February 8, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Okay. Here we go. All right. Well, welcome everybody to our February 8th meeting. And I guess we'll kick it off with the Clayton Equity Commission discussion.

Yes. So the first item on the discussion session relates to the ex officio members on the CEC. I provided information in the packet about it. Essentially, The ordinance says that the Board of Aldermen can add ex officios to the CEC, but there isn't necessarily a process for doing so. So we have a set of ex officios. We have a representative from St. Louis County, from the School District of Clayton, from the Clayton Chamber of Commerce. We also have an educational representative. That's Joanna from Washington University. And at the outset of the CEC, we had a... a religious member as well. So that was Lori Anzalotti, who was the first ex officio to have that seat. She recently resigned and it became apparent to everyone that as far as appointing a replacement for Lori, there's really no process or guidance for that. So that's the point of this discussion here is to talk about how we go about making that appointment. For these other entities, it's not as difficult. On the education institutions, if we wanted to mix it up and go with somebody from Concordia or Fontbonne, we could certainly do that at some point. But for the chamber, the chamber board has selected the representative for their group. And then, of course, the county and the school district have appointed their own ex officios to serve on behalf of their organization. So with that, I'll open it up for discussion, but I And there were some criteria that were in the packet as well. Hopefully you all had a chance to take a look at that, that the CEC had put out there. Really, in the end, what they were suggesting was that somebody either live in Clayton or the organization they're with is located within Clayton. But most importantly, it's somebody that can build a network and go out when we have community engagement that needs to be done and really activate not just their own congregation, but all of the congregations of the various religions that we have here within the city. So with that context, I'll go ahead and open it up for discussion. And I really think we need to kind of go step by step. You know, the first question would be, do we need to have a religious representative? And if so, you know, how should we go about selecting that individual who makes that decision? And should there be some sort of application process? So with that, I'll turn it over to either Susan or Gary, who serve on CEC and have been a part of some of these discussions. Unless there are any questions about the information I just gave.

I think Susan and I had a chance to discuss this, and I think our consensus was that in the future, if we're aware of a particular religious institution that seems to be having a lot of success with diversity, equity, inclusion kind of issues, that we certainly might want to invite a representative to come to a meeting and talk about what they're doing. But I think our common thought was there's really no particular reason we have to have a representative of a religious institution on this particular commission. Because if we go down that route, then of course we start getting into the question of how do we go about deciding which organization should send a representative, obviously. There are a lot of religious institutions housed in Clayton and how we would go about selecting one seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. It doesn't seem to be something that we absolutely have to have someone from a religious institution attend every meeting. We'd rather use them as a resource. So that would be our thought is that we ought to just move on, but I'll turn it over to Susan. But that's what I recollect from the discussion that Susan and I had together.

Yeah, there's a couple ways to look at it because recently we have not had great attendance by some of our community though I keep forgetting what we call them, ex-official members. And the idea of having them on there in the beginning really was we wanted to make sure that we had some accountability outside of our group and also to have that lens brought into the work we're doing to help us identify issues and enrich discussions as well as then to better connect throughout the community. So again, when we were getting this together, you may recall it was a matter of... Yeah, there was not a real set process. And the religious organization one, you know, Loria Anzalotti is who was put onto it, somebody well-known to many people and was a very good voice on the board as a resident of Clayton, an active resident of Clayton and as someone with a religious institution. So yeah, we did talk about Sometimes there are certain people that should come in on certain issues and talk with us or be aware of what's going on. And that would be not necessarily in the same ex-official role representing any specific community. The other way to look at it is that when we're having the daily discussions, it is nice to have somebody who's there more often again to inform and maybe bring things up early on that we may not see. So It can really go either way on any of these. If we decided to go forward with trying to get someone from a religious organization, I don't think there's any timeline on that. But we kind of played around the idea to serve two goals. It could be we want, the commission would like more awareness of what they're doing. And I talked with Laura Horowitz, who's the, who's leading it and suggest what possible, what we could do is send out a letter to the religious organizations of the faith communities. This is probably a better way to say the faith communities that we know are involved with Clayton, how you define that. That's one of the issues too, you know, is it because of a lot of residents go there or what, but we could send a letter saying that we exist. This is what we do. We welcome their input. Um, and then to actually, if we decided to put a, an ex official onto the commission, We could offer to have anyone interested, you know, tune into a zoom meeting on why date so they can connect with each other and connect with us and we can hear anything they hope that we can get feedback from them. What do you want us to look at? And from that meeting if we wanted somebody we could see if they could together come to who they would suggest actually be the tie to the committee, whether it be like Gary said, somebody who would check in periodically or whether it would be somebody who was actually in the ex-official role. So I went through that kind of quickly, but there are a way, there was interest in keeping some type of tie, what that looks like and how it's appointed. The appointment does come back to the Board of Aldermen.

Can I just give you a little bit of background? Laura Anzalotti, when we went around getting people interested by Ward, she was one of the people that Joanne and I interviewed. And when we found out that she had the religious connection, we decided or realized that it was actually very advantageous to put her on as a as an ex-officio member so we could still have other people on. And she was perfectly willing to do that. So it was a little opportunistic at the time that we put her on there. That said, I think we never want to not include any groups in an inclusive committee. So I think if we could find anyone, why not? And the only other person I would bring up, if you remember, oh, four or five years ago, Mark Kramer tried putting together a multi-faith committee and or talking group or something. And he's the only one I can think of that you might reach out to to see or we might reach out to, to see if he or or he has someone that might be interested.

He was out of town studying for a

while. He

was. I don't know.

He's out of town practicing now, I think. I think he's been ordained or whatever you call it. And I think he's not at St. Michael's or wherever he was. Yeah, but that's a good lead. I

think that might be probably why he dropped the whole effort because he left town. But

this may be a way to get it. people connected again. If the letter goes out from the committee, I think Chris Schmidt already said she's happy to draft something if we decide to go that route. First of all, giving awareness that we exist. That's the main purpose of that letter too. And then it's always, and it would be non-exclusive if you know somebody else share it because we can't come up with how do you make sure you include the people that, or the organizations that are important to Clayton residents. But we could first do the awareness part and then if there's a, reach out to Mark, see if he's got any suggestions. And then if from that somebody wanted to step up in some type of role, either as Gary suggested, a little more distant or on the committee, maybe we go from there.

