January 11, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

She always interrupts me. It's that recording in progress lady. Welcome to our January 11 meeting. We're going to open up with our discussion session and I'm going to let David take it away.

Thank you, Mayor. So initially we had talked about going back in person on January 25th. So we had one more component, as you know, we were waiting on. It was backordered for six or seven months, we finally have it. The room is fully operational where we can have hybrid meetings with the Board of Aldermen and even an audience in the chambers and then also participation remotely through the Zoom platform. And it all works together. So we are ready to go whenever the board wants to go back. Of course, right now we have this COVID outbreak the surge, so to speak, that everybody's dealing with. So I don't know what the thought is, first of all, on going back and we can discuss that first, but also want to spend a few minutes talking about, and we got into it a little bit at the last meeting, but talking about what protocols we might have in place for the public that's coming to watch these meetings in a hybrid format. So with that, let's go ahead and start with just the return date. Is there anyone that still wants to return on the 25th? Or at this point, do we push that back? So I will open it up with that question.

Well, I think I'm of the same position. If it opens and you guys all want to go in, that's fine. But I would prefer to be on remotely, certainly for now.

I think because of the army, the surge and everybody's you know, we've had everybody from some office buildings to the art museum shut down for the whole month of January. I think we should follow that protocol. And actually, I'm sort of feeling like we we might want to just wait. We can see how things go, but we might wanna just target the first meeting in March to go live. I don't know, but that's just a thought.

I would be supportive of pushing off until February. It seems like the Art Museum, History Museum have all basically closed down for January, but have all scheduled reopening in February. I would still prefer that we at least try to schedule the first meeting in February as a hybrid meeting, and obviously if circumstances at the end of the month suggest that's not a good idea, it would be easy enough to just move it to a Zoom-only call. But I think we should be moving in that direction. We ought to find out if these If the virtual type of meeting really works for our constituents, and so I would at least suggest that the first meeting in February be tentatively scheduled for hybrid subject to, of course, a change depending on circumstances.

I agree. We should wait, you know, whether we start, you know, February or March, it's hard to know. There are certainly benefits for being in person. We're not ready yet. And it's hard to what date it is if we anywhere between, you know, maybe we settle on the planning on the second meeting in February or something. But, you know, certainly waiting at least a meeting or two is prudent.

I would agree. I think I'd be supportive either way. I mean, I would like to get back to in-person meetings, but you know, if we don't want to go till the second meeting in February or first one in March, I mean, I'm fine with that. So.

Okay, I think what you're hearing is we're not going to do it in January, which was your original question.

I think tentatively what we'll do is we'll look at February 22nd. We'll target that meeting, which is the second meeting in February. On February 8th, which is the first meeting of that month, at the end we can have a really brief discussion on whether or not we move forward on the 22nd. HAB-Jacques Juilland. If we try to have that discussion on the 25th that's that's two weeks from now, I don't think much will change in that period of time so let's let's target the 22nd and we'll have a brief talk about the any objections to that approach.

HAB-Jacque Juilland.

Right

no.

Next question would be protocols for the public or individuals coming to watch meetings. And when I say protocols, you know, we do have a masking requirement here in the building that's really strict, especially at this point. We've got staff separated again. We're really... Going back to the where we were at the beginning of the pandemic to try to get through this this period over the next few weeks here. We still are open to the public with the front doors, you can go to the planning counter but that's really it all of our meetings at this point. are being scheduled remotely. Very little is taking place in City Hall, but as far as folks coming in for public meetings, we do have the metal detector downstairs where we have it posted with a police officer when we have regular board sessions, and so we do have an individual there that could check vaccination cards if the board wanted to go that direction or take a look at a you know, proof of negative tests, anything like that within a certain period. And so I know those protocols are in place for certain events and other places with public gatherings, concerts, you know, all sorts of things. I think even to get into the school buildings now, you have to have either a negative test or a vaccination card. So I guess it would be the next question is, do we have any protocols? Would you like to see any

protocols in place for the public coming to Board of Alderman meetings? I serve on

a not-for-profit board, which is larger and generally doesn't have a lot of public participation, but the practice has now been in the last couple of months. They've asked all the board members to send in, I guess, scan in their card showing that they are fully vaccinated and have had a booster so they can pretty comfortably at the meetings allow all the board members in because they will already have had documentation from the various board members. I would think that our standard should be that you have to have proof of vaccination. I don't think we should fool with recent COVID tests. I think that should be the standard. We ought to encourage people to scan those in ahead of time if we have the technology available. to easily verify that someone has already sent their card in. To me, the worst case situation is that someone shows up and says, gee, I didn't know. I didn't bring my card. And we shouldn't have any exceptions no matter who it is. That should be the rule. I think that's a fair expectation. And I think it would be it sets a good example. And I certainly think would make all of us more comfortable being in attendance, knowing that everybody who's there is fully vaccinated and had a booster.

I totally agree with Gary.

Great. Anything from our senior alderman?

I agree with vaccination, since there is the option of being on Zoom. There's no reason for them to come in if they aren't vaccinated.

Good point. All

right. I'd like to get you some additional information on that subject, perhaps. There's been legislation by the Missouri General Assembly that was effective in July And I'd like to flesh out what its parameters are, but it says that no city in this state receiving public funds shall require documentation of an individual having received a vaccination against COVID-19 in order for the individual to access transportation systems or services or any other public accommodations. I'd like to take a look at that in more detail before you settle that question.

I thought I would just know, yeah, I thought rich just did. Because they do have access remotely. Right? I don't think I don't understand why that would be an issue if they have access remotely to the board meeting.

we're not denying access to board meetings. We're just saying that you can still join online as you have been, or if you're vaccinated, you come in person. And I would just add that I understand, Kevin, you have to review the law and make a recommendation. I would suggest if we don't feel like we can enforce that, then we aren't having anyone in the building. I mean, it's really straightforward.

The term public accommodations, as some of you know, maybe is a term of art. I'd like to make sure I understand what that means as to whether or not City Hall is a public accommodation within the meaning of that statute, if we can figure out what the Missouri General Assembly actually intended. I just want to warn you that we ought to take a look at that before you carve this in concrete.

Okay. Wonderful.

And when Kevin's done with this research, we'll provide an update to the board on that particular part of it. But it sounds like the consensus is if we can do that, then the proof of vaccination would be the way to go.

And then I guess we would still require people to wear a mask. That's

correct.

Okay.

And I think if we can't require, if we get to that conclusion, which I hope we don't, then we just revisit when we come in person as well.

Correct. And we'll have plenty of time to do that with two meetings between now and the 22nd.

Okay.

Any other standards the board would like to see in place? I mean, those are the typical ones. It's like we've established a date. We'd like to do proof of vaccination. Is there anything else we need to be considering here?

So David, I think you brought up the last time and that is that our employees are not required to have a vaccination or they are, but if they don't, they're given some kind of a leeway with respect to a COVID test.

Right. So any employees that don't, if the standard is a proof of vaccination to go to the board of Alderman meeting, that will apply to staff as well.

Okay. Just making sure.

Absolutely. That's simple enough.

I assume you would set up seating space and all that.

That's correct.

Okay.

Any other

considerations? To show proof of vaccination, I guess you're saying we would have someone at the front door.

That's correct. So we already have a police officer at the front door with the metal detector. So it would just be an additional step where you'd have to show your ID and your proof of vaccination.

Okay.

As Gary said, we can talk internally here about what a pre-registration might look like. So we could even give that officer a list of people that are cleared in advance and speed up the process just a little bit.

So now as a proof positive over here, you can still get it even if you're vaccinated. I mean, I'm just asking, do we wanna check temperatures or anything like that as well at the door? Or is there any other measure?

It's easy enough. They do it all over, they do it at the courthouse, they do it all over

again. There's already a temperature gun at the front door, isn't there?

I have no idea.

Never go in there.

Yeah, we don't take temperatures for individuals just wanting to conduct business at the counter there. But if that's something you'd like for board meetings, that's something that's easily done. I like the idea because then even

the people who have colds and flu can come in.

There you go. We'll get rid of all the germs.

Yeah.

I mean, they won't necessarily have a fever, but at least we'll catch those.

Okay. Temperature check is something we can do.

Okay. All right.

That's good. Any other considerations?

I would just raise the issue. I think the question of as far as the board is concerned, do we wear masks when we're up on the dais? while I'm not crazy about the idea of trying to speak with a mask on, you know, I certainly think it's an accommodation to everyone. And I think as to the point that we don't appear hypocritical, you know, if we expect people in the audience to wear masks, then even though I don't like it, I would suggest we at least consider, you know, agreeing we will wear masks during the meeting, unless again, you know, circumstances suggest a month from now that there should be more discretion in that regard.

Well, something I've noticed, and I don't know what the right procedure would be, but sometimes people wear the mask, but when they're going to speak, they pull it down for their comment and then put it back. I don't know how you all feel about that. I don't really have an opinion on that, but it's something I've seen done.

I would just make the comment that I've had people who have zoomed into hybrid meetings in the last month who have said that it's very difficult on hybrid when you're not in the room. it is difficult to hear the speaker if they're wearing a mask. And so I think we just need to be aware of that. I mean, I would prefer what the mayor is suggesting is that I would prefer to wear a mask when I'm up on the dais except when speaking and take it off. I mean, we wanna serve our community and have people understand what we're saying. So I would like to see some discretion in terms of when you're speaking. as a member of the board, being able to pull down your mask just to make sure that the people who are tuning in via Zoom are able to understand what's said. I

would like to clarify, because it was my understanding that The St. Louis County Council did pass a mask mandate by a vote of the council, which I believe would apply to us and mean that we have to wear masks. And I don't know that there would be an exception, particularly when we're doing something like speaking, which sends our particles out into the air.

Well, maybe we can investigate that a little bit. I know I just read in the paper today that even though they did that, there have several members who are not going to be wearing masks.

I understand that.

I

spent the day in Jefferson City at the State House, so I understand that not everyone is masking. It's my personal preference that we follow what our County Council has duly enacted and that we demonstrate respect for the rule of law by doing that.

Yeah, I mean, I would certainly be supportive of, I think that we all should mask. I think the issue just comes up if we can't be heard by people who are listening. And I guess we'll address that issue if it comes up.

Yeah.

But I think, yes, I think we should all mask regardless of whether or not we're talking to set a good example. But again, we'll have to address it if somebody raises their hand at home and says, I can't hear anything you're saying, then we will have to address that. And I'm not sure what we'll do, but, you know, so.

Yeah. Well, we'll take it a step at a time here. Okay.

One more consideration would be social distancing. If we want to consider that for the public in that room.

I think we already covered that. Susan brought it up, I think, tonight.

Yes, we

do plan to space the seat down.

Okay, good.

Okay, I think we've

covered every inch of that.

That was the only item we had on for the 6.30 discussion session. So we've got about 10 minutes here until the regular meeting begins.

Yeah. In the meantime, can I ask a question? When was the date on which our employees were to have their vaccinations completed?

So that was January 4th, a week ago today.

