July 26, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Watch for him. Okay, great. Okay, welcome everyone. Can we call the roll? Oh, this is discussion session. Sorry, this is our discussion session. We're going to go over the CIP and the IRF.

Yes, equipment replacement fund and the CIP today are the topics for the discussion. So we talked about CIP, I think that was maybe probably about a month ago now. And so we've been doing quite a bit of work on the CIP, but the other work in progress has been a review of the IRF. And we make big contributions to the IRF every year out of the capital fund. We also make contributions from the general fund. And so we wanted to go through there and make sure that that money was was being well spent that the earth was set up in an efficient manner. And we also wanted to do a review, just to make sure that in the long term every item that's in the earth has the appropriate funding when the day comes that we need to buy it so. As a little bit of background, what's been happening over the last 10 years is when we have an item that's at least $5,000 in value and a useful life of two years, and we would include it in the IRF. So we had a lot of items where, and that was the minimum criteria. If we knew where we were going to replace something on a schedule, we added it to the IRF and we would save money over time to do it. What we found is, you know, the IRF over time with that threshold so low, the IRF just ballooned. So we had all kinds of items, small items, A great example is like a diving board, right? So we would put a diving board into the earth and we would say, okay, a diving board lasts, I don't know, 15 years. And if we're going to save for one in their $10,000, we need to save X amount over that period of time so that we can buy a new one when the day comes. And then we have to go and evaluate each one of those items on the year it comes due to see if it actually needs to be replaced. It becomes really cumbersome for items that are smaller in nature. And you actually end up, because you do have that schedule there, you're probably buying some items that may be able to be deferred for a little bit longer. So the first thing we did was we had a discussion about that threshold, and we actually raised that minimum threshold for the year from $5,000 to $20,000. Because anything else that falls into that gap, if we've got a purchase we need to make for something like a diving board that may go out, you know, we can pay for that through our operating fund. And the money would come from the general fund as an IRF contribution anyway. So what we ended up doing was we totaled up all the items that we've been contributing for that have a cost less than $20,000. And that's about $660,000 worth of items in the IRF. And so that was one part of the analysis. The next thing we were looking at as a part of that methodology was taking a look at items that would qualify for external funding, be it through grants, other sources within the budget. And then we also asked departments to go through there again, give it one more good hard look and make sure that we didn't have any items in there that are obsolete or maybe we own some piece of equipment and maybe we can just rent it in the future, that sort of thing because we don't use it that often And so we found some reductions in both of those areas as well. And so when you total those reductions up, and this was provided in the memo, it's actually a really big amount. It comes out to about $1.4 million. So those are items less than $20,000. Those are items that we would expect to get external funding for, and also items that were removed after further department review. So $1.4 That was the first piece of the analysis. The second piece was that part I talked about where we wanted to see over time, do we have enough money in the earth to pay for all the items that are in there? The answer is no, because a lot of items were added over time, say they were halfway through their life cycle, but there wasn't any kind of catch-up provision. So if something, we had a 20-year funding schedule for it, and we put it in there at year 10, we didn't back fund for those first 10 years. We just contribute for the last 10 years. So there's a gap in there. You've only actually saved half of the money that you need. So there's gap within the IRF. So we identified what that gap is, and the total gap in the IRF is just under $2.6 million. So pretty significant where items have been added especially in the areas of software, IT type expenses, and then facility expenses. So things related to HVAC building components, things of that nature that were added, but there was no real catch-up funding for those. So we've got a $2.6 million IRF gap. And through that other analysis by adjusting the cost threshold and then taking a look at external funding and then that further review where we have some reductions of 1.4, Our recommendation is that we take the $1.4 million that we've identified and contribute that to the gap that we have in the earth. So if you have a gap of about 2.6, and then you've got the 1.4 in savings, it still leaves you a balance of just under $1.2 million. And so we had a conversation about, well, how do we make up that money? Do we need to pay it in a lump sum? Do we have an immediate cash flow problem? Or is this something we can pay back incrementally over time? And so there's also an analysis that's provided in the memo. And we actually provided a five-year analysis in here, but we actually ran it out to 10 years and we found that we don't have an immediate cashflow problem. So we can take our time with an incremental catch-up to fund that IRF gap. And so our recommendation is to take the 1.4, again, that we would liquidate, apply that to the funding gap, and then just under $1.2 million gap, We would make up with incremental payments of $100,000 per year over the next 12 years and insure it up that way. We don't anticipate any kind of cash flow issue. Your IRF is fully funded. And a lot of those ongoing contributions that we had that actually take away from your short-term cash flow are eliminated from the IRF, which helps the operating fund because all of those small items that we were paying in for, they add up. And so their savings and the general fund with that, but also in the capital fund because the capital fund contributes to the earth, the majority of the earth. So you actually end up giving yourself a better cushion and the capital fund by taking that approach. So that's our recommendation. There is, in addition to that, $271,000 that have been contributed towards the municipal garage for various improvements and upgrades. And our recommendation with that 271 is to go ahead and transfer that back into the capital fund and apply it towards the design of the municipal garage facility. That design cost is about $450,000, but offset a large portion of that cost by using the money that we had put in the IRF already. because the items we were saving for are items that would be replaced through the actual municipal garage renovation project. So there's really no reason to save that money any further. We can use it for design, and then when we go to fund a building later on, those items will be taken care of. So first of all, are there any questions with that or concerns with that methodology or that approach to the equipment replacement?