I just want to add the little point of background is that he did that as a member of the Strategic Relationships Action Team, which came out of See the Future. And I was the leader of that team, so I remember all this. That's why. He had a really hard time getting participation from the greater faith based community and he got kind of frustrated. Now I don't know, I don't know if you know I'm just giving you that as something to know and you know I don't know why not is a good point but I also don't think it's like imperative that we have a person. So I think it would be, I think putting on notice like you say is a good idea to just see what kind of interest is out there, you know. And if there is interest wonderful but just to try to go recruit somebody that isn't going to show up or doesn't really, you know, just to have somebody, I don't, I just don't think that's a value and we can always reach out as a resource you know there's a the um minister or whatever whatever they're called uh i think at st michael's uh uh reverend archie he lives in clayton too and he's a real you know kind of an interesting guy that you know obviously has uh connect to a ton of people in clayton so in terms of getting awareness out you know maybe maybe he's definitely a person you should write to but maybe there's uh there's something there. And then there's Fontbonne and Concordia, are they faith-based institutions? I mean, so I would include them as well, I guess. Okay.

So yeah, if anyone else has anything to put on the list, please share it. Those are three very helpful ones, yeah.

Well, I'll also add, can it be a rabbi who happens to have a father who's on the board of aldermen?

I don't know if that particular person is willing to take on any more jobs

We could certainly inform that rabbi of the work that's happening without having...

And we also have a rabbi or two right here in Clayton. Yeah,

I mean, Colerina has become a pretty... I mean, they've done an incredible job. Rabbi Arno is pretty active in the All-In Coalition. So I just, I mean, I don't know how thin he is spread, but he's done... I've been... It's been nice working with him since I...

Our chair actually originally suggested the other rabbi at Colerina because she's a member of Colerina. It wasn't Rabbi Arno, it was the number two. But then we started getting into a discussion about, well, how do we justify that we picked... It didn't matter if it was a rabbi versus a priest, but how do we justify the fact that we just picked a congregational leader as opposed to all the other congregational leaders? And that's why We sort of got to, you know, maybe we need to send out an inquiry and see who's interested. And then the simplest solution seemed to be just don't necessarily have to have someone. But I'm fine either way if we can find someone. But we don't want to offend congregations either because we didn't pick them.

Go ahead, Becky.

No, I was just going to say, I think that opening up the invitation, like I think we pardon me. I think we've been intentionally making a better effort at publicly advertising our boards and commissions to solicit folks actually self-nominating where they have interest there, as opposed to handpicking. And I always... support that approach, making sure that we're making, you know, publicizing to the broader community, the opportunities for people to get involved and they can fill out. I mean, in my mind, these folks, like we'd share the information and they'd fill out the same application and we'd consider those applications just like we do, um, for the voting positions on the boards and commissions. That seems to me like, uh, uh, smart approach and so again like it's not something that has to be filled for the commission to function um but it's valuable if assuming we can find folks that are interested and and susan i gather the committee isn't feeling like like they have too many people i mean it's certainly like our biggest commission i think and was, at least it was at the beginning. And as long as that isn't unwieldy and causing any problems, then we should be continuing to open the invitation. I

agree with Becky. I think it would be good for us to at least see if there's interest because there may be a lot of those people who may not have time, may not have an interest And at least we can narrow down who at least has the interest. And I think that's kind of what Gary's trying to say as well. I know that Susan Talby does live in Clayton, and certainly there are a lot of congregants.

Her name's come up.

The CRC who are with Susan, and Susan has announced her retirement as the rabbi from CRC as well. And so she may very well have time on her hands to participate. I'm not sure I've found, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of religious people who are more of a an activist in this area than Susan is so true you know

yep yeah I mean it it seems like we should and I mean it just seems like um you know I agree with all that I just think we should send a letter to all the perhaps religious institutions that exist in Clayton and start from there I mean I think we can probably if we tried to figure out all the people who are involved in religious institutions throughout the county and area we'd have a million people to send the letter to, but if we just focus on the religious institutions that are in Clayton and then go from there. Yeah, that's

defensible. So if we did a letter, just repeating what I'm thinking we're hearing, we'll send a letter out introducing, making sure everyone's aware because that serves a purpose in and of itself. And then it's always an open invitation to come to our meetings. And especially when we get off Zoom, there may be more opportunity for public participation. So anyway, we'll send out the letter. We'll give a Zoom opportunity to kind of learn about us and meet each other. Go back to Michelle, the commission that you're doing before. Maybe there'll be a little bit more connection. And then if there's interest, if anyone actually serving on it or just the awareness that when something comes up, who can we call? Who can we turn out to? Or who wants regular updates on what's going on with us? So we'll proceed like that. Is that what everyone's saying? Okay.

Sounds good. Sounds like a really good time. All

right. And then I mean, just one more thing. So we're saying we'll send out a letter, but we'll have a regular application process to go with this letter and we'll put it on our website or put it in Clayton Connections or something like that because we have kind of a boards and commissions process that we go through. And I just think somehow this needs to just be aligned with that somehow. I know you're probably just sending out a letter to begin with, but at some point we want to have it attached to that process that everyone else that's on the Equity Commission kind of went through perhaps, or is this just a whole separate process?

Isn't it ex officio of a different nature than being a member of the actual

commission? It is when the organization assigns the role to the person. So WashU, we said we wanted a WashU representative. They picked the person. We, you know, what else? Tell me what other, you know, there are other ex officios and like the school district or they pick. So here we have to pick it. And I just, I don't know what the right answer is necessarily. I'm not saying I do, but I just think the two need to be connected.

Oh, go ahead, Susan.

If it makes sense, everyone will send out a general letter of introduction, invite people to a Zoom when there's interest. ideally they'll form their own group and something will rise to the top. If it doesn't, we can do an application process but it would be different from the rest. And WashU, we have to watch as well. They certainly are incredibly important to the city but if it's higher education, is it always going to be WashU? That's the only one then that stands out as a specific institution versus a certain area. So maybe we start with the letter and if it gets to the point that we have to choose someone, we can figure it out from there. And then again, keep it relatively flexible as this commission continues to evolve.

And then I mean, I guess I don't think then it necessarily I mean, I'm happy more communication is better than less communication, but I'm not sure we need to put it in our e-blast or because it'll just this initial letter is going to go out to the religious institutions and then you'll solicit interest or, you know, whoever comes to the meeting. And if somebody is repeatedly coming, then perhaps then you take the next step.