So

we've actually postponed the testing requirement. Hopefully we can enact that here in the next few weeks, but there simply aren't tests at this point. We can't even get our hands-on tests for first responders through the state anymore. The state has no tests. You know, Mercy made their announcement that you can't get a test there unless you have 104 fever and you're going to be admitted. At this point, you can't get your hands on it. So with the testing component there, there's no way to implement it right now, unfortunately.

What's now our vaccination ratio at this point?

I don't have the exact numbers of today. I know it did help push our numbers higher. I think we're somewhere right around 75% or so. I can get that out to the Board of Aldermen. I can send that out through email. We did have more cards come in. We did have individuals that went and got vaccinated in anticipation of January 4th and that requirement going in place. So, you know, it did have that effect, which is a good thing. But again, unfortunately right now, you just can't find a test anywhere and getting asymptomatic tests at this point, which is what these folks would be doing is next to impossible.

Did we lose any employees?

Just a couple. Just a couple. So it wasn't, you know, a big exodus. That's what you always hear is you're going to lose everybody. That wasn't necessarily the case with us, which is good.

Thanks. Thanks, David.

Of course. Thank you.

Okay, all. We'll see you back here in nine minutes.

Just FYI, I will email you the county's masking order that was issued January 5th. Okay, great. Have a copy of it.

Thank you.

Thank

you, Kevin.

You stay on this link or come back to the same link for the meeting? That's correct.

Yes. We're just going to mute and turn off cameras here for the next

eight minutes. Thank you. You. Thank you. Thank you. I will turn off my video June, but I'll be here. Okay.

Okay, I think that's everyone. All right, so let's begin. Let's call the roll. Okay.

Alderman Lentz?

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Aldowoman Buse? Here. Aldewoman Patel? Here. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Aldowoman Buse? Here. Aldewoman Patel? Here. Aldermen Fader?

You're muted. Here.

Thank you. Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Thank you. Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe?

Here.

Thank you

Okay, with that let's have a motion for the approval of the December 14th minutes and can we do this in one motion and the December 17th minutes?

Yes.

Okay. I will move to approve the December 14th and December 17th minutes.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, great. Now it's time for public requests and petitions. So this is the time in our meeting when we would like to hear comments or questions from our audience that are about something that is not on our agenda tonight. And I'm looking at the attendee list right now. And I see no hands up. So I'm going to assume we do not have anything there. And we can move on to awards and recognition. David.

It looks like Chief Rhodes has been brought over as well as Chief

Hildebrand, our training chief. There he is. Good evening, Chief. It's all yours if you can hear us.

You guys are muted. Now,

Chief Rhodes, you are not muted

now.

That's good.

Yes, ma'am. I can hear you.

Okay. Well, take it away with the awards and recognitions.

Yes, maam. Hey, thank you, Mayor. Thank you for your time. Board, thank you for your time to recognize the members of the fire department. You know, it is the mission of the Clayton Fire Department to preserve life and property through teamwork, exceptional performance, and professionalism. And I was notified that battalion chief Jason Hildebrandt, Captain Ryan Harrell, a former employee that used to work for us, Joshua Barnaby, and Craig Neal and engineer Steve Wood were awarded the class, a class six unit citation for their quick and professional actions on May 18th, 2021. Basically, what had happened is there was a very, very significant severe vehicle accident involving a tractor trailer on Interstate 44 on an overpass. And the tractor trailer had actually went off the overpass hanging and attached by the trailer attachment to the trailer itself. And so if you can picture the overpass with the tractor trailer literally hanging over and dangling with the patient still inside. The initial arriving crews arrived on the scene, declared a major rescue incident, which brought in Ladder Company 3212 and also, or excuse me, Engine Company 3212. And I'm sorry, Ladder Company 3222 and also Taiichi Field of Rant into the operation. They were assigned to establish a hauling system, which is a system that you attach to the rescue that brings the rescue up from the depths of the descent or the rappel to access the patient and then the belay system, which is the safety lines. Those four folks operated in such a manner that absolutely tells me as a chief that we are mission centric. And the investment that we have made in teaching our people vertical rescue, rope rescue had definitely paid off and saved a life today. So I'm very proud to announce the citation, which is given by the Greater St. Louis Area Fire Chiefs Association. And with that said, I don't know if... I'll turn it back over to you, Mayor, if you have any questions.

I do not have questions, but I remember that incident. They had a pretty big picture of it in the post-dispatch, and that was quite a scene. I can't imagine... the patient, as you call him, what he must have been going through dangling there. But congratulations and wow, what a job to have to perform. So we're very proud of you guys. This just makes us even more proud. And we're just so glad that you were recognized for not only what you did that day, but the investment you made in being prepared for that day. Anybody else want to say, comment or have questions about this? Chief, if you don't mind, I just thought I would ask you a little bit too. I know you've gone out of town at least once to help out with some disasters around the country. And I wonder if you could just mention what you did and what you found there for us.

Yes, ma'am. I certainly could do that. Before we do that, Mayor, do you mind if I ask Chief Hilderbrand if he'd like to say anything about the rescue? Of course. With all due respect, ma'am, Chief, please do comment. You want to talk a little bit about the rescue?

Yeah, it was definitely, you know, a complex rescue and the training that We've performed over the last four or five years with Brentwood and Maplewood, and now most recently Richmond Heights. All of those companies worked together really flawlessly. And that scene and that incident actually set up some scenarios where our surrounding communities are actually asking us to come in and run and be part of these run cards and from a technical rescue and rope rescue aspect to respond to those types of calls in their areas. So, Again, I thank you for the ability to train with our other communities and the program is going well. And this incident and the successful rescue of not only this call, but also another one in Brentwood a couple months ago was completely related to our coordinated efforts on the fire ground and in technical rescue.

Excellent.

Can I ask you a question? When you say technical rescue, does that involve any kind of situation that would include ropes and hoists and belaying? And so it could be off one of our high-rise buildings. It could be off anything like that.

Correct. Yeah. You know, technical rescue includes vertical, high angle, confined space, trench, structural collapse, hazardous materials. It's somewhat all inclusive. Cool. Disciplinary, but all falls under the same level of expertise. Yeah.

Terrific. Thank you very much for your your work and doing what you do.

Okay, so back to your question, Mary. Sure, I can report out a little bit on my deployment to the state of Kentucky. So as everybody knows that there was a pretty significant weather system that moved through the area the week of December 10th that evening and My night started over at Amazon at the building collapse, and I responded over there to assist with coordination of rescue efforts there with that building collapse. And then worked there until about 4 a.m. and was notified the next morning, and it was a Saturday morning at 10 a.m., that we were being deployed to Kentucky. And so I was deployed as an operations section chief with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Urban Search and Rescue System, which is It's a very robust system. There are 28 federal urban search and rescue teams in the United States, and Missouri happens to have one of those. So when you deploy to natural disasters, a command team is sent with those 20 federal rescue teams, and we're assigned to either coordinate the rescue and unify up with the state response efforts, and that's exactly what we did. And so we were assigned to search in the city of Mayfield, which took a direct hit by a significant large tornado that literally cut through the center of town. And so we worked at the candle factory, if you remember, it was on the news, the candle factory. We worked there and completed that mission to fully recover the deceased. and then went throughout the rest of the town in the county of Grays County. We also had operations in Bowling Green and also in Dawson Springs, and so we literally followed the path of that significant tornado as it went through the state of Kentucky, and it was about a seven-day operation. We searched over 6,300 structures making sure there were nobody else trapped into those. So a pretty big operation. The good news is that we have members of our fire department that are members of Missouri Task Force One, and they get access to all that training, but they do deploy quite a bit to federal disasters. And the importance of that is that they bring that knowledge back. They get to these large disasters, and they see them. they know how they function, they know where there's going to be resource pinch points and how operations can go upside down pretty fast. So we have those folks also within the fire department. And so that's a big resource for us. And it's really a feather in our cap to be a part of that system. So I hope I answered your question, Mayor.

You did. Thank you. Thank you so much. I think oftentimes we don't always hear about those extra things that you all do. And I It's great. We value that. I understand it brings back good experience, but we're so proud of you guys for doing it. And it's inspiring, honestly. That's great. Any comments, questions for Chief? Okay. Thank you guys so much for coming and sharing all this with us. And congratulations again.

Congratulations.

Yes. Okay. Moving on, we have bill number 6874, which is an amendment to sections of the entertainment overlay district. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing to solicit input regarding a proposed expansion of the Entertainment Overlay District. The proposed amendment would expand the existing district to the west and to the south. The expansion to the west extends the district from Merrimack Avenue to Printwood Boulevard. The expansion to The first illustration noted in the packet, and I'll put those up in just a minute, depicts the current boundaries, and the second depicts the proposed new boundaries. The proposed expansion is in response to a long-term initiative set by the Board of Aldermen to enhance the vibrancy of the Central Business District. The proposed amendment not only changes the boundaries or only changes the boundaries of the district and does not alter any other aspect of the entertainment district overlay. The plan commission considered this request at their December 20th, 2021 meeting and unanimously recommended approval to the Board of Aldermen. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman hold a public hearing to approve the ordinance. And we do have Susan Ice Tennis and Gary Carter here as well. I will share my screen. I think it would be beneficial to have those expanded boundaries up. So here's what those look like. And again, the existing boundary would be this map over here that would be on the left side of your screen. And then on the right side, you can see the expansion south of Forsyth in this area here. and then to the west all the way across to Brentwood Boulevard. This is the foresight point development here, and you can see that we've crossed the street to pick up this property as well. So with that, I'll open it up to the Board of Aldermen for

any questions or comments. I'm sorry, Mayor, you're muted.

Oh, sorry about that. We do have someone in the audience who has their hand up and I'm going to go ahead and take comments from our audience before the BOA has their discussion. Yeah, so Peter Smith, welcome.

Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Okay. We can. Okay, thank you. It's my understanding that no Clayton Enterprises have requested a designation in this entertainment zone. So I would... The question why the board would feel it's necessary to expand something that has not yet proven whether there's a market for it. I'm not in favor of it in the first place, and I definitely don't like it getting closer to the residential area in which I live at 23 Brighton Way. So I would ask that the Board of Aldermen put this on hold until let's say post pandemic and see whether there's in fact enough interest in the existing entertainment district footprint to warrant expanding it. I think it's been proven over the last several decades in St. Louis that so-called entertainment districts like The Loop and going back to Gaslight Square and the Pleads Landing and other areas that are just magnets for bars and crime, and I just don't think we need it in Clayton. So thank you for letting me express that opinion.

You are welcome. And I will open up for, I don't see any other hands up. So I'm going to open up to the board for comments, but I would just say, you know, obviously in doing this the first time and now possibly amending, we have definitely seriously considered all the negative outcomes that you've suggested, but feel that, you know, the positive can outweigh. And we'd like to encourage everyone vitality and places for our younger adults to go. And we wanna keep them around, but let me open it up to the board. I know we have a number of people that might wanna make a comment about this. Shall I go in order of seniority? Okay. Alderman Lentz, do you have any comment about this or questions about this?

You're muted, Rich. I don't have any questions about it. We understand that the expansion goes away from the residential area, while it's towards some parts of Clayton, obviously. It's always going to be towards some other part of Clayton. It really was intended to go away from the Old Town, which was the closer area. I think we've put some fairly strict parameters in place. We proved with the two situations we had last year or the year before, I can't remember, that we mean business and we'll hold them to those restrictions and constraints. I just don't see it's a negative at all.