I have a question because it seems that a lot of it if you're taking out 1.4 million part of that still will be spent

correct

it's not a savings as an overall. City because you have rental and you'll still be replacing smaller items and there'll be some savings, especially in administrative and paperwork stuff because it's stuff isn't isn't as burdensome. But how are you going to by just putting that 1.4 million that was going to cover all those. So

if you look at the cycle of those items in there, a lot of those items are 25 years out, 30 years out, that sort of thing. So that $1.4 million isn't going to be paid in some big chunk in any given year. These are smaller items that are going to come up incrementally over the next 30 years or so. So when you spread it out over that period of time, the annual expense is isn't all that great. And a lot of those items can be replaced through like I mentioned, and we can truly wait until we need to replace those rather than replacing them on a schedule just because they're in the earth that way.

Do you have any idea what the actual monetary savings is versus the accounting adjustments or even- I would say

the monetary savings of the 1.4 is the 335, $335,000 that would be externally funded. So those are items where the money's come in from somewhere else And also the $400,000 worth of things we don't think we really need going forward. So I use rentals as an example, but I don't think most things that we forego are gonna require some kind of rental. So of that 1.4, I would say more than half of that is actually things that we're not gonna need. That's your true savings. The balance, which is just under $700,000, those are items we will buy over time. But again, that's gonna happen incrementally over the next 30 years or so. And that's something that can definitely be absorbed within the operating budget and within the capital fund.

And it's not in any specific accounting fund or name under the operating fund. It's just when somebody has the need. So we have a smaller, if you look within

the general fund or the operating budget, you'll see a line item for capital outlay under each department. There are always a few items in there for different departments and that's where it would fall. And for the next operating budget, you'll see some of those items in there that we've removed from the earth by changing that amount from 5,000 to 20,000. I mean,