Yeah, and the only question then is if we if we if we use our criteria as physically located in Clayton, we're missing some places that are on the edge like, you know, like a map a lot or it's the things that are just on the edge of Clayton, but serve Clayton, but that is a very clear guideline of who got the letter and who didn't. So if that's what we want to use, we can do that. Unless good. Okay, let's stick with the guideline. Sounds good.

All right, thank you. So we will work and put together that letter and really ultimately with this initial introduction, we wanna drive people to that CEC page that we have where they can look at all the meeting information, the YouTube links to go to meetings and they can actually watch previous proceedings. So we'll make sure that that's included as well. The second item on here is planned commission conceptual reviews. So the city has been offering conceptual reviews to developers for some time now, many years. where they can come in and have a conversation with the plan commission, talk in a general sense about their project. Typically these aren't really well refined site plans and architectural drawings, but say hey this is what we want to do and really discuss the suitability of that project. The question came up with the conversation on the Forsyth curve condos. We had another one last night, another conceptual review about the public's involvement or the public's role in that review. I think this was initially intended again to be kind of a dialogue between the commission and the applicant. But we do have residents that wish to be a part of that. And so the point of this conversation is to talk about what that role of the public is, if there is any. So I do want to point out that for conceptual reviews, they're typically for either plan unit developments or PUDs or special development district or STDs. And with both of those processes, you have to have a community conference. So there's public engagement there and the public hearings at the plan commission and at the board of Alderman level as it goes through the process. So ultimately if a formal application is submitted, the public will have three opportunities to comment on that particular project. So that's the conversation in a nutshell. And again, I think really the first question to answer is, whether or not we wanna have conceptual reviews going forward. And then secondly, whether or not the public should be commenting during this conceptual reviews And then there's a third component where the answer is yes, we do want public involvement. Really this starts to turn into almost like a de facto public hearing. And then you get into, okay, do we need to give advanced notice that this conceptual review is going to happen? Then you're posting, you know, 14 days in advance and making sure that the word gets out that way. Because our typical process is just as a general courtesy, if there's something on that ARB application that is not a public hearing, and it's within 200 feet of your property, we just send you an agenda as a courtesy. And there's no guarantee that that's going to get there ahead of the meeting, especially we've had some mail delays here in town, and that's certainly... cause some letters to get there, maybe the day of the meeting or a day late so again, whether or not we do conceptual reviews to whether or not there's public involvement, and then so should there be some kind of notification requirement. So with that, I'll open it up, we do have Steve Lichtenfeld as an attendee here he's our plan commission chair. And a lot of discretion in the past has just been given to the chair to just kind of run these meetings. But we do think there is value in having the Board of Aldermen really set the direction for these conceptual reviews and really, you know, set out the rules or parameters for them because there is nothing in the code that talks about a conceptual review. It's just something that happened over time. So with that, I'll turn it over to the board to discuss. If you have any questions, you can certainly ask me about it. And again, I think Steve would be a great resource during this conversation. And Alderman Berkowitz, I know has been giving us some thoughts as well, being that he's a current liaison with the plan commission. So with that, you're free to discuss.

Would Steve have any comments on how it's worked in the past in general? Just- over the years? Steve?

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Well, we haven't been doing it for that long, but the few that we have had seem to have worked fairly well in getting communication between the plan commission and the applicants. Most of the time, we have allowed people in the audience or on Zoom to speak if they wish. There really haven't been too many to do it. In talking with David about this, I felt we could go either way. What I would like to to see is that possibly we would continue the conceptual review because it would allow the staff and the board members to speak and discuss directly with the applicant. But possibly upon your discussion and discretion not to include the public there, because then it seems to be opening a duplicative process with the plan of the public hearing that would come later. So I could see it going both ways. It has been successful. I don't think we've had too many negative instances by having the public participate, but I do see that maybe we should maintain just an applicant board and staff communication process. Of course it is public. Anyone can listen into it and then the public would have potentially would have another chance at the public hearings, either at the Planning Commission or the Board of Aldermen.

Gary, Gary Feder, let me let, first of all, let me ask Ira to go next just because he is the liaison and then we can open it up a little bit more.

Gary, Fader, let me let, first of all, let me ask Ira to go next just because he is the liaison and then we can open it up a little bit more.

Right. So my experience has been that in having these conceptual reviews and still having the public there but not being able to speak, I think it's a bad look is what I think. You have people that show up and some do really want to have something to say. Some of these developments are near where they live or or they have some strong opinions. And it seems to me that it can't be harmful to have some of those people's opinions heard earlier in the process rather than later. Sometimes later in the process is maybe too late to get anything changed in some of these developments. I really enjoy having them. They're very enlightening, and I think there's a lot of good feedback that the developer gets along the way. So I would definitely be in favor of keeping them going. the board members are incredibly sharp and they make some incredibly good suggestions. I'm not so sure we wouldn't also get that, some of that from the public as well. And so I kind of felt a little uncomfortable with us not allowing people to speak at these. And I think it's a matter of monitoring and certainly if you get 50 people who want to speak, it could get really out of hand. And so there may be some, you know, I think the leader being Steve would need to set up some kind of guidelines for limiting, you know, the conversation between the public and the developer or in the board. But I still think we should have some ability to allow the members of the public to comment on these renderings. So that's kind of how I see it. I felt uncomfortable not being able to have that happen on these various evenings, but you know.

I want to ask Steve just as a follow-up too. Steve, has the plan commission discussed this topic?

No, we have not. I just became aware of this very recently. But I would also add that as City Manager David Gipson indicated that we do require the citizen conference, which was held for the one we reviewed last night conceptually. That conference was held in mid-December. And I believe Gary and Bridget and I were there. Maybe someone else was there. We were there only to observe. We did not take part in the citizen conference, but several of the citizens did voice their concern there. I felt that that was a very good a way to do it without having elected or appointed members participating at that point. And that's what leads me to feel that maybe that one is good for the public, and then the conceptual review with the Planning Commission may do better just with staff and the applicant and the Planning Commission members. I'm open either way.