Very good. Alderman Berkowitz, do you have some comments for us?

I'm strongly in favor of the entertainment overlay. I think having a district, having an area to encourage businesses to provide some kind of entertainment, whether it be music or theater, is something Clayton is desperately in need of. um not just for the young people mayor which i agree with you on 100 but even for you know all generations um and i think this is a very important part of us bringing clayton uh into being the city that it can be culturally and uh that it was it's a very important step in that direction So I'm very much in favor of it. I like the expansion. I think as Rich said, it expands into areas that are not as residential as the original design. And so I'm very much a favor of this expansion and hopefully we can bring in some really good entertainment for our residents and for our visitors to our restaurants. So I appreciate it. I thank Gary Carter for for initiating into bringing this further to our attention.

OK, thank you. Alderman McAndrew, this is your ward too. So would you like to comment at all?

I would. I think I am certainly in favor of expanding this to the South. I think that certainly does bring some of these potential noisier and busier establishments away from Old Town. However, I quite frankly would not like to cross Brentwood. I think that there is good reason to keeping this area east of Brentwood. You know, I think as we bring it on the other side of Brentwood, we bring it closer to homes that, you know, are basically right next to Shaw Park. You know, we're certainly talking about developing the curve. I don't know if that will happen or not. But I at least I would prefer to keep the entertainment district in this instance. I would just like to keep it east of Brentwood. So I would I would certainly be in favor of modifying the area, but taking out the area that's just west of Brentwood, which is, you know, the former Ruth's Chris area. I just think we're getting a little bit too close to a very dense residential area and I would just prefer to keep it east of Brentwood.

Okay, very good. Other comments? Let's see, who is next? That would be Susan. Alderman Buth.

I appreciate Mr. Smith's comments, but as it's developed, there has been a constant effort to keep it away from residential as well as, I think as Rich mentioned, the parameters and the oversight as long as the city is prudent in using those. I do respect what Bridget said and if there is concern with that going across Brentwood, a clean line stopping there does make sense. But the overall idea and the thought that's gone into it and the protections that are into it do make sense and I do support it.

All right. I can't, I'm not, I have to scroll through this because of the map is still up. Sorry, guys. Yes. Alderman Patel. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I would just note that in our discussions, we certainly acknowledge that no current businesses have taken advantage of this designation. And it's even for that reason that we're looking for the ability to expand it to areas that are still open and, um, you know, ripe for development opportunities in order to broaden, um, both the development opportunities for those particular parcels, as well as, um, the potential that, that, uh, some folks will see an opportunity to develop in this way. And so I support the expansion as proposed

here. Thank you. I think we're down to our least senior alderman, Mr. Gary Feder.

here. Thank you. I think we're down to our least senior alderman, Mr. Fader.

As the least senior alderman I'd like to second the concern of my My colleague in Ward 3 that we need to be cautious about Brentwood Boulevard. So I support that concern. I do think at the end of the day where this is most likely to be seen is in connection with existing restaurants that would want to extend their hours of effective operation, let's say from 9 to 11 in the evening. and the ability to be able to have somewhat increased liquor sales and seek an entertainment district designation, I think that's most likely where we're going to see it. I think at the end of the day, the economics make it very difficult that we will have comedy clubs or black box theaters utilizing this destination much as I'd love to see it. But I think, and to that extent, I think the entertainment district designation by modifying the liquor versus food ratio that's required, I think may be helpful in giving people who have dinner in Clayton more places to go and stay in Clayton later in the evening. So I think that's a positive. And finally, the entertainment district legislation that was adopted a couple of years ago still provides for a conditional use permit process for these kinds of uses. So I think there certainly is a... protections in place to address the concerns that Mr. Smith and others have raised. On balance, I am in favor of this, although again, I think we should look carefully as to how far we extend the property to the

West. I just spilled a glass of water all over my desk and partly on my computer, so apologies for getting distracted. I, um,

while you're distracted, can I just, I'll just, uh, jump in and say, um, since the old men in the district are, um, have both expressed a concern and we, as Mr. Smith has pointed out, we haven't had any, any, um, uh, applications. I would just assume, say, let's, um, let's Let's not cross Brentwood. We have the other area that we're expanding to. It's not that big a deal, so I would just do it that way.

I'm sorry. Yes, okay. I was actually thinking of saying that too. So again, I think it's important to take into consideration the ward point of view on projects that primarily affect that ward. So I would be supportive also of holding back on crossing over Brentwood until such time as possible. Maybe we would want to reconsider it down the road, but I think for now there's really no absolute need to do it. And so let's just maybe we can take a motion to amend the ordinance as written and then we can go ahead and approve it.

Kevin, do we have to do an amendment to what hasn't been approved yet? Or can we just introduce the bill with an amendment, with a change?

At the moment, you are in the public hearing. So I think probably doing nothing until the public hearing is concluded. You

got me. OK, I was a little distracted over here.

Sorry. And then I'm trying to look at the bill to see where the whether we need a new graphic or new text in order to. I think we would need a new text and and Text and graphic. And again, we can either do that verbally now. It would amend the graphic in section 410.850 and the text in 410.860 sub D concerning the Western boundary, I assume.

Looks correct.

And it would be so that that change would be to the Western by consists of those property having frontage on the east side of North Brentwood Boulevard. Actually, south of the mid block alley.

I have to go with whatever you guys come up with because I'm terrible at geography.

Isn't it the west side of Brentwood Boulevard that we're talking about? No?

We're talking about not doing the west side. So the ordinance will say the western boundary consists of those properties having frontage on the east side of North Brentwood

Boulevard

and south of the alley.

South

of

the block alley.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. All right. So first and foremost, if there's no further discussion, I will close the public hearing. And then I would, I guess we need a Alderman Lentz to introduce the bill.

Okay. I will introduce bill 6874 amended from the packet to both the graphic and the text to of Section 410.850 to particularly point D that describes the western boundary to consist of properties having frontage on the east side of North Brentwood Boulevard and south of the alley. To approve it, The amendment to Section 410, 8445 and 810, 850 of Article 15, Entertainment Overlay District, to be read for the first time by title only. That's pretty messy.

But I'm going to second it anyway.

Okay. Well, good. Well done.

When June gets finished with it, it'll sound wonderful.

Yes, that's right. Okay.

Everybody got the gist of it.

Yes. Any further discussion? All right. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6874, first reading as amended in Ordinance Amending Article 15 Entertainment Overlay District of Title IV Land Use Chapter 410 Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts of the Municipal Code of the City of Clayton, Missouri. and other actions related there too.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, Alderman

Lentz. I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill 6874 as amended on the day of its introduction.

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

Okay, then I'll introduce Bill 6874 as amended to change the western boundary to the east side of Brentwood. to approve an amendment to sections 410.845 and 410.850 of Article 15, Entertainment Overlay District, to be read for the second time by a title owner.

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

Bill number 6874, second reading and consideration for adoption as amended. an ordinance amending article 15 entertainment and overlay district of the title for land use chapter 410 overlay and urban design zoning districts of the municipal code of the city of Clayton Missouri and other actions relating there too. Alderman Lentz aye

Alderman Berkowitz aye Alderwoman McAndrew aye Alderwoman Buse aye Alderwoman Patel aye Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderman Berkowitz aye Alderwoman McAndrew aye Alderwoman Buse aye Alderwoman Patel aye Alderman Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank

you. Okay, great. Moving on to bill number 6875. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing to consider proposed code amendments to Chapter 410 overlay district standards to repeal Articles 3 and 4 and adopt a new overlay district and new development standards for the proposed northeast downtown overlay zoning district. The existing CBD and downtown core overlays would be eliminated and replaced with a single expanded overlay zoning district and associated new development standards. H3 Studios has been under contract with the city of Clayton to assist the city with updating the two downtown overlay zoning districts of the CBD and the downtown core. The 18-month process began when H3 Studios conducted an onsite survey of existing conditions within the project area, followed by a succession of multiple interactive work sessions with the Board of Aldermen, the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and the steering committee comprised of key developers, property owners, residents, and business owners within the immediate study area. Through that process, H3 and the city gathered feedback from stakeholders and city leaders, which led to the establishment of the vision, principles, and parameters for two significant changes. One, the establishment of new design guidelines, and two, creation of the Northeast Downtown Overlay District and the associated development regulations. The proposed regulations and design guidelines are intended to provide the City of Clayton's Department of Planning and Development Services, Architectural Review Board, Plan Commission, Board of Adjustment, and Board of Aldermen with a place-specific and form-based code framework by which to evaluate new development proposals and construction projects within the boundaries of the new overlay district. These development standards and design guidelines will operate in concert with the vision of Clayton's Downtown Master Plan, North Central District, and the pedestrian priority zones as identified in the policy and infrastructure sections of the 2010 Downtown Clayton Master Plan update and retail strategy. On December 20th, 2021, the Plan Commission approved the design guidelines and recommended approval of the Northeast Downtown Overlay District. Staff recommends the Board of Aldermen approve the Northeast Downtown Overlays Zoning District standards as set forth in the attached ordinance per the Plan Commission's recommendation. And we do have with us this evening, Susan Isenis, our Director of Planning and Development Services. And I believe we have Tim from H3 Studios here as well. June, if you could bring him over. We can answer any questions you have about the process.

Okay, I'll open the discussion. I'll first ask if there are any questions from the audience and I'm looking at the list. I do not see any hands up. So I will turn it over to the board for questions and discussion.

Well, I can

tell you, having been on the steering committee for some time now, that H3 has done a great job. They've put a lot of effort into this, a lot of thought. They were very helpful, particularly when we got out and did a site walk around explaining what they were trying to do and why. And I think also listened to some of our concerns, and I think came up with a very workable plan from that. So there's been a lot of work that went into this, and there's a lot of detail in it, which we won't ask Tim to go through right now.

No. Yes, I would like to echo all that, having also been part of the task force there. steering committee any other comments or questions about this okay well oh okay

go

ahead

um again it is it's impressive and i have learned a lot not having been on any of the steering committee or anything but just reading through it intro and uh you know matters of design and everything else so thank you and it's still just um as a lay person as we As we encourage building to a property line, I have trouble grasping that as we do have the focus on pedestrian and street traffic and everything else, buildings going right up to that building line. Because once that's done, it's done far into the future. So that's just kind of my reaction to seeing that, but I understand the arguments of the uniformity along the street and everything else. And I know I understand the corners have their percentages set back and things like that, but that's just a comment. I am concerned a little bit too with the alleys and on the sides and the setbacks and our ability to go forward into the future with sustainability concerns and room for whatever that might be. Currently, I understand a lot of the restaurants don't do any types of recycling because there aren't room for recycling bins and things like that. So it does intersect with other areas of our code, but that is a concern because sustainability should and will become more and more of a priority as we move into the future. And when you're building buildings, that's a long-term activity.

Well, perhaps something to consider because I will just say I didn't realize that the reason our restaurants are not recycling is because there's no room for the bins. If that's the case, we should consider going forward when we have new developments to take a look at that and make sure that is incorporated.

