

I'm not sure what the best way of accomplishing, as Gary says, accomplishing what it is we would like to see happen. I mean, obviously there are gradations of movement up into certain directions and then you involve the press or you involve this or that in order to see if you can raise the consciousness and raise the elevation of the discussion. um but i'm in favor of doing whatever it takes i mean yeah i mean what whatever we uh we think would be appropriate i think i think if the board the board supports supports a message to the to the county uh that to either remove or change the language uh of this message of this this um monument um yeah i'm in favor i'm in favor whatever whatever people think it would you know would make it happen

Mayor, I thought there was a equity kind of group at the county that's discussing stuff. So are they looking at this at all? I thought there was some activity. There is a

group. And the liaison that comes to the Clayton Equity Commission meetings is part of that group, perhaps the leader of that group. I'm not really sure. I don't know the structure. I don't the whole board would like, but I think there's something to be said for picking up the phone and having the conversation. Before the letter goes, and I can talk to the county executive and I could also talk to someone in that that equity group. And also our representative for our district Lisa clancy and just see what is the best avenue what's the right process to try to get this moving and. And then we can direct our letter in that way, I also think that it would be great if we offered to help. So we've got all these great, I mean, several great historians on the commemorative landscape task force, Jeff Ward being the one that brought this up in the first place. And I think if we offered some help as long as he's willing in terms of modifying the language, if they want to have a monument, That might be good, too, because maybe they don't have at their, you know, immediate beck and call those kinds of resources.

And I'll just add that when this first came up a year ago, a year and a half ago, we looked into it because it was erected, well, it says at the bottom of the State Historical Society, and nobody remembered when it came, and they were apparently, some historical, I'll get this wrong, but Somebody funded it and these were placed all over the long roadways across the state. And this ended up here, but nobody's claiming it. Nobody's claiming ownership of the actual monument. It kind of sits there. So does the

county think that they don't own it? They're not responsible either? My

recollection, and this was again a year ago, a year and a half ago when Jeff first brought it up and we talked to the people at the state. is that no the county doesn't think it no it just ended up on their property so if we were just

gone one night no one would

notice that's what i was

thinking rich maybe we should be dealing with the state historical society instead they

don't it's not theirs

oh it's not theirs either but they put it there but you said they

provided money that and at the bottom it says state historical society but nobody's claiming any ownership So I would suggest that we approve the recommendation, which simply says that the Board of Alderman request that it be removed doesn't say the method. And then we figure out our next step. But yeah, nobody's claiming it.

We're on St. Louis County property. Is that right? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure. Thank you.

So why don't we just ask permission to remove it? Instead of asking them to remove it, why don't we ask them if we can remove it?

There we go. I don't think they're going to

let us on their property to remove their sign.

Well, just ask permission, obviously. We're good.

Or maybe we ask for forgiveness later. Right. What are you all doing after mugs tonight? I like the mayor's suggestion of

reaching out before we send the letter. I think that would make a lot of sense. And also, although we've got a commission meeting

If you ask somebody to replace the sign with something else that sort of explains in five paragraphs what St. Louis County is all about, That's a challenging effort. Yeah, good luck. But I think people, for example, on our task force could come up with something. If you tell the county, you know, you just need to rewrite this. Well, you're going to wait 10 years before they ever figure out how to rewrite it. So make it easy for them. Say, here, here's something that actually would work. It does credit to the St. Louis County. It's accurate. But unless we provide them something, you know, it's not going to happen. So we got to make it easy for him.

I think to Susan's point, it costs money to create something. I mean, that's a cast bronze plaque of some sort. So if they want something there, it's going to cost some money.

Not every county has these. Again, they were highway markers put up by somebody with a mission around the state of Missouri during a very sensitive time. And it just happens to still be there. So I would be surprised. Certainly they'd have the option to put something up, but I think the more likely outcome is it'll just kind of go away.

Yeah. Maybe we just have them say, go blues. I like that. That's a cheap sign. That's right. It's only two words. It's great. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Well, I will go forth and talk to the people at the county and see what they recommend as a process here. All right. We don't

want to approve the letter until after you've had that conversation.

Right. It doesn't say send a letter. This is simply says that request. So I think we could approve the recommendation. Yeah. And it leaves a lot of leeway. Yeah.

Yeah.

All right, well then I'll move to consider the recommendation by the CEC to request the St. Louis County remove and amend the historical marker located, remove or amend the historical marker, located at the county police headquarters, which as we discussed will be, the process will be, the mayor will have some conversations to see how that might come about.