No, we have not. I just became aware of this very recently. But I would also add that as City Manager Gibson indicated that we do require the citizen conference, which was held for the one we reviewed last night conceptually. That conference was held in mid-December. And I believe Gary and Bridget and I were there. Maybe someone else was there. We were there only to observe. We did not take part in the citizen conference, but several of the citizens did voice their concern there. I felt that that was a very good a way to do it without having elected or appointed members participating at that point. And that's what leads me to feel that maybe that one is good for the public, and then the conceptual review with the Planning Commission may do better just with staff and the applicant and the Planning Commission members. I'm open either way.

One more question and then I'll be quiet, but just to get all the info out. So once they have their public review, the one that like you said, that was in December, does that report get to the plan commission prior to the conceptual review?

No, that is not recorded unless the applicant wants to record it. And we have had some in the past where the applicant has recorded it and then shared it with both the public and the plan commission.

Well, I think that they're supposed to submit a report.

They are correct. A report must be submitted with the formal application.

So not with conceptual review or with-

Correct. And so last night was a little unusual in that they held the community conference and then they did the conceptual plan. So the folks that were there last night watching the proceedings had already attended that community conference and kind of unpacked their comments at that point in time. So they were really just observing the conversation that happened last night, which is really the flip of what happened on Forsyth where the conceptual review was, was running ahead of the, the community conference. So the public hadn't had that opportunity yet. So one, one thing it certainly is, as Steve was talking that, that I was thinking about was, you know, we could always slot a conceptual review after the community conference before the formal application is made. And then at least the public's had that input. And then that, that That second meeting would just be that conversation between the commission and the applicant for that feed, you know, for additional feedback. And then the board and plan commission would get the report from the community conference, along with the formal application when that's submitted. So just a thought procedurally.

And I really appreciate Steve, your comments. So the Sterling Bank presentation was pretty poor at the neighborhood community conference. I mean, they had, I think two or three pictures So the presentation last night, and I didn't listen to it live, but I did look at the materials that were submitted, you know, that were on, you know, under the pending applications page. So it was it's much more involved. You know, it was a much more involved presentation at the plan commission. They did not provide that at all at the community conference. So I think it's difficult for perhaps lay people who don't have that background. You can stand there and look at the pictures and say that looks nice or it's tall, but I think it's beneficial for the public to be able to hear experts and perhaps listen to that feedback and then comment on it. So I would just say that it's just the presentations are very different. So I don't know, and I understand that we don't have guidelines for them at the community conference, but their presentation last night, at least the materials that are available online were much more involved and specific than the ones that were available in December. So it's just for them to not be able to comment, it's just you don't know how much is gonna change. And then when it does come, I think people feel like And I understand we all know that it's not too late because there's multiple meetings at the plan commission for big projects. There's multiple meetings at The Board of Aldermen, but I think people still have the impression that when this formal application comes before an expert group of people, once that formal application gets submitted, if they've not been given that chance to talk before, I kind of agree with Ira. It just doesn't always sit right.

I can jump in to follow Bridget's point. On Sterling Bank, we were both at the community conference and I did sit in on the plan commission meeting last night. And it really was a world of difference. And in fact, it really, I think, pointed out that the community conference, I would think, served very little purpose. Now, it turns out that probably most people don't care that much about Sterling Bank because there's no subdivision nearby. There's no tall building being blocked. but they were definitely in the wrong order. If members of the community had attended last night, which was a very extensive presentation, a very detailed discussion. I mean, last night's meeting was terrific and the community conference was just a dud because it was obviously too early in the process. They didn't really have enough to show to anybody. So it does point out, I think, that we need to consider the relationship of the community conference and the conceptual plan review because the community conference doesn't serve any purpose if it comes on too early. And I think that's what happened with Sterling Bank. With the question on the conceptual plan, I think it's a great tool having represented developers to be able to go in before you spend a ton of money on architecture and engineering to get a feedback. is really important and we ought to encourage it. I think what happened with the Forsyth curve, as I recall, is that Bridget and I got an email like a week before the conceptual plan hearing saying, here's generally what these folks are planning. It's scheduled for that night. I think Bridget, I think very thoughtfully realized there were people in Brighton Way who would be concerned about the project and alerted them to it. Then, as it turned out, ironically, we had our Saturday coffee in between. We got, I guess, apparently the biggest attendance we've ever got at a Ward 3 hearing at coffee because all these people from Brighton Way showed up. And I think both Bridget and I, and I think maybe even Steve, really didn't understand whether people would be allowed to speak at the Tuesday hearing or not. And I think we sort of gave them the impression they would. Fortunately, we said to almost everybody at the coffee, hey, send us an email and tell us what you don't like because then we can share it ahead of time. Because they did that, we actually got a lot of comments. We even heard from a couple of building preservationists ahead of time. Steve said at the meeting, hey, we've shared all your emails with all of the commission members. And the commission members all picked up on exactly what the residents were unhappy about. But when it came time for potentially having hearing from those people who had tuned in, Steve said, hey, we're not going to do that because that's not the way we do this. And I think to Ira's point, that did make it seem very awkward because it was like the fourth item on the agenda. People had been allowed to speak on other agenda items. But now here we get to this and they can't speak. So I think it just, and there was also a timing problem that people said, hey, the meeting's Tuesday night, and I just got it in the mail on Friday. So they're just, it's an awkward process right now. So we, I think we need to keep conceptual plans because they're really valuable. But I do think we need to figure out how they work to make them and the relationship to the community conference. We need to figure out how those two relate to one another because right now, at least in the Sterling Bank case, it didn't work well.

I think everybody, almost everybody has made a comment. I know Susan, you haven't yet and Becky, you haven't yeah, but I want to go back and- I

haven't

yet. Well, I was just about to say, I want to go because he is our senior alderman and a former liaison to the ARB.

Steve has his hand raised. Does he want to say something first?

Just one thing. Before we started the conceptual reviews, the applicant would have one-on-one meetings with the director of planning and whoever her support was. And the plan commission never spoke with the applicant until a public hearing or their planning commission meeting. So instituting the conceptual review, I think really helped more communication. Then of course we put in having the citizen meeting. hearing everyone's comments and looking back, I think maybe we have overdone it or got it in the wrong order. But we do like to hear the public comment, but I think we have to be very careful about not duplicating the process over and over so that our people should know when they can come and when they can speak. So I think that's what we're looking for this discussion to come up with an answer.