Yeah, I think there are other ways to address that. I don't want to, if this is one, I think that this is something that we will approve and it's a lot of good work, but. the different areas do intersect. And I think we do have to be aware of that and really push for, not just encourage those types of behaviors. And of course, anecdotally, that's what I've told. There's just no room. It's messy. It's hard to do because Clayton is so convinced already. So those are my comments. Thanks.

Very good. Any other comments?

Yeah, I just want to say, you know, I was trying to carry the water for having increased setbacks on buildings instead of building right up to that line, as Susan Buse described. The steering committee, I guess, you know, decided in their wisdom that that is not something that we would want to regulate or legislate. And aside from the corners, And so I'll live with that. I'm not sure exactly If that's necessarily the case, I think there's arguments still on both sides. We do have sidewalks that I think are not conducive to a whole lot of foot traffic and certainly not attractive to foot traffic. I think widening them or at least having more room for pedestrians, I think would be more of a benefit to the city overall. But if the steering committee and the ARB are of the opinion that that's not a priority, then, you know, I'm willing to go along with it.

Yeah, I just want to say, you know, I was trying to carry the water for having increased setbacks on buildings instead of building right up to that line, as Susan just described. The steering committee, I guess, you know, decided in their wisdom that that is not something that we would want to regulate or legislate. And aside from the corners, And so I'll live with that. I'm not sure exactly If that's necessarily the case, I think there's arguments still on both sides. We do have sidewalks that I think are not conducive to a whole lot of foot traffic and certainly not attractive to foot traffic. I think widening them or at least having more room for pedestrians, I think would be more of a benefit to the city overall. But if the steering committee and the ARB are of the opinion that that's not a priority, then, you know, I'm willing to go along with it.

I'll defer to some of the other members, but my recollection was that we went pretty hard at trying to get that setback and were told that that would essentially be a taking of property from the property owners and that we would run into some additional issues if we did that. So then it became a matter of whether we had enough room on the sidewalks. As it is, there is no requirement that they build to the property line. PB John Gerstle, I don't I think they can always ask for a variance and we did increase the space, I think the percentage of the space that could be set back, I think we increase that to accommodate some of that i'm not mistaken that refresh my memory, David

is that. We did spend quite a bit of time talking about this particular issue, and so we're looking at this in the context of new development as well. And so the way these standards are written is where we really start to run into an issue where sidewalks start to get congested is areas where you have outdoor dining. And none of those buildings were constructed contemplating that there would be outdoor dining at any point in time on the city sidewalk there. We kept the build two line at that zero foot setback and that gives you the uniformity along the street. But we did, as Alderman Lentz had stated, we allow a certain percentage of that frontage to be set back. So if somebody is going to build a new building and they know they're gonna have a restaurant down there and they would like to accommodate outdoor dining, they have the ability to carve out that space along the sidewalk and keep that seating really on the private side, on the private realm, and not necessarily within the public right-of-way. Because we are limited with our right-of- way downtown, and it's really hard over time to incrementally try to widen that right-of- what it comes down to is if we want wider sidewalks, rather than trying to capture that on the private side incrementally, which could take you, you know, building's going to be there 50 to 100 years, if not more. The more effective way is really to trim the street down and then go in and make your sidewalks wider within the public section. However, of course, that's a big infrastructure cost down the road. But all that being said, we feel like having a percentage of the frontage that could be set back to accommodate dining will eliminate a lot of these issues because our standard sidewalk width is enough for two people to pass comfortably, for two wheelchairs to pass comfortably, even with the streetscape that we have there. We went around and we measured this out in different areas. And as new developments come in, if they want to make it a little bit wider, that's great. But the other thing we were sure to preserve or at least allow in the future are these plazas or these corner places that are interesting downtown. That's where you see a lot of the activities. So think Herbie's or Cafe Napoli, the ability to take these prime corners, have outdoor dining or some other type of feature there. that has been built into these standards. So we do allow a deeper setback from the bill to line at corners. So I feel like we preserve that ability as well. And this is something we talked about with the steering committee for months and we walked around and we looked at this and Tim and John brought tape measures out and we were really trying to get a sense of where these lines and boundaries would be. And it's just a really delicate balance of the width of the public right of way and then how much space you can reasonably expect on the private side to accommodate dining or other uses.

And the other issue is the enforcement of the design standards. And what we found is that restaurants patrons just move tables and move tables so that they're blocking the sidewalk so that they can get four six people around one table and it's really not that that is not um that does interfere with the traffic

hey all all good relevant comments um I think we really did all the due diligence on this that you could do to the point of measuring tables. I remember that day.

Yeah, we were creeping out people that were sitting on the sidewalk because we were crowding on top of them. So, yeah.

So, all right. So any other discussion or questions on this from anyone? Okay. All right. I will close the public hearing. Who has something? Becky, oh, I'm sorry. I must have looked away just when you... Sorry, dear.

Go ahead. And I guess I just want to be clear because when we talked about these before, my understanding was that the guidelines were requiring building at the property line with zero setback. And we suggested that we wanted to allow people to set back for all the reasons that we're talking about and I think I'm actually a little bit confused right now what we're saying. So I understand not requiring a setback, although I think we could. I mean, I'm required to have a setback on my property, but I understand if that's not what's recommended. I am. But so I still want to clarify, like, are we allowing the setback or we're only allowing the setback on like a certain percentage? That's

correct. That's a great question. And I'm happy to clarify that. So you do have to build at the building line, the build to line. It's at zero feet. So there's no setback in the downtown overlay. the way this is written. However, for 25% of the frontage on an interior building, so 25% of the length of your building, you can set back up six feet. So that way, if you want a pocket with outdoor dining, if you want some kind of interesting feature on the front of the building, the plan will still accommodate and allow you to do that. The previous conversation was whether or not instead of a zero-foot setback, you have a six-foot setback. And then you basically turn that into additional sidewalk space. And so as we had this discussion, really what you're doing then at this point is having a private entity build a public sidewalk for you. Then you start to get... access issues and other things. Do you have to put an easement down? What happens with the maintenance of that? What if the maintenance of the city is going to maintain our portion of the sidewalk or reconstruct it? Does the private side need to reconstruct at the same time? And I think that's where a lot of that conversation focused. So we went back to the zero foot setback, but then allowed percentages of those frontages to be set back And on corners, you can go, again, even deeper than that six feet. You can go up to 12 feet with a setback there.

Right. So I'd like to understand from those that participated in the committee, was there a discussion of allowing a full setback? So not requiring it, but allowing it. Because my understanding of this whole process is the goal is to allow like create a framework for allowing the type of development we want to approve without variances right and so um so i'd like to know if there was discussion of not requiring a full setback but considering allowing it for any business that might actually choose to do that

um There was there was we looked at all these these various options having an or and there's this pretty difficult when you're talking about where that that setback line is. After we we talked about it, rather than having a an up to six feet for a setback or having all that flexibility built in. We decided for the sake of uniformity of your structures along a street and for the streetscape itself. It's advantageous to have a uniform setback so that was set at the zero feet, and to build in the flexibility. That's where the percentage of the frontage was was utilized for it. Mechanically, it works better. And I think at the end, everyone on the committee recognized the importance again of a uniformity of your streetscape and a common setback or build to line. And Tim, please, if I missed anything there because we did talk about this at length, feel free to

jump in with anything I've omitted. David, I think you did a good job of summarizing the discussion.

Let me jump in then. You know, I mean, I think, you know, it just doesn't sit right with me when we talk about uniformity. There is no uniformity in downtown Clayton. I mean, we have buildings that are set back, all sorts of feet. We've got buildings that are built up to the boundary all over the place. This is for future development. This isn't to raise the entire city of Clayton and rebuild it again. You know, we're sitting with an uneven distribution of improvements sitting on our streets. I'm not sure why we think this is going to somehow lend to or create some kind of uniformity. of buildings being built up to the boundary. That's not going to happen. The other point I want to make, though, is this whole issue of, as Becky points out, if a developer comes in and says, hey, I want to build, but I don't want a restaurant. We have now obviated a restaurant there for the ages because very few restaurants in our climate are going to want to have a restaurant where they can't have outdoor dining. where it won't happen for them. This is right now, we've already decided retail is not available. We're not doing brick and mortar retail anymore because it's just not, doesn't make it. We can't do it. Okay, so then what do we have? We have offices. Oh, that's right. COVID has taught us that maybe offices isn't exactly the best investment either. So what are we left with? We got restaurants. And Clayton is known for its restaurants. That's what we do. And now we're saying, OK, but you know what? If you're going to make a new building in Clayton, no outdoor stuff, no room for any outdoor tables. Gone. Let's not do it. You're being a little harsh,

Ira.

What's that?

I said you're being a little, like, harsh.

No, no, I understand. I understand your point, but I

think you're being a little harsh.

No, I'm taking it to a bit of an extreme, but I'm hearing the extremes coming on the other arguments as well, though. You know, that somehow we're going to have uniformity of buildings in Clayton. That somehow we're going have, you know, that somehow, you know, if somebody is going to build a building, well, if they have in mind a restaurant, that's fine. Otherwise, we're not going to do it. And then we're talking about what we do have in this legislation. It's basically saying, as Becky has pointed out, you know what? If you're going to do it, you have to do it just on this small area here. That's all you can do. I mean, to me, it just seems against the grain of our future and what our downtown is really going to thrive for. That's all. I'm just saying. I mean, we want people. We want vibrancy. We want people on boots on the ground or shoes on the ground, whatever. We want to be able to have people walking around. And I see the loop. And it's got a ton of people walking around. Friday evenings, you can't even, but their sidewalks are twice the width of ours. And then let me just talk for a second about the taking that we're talking about, that somehow we're taking property from people. We're not doing that. We're asking them to reserve space that if they want to have tables, they reserve it. They can still have it as their own. They can put bollards there and they can put flowers there and they can beautify their setback space. You know, we have setbacks in all of our neighborhoods for all of our houses. so that we have some beautification that all of our houses have. And there's no reason why we can't introduce that into our downtown area as well in the way of maybe flowers or some kind of green space in terms of, while they're not being used for let's say dining. People can have retail wares sitting on the street. I see it at some of our clothing stores, they have clothes racks sitting on their, they can do it on their own property and put it out on the sidewalk. and have people walking around and checking out stuff along the way. Happens in every city. I'm just confused. And like I said, I know that the task forces and they've done their work and everybody's talked about this, but I'm not really getting a response that makes a whole lot of sense for the future.