Okay, second.

Well said. Okay, any discussion? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good. I think that that concludes our business. Shall we go around? We'll start with our senior aldermen. HAB-Jacques Juilland,

Mr okay and I will request some help from becky on this could they we had a. HAB-Jacque Juilland, Sustainability Committee meeting of two days after our last meeting so it's been a while and the purpose of it was primarily to get some ideas on the table that we would. somehow develop some committees around and start moving forward. There was actually some good energy around it, I think. The problem is there was a lot of ideas and few people. So to do committees is a little tricky. But in any event, we came up with a number of things. The chair is supposed to be putting that together and summarizing it and kind of sending it around and getting people to sign up. We had a sort of an informal sign up on the call as to what people wanted to work on. But I think he's going to try and get that a little more formalized. It came

out today.

Did it?

Later this afternoon. Oh, I didn't see it. I just glanced at it before the meeting. So yeah, so we're in good shape. All

right, well, there we go. So there's some movement forward on that. Yesterday was pension day. We had both uniformed and non-uniformed pension meetings. A couple of very interesting events issues. The uniform opted to agree with an accounting change that had already been approved by the non-uniform, but did not opt to change their interest rate assumption, which I can tell you that ACG believes their projections for the next 30 years shows us meeting that 7% target. But in the next 10 years, over the next 5 to 10 years, we probably won't. So... It was a tough call because it's an expensive change if we do reduce that interest rate. And yet, it's probably what a lot of others are doing. So they opted not to put that off for now when I could discuss it. Of course, I could be getting the two pension committees confused when I start thinking about the different things.

I think you're right so far based on what I know.

Because we had the same discussion at the other one and we didn't move it there either. The one thing I will say about the non-uniformed We actually had the actuarial report, and that's when the actuaries come back with all their numbers. They've done all their calculations. And we made this accounting change, which cost the city $88,000 in a sense. We pay it anyway, but now it's a little more visible how we pay it. But our returns this past year were so good that we actually had less of a contribution than we needed to before. And our coverage funding ratio went from 90% to 96%. So it was an incredible year for the industry non-uniform funding i mean it was also for uniform but um it was just interesting to go to make that much of a change even even after adding an accounting change that sort of cost us money in a sense but anyway it was um just i just thought i'd highlight that i think i think that's coming to the board um i believe that has to come to the board to get passed uh to get approved the um the actuarial report. So that's all.

Yeah, great. Thank you.

Ira? I don't have anything to report. We had an ARB meeting and it was somewhat uneventful. Just a bunch of additions to houses and stuff in Brentwood, you know, where they already have mega houses and now they want to have mega, mega houses. But other than that, nothing to report.

Okay. All

right. Bridgette? Um, I had a parks and rec meeting where, um, David Willie, he's one of the people that runs our youth sports league. So he kind of gave us a detailed report on how things have gone in the last year. Um, I'll just report, um, you know, soccer, which I, you know, I'm just, I, I coach a soccer team. I know Becky does as well. Um, and it was, it was a hard year. We didn't have a lot of refs, but, um, just, uh, Staff at the, in Parks and Rec, David and Patrick McGee, they really did an unbelievable job. You know, just for reference, like in 2019, we had 1,811 soccer players. And this year, this fall, we had 1.676. So, I mean, that's a lot of kids, 148 teams in 2019 and 140 this year. So we haven't come back from where we were two years ago, but I just think those are really impressive numbers. But he went through and detailed volleyball, basketball, baseball, softball in the last year and how things were, of course, down in the last year. But, you know, hopefully we'll rebound summer camps this past summer. It was the highest grossing in terms of enrollment and revenue. Again, the Parks and Rec Department group at the center did an unbelievable job playing summer camps on. um the livable community master plan our bike and pet plan went out the rfps went out they're due november 18th um and um yeah and then the site plans review is i think going to um the plant commission for maryland park or whatever we decide to call it So yeah, it was a very, very detailed parks and rec meeting. It was great. I'm also on the finance committee for CRSWC, and that was also actually a really good meeting. Patty, which I will forward on, I can't remember, I haven't done it already, and I'll have to go back and look and see. I think I do have it in my inbox, but Patty gave a detailed membership report kind of in response to that joint board of education and, yeah, the joint Board of Education in our meeting where there were just questions related to the membership reports. So I will pass that on and ask Patty for it if I don't already have it. We also talked about the IRF list for the center, also talked a little bit more about our minimum wage and when it will go up. um, at the center. And that again was in response to a question that the board of education we had at that joint meeting. Um, we also talked about security issues of the center and also just, um, memberships related to the city and the district. So it was also a very, um, it was a very, it was a That's it. Oh, and we also had a polo neighborhood meeting a week ago. So I'm grateful Gary and I kind of give updates to the polo neighborhood. And I was grateful that David was there as was Chief Smith. So I'm very grateful that they were both able to make it as well. So

very good. Okay, Susan.