And I think my comment is that basically you've got two audiences, and we're asking the developers to get input from both those audiences. I think part of the problem, or at least what it sounds like, isn't so much the timing of which one's first and second, is that they don't put much effort into this to the residents because they aren't the ones that are going to approve it. The plan commission is the ones that matter to them, so that's where they're going to put their efforts. If there was a way to make sure that the residents got their say and it became part of whatever they bring to it. I mean, there have been conceptual reviews that have gone to the Planning Commission and they have done nothing with our comments. I'm sure Steve, you can remember how many times did the Clarendale come back before with the previous developer? um so it there it happens all the time but i think the the challenge we have is making sure that they do a good job of collecting information from the residents a good job of selecting information from the planning commission and then doing something with it before they come back um that's i don't think the timing is important and i do agree that just like steve you said you sat there and didn't speak because it was the residents term to speak i think it's fine to say okay it's now playing commission's time residents had their chance or will have their chance um it's a separate meeting so those are my comments

thank you do you have anything to add or susan

uh what rich said no i think that's important right there are two audiences that hopefully can get input at that stage. I think it's also important to, and Steve, you alluded to this as well, to remember the scope of this, that we have to be very clear so this just doesn't morph into repeating what we do later on, that the purpose of this is to get input to guide further refinement before it gets to the next stage and don't let it

get

big

Right.

Audiences and very defined scope, I think are important. And I've been, I think.

So, so I think that, um, what, what people want is they want to be able to give input early, early, early in the process. And sometimes I feel like no matter how early they give it, they feel it's never early enough. However, I think, you know, I don't want to be redundant, but I think we do need to have that community input early. And they need to make the same presentation to the community that they make at the conceptual review if we are not gonna allow public comment at the conceptual review. And they have to give that written report and the plan commission has to acknowledge those public comments somehow in their process at the conceptual review, they have to acknowledge they've gotten them and so people know they've been heard. If people think they haven't been heard, then they're going to get mad because they couldn't comment at the conceptual review. So I think we just need to iron this out a little better and make it a little more structured. We somehow need to make sure that these developers are following through when we say you've got to do that great presentation for the community conference, just as you would do it for the plan commission. We have to make sure that that's what they're doing. It's pretty easy to blow it off when there's no one from staff or us, we're not there. So anyway, we just need to enforce the reporting and all that good stuff. So I don't know, David, do you want to take all this input and come back? I just think I

think the biggest safeguard we have is making sure that the slide deck and the presentation of the plans that are used are the same for the conceptual review in the community conference. I think if everybody's getting the same presentation, I think that makes the separation between the two meetings a little more palatable, certainly for the public, if the community conference has been lacking in the past. I agree that the order is not necessarily important. The threshold and the ordinance is that that report from the community conference be submitted with the formal application. So I do think if we just continue with the ordinance, the way it's laid out, that's still going to yield input to the plan commission as they deliberate. But I think the biggest thing is having the same plan set for both meetings, and that's something that hasn't been enforced or really communicated in the past. And I think that would go a long way and make it a whole lot easier to have a concept review that's just the applicant and the plan commission trying to work through it separate from that public process. And making it very clear at that plan commission meeting and even making it clear on the agenda, you know, it's not an action item that this is just an opportunity for the developer to work with the plan commission. We can even reference the community conference there as a requirement, but really lay out the ground rules. And I think that was part of the issue with Forsyth curve. Steve did a great job explaining it, but when those folks showed up, they thought this was gonna look like all the other application items and it's different than the other items. There's no formal application. uh it's really meant to be an informal kind of constructive conversation so um i think we have go ahead i'm just

going to make one one little tiny point and then steve has his hand up so and then we have to go ahead to our other meeting but i i do think the order is important because i think it's important for the plan commission it'll be important for the public that the plan commission have their comments at the conceptual review not after, because again, what they want is early input before things get too set. So that would be a point from me. And then Steve, you have something to tell us.

No, I didn't realize my hand was up. Oh,

you got me.

I will thank everyone because I think it's a good discussion. I think it can help our process as we go forward with more and more development and be able to include the public comments at the appropriate time and avoid duplicating it more than once. Thanks for the discussion. I'm sure I'll hear more.

I'm sure you will. Thank you, Steve. And then David, you'll communicate that to Midas since they have their community conference next week. Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you.

Thanks for

coming, Steve.

Okay, we can move right into our business meeting, I think, since it's 7.03. Welcome everybody to the February 8th Board of Aldermen meeting and we will start off with the roll call.

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

Here.

Aldowoman Buse.

Here.

Aldewoman Patel.

Here.

Aldermen Gary Feder.

Aldermen Fader.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

All right, now I'd like to have a motion for the approval of the January 25 minutes.

I will move to approve the minutes on January 25th. Second. All those

in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Those are approved and This is the time for public requests and petitions from the audience. So this would be a time when you have something to address the board about that is not on our regular agenda. And I'm looking for hands and I see none. So I think we can then move on to the city manager report.

Great, thank you, Mayor. The first item on here is an easement for Bemiston Place. Bemiston Place LLC has requested both aerial and subsurface easements to facilitate construction of their new development adjacent to City Rights Away. The easements are A, temporary aerial easements for construction cranes within the site with an operational radius that extends into the airspace above City Rights Away, and B, permanent subsurface easement for the placement of tieback and shoring walls. The easements are illustrated in the attached exhibits. Those were in your packet. Both the Public Works Department and the City Attorney have reviewed and approved the attached easement titled Tieback and Crane Easement Agreement. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing execution of the aerial and subsurface easement agreement. And this is very similar to those we've done in the past for other large projects that require the tiebacks and cranes.

And do we have a developer here that would like to address us at all? I'm looking at the list and I don't see anything. There is a David Berland

in the audience, but I'm not sure if that's the developer.

Not either.

Okay.

Okay. No one's got their hand raised in any case. So, all right. So I'll open the discussion. Anybody have questions or comments? Okay. Very good. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce bill 6888 to approve an easement for construction of certain improvements related to the Bemiston Place project to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6888, first reading an ordinance approving an easement to facilitate construction of certain improvements relating to the Bemiston place redevelopment project.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? All right.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6888 on the day of its introduction.

All those in favor?

Can we say a second first?

I thought I heard one. So sorry.

I'm

hearing things. Did you say it?

Second.