I will say this as we walked around with the steering committee, the setbacks are remarkably uniform on each of these streets. Where you see the variation is really on those corners. You may have some pockets, but for the most part, when you walk up and down Forsyth or Central or Merrimack or any of these streets, there's a common building line for those buildings. And the outdoor dining is taking place on the sidewalks. And I think it was the mayor that pointed out that as these tables get moved around and that sort of thing, they start to encroach on the pedestrian space. But we actually have enough depth to allow two top tables. on the private, you know, on the private right-of-way there really without any issue. It's when they take a two-top table down, they put a four-top out and they start to choke down the sidewalk that we run into these issues. And also this idea that, you know, we've got to set everything back to allow restaurants. Again, we have space on the right-of- way, but counter to that point and something we talked about is if you set the building back For a restaurant, you've basically locked in a restaurant use because if somebody did want to go in with retail, they'd rather be up at the sidewalk so that they have that frontage there. And so those two uses really want two separate things. And we would rather go with a zero setback and allow the outdoor dining to take place on that frontage that public side of the sidewalk, because we think we have enough depth there and preserve that setback line that's advantageous for retailers in that sort of use going forward. We can always widen sidewalks on the public side. Again, it's just a major infrastructure undertaking because you have to work with the drainage, the curb cuts and everything else. So it's it's quite a bit of work to go in and do that but where you see lot wider sidewalks and that sort of thing that's that's exactly what you said he did is they shrunk the road down they brought the sidewalks out, but they didn't capture that over time by encroaching on the private side of the property line. And again, if somebody does want to have a restaurant use, we allow the outdoor dining in the public space on the public sidewalk there. But we also allow the flexibility along that frontage to set back a portion of it for additional tables and seating and that sort of thing. So we try to address that, but it is a very, very complex issue.

So I understand, I just, I think to assume that we're going to take public right-of-way off the street is a good fantasy that I don't think will ever happen because of the expense. And of course we saw what happened on Maryland Avenue when we are basically taking some right-of-ways for bicycles and the uproar has been ridiculous. I mean, I don't know that that's a real fair saying that somehow that's an option. I don't know it is an option. just because of, like I said, the expense and the resistance that we'd get for that. But I appreciate the points, David. I just disagree. Yeah, I'm just

mentioning what the committee had discussed. And as the committee deliberated and talked through these things, this was the rationale of the reasoning that was brought up over and over again.

I appreciate

that. If I could just comment briefly, I think it's all about balance. And so what we're trying to do is balance these different competing factors here. And Ira, you're right in the fact that we've got a lot of built-out environment already that may or may not conform to what we're proposing here. But we've got to think about what we want going forward. And, you know, retail... I mean, we haven't, you know, I know that retail has been beleaguered and it's different than it used to be. But I do think still there is an opportunity for some retail and also services. And I do think it's important for them to be able to be front and center right along the sidewalk. You know, we fought really hard on this project. on this while we were developing this overlay with uh with developers to make sure that for example along central we would have articulation interest in different little you know storefronts that would be available to people and when we start having them all set back or off and on setback it really is a different Think about the way old Clayton and Central looks now with all those little interesting buildings. They're all right up to the sidewalk, and that creates this sort of passageway for you to walk along that has interest. The other thing that can go wrong is we have a lot of We have a number of office buildings primarily that do this, but they set themselves back. The Pierre Laclede buildings are a great example. You know, yeah, we're allowed to set back. They set back and there's that street right there is dead. Nothing's ever going to happen there. And it's unfortunate because it's a really prime, prime corner. So I think it's just about trying to balance all these factors and I appreciate Ira, your willingness to kind of go with the flow here. And I know that... you know, we worked really hard on this, but obviously, um, as we go forward, uh, we learn things and we may amend things or, or make adjustments. But, uh, I think, you know, I will say having been part of the steering committee, we spent many, many hours and we discussed every single thing back and forth. Um, and the, the consultants H3 did a great job of, of, um, laying out all the options for us. And of course, our city manager who is a planner himself did a great job of helping us create these balancing factors. So I support this the way it is and I'd like to see us move forward and go ahead and get it done at last. Any other comments or questions from anybody? Okay. I will close the public hearing, and Alderman Lentz. You are muted. Did

we lose Susan? I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry. What did you say, Becky? I believe we lost Susan Buse. Yes.

Oh, you know, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that. okay, well, let's hang on a minute and see if we can get her back. See if she's texted or anything. No. No.

Okay, she said

that they lost internet.

Oh. Wow.

She's still trying, but they lost their internet. We'll use her phone. Yeah. Can

she call in somehow?

Okay, I just text her. Okay, great. Thanks. Okay.

there she is

i think i'm

back sorry my goodness i'm out here

wow that's that's not good i hope i'm not next just being one block from you right okay i'm sure you all resolved

that while i

was gone right No, we waited for you. You're not getting off that easily. I did close the public hearing, though, and Alderman Lentz was just about to introduce the bill.

And just to be sure, Susan, you went off. Do you have any further comment? No,

just the distinction between a mandatory setback, which we got into taking and all that, and um requiring building up to the building line but um again i can i can i know a lot of work was put into it i struggle with it uh but i can support the work that's been done so

we all struggled with it believe me okay um okay well then i'll introduce bill 6875 to approve amendments to repeal and replace the central business district core overlay Dave Kuntz, district standards and the downtown district standards with the new northeast downtown overlay zoning district and to consider design guidelines to be read for the first time by title. Second.

Karen Hollweg, For the discussion. Karen Hollweg , All right, Mr city attorney.

Bill number 6875, first reading an ordinance amending chapter 410 overlay and urban design zoning districts of the municipal code of the city of Clayton, Missouri, repealing Article 3 and replacing Article 3 with a new district titled Northeast Downtown Overlay Zoning District and repealing Article 4, changing references to Articles 3 and 4 in various sections of the code and other actions related thereto.

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

Well then I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6875 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'll introduce Bill 6875 to approve amendments to repeal and replace the Central Business District Core Overlay District Standards and the Downtown District Standards with the new Northeast Downtown Overlay Zoning District and to consider design guidelines to be read for the second time by title.

Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr. City

Attorney. Number 6875, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending chapter 410 overlay and urban design zoning districts of the municipal code of the city of Clayton, Missouri, repealing Article 3 and replacing Article 3 with a new district titled Northeast Downtown Overlay Zoning District and repealing Article 4, changing references to Articles 3 and 4 in various sections of the code and other actions related thereto. Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew.

Aye.

Aldermen Buse.

Aye.

Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Gotta unmute yourself, Gary.

Aye. Aye aye aye. Thank you. And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Excuse me, all of abuse. Are you able to make a video connection to the meeting?

I cannot figure it out, but I'm doing my best. Hopefully he's a minute. I signed over the vote, but I haven't figured it out.

I will testify that that is her voice.

And I think we have enough votes anyway.

Yeah, unfortunately, state law requires a video connection to vote on a body that has elected members. Right. I don't

know how to do it. I'm trying to get back on.

I appreciate that and I apologize, but it's not my idea.

Okay. All right, moving on to the city manager report. We have the sale of general obligation bonds. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, the proposed ordinance provides for issuing bonds for the purpose of refunding the 2014 outstanding general obligation bond issue so the city can achieve approximately... just over $1.1 million in savings over the lifetime of the bonds. The total estimated amount of bonds to be issued is approximately $10,785,000. The current interest rate averages 3.14%, and we expect this to be lowered to around 1.5% through the refunding. The refunded bonds will mature in 2034, and the debt service is funded by a tax levy. The city's current bond rating for general obligation bonds has been reaffirmed as AAA. We just got that news, which is fantastic. This is the highest attainable credit rating and will result in a very favorable interest rate. The attached ordinance authorizes and directs the issuance, sale, and delivery of the $10,785,000 in general obligation bonds. In accordance with the notice of bond sale, the sale of bonds will occur at 10 a.m. on January 25th, 2022, and we will know the final issuance details at that time. Thus, the proposed ordinance should only be introduced for first reading at this meeting. We'll do the second reading and final passage at the meeting on the 25th, following the sale of the bonds. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen hold a first reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale, issuance, and delivery of general obligation refunding bonds and the amount of $10,785,000. And we do have Mark Grimm, our bond counsel here this evening, if you have any specific questions about the refunding. We also have Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance on as well.

Great. I will open it for discussion among the board. Alderman Lentz, any questions or? Okay. All right. Alderman Berkowitz. All right. All the men can do going through this like crazy. Alderman Alderwoman abuse. Yeah. Do you have any questions or anything?

No.

Okay. Alderman Patel. Alderman Gary Feder.

Okay. Alderman Patel. Alderman Fader.

No questions.

Well, I have one question. How much money will we save with this new interest rate? Has anybody calculated that, you know, like annually or something?

It'll just be it'll be just over 1.1 million over the life of the bonds. And so again, that matures 2034.

Oh, I see it here. Never mind. I see that. Never mind. Okay. All right. Great. So no further questions. So Alderman Lentz.

I'm just concerned that I'm happy to introduce the bill. I'm not sure our council wants us to vote on it unless...

I think just for the first. It

would just be a first reading this evening. Okay, I'll introduce Bill 6876 to approve the sale of General Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2022 to be read for the first time by Title Altman.

Need a second? Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr.

City Attorney. Bill number 6876, first reading, an ordinance authorizing and directing the issue in sale and delivery of general obligation refunding bonds series 2022 of the city of Clayton, Missouri, and approving certain documents and authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. So then we will do the second reading on January 25th.

That's

correct. Now we have the lease agreement for the child center. So Mr. City Manager.

In 2013, the city of Clayton entered into a lease with the Clayton Early Childhood Center or CECC. As a successor to the original tenant, the CECC board of directors in the city were cautious and entered into a relatively short-term five-year lease which had one renewal option. CECC exercised their option in 2018, thereby extending the lease through December 31st, 2022. Negotiations began earlier this year to get a lease in place by the end of this year. The attached lease would become effective January 1, 2023 and extend through December 3, 2032. This is a 10-year lease that would have an optional 10-year renewal. The CECC will be responsible for all interior maintenance and utility costs associated with the property. The city is responsible for exterior maintenance, including snow and ice removal of the sidewalks and parking lots. The city will also be responsible for the replacement of the roof within two years of lease commencement. This is something that we have in the CIP, and it is a funded project at this point. The base rent will be set at $8,500 per month. The current rent is $8,000 per month in their lease, and that rent will increase every other year by a percentage change in CPI or Consumer Price Index. And then finally, 40 spaces in the parking lot there at Oak Knoll will be allocated to CECC employees and visitors. Additional provisions of the lease cover issues related to special events, parking, signage, and a variety of other administrative details. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve the ordinance authorizing execution of a lease between the City of Clayton and the Clayton Early Childhood Center for the property located at No. 1 Oak Knoll Park. And we have Tony Searing here, our Interim Director of Parks and Recreation to answer any questions you may have.

OK, I'll open the discussion. Let's see if there are any questions from the audience. I don't think there will be, but let me see participants. There they are. No questions that I see. So any comments or questions from the board?

Mayor, my only question, I don't feel strongly about it. Most of the leases that I've worked with that have a CPI increase, it's an annual increase. I find it rather unusual to have a CPI increased only every two years. I just wonder if that was at all negotiated because it does seem a little unusual to me.

I do not know if that was negotiated or not. Patty, I know Patty is in the audience. She might be able to answer that, but we did not discuss increase every year.

And I know there was some effort to make this

lease consistent with the lease in the Community Foundation building, the other building there at Oak Knoll. So I'm not sure if that is a CPI every two years or how that increase works. It looks like

Patty has her hand up.

Looks like Patty has her hands up there on the attendee list.