it sounds a lot more efficient for everybody. So that's a savings. And I can

say on the back end for Karen and everyone down in finance, keeping track and John Wolf and Public Works keeping track of all of these small items over that period of time on these spreadsheets is certainly burdensome for smaller purchases that we think we could make otherwise. Any other questions about that? Okay, so we've worked that approach and let me go back and share my screen. I want to give you the updated capital improvement fund numbers after our last meeting. And this is what you'll see along with the operating budget, unless you have any recommended changes tonight. But I will say the capital improvement fund is much improved since the last time you saw it from a financial position standpoint. And that's because if you remember the opening last time when we talked about this, Dollar amounts that we had in here, especially on the revenue side, those were based upon the last budgeted year and a little bit of sales tax information, but not much. We've now applied all of our sales tax data to date and then projected out through the rest of the year where we think we're going to end up. And this is where you can really see the power of inflation at work and the increases that we've seen in activity. So these numbers are much higher than what we were looking at before. And so when we look at ongoing revenue, for example, the last time you looked at this, this number here for 22 was about $4.4 million. You can see that it's up $600,000 from the last time we talked. When you then add 5% to it, which is what we're using for our escalator to the next year, you can see that this has gone up from 4.5 to 5.3 million. So you've picked up $800,000 in fiscal year 23 in ongoing revenue. So some really big jumps here by applying the current sales tax information. There are some other items that have changed as well that are worth pointing out. There's this... transfer line here. This was around $5,000 before historically that's around where that number has been. That number jumps to 267,000. That's because of the money that we're going to take from the municipal garage and the earth and move to the capital fund to pay for the design. So that's where the money comes into the capital fund to fund that project. So that isn't necessarily revenue. That's a transfer in from equipment replacement to pay for the garage study. Um, Some other jumps here that are notable on total expenses. This did go up by 300,000. The big reason for that again is now we have a municipal garage study in there and that studies 450,000 plus the $100,000 we added as a catch-up contribution for the earth. So that's the $100,00 we're gonna pay back incrementally. And I'll show the detail on that in a minute. But what ends up happening is The deficit number that we have down here, because those revenues have gone up pretty significantly since the last time you saw it, the deficit that we anticipate for 23 in the capital fund has been reduced from 1.1 million down to 380,000. So we're in much better overall shape when you look at the fund balance, being that that deficit's lower. We had anticipated using last year's just budget numbers with an escalator. that this would be about 4.7. You can see with true tax dollars, tax revenues, it's closer to 6.08 or 6.1 million. So the fund balance is much better shape. This bodes really well for that municipal garage project when we were talking about financing and how much we may be able to pull from the fund balance to go towards something like that. We have more cushion than we thought we had once we, started applying the real dollars. So just to give you an idea of those increases, the capital improvement sales tax right here, this one has gone up by 140,000 for 22. Parks and Stormwater has gone up 100,000. The use taxes, the really heavy hitter here that's gone up about $400,000 since what we had last estimated. And a lot of that can be attributed to the construction that you're seeing down here. So different materials, fit and finish furnishings within those buildings, that's going to show up in your use tax line item. And we anticipate over the next few years here that that number is going to remain strong because of the number of projects that we have going on. So our use tax numbers have really gone way up from what we've seen in the past. We're projecting that we can sustain that. We'd like to see where this ends up in 23 to kind of inform us for these future years when we have projects going, just to make sure that that's somewhat consistent because traditionally that number has hovered right around a million dollars or so. But again, I think this can be attributed to the construction that we're seeing in the downtown area. Another change, again, I pointed this out, the $261,000 being transferred in, that's coming from the equipment replacement fund to fund the garage study. On the expenditure side of things, the transfer to the general fund for operations has actually gone up by $150,000. And the reason that's occurring is We would take the amount that we would spend for those six firefighters historically, and we were subtracting out the amount of money that the general fund was contributing to the IRF, and we would have a net number. And so that's for 22, 475. The reason it's jumped from this year to this year is because when we rolled back that contribution amount or increased it from 5,000 to 20,000. The general fund isn't contributing for as many items in 23 as it was in 22 because we've removed them from the earth. Since the general fund isn't contributing as much, its offset for this transfer isn't as much. And then the capital fund has to give the general fund more money. Does that make sense? I know I just said a whole lot of stuff. But again, we would take the amount for essentially what you would pay for those six firefighters over time. We would subtract general fund contributions to the earth. That number has been reduced because of the items we pulled out of the earth. And therefore, because the general fund contribution has gone down, the capital contribution to the general fund to essentially pay for those firefighters goes up. So that's where it hits your balance sheet there.

So it goes up. I mean, we were, I thought we were transferring about $600,000 anyway.

We did historically. Yeah. And then we started netting that amount. general fund contribution to the earth. And it made the accounting a whole lot easier on the back end for

us.

But that amount's always been the same. It's just that the net is going to be less because the general fund is contributing less to the equipment replacement fund because we've taken out all those little small

items.

So sorry to confuse everybody with $150,000 difference, but I think it's worth mentioning. The transfer to the earth from the capital fund. So again, when we pulled out those smaller items, your contribution goes down when that happens. So you can see the decrease here year over year from $2 million down to about $1.67 million. So there's some expenditure savings there that we're seeing and that spreads out over time as well. So when it's all said and done, again, your fund balance is in a much, much better position Here's that $100,000 IRF gap contribution. So we've just spread that out over the remainder of the five-year CIP. And down below, the only change on the expenditure side related to projects is right here, the municipal garage renovation. So we're gonna pay the design costs at 450,000. And again, the fund balance looks really good right now, but once that design's done and we know what the cost is for the garage, you're gonna start to see that project pop up here And I'm sure we're going to, you know, whittle down that fund balance somewhat paying for that project and buying down the amount that will actually have to finance to do the garage. So that's the CIP update. Again, we're in much better shape from a revenue standpoint than what we looked at last time. So that's all good news to report. And we've taken the changes to the earth. And those have all been reflected in this final document. So I'm happy to take any questions that you have about those changes or anything related to capital.