Oh, good. Okay, thank you. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? All right, let the board, let the ministries like the board has given unanimous consent. And I thought I saw David Berkland pop up in the chat. Oh, he lives in the Park Tower and is learning about city governments, Clayton governments. Well, welcome, David. We're glad to have you. Okay.

And I'm going to introduce Bill 6888 to approve an easement for the construction of certain improvements related to Bemis in Place project to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 6888, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance approving an easement to facilitate construction of certain improvements relating to the Bemis in Place redevelopment project. Alderman Lentz. Aye

Alderman Berkowitz

Aye

Alderwoman McAndrew

Aye

Alderwoman Buse

Aye

Alderwoman Patel Aye Alderman Gary Feder

Alderwoman Patel Aye Alderman Fader

Aye

And Mayor Harris Aye

Thank you Okay Mr. City Manager

Right, next item. Due to existing conditions encountered in the field, Clarendale Clayton LLC has requested a modification to the approved site plan, which relocated the public street lighting electric service from the right of way to their parcel. Clayton Public Works determined this design change to be acceptable, contingent on the execution of a permanent easement to the city. The easement facilitates the installation of an electric panel and associated electric service line for public street lighting, but more importantly allows city staff and contractors in the future to access the service panel. Both Public Works and the City Attorney have reviewed and approved the attached easement. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing execution of the easement itself. And I should have introduced on the last item, we do have Matt Malik, our Director of Public Works here, if you have any questions.

All right, thank you. Any discussion among the board or questions? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce bill 6889 to approve and he's been for the installation and maintenance of public electric infrastructure for Clarendale count Clayton to be read for the first time by the title.

Any other any other discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6889, first reading, an ordinance approving an easement for the installation and maintenance of public electrical infrastructure on the Clarendale-Clayton site.

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 6889 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent. Alderman Lentz.

And I'll introduce Bill 689 to approve an easement for the installation and maintenance of public electric infrastructure for Clarendale-Clayton to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6889, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving an easement for the installation and maintenance of public electrical infrastructure on the Clarendale-Clayton site. Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

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

Aye.

Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

and Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thank you. Okay, the Tennis Management Service Agreement. David.

Since 2013, Frontenac Racquet Club has been under contract to provide programming and management services for the Shaw Park Tennis Center. The contract had not been competitively bid since that time. The city issued an RFP in late 2021 for tennis management services and received two responses to the RFP, one in the name of Frontenac Raccket Club and the other one from Fifth Set LLC, a corporation that has been established by Clark Taylor, the manager of our tennis center for the past five years. Both submittals contain the same proposed hours and division of fees. This set LLC was set up by Clark Taylor to allow for the option of contracting directly with this corporation and can meet all the city's requirements of the bid. Frontenac Racquet Club is supportive of making this change as it essentially removes them as a middleman in the agreement. The proposed agreement would become effective on March 1, 2022. The initial term runs through December 31, 2024 with options to renew. The city will retain 25% of all revenue generated and the contractor will retain 75% for those services. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing execution of the management agreement with this set LLC for the management and programming of the Shaw Park Tennis Center. And we do have Tony Searing, our Director of Parks and Recreation here to answer any questions you have about their services.

Anybody have questions? Open the discussion. Yes, Gary.

I'm just a little bit confused what the connection is between Clark Taylor and the Frontenac Racquet Club, because it looks like Frontenac bids on the work. They don't get it, but that's good for them because, and I finished the sentence, it was just a little confusing as to, there's obviously more to this than I understand.

But Tony answers just, yeah, go right ahead, Tony.

Sorry. So Clark has been the manager at the tennis center on behalf of Frontenac Racquet Club for at least the last five years. Over the past several years, Frontenac Raccket Club has indicated that they're not interested in being the middleman anymore. So basically the money is funneling through Frontenac Racket Club and then they are paying Clark. So in this instance, we'll just pay Clark directly. And I think that Frontenac just submitted the exact same submittal

But it sounds like they were also saying, if you guys don't want to do that, we'll still do it. So that's why they... Yeah, so they, I mean, it all makes

sense. I've got a question. It's related to the tennis center, but I mean, is the... the manager, is he a person that we could talk to at some point about making a couple of our tennis courts usable for pickleball or tennis? Is he someone we could consult about that? And is there some room there for him to actually, if people wanna sign up to play pickleball, they can do that through him instead of through, me or Patty DeForest is how it's worked a few times here.

Sure. Well, in the past, we used an app called Courts with a K so that people could make reservations for the tennis center. That app is going through some changes. So they are currently we're looking for a new app for our residents to be able to make reservations for the Tennis Courts. But as far as pickleball goes, that's certainly something I think will be well vetted within the master plan process that we'll begin here shortly. As far as if there'll be court availability at Shaw Park Tennis Center or somewhere else. Okay. Good answer. All

right. Any other questions? Susan, is this the same financial arrangement that we've had before? The same split? Yeah. Okay.

Yep, exactly the same. And we will, all of our residents would still have full access to Frontenac Racquet Club in the off season as they have in the past. Okay. Really the only changing is the name.

Yeah. And then my question is a little different from Michelle's because I think I recall talking about increased usage of tennis over the last year. So I assume that if that trend continues, that he's ready to meet that demand as best?

Oh, yes.

Yeah. So quite candidly, under Clark's make. I'm sorry? I said he's seen it firsthand there than anybody. So it's probably all in good hands. But

yeah, under his management, the participation at the Tennis Center has grown substantially. So he is well-versed with that. Thank

you.

Was this gone through Parks and Rec? Did they take a look at this and determine whether this was a good deal for us? Yes, the Parks

and Rec Commission was aware of it as well.

Okay.

Can I ask one other question? I guess this happens when you're retired and you spend too much time in your life looking at agreements. But in Section 4.1, where it talks about the hours of operation, I find it looks like some very strange hours. If you look at that part of the contract where it looks like in September from Monday to Friday, the hours are just from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., What happened to the rest of the day? And there's a couple of things. It's very weird.

Sure. The rest of the day is those are the times that the tennis center is staffed so that a person with a pass will come and they check in. The courts are still open the rest of the days. And then those are really seasonal as it indicates, really they go around when the Clayton School District starts and when the tennis teams will practice. But the times that are listed there are the times that the tennis center is staffed. Anybody can walk in the rest of the day and use the facilities.

Ken Bacon- It was, it was just not clear from the document. It looked like we were close a good part of the time.