Okay, I always like following Bridget because you do such a thorough job. Parks and Rec is what I have to report on, and it was really impressive, the report, and just what staff was able to do being...

Uh-oh.

And some of the challenges, for example, talking about basketball and do you limit parents can't come because you've got... How much spacing are you going to allow and the loss of some of the teams, especially non-resident teams in baseball and things like that and how adjusting to that and trying to predict what's coming, plan for what's coming forward without really knowing what's going to come next. The summer program plans for next summer, I guess coming with my Board of Education background, I was really impressed with as well with the district deciding not to continue SummerQuest. It sounds like the the parks and rec staff has been able to meet with the district and some of those attributes that were so valued by the community such as keeping that community feel feel of including you know kids who you know need ssd supports all the way through um hiring our students and alumni and our and our staff so you've got that coming this school community continue over the summer time and even something else that was important with that program is It had proved a very intentional and very effective draw for kids who needed summer school support to be able to pair with the camps to get them to their academic support and then on to camp. And apparently they're trying to work that out so we can continue to support our district and our city in that way. And I look forward to seeing that happen. And that's the only meeting I had. And Equity Commission is Thursday

night. Great, thank you. Becky, do you have anything for us?

I just want to report on an exciting event in Ward 1 that further emphasizes why we are Ward Fun. which is that on Halloween, there was a neighborhood parade down to Munn led by our vehicle from our police department. And in addition to like a bunch of interesting cars, it was led by a camel. So you never know what you're going to see in our neighborhoods and the fun stuff that people come up with to get back out and celebrate communities so just thought I would share that it was I was shocked I was like wait a minute there's a camel under mine but obviously it was it was a lot of fun so

thanks cool all right Gary

all right last and also least I attended the same meeting as Rich and I'm glad he gave the report on the pension because I don't think I understood half of what he said. But I'm learning. Davis Place, we had an event, probably not as much fun as in Ward 1, but we had the longest table event and we had beautiful weather and the mayor joined us and Bridget was there. And so we had a good time. The polo meeting was very well attended, very impressed for a relatively small subdivision how many people attended the meeting and had a very vibrant discussion. And as Susan said, we have the Ethics Commission meeting coming up and moving forward on how to deal with racially discriminatory indentures. And I think that will be further discussed on Thursday but trying to come up with a plan on how to move forward.

Very good. Well, I don't have a lot. I will say just that I did enjoy going to the Davis Place Friendsgiving Thank you for inviting me. I appreciate it. Um, it's been such a long time since all of us have been able to get out in the neighborhoods and go to these gatherings that it's really so, um, even more enjoyable when we have the opportunity. I know I went to Becky, what was the one I went to in word one? It was, um, the high point.

Yeah.

High point demand. That was great too. So, um, yeah. And, um, I did meet with Leadership Clayton this week. They have a number of students, I think they have 10, actually they're not students, they're young working people that go through this course. And I got a chance to talk with them and answer their questions and tell them a little bit about the city of Clayton and what's going on here. And so it's always really fun and it's just a great group, it's a great program. So the MIAC group has met a couple of times now and met once last week. And they are going to, there are 22 of them, by the way. This is like double the usual number. It's really, it's catching on. But anyway, they are going to do a project as always. And they have chosen to do some more little libraries. So I think they're trying to do two. So we'll see how that goes. But they'll be looking for locations at some point. So if you have ideas, let me know. And they'll raise the money for that and make it happen somehow with our help. And then let's see. The last thing I will just say is the bike lanes are in. We know this. A lot of conversation has been going on all over the place since they went in. especially this weekend and i think it's uh on balance a positive now and i just want to encourage everyone to um promote these to their friends and people who'd be interested in writing but also just to people that you know that this is this is something that the city of clayton is doing to be more progressive to be more vital to be more appealing to younger people and families and um You know, we have a lot of research to back up the way we did them. So I think, you know, we just want to be out there supporting this because it's a big change and people, you know, people are worried about that. So do what you can to educate everybody. OK, that's all I have. David, anything from you?