I have one thing, which so we've taken into account the increased sales tax that's coming in now, which is great. And we're projecting plus 5%. For the foreseeable

future? Just for 23. Okay. And then we've backed it back down to a normal level in 24 and beyond.

Of what? We went

to, did we go three, then two after that? I think we went to 3% in 24 and then 2% after that. So we think from what we can tell and what people are saying out there, you're going to continue to see inflation for a while. We do think we're still going to see some increase in economic activity. in the downtown area and with sales tax, but then it will level off at some point. So

then the other thing is, as far as the expenditures go, the estimates for all the projects that are in here have not been adjusted for current. That's a great

point. They have somewhat, but probably not the 30% jumps that we're seeing right now with projects. So those are going to come in a little bit higher. Some of those than what we've anticipated. Some you already see it, especially if the project's been out to bid This Maryland park number at $477,000 reflects the actual cost, which is about a 35% jump there. So these numbers may go up some. This design cost is good. The bigger numbers in here we're really confident with. Some of these other project amounts, especially in the out years, who knows where those are going to go. This is probably a little low. That's a great point. We just don't know how to project that really until we see what the construction world is like

when we go

out.

Yeah. I just want to make the point for those listening

that it's

not all rosy because we haven't included the other side of the equation here. And if things are going up 30%, I don't know. we didn't say what kind of increase we're seeing in use tax, for example, versus last year. I don't know if it's 30% or 10%. We're up

from roughly a million dollars to, yeah, so we're up 30%, 35%. So

it's conceivable that costs will go up that same amount for the foreseeable future. So we might not be in the greatest shape. So I just don't want to leave anybody with that impression.

I think we'll be in better shape than what we were looking at. Will it be as good as this shows? Probably not because some of those project numbers are going to come in higher. When you ask about the use tax and the fact that it went up about 35%, again, that's consistent with what we're seeing in construction cost increases. And if most of your use tax is construction related, then that makes sense that you're seeing about a 35% increase on the use tax year over year.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Any other questions about the capital fund? And if not, we will work this into the budget. We will have a separate resolution to approve the capital fund. We approve it by the five-year capital improvement plan and then the capital fund itself. And those expenditures will all be within the operating budget or the actual budget presentation when we do that on August the 12th. So August 12th will be our next meeting on the general fund.

Great, thank you. That's great. And I just want to compliment you Karen, and of course you, David, about, and Kayla, who's not here to be complimented, about kind of unearthing some of these little, not discrepancies, but just changes that we needed to make in the way we're accounting for this and looking at these capital fund. They

truly found, you know, as we went through all those department heads looking for items that we could pull and that sort of thing, truly found, you this methodology going forward is going to be a good thing for us and certainly free up some room in both capital and operating. So yeah, great work by everybody.

Thank you. I think we're ready to go into a closed session, but do we need to make a motion or anything? We would.

Would we need a roll call before we make that motion?

Okay. Yes. Okay. So yes, go ahead and roll, I guess.

Alderman Lentz. Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Alderman Gary Feder. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

Alderman Lentz. Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Alderman Fader. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

Okay, so now we'll make the motion. Mr. Gary Feder. Specialty. Your specialty.

Okay, so now we'll make the motion. Mr. Fader. Specialty. Your specialty.

I move that the Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by Section 610.021, Subsections 1, 2, and 3, Revised Statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate and or personnel negotiation of a contract pursuant to Section 610.01, Subsection 12. and or proprietary information pursuant to Section 610.021, subsection 15, and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to section 610.020 subsections 18 and 19.

Very good. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Oh, call the

roll. Alderman Berkowitz?

Yes, aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderman Fader? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank

you. Okay, we are in closed session. All right. Well, welcome

to our July 26th meeting. And will the city clerk please call the roll? Alderman

Lentz. Alderman Berkowitz.