Dave Kuntz, If I may miss fit or I believe also that that is a minimum staffing requirement. Dave KuntZ, It's Dave Kuntz. Dave Kuntzt, No shorter than Dave Kuntz ,

Okay, thank you. Karen Hollweg,

Very good. Okay, if there are no further questions. Karen Hollweg , On them and lens.

I'll introduce Bill 6890 to approve a Shaw Park Tennis Management Service Agreement to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion?

Okay, Mr. City

Attorney. Bill number 6890, first reading. An ordinance providing for the execution of a management agreement with Fifth Set LLC for tennis management services at Shaw Park Tennis Center.

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

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6890 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.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6890 to approve the Shaw Park Tennis Management Services Agreement. We read for the second time by title of the meeting.

Second.

Further discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6890, second reading and consideration for adoption. An order is providing for the execution of a management agreement with Fifth Set LLC for tennis management services at Shaw Park Tennis Center. Alderman Lentz?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew.

Aye.

Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thank you. Okay, that concludes our business unless Mr. City Manager, do you have anything else for us?

I do not.

Okay. We can go around real quick and before we break and see if anybody has anything to report. And we'll go in order of seniority, Alderman Lentz.

There was a sustainability committee and it seems like a week or two ago. And the committee is working very hard to try to bring this together. I think everybody that's ever been a liaison on the sustainability committee knows it has always struggled and our current chair, Bill is working to get it pulled together using somewhat of the equity commission learnings, if you will, on setting up subcommittees and how to make progress on some of these issues. We've gone down to the two subcommittees, a building infrastructure subcommittee and a communications committee, those being the two areas that we think would be most impactful. We don't have a lot of meat on the bones on any of either of those yet. I'm trying to pull the building infrastructure group together and get a little more focus on that, but I can tell you it's just hard getting everybody to even respond sometimes to a request to have a call. To that extent, if anyone has anyone that is interested and would like to be on a subcommittee, just like we had ex officio members on the Equity Commission, anybody can be on a sub committee. They don't have to be appointed. They just have to raise their hand. and say, I'd like to be on it. So if you have someone, please let us know. Building and infrastructure is going to look at things like charging stations. We have one guy that is very interested in looking at solar panels, the current restrictions on solar panels, which I found out are kind of interesting. His feeling is that when you start restricting, having setbacks, you're reducing the amount of area that you can make solar panels. It reduces the economics and all that. And he thinks we should look at it. It's a fire department issue. So there's some discussion to be had there. But those are the kinds of things. And then the communication is just getting everybody to understand what you can recycle, what you can't recycle, what you people who just don't understand. So all that goes into it. So those are the main items. I don't think there, Becky, did you have anything else to add in that or no? So we're still working on it. There was a pension committee meeting, but I'm going to pass that along to, no, you want me to cover it, Becky? All right. There are both convention committee meetings. I keep trying to pass it off. I'll save the non-uniform for Gary. But uniform, which both David and Michelle were at, I think the big takeaway there for both meetings really is that we've experienced 10 years of really fabulous growth in equities. And ACG is trying to say, don't count on that going forward. Bottom line is that going for the intermediate term, we probably won't hit our 7% return target. Long-term, 30, 20, 30 year out, we will. because ultimately equities will come back strong and we will make that, we will hit it. So what that's prompted is a discussion in both groups as to whether we want to tweak the allocation, the investment allocation a little bit. That decision is a board decision, not a pension committee decision, but we're gonna look at them and then we'll either make a recommendation or not, so. That's kind of the bottom line for both of them. Both had great performance. So this is just sort of a going forward thing. I have one more, one last item. I had a long chat with Joanne and she says hello to everybody.

Well, hello back to her when you have your next chat. Okay, thank you. All right, Alderman Berkowitz, do you have something for us?

Well, we've had a couple of ARB meetings since we last did a go around. Probably the most interesting one was the Forsyth Curve presentation and and a show of the renderings. And then, of course, last night was the, and we don't usually have two in a row where we have the A or B followed by a BOA, but this is one of those exceptions where that's just how it fell. The last night was with the Sterling Banks presentation, Green Street. I found each of them a little bit, of course, lacking architecturally, but that's because I kind of have a higher bar, I think maybe the most, but I think we really need to have a high bar and maybe get people close to it. But I thought architecturally both projects needed a lot of work. Generally, we're talking about a massive project by Sterling Bank with not much retail, very, very little retail, maybe 1,000 square feet. And then after that, we're talking I don't know, I guess it was 200 plus units, David. I can't remember if it was about 200 plus units, residential, and then a bunch of office space, which, of course, we need more of at this point. I'm kidding. So, you know, it's a, you know, these are projects that are going on the board, you know, and these guys are making an effort and they got a lot of feedback last night and the Midas folks or I think it was, was it Midas is doing the curve or...

Yes. That's Midas.

Yeah. They were also, uh, they were, they were given a lot, a lot of feedback. I mean, and it was, it was tough. It was very tough feedback. And I imagine as developers, it was tough for them to hear the feedback. So, uh, and architects actually. Um, so the board has been, has been a little bit, um, Robert B. Tough and I think I think very straightforward in their comments and I give them a lot of credit so. Robert B. So that's what I have to report so i'm and i'm very excited about our discussion here tonight, I think that was great everybody participating because I felt a little it was a little strange having that situation. Under the terms that it had occurred, and I'm glad I think we need to shore that up. And I think if people do get an opportunity and that their voices get heard, especially by the ARB in their deliberation and their look at what's going on. I think this will help everybody feel like they've had something to say. And I think it'll help the developer and it'll help the city. So I'm happy to have that discussion today. So thank you for everybody's input. So that's

it. All right. Thank you. Alderman McAndrew.