I do have one item. So at the last meeting, we ended up canceling the November 23rd meeting falls on the week of Thanksgiving. I did want to mention that we do have the meeting scheduled for December 28th, which is that Tuesday that falls in between Christmas and New Year's. And just wanted to see what the board's thoughts were on having that particular meeting.

Let's cancel it. Between Christmas and New Year's.

Well, doesn't it depend on whether we have anything to talk about?

So at this point in time, if you look at the agenda items in the weekly, there's nothing listed for that date. We have, I believe at this point, five items for the meeting that we're going to hold on December 14th, but nothing identified yet for that 28th meeting.

Just so you think I'm not being cavalier, Ira, I did talk about this with David this morning. So it's not like we didn't look at the agenda ahead and say, is there anything really that's pending?

Yeah, it's just, it's the last meeting of the year. I just didn't know if there was something we had to do that, you know, that week in order to, you know. If something does come

up, we'll certainly let you know, but there's nothing on the horizon that would be time sensitive before year end.

Okay. Is there a

discussion

group?

Informal Friday meeting? We do. We have a Friday session scheduled for Friday, December 17th. And we do plan to hold that meeting.

We have two things. I mean, two meetings.

Regular meeting on the 14th and then the Friday session on the 17th. So we even need a motion for that.

Motion to cancel.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. All right.

Do we have a discussion session on November 19th, David? We do. Okay. Just making sure.

Does that have a no or yes?

Yes, we do. Yes, we do, okay. That will be next Friday the 19th.

Okay, very good. All right, guys. I think that that's the end. It's a wrap, so shall we have a motion to

adjourn? Can I just ask David, how close are we to having equipment so that we can have hybrid meetings?

Don D' Now I don't want to get everybody too excited, but I was talking to Larry about it at staff meeting and it looks like. Don D' Right now they've got that part scheduled potentially by the end of the month so as soon as we have it will let everybody know, but if we get at the end of the Month, we could hold meetings as soon as those December meetings back in the chambers with a remote option as well. Okay, so. Don D' If anything changes i'll let you know it's been pushed back three times already so. I'll keep you updated.

Have we thought about requiring people needing vaccinations to attend the meetings? Have we considered that possibility?

We have not. I don't know of anyone that has a requirement, a vaccination requirement in order to attend meetings. I've not seen that. Obviously, there's a lot of conversation going on around that. employees and staff and vaccinations, but I haven't seen anything as far as the public coming into city facilities. And on the staff front, just so everybody knows that the rules did come out this week from the federal government on their mandate. The thing that's under research right now, and this would potentially impact us, there is a thread where city managers are talking about this with their attorneys, there's a component in there where they're doing this under OSHA. And so that will not impact the city of Clayton. However, we are a health provider in a sense that we have our ambulance service and then our ambulance billing services involves the Medicare program. So cities are trying to figure out that have ambulances and ambulance billing, whether or not those rules are applicable. So that's the status of our research on that item. But to answer your initial question, I had not seen anything as far as public requirements for vaccination.

Mm-hmm.

All right. Well, maybe it's I think it's a good idea. I don't know if there are reasons why we couldn't do that. But perhaps, David, you could look into that for us.

I mean, we certainly could. We have the metal detector set up. It's staffed with a police officer when the building is open for public meetings. We will go back to that practice and have an officer present in the lobby. If you've been to a concert or anything else where they have a vaccination requirement, there are tables set up at the door where you have to furnish your vaccine card, and then they'll verify that you're, in fact, vaccinated before they let you in the venue. If we went that direction, we would do that downstairs by the metal detector. So as far as that decision goes, if that's something that the board would like to implement, that's something we can look at putting into place.

I'm in favor.

That sounds good.

Yeah, I am too. I don't know what the downside is.

Yeah, I think we'll still have the option for people to join us virtually or remotely if there's anyone who isn't or can't be vaccinated. So it's not like we're excluding folks from engaging with

us. Would we say a vaccination card or a negative test?

I tell you what I would prefer is we can put this on for discussion either on that Friday session or that Tuesday session in December.

Let us

do some research. I certainly want to consult the city attorney on the matter and bring it back for a formal action. So we can research it.

That sounds like a plan. Okay, very good. Good idea.

Thank you.

Okay. Do we need a motion to adjourn or do we just adjourn? What's our, what do you, what do we want to do? What do we usually, it seems like it's sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. It's best to

do a

motion. Okay. I

move to adjourn. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

Bye.

Good night, all. Thank you so much. Bye.