Here.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Alderman Fader.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City

Attorney O'Keefe. Here. All right. We have a need to approve our minutes from July 12th. So I'd like a motion there. I will approve the minutes from July 12. You'll make a motion to approve. I will approve minutes from July 12, okay. Second. Okay, very good. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. And then now we have the time for public requests and petitions. for anything that is not on our agenda tonight. And I see we have some people in our Zoom audience. We have at least, we have a couple of guests here. Anybody have anything for us that's not on the agenda tonight? I don't see anything. So we will move on to the public hearing for the CUP for 7529 Forsyth Boulevard. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing and resolution approving an application for a conditional use permit submitted by 7529 Forsyth LLC to allow the restoration of two residential units in the existing building. The subject property is owned C2 General Commercial District and is located in the Forsyth Station TOD. Multifamily residential uses are allowable in the Forsythe Station TOD as part of a mixed-use building provided a conditional use permit is approved by the Board of Aldermen. The site is currently developed with a three-story multi-tenant building. The building was originally constructed in 1918 with commercial retail on the first floor and residential above. The residential above was then converted to small office uses. The applicant proposes to restore the residential use to the upper floors while maintaining the commercial and retail space on the ground floor. The plan commission considered this request at their meeting on July 5th, 2022, and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the conditional use permit with the conditions outlined in the resolution. We do have the applicant present and our Director of Planning is on Zoom on a crane.

Would you like to step forward and introduce yourself just for the heck of it?

There's a button at the bottom.

Oh, okay.

There you go.

Yes, my name is Monica Salibi. We are the owners of the property at 7529 Forsyth. And we are just restoring them back to what they were before.

Two apartments.

Two apartments, correct.

Great. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Yes, Gary.

Just a quick way. I see the normal requirements for parking for the people in the residential will be two parking spaces. but that's waived because of the way it's zoned here. And then it says in our summary, but there are other opportunities for parking. Can you give us any insight as to where someone lives there who needs that second space where they would likely

park? We have one parking spot on our lot and then we're allowed residential parking on the streets.

The person would most likely park on the street there. With the

residential sticker. If they're an occupant, it's been like that for 50, 60 years.

Thank you.

Anything else?

You can sit down if you like. Thank you very much for coming tonight. All right. And so I will close the public hearing. And there's nobody on here. And yes, I'll close the public hearing and Alderman Berkowitz.

I'd like to move to approve resolution 2022-16, granting a conditional use permit for 7629 Forsyth Boulevard. Did you say 76 or 70? I think it's 7529. 7529 Forsyth boulevard. You're right. My eyes were tricking me. 7529 Forsyth Boulevard. Thank you.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, you got it. Thanks. Okay, now we're ready for the city manager's report.

All right, thank you, Mayor. The first item is an ordinance. This is an ordinance approving the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission Agreement for the Central Business District Resurfacing Phase 2 Project. In February of 2021, the City of Clayton applied for a grant from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments to resurface portions of the Central Business District. This includes North Brentwood Boulevard, Central Avenue, Beamiston Avenue, and Carondelet Avenue for the third year in a row. So we actually tried this multiple times The project qualified for funding through the surface transportation program. The project also includes portions of South Beemiston Avenue and Carondelet Avenue that are not eligible for grant reimbursement. In November of 2021, the city received notifications the project was approved for funding by East-West Gateway and the attached program agreement that was in the packet was received in July of 2022. The total project cost is estimated to be $1,239,600, 65% or $800,000 of the estimated project costs will be reimbursable through East-West Gateways Transportation Improvement Program or the TIP program. The city will be responsible for $439,600 of the estimated total. The project design property acquisition and construction inspection will be funded by the city are included in the above estimates. The design contract, which includes phases one and two was approved by the Board of Aldermen in December of 2022. This project is budgeted over multiple years with construction scheduled for 2024. And this was included in the CIP that we looked at earlier tonight. Project improvements will include the milling and replacement of two inches of asphalt replacement of select curb and gutter, improvement of curb ramps to ADA standards, pavement-based repair, bicycle shero markings and signage, and the installation of brick paver crosswalks. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing execution of an agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for the funding of the Central Business District Resurfacing Phase 2 project. And our Director of Public Works, Matt Malek, is here this evening to answer any questions you may have.

Very good. Thank you. I will just first go to the audience and the Zoom audience as well and see if there's any discussion or questions out there. No, okay, very good. I think we probably have some questions up here. Matt, you might wanna come on up.