There we go. Hi. Can

you hear me? Yes. Hi. Okay. Yes, we did. Initially, it was every year. We negotiated that. It actually picks up whatever change has happened during those two years, but they do not want to have to change their fees annually. It's really based upon the fees they charge to the people and they want to be able to do that every two years. And so we agreed to that. That's the reason that we discussed that.

Okay. Other questions? All right. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6877 to approve lease agreement with Clayton Early Childhood Center for one Oak Knoll Park to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6877 7-7, first reading. An ordinance providing for the execution of a lease of the property located at No. 1 Oak Knoll Park with the Clayton Early Childhood Center.

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

Mr. Lentz. I'll move to the board to give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6877 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

Second.

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

I'll introduce Bill 6877 to approve the lease agreement with Clayton Early Childhood Center for one Oak Knoll Park to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Further discussion? All right. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6877, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the execution of a lease for the property located at number one Oakmole Park with Clayton Early Childhood Center.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aye.

Just

in

time. It's on, it's

on. We see you. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder.

on. We see you. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thank you. Okay. All right. The parklet policy. Mr. City Manager.

In February 2014, the city built upon the 2010 Downtown Master Plan by adopting the Central Avenue Activation Plan. Included in this plan was the recommendation that Clayton promote the use of parklets to enhance the pedestrian experience. On June 26, 2018, the Board of Aldermen adopted Ordinance Number 6676, approving a parklet policy for the city. The policy was an attempt to spur additional parklets through private investment. To date, one private parklet has been approved and installed. That's over in DeMunn. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the city implemented several emergency measures during the spring of 2020. One of these measures was to provide city-owned traffic barricades to restaurants for the purpose of creating temporary on-street dining and allowing them to continue business with occupancy restrictions. These basic parklets were allowed to stay in place until fall of this year. Both from a restaurant and customer perspective, the parklets were very desirable and popular. On October 26, 2021, the Board of Aldermen directed staff to draft an ordinance that would expand the parklet season and allow for broader design options for parklets. The attached policy revisions are intended to respond to both directives. The revised policy retains plan commission architectural review board approval for all parklet installations. So I do want to be clear about that. ARB still will need to approve these in the future. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance amending the parklet regulations. And we do have Gary Carter, our Director of Economic Development here, as well as Susan Ice Dennis to answer any questions you have.

Okay, we'll open the discussion. I'll just see if there's any questions from the audience and see none. Questions or comments from the board? Alderman Lentz?

No, nothing.

No. Okay. Ira? No. Alderman McAndrew? No.

Alderwoman

Buse?

No. I have one question with the April through October 31. Is there any way for versus the city having to actively enforce if somebody doesn't close up by October 1, have something built in like there's a I don't know whether there's some type of built in penalty if for any day after that, or something else just so it's not always on the city to go out and say, Hey, it's November, you know, close down?

The process requires a right-of-way permit, and part of that process is part of that is a bond. So that bond could be used to clear that parklet from the right-of-ways.

So that's, I really think I'm making it easier on you. If somebody is not moving and you keep telling them they're not going, if you had a bond and there was a stated, you know, some incentive for them actually to comply, that's all. But if you think that the bond is sufficient leverage, that works too. We

do.

It should be. And we can always remove things from our right of way if necessary.

Other questions? JoAnne Hanrahan- No alderman Gary Feder no question

Other questions? JoAnne Hanrahan- No alderman fader no question

questions,

I have one minor question. JoAnne Hanrana- I mentioned this David a little bit earlier. JoAnne hanrahan- This application to the architectural review board does it include reviewing the design of the parklet like you know how it looks.

David. Yes, it would.

David.

Okay, I think part of your concern when we when we had talked before. And the application process. It talks about the applicant submitted an architectural review board application but it doesn't specifically say in there that the ARV would approve it within this document. That's on packet page 208. Right. Yeah, 218 of the packet, 208 of the PDF is where that's mentioned there. So we can certainly clean that up and make it clear that it submit an application and that it's approved by the ARB. That's easy to clarify, but they are looking at the design of the parklet.

Okay,

very good.

All right. Mayor, I'm sorry. This is probably a silly question, but Gary, I noticed and I'm not, you know, I understand it's for safety, but I feel like restaurants are going to work hard to make these attractive and then they have to put bright yellow reflector tape around the entire area. structure. It just looks like the picture that is provided of the one that it looks like it's in New Jeffery Yorg City. There's just reflector tape around the corners. Do you just find in your research that it's just to keep them safe, to have it all the way around? Is that...

All right. Mayor, I'm sorry. This is probably a silly question, but Gary, I noticed and I'm not, you know, I understand it's for safety, but I feel like restaurants are going to work hard to make these attractive and then they have to put bright yellow reflector tape around the entire area. structure. It just looks like the picture that is provided of the one that it looks like it's in New York City. There's just reflector tape around the corners. Do you just find in your research that it's just to keep them safe, to have it all the way around? Is that...

yes and that was a conversation with public works i think they okay to that extent they did suggest they could be white instead of yellow but we we did want to maintain some high visibility because unfortunately we do have that reference um not too long ago with the the centene parklet where yeah something you never think is going to happen happens. Fortunately, there was no people on it at that time. If we're going to have those in the right away, I think it's, it's far better to be overly cautious than not.

Yeah, no, that's fine. I just like in the picture, it just kind of had it partially or in the corner. So I just, I appreciate that public works finds things that that is the most safe option. So

Okay. In that case, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6878 to approve revised park with policy to be read for the first time by title only.

Any discussion?

All right, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6878, first reading an ordinance adopting a revised on-street dining policy for the city of Clayton.

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

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6878 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favour?

Aye.

Any oppose? Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6878 to approve a revised park policy to be read for the second time by title.

Second. Any further discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6878, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance adopting a revised on-street dining policy for the city of Clayton.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alder Woman Patel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder? Aye. And Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alder Woman Patel? Aye. Alderman Fader? Aye. And Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

Okay, the fourth quarter budget amendment. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, so I'll turn this over to Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance,

to walk through the budget

amendment.

Hello, Karen.

I apologize. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. I'm so sorry. I think my AirPods wore out while I was sitting here. Okay, David, do I need to read the whole introduction?

No, not necessarily. If you can just hit on the highlights there of the budget amendment, that would be great. We can just stick to general categories would be fine.

Okay, thank you. So in a nutshell, this very long memo is the effects of the pandemic on the budget. We had some revenue reductions. In the general fund, we had an increase. The basics is that the grants and donations that we received increase this year because of the pandemic funding. We were down in a few other areas, utility fees. We assume that's because of milder weather. That's why those things typically fluctuate. So You know, that's kind of how that goes. Parking fines, space rentals, obviously, you know, we were shut down for a big portion. So those fees weren't great. Our expenditures decreased slightly in the general fund. Some of them were due to expense savings, cost savings in different areas that were outlined here. And some of them were things that were deferred till next year. We had no changes in the sewer lateral revenues. The expenditures were down. Assumption is because there were fewer reimbursement requests. We can't swear to that, but that's what that account is for. The special business district fund across the board, we were down in the real estate and the real property taxes. Those are assessed by St. Louis County and remitted to us by St. Louis county. So You know, we don't assume that property values have decreased. It's just the remittance that we haven't received the funding and then, you know, some people do file. I'm so sorry. This is one of those times when I can't remember the word. I'm sorry, I had to file appeals. Thank you very much. And my words sometimes aren't there anymore. So I apologize for that. They file appeals, which kind of reassesses and then they take our money as opposed to giving it to us. And that is a timing thing. So someone could have appealed it last year, the year before, and we're seeing the effects of it this year because it takes some time to resolve. The equipment replacement fund, our revenue was down and that's resulting from the grants. We have some projects that are going to be deferred. Most of that is the result of the pandemic. In one instance, like St. Louis County wasn't able to approve the permits that we needed in time. So, you know, it's just everything's moving slower than it was in the past. So our grant revenue is down and that's in correlation to the different projects that have also been delayed. You know, they go hand in hand. The Capital Improvement Fund, the revenues are up. I'm so sorry. The Maryland grant revenue, it's delayed. So we have a reduction there. Sales and use taxes were higher. The expenditures were decreased. Again, this is as a result of the pandemic. Things are moving slower. We can't get things that we need. And then the bond construction fund, same story there. Center reservation fund, some of the... some of the expenses were offset by donations, and then some of them again were also deferred. And then we have the retention with the roof issue. Any questions on any of that?

Thank you, Karen. I don't know if there's questions from the board. There is two other things I'd like to point out here. Just some of the macro things that you're seeing out there as they impact us are just... really some of the widespread issues. So expenditures, we have a massive savings in vehicles and equipment. And that's because we had orders that were just canceled. As everybody knows, it's hard to get vehicles right now The same is definitely true for fleet vehicles. So you can see the savings of just under $800,000 in the capital improvement fund or the equipment replacement fund. These are vehicles we need to buy. We're going to try to buy this fiscal year, fiscal year 22. But for 21, it looks like we've got a pretty big savings there. And that's simply because, again, those sale orders were canceled in many cases. Another thing that's really interesting here is sales tax. So that last quarter sales tax was really strong. And I think we're going to see that again when we get into the financial report for the first part of next year. And a lot of that is not necessarily increased activity around downtown and here in the city, but a lot of that's due to inflation. We knew that that was going to impact us to some extent. And a lot And the price of cars has gone up dramatically over the last 12 months. And in that last quarter, we really saw a big increase there. So people are paying more for vehicles. And as a result, we're collecting more sales tax on those. On the flip side, what's going to get really interesting here in this fiscal year, and of course, we're early on, is we tend to make a lot of our purchases up front so that that first and second quarter of a fiscal year, you've got a new pot of money. We go out and we start spending that. The same was true in 21, but a lot of those purchases were made before inflation really started to kick in. So we didn't see those inflated prices for a lot of the goods and materials we bought early last fiscal year. What we are seeing this fiscal year is that prices have gone up substantially. on commodities and on contractual services. And that's probably going to remain the case for, I would imagine, most of this fiscal year. And it's going to be really interesting to see how that impacts the expenditure side of things. So we are seeing inflation at play here. We're seeing our sales tax revenues go up. And again, that's because goods and services are costing our residents more. But we're also on the expenditure side. On the Prices are definitely going up and contractual services, quite significantly so our largest contractual service again is the trash contract. That is a fixed rate that is a fixed increase until the next contract renewal so thankfully that one's a little bit protected from those inflationary forces but this is going to be really interesting to see quarter by quarter. you know, how this works and how this affects our budgets here. But things are getting incredibly difficult to project at this point. But you can start to see this play out here as you look at this fourth quarter budget amendment really as those inflated prices started to hit. So just wanted to point that out and some of the interesting dynamics at play with

the city's finances at the moment.

So I guess you could, you know, you could comment or I could at least that We have some artificial savings and we have some artificial increases in revenue. We haven't yet seen the sort of what I would project will be a massive increase in our costs going forward. And so the positive picture that this paints is not something we can rely on.