I had an all-in coalition meeting last week, and we talked more about the social host ordinance. I think the chief is looking at it, and then I think it'll probably go to Kevin, and then hopefully we will take a look at it, and just there were a few changes that the committee was trying to make. And then just to try to get the word out to parents that we have a social host ordinance in Clayton. So if you host a party and provide alcohol, you could be criminally liable under it. So could anybody who is 18, so an older sibling or even the child that is there who is 18. So trying to get the word before prom. And then we also had a Parks and Rec meeting yesterday, I guess last night. And Tony did a great job leading the first time around. She gave a lot of good updates. The livable communities master plan, I think they're under. I think they have found a firm there under negotiations for the contract so they haven't disclosed to the firm is yet but if contract negotiations go okay the firm is hoping to get started as early as March and it will be about a 1212 month process. And apparently this firm has a lot of great ideas on how to get the word out and interact with the community. So I think that, I think it sounds like that was one of the reasons they were chosen was they're hoping to really have a, you know, as much as of course having town halls at the center, but also literally walking up to people on the baseball diamonds, like during baseball games this spring and saying, what do you think? What else would you like to see in the park? So I think that's great. The dog park, Anderson Park unfortunately has had some delays because MSD, of course, MSD has something where they have to rebuild the road so instead of opening in March it looks like it'll be late May, early June much to the chagrin of some dog owners around Clayton who are very anxious to see it reopened. So that's a little disappointing, but it's MSD's fault. The Oak Knoll Pond project is completed, hopefully it will be completed in mid to late April. The ice rink demo, I think we had a little bit of an update about this recently, but There's been a delay because again, some transformer and switch gear, but it should the demolition SM Wilson knows that we really have to finish this by the summer. So there's an all kinds of demolition near the pool. So hopefully regardless of the delays and getting the transformer and switch gear and it should hopefully be done by the end of April. And then finally the park on Maryland Avenue, which is yet to have a name they're hoping to have construction take place late spring, early summer. So that's it.

Very good. What's going on?

Okay, Alderman Buse. I think Bridget hit everything on Parks and Rec. Thank you. And Tony, you did do a great, just from the audience, did a great job last night. So thank you. And then you've already heard about Equity Commission a little bit. And just a quick update there. The county has acknowledged receipt of our letter that was requesting that they consider correcting the sign at the... And I think we're all moving forward in those last couple neighborhoods that still are trying to clean up their indentures. So hopefully with the efforts of each of us on this screen, we can get that done quickly and be out there as a community that is legal and equitable. So that's all I've got. Thanks.

Where anybody can answer this or maybe Tony, I don't know if Tony is still with us, but where are we with the Maryland park naming project? I mean, when are, what's the deadline for collecting ideas and then, and then what's going to happen or who's going to review those, I guess, parks and rec and make a recommendation to this board. That's

that's how it was

set

up. Three names have been submitted remembrance park, Maryland park, and Christmas Addicts Park. And I think there's still some other things in the works, and it'll go first to Parks and Rec, I think at the next meeting, and then from them, they make a recommendation, which may be more than one name to bring up to us as a board to decide. So next month. Okay.

Hyphenated?

Hyphenated. Hyphenated, he said.

Hyphenated. Right.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. Alderman Patel.

I actually don't think I have any updates to share. So thank you all for yours. Okay, very good.

Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderman Fader.

I'll steal some of Becky's time. I think since the last time we met, Bridget and I and the mayor visited with some folks who live on Maryland near the corner, Forsyth and Hanley, who were concerned about what would happen on Forsyth. It's an example of one of those where people have heard about something that hasn't actually even made it to conceptual status, but at least has been talked about as what's being thought about over there. And so I think the residents, it was a very cold day. We walked around the area. I guess predictably, there were still comments that, gee, it's hard to comment on stuff because you guys tell us there's no application, which seemed ironic since we were actually meeting with them. But in any event, I think it was helpful that they reached out to us and that we sort of got their feelings, and I think it'll make it... easier as we go along. I think what Rich mentioned on the pension plan, I think from the non-uniformed, the most interesting will be probably the discussion in the next meeting just about this tweaking of the allocations and what we bring I did want to comment that I did attend the Plan Commission meeting last night, and I just want to say how impressed I was with what a great job everybody on the Plan Commission did. Very insightful comments all the way through, and so it was really impressive, I thought. Just a great job by the Plan Commission. And I guess finally, I would note that since I was not able, Robin and I were not able to go to Florida because our flight was canceled on Wednesday and the flight was canceled on Thursday. And we'd already delivered the dog for his vacation. So we were empty nesters. So we spent the night at the Ritz. And as the mayor noted, we helped the sales tax situation in our city. And we also got a reservation at the Italian restaurant there, which normally I think takes like six weeks to get a reservation. But for some reason, nobody wanted to go out on Thursday. So we got right in. So anyway, it was a big night. That's all I got. Don Alfonso. Exactly.

Yeah, Don Alfonso,

very good. Very good.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, I don't have anything really significant I do have a brief landscape the commemorative landscape Task Force met we talked about a lot of things we had Donna Rogers beard participate in our meeting again and we are just kind of refining the basic. I wouldn't say refining, we're developing the basic points for a forthcoming recommendation regarding the black or African-American community that was once thriving in Clayton. So we will want to be recommending to this board to commemorate it somehow And that'll be coming forth in a few months. It takes a while to write the recommendations because of all the really in-depth research that this group wants to do. So anyway, it's interesting. I looked at a fire map of the area and it's just... I mean, just to see what the buildings that were there and to see what wasn't there. It's kind of incredible. So it'll be fun for you all to see some of that information when it comes forward. Mayor's Youth Advisory Council met again, and they are working very hard on their project, which is the two little free libraries, one to be placed in front of City Hall and one to be placed and they're working now to I think we've ordered the kits they're fundraising to pay for those and they'll be building those and filling them with books and Matt has volunteered involuntarily to install them so anyway he's going to do that and it'll be great other than that I've been very busy but you know not a lot to really report so With that, if there's nothing else, we can have a motion to go into closed session.

I think that's my cue.

That is your

cue. I now have my material.

You got your script.

I got my script and I got my glasses. I move that the Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by section 610.021 subsections one, two and three revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate and or professional and or personnel Negotiation of a contract pursuant to section 610.021 subsection 12 RSMO and or proprietary information pursuant to Section 610.0 21 subsection 15. and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to section 610.021 subsection 18 and subsection 19 revised statutes of Missouri.

Okay, very good.

Becky needs to second it.

Well, I was waiting for you to stop chewing so that you would be able to say second. Second. Oh, your Becky's doing it. Becky's down. Don't

give

me any more.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew.

Aye.

Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Okay, you do have a second link that you'll need to join for the executive session. So I'll get that started. But thank you.

Thank you.

Do you guys need a break or should we just go right to it? I'm ready to go right to it. I don't know. Okay, very good.