Yeah,

I'll be quick. And I mentioned this to you earlier and you gave me a pretty good answer, but maybe you wanna share it. I had questioned the addition of the brick crosswalks because I think we may all remember years ago when those were put in and I wasn't on the board at the time, but I did hear concerns that we were spending money on something like that. And then they were a maintenance problem and they kept getting repaired and they were covered by grants and things. So when I saw that in here, I did shoot an email and say, I hope you can explain that tonight, why that's part of the project that's being proposed.

CoB, Jay Sugnetta- or the history of brick crosswalks in city clayton there are a couple different installations that have been used when the streetscape was originally considered in in the city. CoB, Jay Susie – There was looking at intersections and different decorative decorative brick that would be installed there, I think, for one reason or another, probably cost it was eliminated at the time. CoB, Kay Susie – streetscape was installed a few years later. I believe that the city found an opportunity to get that federal grant funding to install what has been known as the brick print asphalt crosswalks. Those are the ones that we've seen delaminate, have not performed well, and we've been removing over time. That's what the federal funding was for. My understanding, I wasn't here at the time when they began to become installed, but the brick paver crosswalks that are actual bricks, there was a desire to keep the look of the brick in the crosswalk. So the brick paver crosswalk system was a more durable system that was replacing those brick print crosswalks. So they have much less maintenance issues. Paved asphalt roadways, cheaper and probably less maintenance issues, but the brick pavers do cost a little bit more, but not nearly the kind of maintenance issues you were seeing with the brick print and pulling up. TAB, Mark McIntyre:" These have been installed with our different streetscape projects in town, they were installing Marin Maryland avenue most recently we have some intersections on this project that already have brick pavers and this would just complete the other parts of the intersection. TAB,

They increase the permeability. of the roads as well, or are they pretty well sealed?

No. The way that our design is there is a concrete trough underneath the brick in order to give it stability and to prevent any differential settlement of the brick so that you're not creating a trip hazard in the crosswalk. So it's built for stability, not permeability.

How much does it increase the cost of the project?

CoB, Jay Sugnetter- In this particular instance it varies per project, depending on the number of intersections and how many the width of the road, how many you're putting crossed on this project, it looks like it adds about $130,000 to do the brick paper crosswalks.

So could I follow up on that a little bit? And Gary, I know you have a question too. I think I recall we had a conversation maybe a year ago or so, I might be wrong, about whether we would continue doing these brick paver crosswalks all over town. And I don't know, at the time, I think we batted around some cost savings numbers and I don't remember what they were. They were six figures, but... I really question the continued use of these brick crosswalks. I know they look great. Maybe where we already have them, they could be maintained. I don't know what's really involved there in terms of cost, but I do question continuing to install more and more of them. I just think that in our current situation, as we've been talking for months and months now, I don't think I don't know that it adds enough to our, we've got the brick ribbon and we've got, you know, we look good pretty much. And so I just wonder if we really need those. And I'd just like to see if we could discuss further, you know, eliminating them, honestly. That's my thought.

And an additional item I wanted to add that I concluded the email I failed to mention earlier is we used to get points in the application process for it being a high visibility crosswalk. That is no longer the case. They further refined that now where it's a certain stripe and look where you don't get that with these. That's why the non-participatory item, because it was kind of an extra and it didn't incentivize or make that cost per mile better for our application. Do

you think it makes a crosswalk safer though? Or do you think they are more visible? Is there any data on that? and we don't get points for it.

Right. I mean, having a visual difference, it certainly can, but it does prevent you from doing different crosswalks in certain areas like the continental crosswalk, which is the white dash lines that run parallel with the road rather than the two lines that cross it. So it does provide some visual distinction, but high visibility could be personal judgment.

Is there an accessibility issue in terms of whether it be a blind person who's trying to figure out whether he's actually in the crosswalk or not? Does that apply?

It does provide a different texture. So I think there can be different accessibility issues. Like you mentioned, somebody with sight impairment could feel the different texture where someone that's maybe in a wheelchair, if there's a differential settlement going on, it might provide something that could be an impediment if it's not properly maintained. Asphalt is probably easier to maintain and cheaper overall. But again, it was an aesthetic choice at the time with the brick.

You know, Ira, there's those little rubber bump pads when you enter the crosswalk. So you'd know you're in the crosswalk from there, right?

Yeah, and I was going to add, too, people in wheelchairs, which I know a little more about, they actually would rather have a smoother surface than anything else. So, I mean, as long as they can see the crosswalk and they're within the lines, they'd rather it be smooth than be rocky at all. I would agree. Just throwing that in.