I think you're going to continue to see the increased revenues. And I think you're gonna see continued savings on the expenditure side for items that we can't get. We're continuing to get canceled orders. We may have to defer projects because we can't get various materials and that's going to show up on the books as savings, but there are things you're ultimately going to do just because something's back ordered for six months. You're still going to buy it six months from now and you may actually pay more for it. So it's just going to take things longer to play out on the expense side. And so I don't know that it's necessarily artificial because these things are real and they're happening. It's just that the The timing is going to be really weird on these particular issues. And so it's going to appear to be out of balance. And that's what you're seeing here. You're seeing some really big savings on the expenditure side, but it's not necessarily true savings. These are deferments. These are things we're going to have to buy later. So you're going to see those changes. you're going to see the increase, the expenditure side get heavy here at some point as things open up and we can start to buy vehicles again. We can, for instance, the rink demolition project, you know, we'd like to get that going, but we have a backordered transformer and switchgear components for all the electric stuff. And Ameren's saying, you know, we'd love to get it sometime in the late spring. So we just have no idea, you know, timelines for these things. So in the meantime, yes, you're going to have this perception that we're saving money that really isn't so.

Right. And a perception of higher income that is- And it is higher income, no doubt. But it's not because of increased economic vitality.

Correct. I wouldn't necessarily say it's because of increased activity. I'm not sure that we're seeing more of that.

Yeah. Okay. Very good.

So on the equipment issue, just because I can get my head around that one, you have a vehicle that you've depreciated for eight years or whatever it is, and it's now time to buy a new one. you put the order in and they say, we can't get it. So at that point, have you already used up all your depreciation? And therefore there will be a positive hit to income even though you're gonna end up buying that vehicle later. The longer you delay it, there should be a positive net income

It would be if the price of the vehicle that we were saving for was constant or more stable than it is. So what we're seeing over time is we plan in the equipment replacement fund to replace a vehicle eight years out, and we have to guess what the price is going to be in eight years. And I can tell you that eight years ago, they didn't think that we'd be paying what we're paying for vehicles. So you're right. While you do have some savings there or if it was delayed substantially, maybe you don't have to put into the earth for a year for that particular vehicle. But when it comes time to make that purchase, we're definitely paying more than we projected. OK, just

just wanted to clarify in my own head how that works.

That's a great question.

My accounting was a long time ago.

Would we also, though, get more for that vehicle that we're holding on to than we would have expected?

You should. We auction these things through government auction sites. So you're capturing more. But by the time we're done with an item, I mean, we've used it. So a vehicle that's coming out of rotation to the police department, we've We've squeezed just about all the value out of it. Trucks that leave public works, especially if they've had a salt spreader on the back, it's not something that has a lot of value to the next user because they're typically significant rust and those sort of things. Salt spreaders show up

in Carfax

before something. It should. It should. Nothing looks worse than a truck that had a salt spread on it for eight or nine years. Anyhow, we are seeing some gains on the auction market, but our end value isn't great to begin with.

Okay. Any further discussion? All right. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6879 to approve the fiscal 2021 fourth quarter budget amendment to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6879, first reading and ordinance amending the fiscal year 2020 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

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

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill 6879 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

Introduce bill 6879 to approve the fiscal year 2021 fourth quarter budget amendment for the second time by title.

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

The number 6879, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2020 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldowoman Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldowoman Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. City Manager, the Central Avenue development.

And I just want to say thank you to Karen Dilber and Caleb Pakanowski for putting together that budget amendment, and also the financial report that you'll see I believe at the next meeting. They're also working on audit right now. So Karen got here at a difficult time and really had to hit the ground running. It's a busy time in finance, switching over fiscal years and doing the audit. So I appreciate all the work they're putting in. So this is 227 South Central Avenue. On March 12th, 2019, by ordinance 6586, the city approved the rezoning of 227 South Central to plan unit development district. The rezoning allowed for the demolition of the existing building, which is the former police headquarters and construction of an 11 story building that's 118,275 square feet. It is a hotel with 206 guest rooms, meeting rooms and a public restaurant. The developer, Concord HP Clayton LLC, has not been issued a building permit since the rezoning took place in 2019. The permit associated with the PUD or the planned unit development expired on March 12, 2020, without the required extension request being received by the city no less than 45 days prior to the expiration. The developer has requested to waive the time limit within which an extension request is to be filed for an extension of the planned unit development permit deadline to commence construction through June 30, 2022. The developer did submit a letter. I forward that to the Board of Aldermen that lists their reasoning, and I know the developer's here to answer any questions you may have about that. The developer has commenced cleanup work and some internal demolition since the rezoning of the property. In addition, they have kept current with real estate taxes and insurance on the property. The developer maintains that the plan approved by ordinance number 6586 has not changed, and they are now able to execute the plan as originally presented. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached ordinance, waiving the one-year time limit, and extending the plan unit development plan approval. And we do have with us, it looks like, two representatives from the developer, Gary Carter and Susan I. Stennis, to answer any questions you may have.

And I just want to say thank you to Karen Dilger and Caleb Pakanowski for putting together that budget amendment, and also the financial report that you'll see I believe at the next meeting. They're also working on audit right now. So Karen got here at a difficult time and really had to hit the ground running. It's a busy time in finance, switching over fiscal years and doing the audit. So I appreciate all the work they're putting in. So this is 227 South Central Avenue. On March 12th, 2019, by ordinance 6586, the city approved the rezoning of 227 South Central to plan unit development district. The rezoning allowed for the demolition of the existing building, which is the former police headquarters and construction of an 11 story building that's 118,275 square feet. It is a hotel with 206 guest rooms, meeting rooms and a public restaurant. The developer, Concord HP Clayton LLC, has not been issued a building permit since the rezoning took place in 2019. The permit associated with the PUD or the planned unit development expired on March 12, 2020, without the required extension request being received by the city no less than 45 days prior to the expiration. The developer has requested to waive the time limit within which an extension request is to be filed for an extension of the planned unit development permit deadline to commence construction through June 30, 2022. The developer did submit a letter. I forward that to the Board of Aldermen that lists their reasoning, and I know the developer's here to answer any questions you may have about that. The developer has commenced cleanup work and some internal demolition since the rezoning of the property. In addition, they have kept current with real estate taxes and insurance on the property. The developer maintains that the plan approved by ordinance number 6586 has not changed, and they are now able to execute the plan as originally presented. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached ordinance, waiving the one-year time limit, and extending the plan unit development plan approval. And we do have with us, it looks like, two representatives from the developer, Gary Carter and Susan I. Stennis, to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks. Well, I'll open it up for discussion among the board. Alderman Lentz, any questions, comments?

No, I think I've gotten most of them answered, thanks.

Okay. Alderman Berkowitz, anything from you?

No, I don't think I understand the situation. Okay. So thank you.

Bridget, anything, any questions?

No, I feel like I've also got my questions answered but I would like to hear from the developer that we're actually gonna get started on this one way or another from them personally. Yeah,

I'm on right now. I don't know if anyone can see me or not, but I'm Sam Coppler. I'm the local partner with this group, and I appreciate everyone's patience with this. Obviously, we were very close to starting in March of 2020, and we all know what happened, and our bank and our investors kind of you know, withdrew from the project and funding for hotels became all but impossible. So we have the capital lined up right now. We're looking to close early next month. And so we're very excited about it. So we appreciate the patience and, you know, we're going to build what we said we're going to We just opened a hotel in the Central West End. If you want to see, it's the first AC in St. Louis. If you want

So what is your timeline then for construction and completion?

So we are doing environmental remediation to the old police station as we speak. That should be wrapped up in the next three to four weeks. At that time, we will commence demolition of the building and then go straight into construction. So I gave you a long-winded answer. It's probably about a two-year project. So ideally, it would be open in the second quarter of 2024.

Okay. And Gary Carter, that meets the timelines established in the agreement?

Yes. I think it's March 20th, 2024 is when construction would need to be complete.

Okay. All right. Well, we're going to hold you to it. We've been waiting a long time for you to get going.

Well, I appreciate your patience and I promise you it'll be worth the wait. It's going to be a very good project.

Okay, great. Wonderful. Thank you. Any other questions from anyone? Okay. Let's see. I did that. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6880 to approve a waiver of certain requirements in granting an extension to commence construction for 227 South Central Avenue to be read for the first time by title loan.

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

Bill number 6880, first reading an ordinance providing for an extension of the planned unit development permit for 227 South Central Avenue as authorized by ordinance 6586 through June 30, 2022 and other actions related thereto.

Okay, all those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? Alderman Lentz.

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6880 on the day of its introduction.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6880 to approve a waiver of certain requirements and granting an extension to commence construction for 227 South Central Avenue to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any

discussion? Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6880, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for an extension of the planned unit development permit for 227 South Central Avenue as authorized by ordinance 6586 through June 30, 2022 and other actions related there to

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thank you. Okay, the amending the sublease parking agreement for 227 South Central. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. This is the same subject property, as you said, 227 South Central Avenue. On October 5th, 2017, HB Clayton LLC and the city entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the sale of the city's former police headquarters. On May 14th, 2019, HB Claydon LLC and the city entering into a second amendment to the purchase and sale agreement. The amendment approved a parking sublease to find the closing date required an additional deposit of $1 million and added a section for valet parking spaces and other items. The parking sublease enables the developer to utilize 100 spaces in the Shell Park garage. 50 of those spaces are in the former Clayton Police parking area adjacent to 227 South Central. The remaining 50 spaces are to be located within the general use area of the garage. The developer is to pay the city $65 per space per month with a 2.5% increase every other year. The leases to begin with occupancy of the hotel are 24 months from the signing of the sublease. The lease is to terminate on July 26, 2055. That correlates with the city's agreement with St. Louis County for the spaces within that garage. On June 25, 2019, by ordinance number 6602, the city approved the assignment and assumption from HB Clayton LLC, the original entity, to Concord HB K. Clayton LLC, current owner. The developer now proposes to amend the parking sublease. In regard to the police lot, the term of the parking subleases shall begin January 15th, 2022. And with respect to the general lot, the term or the parking subleased shall begin on the date the city issues the occupancy permit for the proposed hotel. The term of the parking sublease shall expire for both the police lot and the general lot again on July 26, 2055. Staff recommends approval of the sublease amendment and the attached ordinance. And we have the same parties here representing 227.

Okay. I will open the discussion. Any questions?

I guess the only question I have is Why did this not get done when it was supposed to get done? In other words, we are now into 2022 and we should have been getting payments at some point. I understand why they wouldn't get the payments, but I just want to know why we're just now getting the amendment.

Well, as we restarted this project, To be frank with you, we are going through all the documentation and this was caught into it. So, you know, this, we worked with the staff to get everything all in line. So this was something that, you know, we overlooked as we were, you know, getting everything ready to go again. So obviously parking is of the utmost importance to the project. So we just want to make sure the agreement reflects that.

So it was just an oversight that we missed it.

Well, I would say we missed it because when we were once again, you know, the project with COVID went, you know, we had to find new lenders, we had to buy new investors. And before we knew it, more than a year had gone by. And when we opened up the documents that were all approved, we realized that that 24 month that when we got entered in this in 2019, no one foresaw the COVID pandemic. All of a sudden that clock ran out. So we're just looking to get this back in line.

And on our end, there were multiple discussions with the developer about the extension of the PUD. The parking sublease was something that was discussed a little bit later and it looks like it's not anything that was invoiced at any point in time where something was sent out as... as noticed that they needed to pay that. So I don't think there was anything in the system to flag it and it was an oversight. Right. Okay, thank you.