So what, go ahead, Gary.

I'm kind of late to the party because I was going to say pretty much the same thing. But I mean, the word that struck me in the summary was installation of brick paver crosswalks, which made me wonder, are we putting something in? Because when I'm downtown, probably the one thing that disturbs me more than anything is how crummy, I had to catch myself, how crummy the brick, those crosswalks look And it really, I think brings the city down. I mean, I'd much rather not have anything there that's brick rather than have the kind of brick, you know, crosswalks we have right now. So whatever the compromise is, I think what we've got looks very shabby and either we go back to zero, but I was concerned that this was, didn't address the repair and replacement of what we have just maybe it's just terminology, but installation made me think we already got this problem. Now we're going to add some more so that, it looked like not a good way to go.

We have run into situations where with utility work, there are some things that show themselves later which they don't right away. Maybe you get contractors that are restoring that aren't familiar with that as much as they would be as regular asphalt. So that's a point taken and it is something with this project, this would actually, Chris Wanner, Eliminate the last of the brick print that was the problem product in town with this project and kind of finish out the crosswalk so it was getting to a completion of that but. Chris Wanner, yeah there's certainly if you're just doing asphalt pavement it's it's much you know it's going to be cheaper and easier to maintain from more folks.

So what needs to happen if the board, do we need to, what do we need to do if we wanted to kind of switch to non-brick crosswalks at this

point? I would probably just say some form of guidance from the board in whatever capacity that's in to, since it's been considered part of our streetscape, just to give guidance. Not that we would go out there removing them, but as we did future projects, then we would have that guidance and something to reference in the future.

So how do we?

I'm not personally opposed to get rid of all of them, but at least some sort of logic is to, you know, it would be nice and a few selective places with some criteria to have these brick crosswalks, but doesn't need to be everywhere. So, I mean, I think if there's some approach to this, it sort of selectively determines where to put these and does asphalt otherwise, that I think might be a good compromise and seem economically, you know, more prudent on our part.

And I was just kind of isn't Matt just because I feel like again I know we talked about this with Maryland, because it came up last year. The brick. I mean I know that they last a long time. but do they have to be redone every 20 years when the streets are redone? Or do you know what I mean? Like, does the brick print come up every time we redo a street too? Or is that-

The brick print was the stamp asphalt.

I know we're getting rid of the bad stuff, the new stuff though. Like, so the new bricks that went in on Maryland, don't they last up to 50 or 60 years? Yes. So when we redo the street, when Maryland gets redone in 20 years, those can- potentially stay in place while we're redoing the rest of the street.

Correct. What we'll see sometimes is we may have to report the side of the concrete trench. We got like some instances on Maryland where that's starting to fail from the streets. It was installed in 98. So we'll want to look at that. So the bricks though, and the bricks can be taken out. reset in their base and reused too over that time. So while we might have to do something to correct some of the issues we're seeing with undulations that might appear following some other construction, the bricks do last longer and can be reused.

And then does this project kind of, I know you said this project will get rid of all the big brick print, which was a huge part of my elections. That was the most commonly asked question when I was running the first time and the second time. was, will this kind of complete then the streetscape in downtown or are there other, there's multiple other crosswalks in downtown that don't have this?

So when we talk about streetscape, it's, there's a couple of factors to it. And a lot of times when we talk about street scapes in relation to development and many times development doesn't cross the street and impact the crosswalk. So it usually is a city kind of driven CoB, Jay Sugnetta- component that gets installed, so it is matching in the aesthetic of the streetscape and it would complete the crosswalks I don't want, I think that gets all of them with unless we have a known development that we were holding a couple on but yeah it would it would complete those and it would also. I think with this project, we're also getting up to date on all of our curb ramps per our ADA transition plan to get those compliant. And it would be the last of the pink microsurfacing just as we're talking about wrapping other things

up. And I was just saying, I apologize. This is a little off topic, but I just kind of wanted to, so I've been in a few cities this summer and the spring where they do diagonal walks. Like as you get into busier urban areas, people walk diagonal rather than, you know, like straight, they walk literally right across the intersection. So everybody walks at once, like you go like this. And I just think it might be something for us to think about as a city, especially as this like world news site gets developed, because I think Forsyth will continue to get busy once Forsyth points. So I just think it move forward as we get more people walking around and as we try to improve pedestrian safety. So it just seems like a safe way to get people across the street because then nobody's turning right on red because everybody just walks at the same time. That's all that's happening during the intersection. So

maybe that would be a good question to put into our bike and pedestrian plan. Yeah.