And when will the payments start for the parking spaces?

July 15th will be the active date for the police spaces. January. And i'm sorry january 15th by my mistake january 15th so uh four days from now uh everything will start on the the police spaces the other 50 spaces those will go into effect upon occupancy

so that probably will be used by construction workers and stuff i'm assuming

yeah we plan on um having the contractors park there because that little lot behind it is going to be a demolition zone

Right, yeah, and I'm sure the businesses around don't want all the spaces that their customers use to be used by. So it'll be great that you have spaces for construction workers to use.

Good point. Okay, any further discussion or questions? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6881 to approve an amendment to the sublease parking agreement for 227 South Central Avenue to be read for the first time by title.

Second. Any discussion?

All right, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6881, first reading and ordinance approving and authorizing execution of the first amendment to the parking sublease for the 227 South Central avenue development.

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

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6881 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce Bill 6881 to approve an amendment to the sub-lease parking agreement for 227 South Central Avenue to be read for the second time by title.

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

Bill number 6880, I think. I just scrolled down. 6881, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving and authorizing execution of the first amendment to the parking sublease for the 227 South Central Avenue development.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Aldermen McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Aldermen McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

HAB-Juliette Boone, Okay we're getting close to the end resolution or the updated project list for CCF. HAB-Jacques Juilland,

that's that's right that's the, this is the annual approval of the CCF project list this is on there as a resolution for adoption, and this is a follow up to the joint meeting that was held on December 17 listing all of those projects so i'm not going to read through them all, but they can be found on page 230 of the packet

okay. Before we have comments from the board, if any, we have a hand up in our audience. Kathleen Gund.

Okay, I'm trying to find her.

Right

under Patty DeForest. I'm sorry, I had it on the wrong screen.

okay thank you mayor yeah um i just had a question regarding the project list um so uh is uh is it still the plan for ccf to no longer require city funding by 2024 and has the fundraising for that like is that done um or is it not included on the project list because it's not like a project

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

Okay, so-

Sorry, Kathleen, go ahead. Okay,

so CCF currently receives city funding. And so isn't the plan for CCF to not require that funding by fiscal 2024? And I know that there was like, I thought that there was some kind of fundraising that had to happen. And I didn't see that on the project list. So maybe I'm confused.

Are you referring to the administration of CCF?

Yeah.

So yeah, so that has been reduced over time and will continue to do so. The city still contributes towards the executive director. However, accounting functions, those types of things, those have all been completely turned over to CCF. So that process is underway and we have moved some of those expenses and responsibilities over to CCF it's just not listed on here as a specific fundraising task for that particular group.

Right. It's in the budget that city funding is not expected to, I mean, CCF is supposed to be self-sustaining by fiscal year 2024. So I just didn't, I just, I didn't know if that was like not considered a project or if the fundraising has finished.

Yes. I think, Patty, do you want to clarify? You've been involved in all those discussions.

Sure. I think Becky might know the answer too. They raise funds for their administration and their operations. They're not considered projects, and so therefore they're not on the project list. But yes, they've had discussion about how they are going to fully fund that position, and they have two more years to get there, and they have a plan to get there. But it's not considered a city project. It's considered... operational expenses.

Okay. And I would suggest that like our, that we cover that as a city, like that's part of our agreement, like the MOU that we have with them, you know, to contribute some of the funding towards that position, you know, that that has an end date and that's the mechanism by which we define that and have set the expectation around it.

Very good. Any other questions? Comments? Okay. I would just like to say a big thank you to the Clayton Community Foundation. We can't ever thank them enough. So every time something comes up, I'm going to thank them for all of their hard work that they put in to help us make Clayton a better place. So with that, there's no other questions. Alderman Lentz?

I would move to approve resolution 2022-01, the first resolution of the year. I get it. 2020-01, the updated project list for CCF.

And I second Rich's first in the year's resolution.

I think it's very appropriate. This is our first resolution of the new year. That's good. Yes. I'm glad you pointed that out, Rich. All right. We have a second. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Very good. Moving on to board norms and procedures.

Board of Aldermen adopted a set of norms and procedures on November 27th, 2007. The document outlined general standards, values, procedures for meetings and communications, and defined the mayor's role. The current Board of Aldermen discussed and suggested revisions to the previously adopted norms and procedures at the retreat held on September 22nd, 2021, and the Board of Aldermens meetings on October 12th and December 17th, 2021. The final version of the document is attached and recommended for approval by resolution. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution adopting the Board of Alderman norms and procedures. I did my best to incorporate all the changes. I went back and checked it again against the video. I believe everything has been captured there. If there's anything that was missed, certainly let me know and we can make an adjustment here before I vote.

Okay, very good. Any comments, questions, discussion? Okay. I

think we've gotten through it.

We've done it. Okay. All right then, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve Resolution 2022-02, approving the board norms and procedures.

Second. Further discussion? All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Moving on to the last item.

This is disposal records. It is the recommended guideline of the Secretary of State to formally approve the disposition records at the Board of Aldermen level. This particular time we have fire department. From the fire department, we have 2019 narcotics logs. And then from the planning department, we have building plans and drawings dated January 2016 through December 2016 for single family and two family structures. And January 11th or January 2011. through December 2011 for multifamily and commercial structures. This includes mechanical, plumbing, and building permits for repairs, additions, and alterations. I do want to note all permits for new construction of multifamily and commercial buildings will be kept for the existence of the buildings per City of Clayton policy. Also, all permit applications and issued permit copies are retained in permanent files separate from plans and drawings and are not included in this request. So we'll still have a record that a permit was issued for all these things. You just won't have all the backup drawings and documentation. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the destruction of records.

Okay, very good. I'll open the discussion. Any comments, questions? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

Move to approve the disposal of records for the fire department and the building department as listed in the board memo.

Second. All right. There's no further discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Well, that completes our official business. David, anything else on your end?

No, I guess. Well, actually, I'll mention a couple of things. First, we do have the parks director process underway and we have interviews this Friday. So looking forward to that. Those are going to take place via Zoom. So we've got panels set up and hope to make a decision here fairly soon on that particular position. And then I'll also mention I did send something out to the Board of Aldermen. And I'm sure we'll talk about it quite a bit at plan commission, but we did receive notice that Susan ice tennis will be accepting a position or has accepted the position. The city of Springfield Missouri is their planning director, so I just want to congratulate Susan was certainly going to miss her and we will be making arrangements here over the next couple of weeks. to figure out exactly what that process for replacement will look like. But just want to publicly say congratulations and what a pleasure it's been working with Susan. So that's it for me tonight.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right. Well, I'm just going to go around starting with Alderman Lentz to see what we've been up to, if anything.

Have a great holiday.

Yeah, it's coming off the holidays. I don't think there's a lot of activity here, but we'll see.

There wasn't anything that I can think of that I've been involved in city-wise.

Okay.

Alderman Berkowitz. We did have an ARB meeting. last week, but there was really nothing of any substance that I can remember that was reportable. We dealt with the overlay tonight that was handled back then. So I don't really have anything to report on that. I would like to just say that I think I speak for the board when I tell David that we do not blame him for the rapid escape of every department head since he's gotten here. It is not your fault, David. I

think I'm down to Gary is going to be the only department head that was here when I got here.

Gary's not

allowed to go anywhere.

Look at it as an opportunity for building your future team.

Well, thank you. If I can just hold on to one, I'm going to carry on. That'd be great. All

right. Anyway, so, but yeah, no, I hope everybody has a good, happy new year.

Very good. Alderman McAndrew.

I just had the CSWC finance meeting and we talked more seriously about, we talked about obviously the finances of the center, of course, but talked more about district and city employee memberships and then also the minimum wage issue. So I think you guys will be hearing more about that in the next couple months as the commission takes more action on it.

All right. Alderwoman Beas, anything?

Parks and Rec meeting, we just had a Parks and Rec meeting and minimum wage discussion came up there as well, very briefly. And the reports were what we'd expect. Membership is slowly coming back with a blip these last few weeks. The individual classes like tennis and swimming and all that have had record enrollment. They can't get enough swim. If you know anyone who wants to teach swimming, please send them over to Parks and Rec. Basketball leagues are starting this week. Feed-based classes are starting in the fall. Not a lot of interest yet. There's employment issues, a shortage of staff. else was of interest oh people asked it was brought up that there's now a program what is it called where you can actually if you're a center member you can it's called fitness for where is it there's something where you can actually uh you know stream it into your home if you call them call the center and get a number and then you have access to all these different classes so that was that got some questions being asked dog park everything's a little bit behind there's a march opening there maryland park I think there's a little bit of delay, but moving forward. And David, you mentioned the hopes of getting going on moving the electrical stuff at the ice rink, but there's delays in getting equipment and things, getting that done. And living community master plan. They hope to bring something to the board in February on that to select our consultant. That's about it. it that I see to highlight. And then the only other thing on the equity commission, we have a meeting coming up and I'm sure there'll be a question on the status of us having contacted the different neighborhood trustees in our wards. So if you haven't done that yet, please find out the status of the restrictive covenants in your wards.

Okay, very good. Mayor, I'm sorry. I was just going to dub. I was just gonna, well, Tony mentioned it's actually called Fitness on Demand. Like Tony put it in the chat. But then I was also going to say, unfortunately, basketball leagues, the first two weeks, like in this upcoming week are canceled. They're just trying to get through this big spike. So if you're wondering why there's not going to be a lot of basketball, if you're at the center this weekend, that's why. So hopefully after these first couple weekends, they'll be able to get started.

Makes sense.

Yeah.

Alderman

Patel? I would just like to report that I enjoyed utilizing the new protected bike lane on Maryland to bike to the Mid-County Library during some of the unseasonably warm weather we had at the end of the year. And so that was a great experience, both to visit the library, made a purchase at DGX, all kinds of good stuff. So

thanks. Good. That's great. Put yourself on social media with it. That's good. Alderman Gary Feder.

thanks. Good. That's great. Put yourself on social media with it. That's good. Alderman Fader.

Just a brief follow-up from the Equity Commission is that the board approved that The concept of a letter going from the city to the county expressing our concern about the sign, the St. Louis County signage. It's been there for a long time in front of the police station or county police headquarters and Alderwoman Buse and I offered some comments as did the mayor and I think a final version of a letter that was drafted by staff, I believe went out or is going out in the next day or two and essentially expresses our concern, but also a willingness to try to be of assistance in moving forward should the county agree that the sign should come down and be replaced. So we'll see what happens on that front. Nothing else beyond that.

Okay, very good. I don't have anything. I think things kind of came to a grinding halt over the holidays, so I'm getting geared up again and Looking forward to lots of meetings. I think they'll be virtual now over the next few weeks. So anyway, trying to keep the city rolling here. All right. If that's everything, we can adjourn. Should we have a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We are adjourned and everyone, please stay healthy. I can tell you, even though you're triple vaxxed, you can still get it. So, and it's not fun. So anyway, please take care of yourselves. All right. See you guys. Bye. Feel better.

Good night. Good to see you everyone. Take care.