And that's something I asked our consultants about this year is we're in the middle of our C Mac project. The component for signal retiming is going to be the last part. And we can ask them if that makes sense. Cause I know it does impact all cycles. You have to stop all traffic,

right? You stop everything and then everybody walks, but, but that really makes it safer pedestrians. Nobody's turning. So yeah, I apologize. It's a little off topic. I just thought it was a great idea, especially as we see more people walking around downtown.

Thank you.

Sorry.

It really isn't off topic because we put in brick crosswalks, which I actually like the look of it. You can't change the direction of the pedestrian crossing. And the other thing, which is a little bit off topic too, but I'll bring it up because I have the opportunity on the permeability issue and all that with heat islands. And you've educated me before that we have to use petroleum products. It's about we're using the best product out there for the streets, but even making lighter colors and all of that. If we can look at the trying to avoid the heat island effect in our urban settings, whether we have permeable pavement stuff along the sides or where it is appropriate, or it's light of color buildings, it's light of colored asphalt. There's a lot of things of groundwater that's retained there will cool. There's lots of steps. So I'm not, certainly as I support this project that's before us today, but just in general, if we can think about the resurfacing is a bigger part of how we develop our downtown and maintain it. If we really want a pedestrian street friendly place, we don't want to be breathing exhaust and bad air and having the heat. So just being conscious of that going forward and saying, I think that you do a great job, but just all of us think of it not as a separate project, but it is part of what we're developing for entire downtown areas.

Yeah, and I think the streetscape we've known for a while that have been implemented in many places does sticking with that does limit some of that as well as our constrained right-of-way. But that's things to consider as we talk about the crosswalks and how a streetscape might look in the future. I think that's a great idea. I will add the urban forest that we have is actually quite significant in helping reducing that heat island effect. And it's maybe not as noticeable all the time, but if you look at some aerials compared to some other cities, I think we do have a lot of tree cover in the city that does help with that.

Even driving here tonight as I was thinking about this, I was knowing the grass areas and the trees and everything. We are really fortunate. That's a good point.

So Matt, I have... couple things real quick. So the first of all, we've referenced the streetscape plan that we have. And that's something that if we want to make that change, you know, we'll need to address that plan. So we'll we'll set something up in the future to have that conversation. Because that's the direction we want to go, we need to modify that document. Because that is something that was adopted by the board at one point in time, when developers come in, if they're touching a roadway in any way, that streetscape plan is what we use in order to really you know, enforce those requirements. So that's perhaps something that needs to be revisited. As far as this particular project, Matt, if we were to change that material or at least that portion of the scope, does that have an impact on this agreement with Federal Highways? Is it something we could modify still through this contract? I hate to put you on the spot with it. I don't know if you've contemplated that. The other question would be the timing implications. you know, if we need to go back and revisit the scope or have conversations with MoDOT, what's our timeframe where we have to have this executed?

I think the timing implication isn't as critical. I think they can give us good, pretty quick guidance on that. Sometimes they are sticky when you change your application. The good part about it is it's not things that we ask for federal dollars on. It was the non-participatory items. I would have to break down the dollar value, what that pulls out, what our match ends up being and making sure we asked for a certain dollar value because it optimized our score. So that might lead to us if it affects the total dollar value percentage we asked for. It might lead to us lowering the score.

Right. Or to keep the score, we maybe don't save the money and pick up more project costs. Right. Potentially. To keep the match balance the same?

I think it's a combination of doing a little math to figure that number and conversation with MoDOT to confirm, but it could be possible.

All right. So if the board wants to go that direction, the action to take tonight would be to table or postpone this and allow us to have those conversations with MoDOT and figure out what the implications would be to this particular scope of work and application and make sure that we don't somehow jeopardize the federal funding by changing that scope or removing that component.

And I would add, I don't have the breakdown per intersection, but if we were to remove them in this particular project, I think we have some intersections where two legs are currently brick, but the other two legs are brick print. So those would just remain brick and the other ones would go to asphalt if we were to pull those out. I could get the exact breakdown on the map, but that's a potential too.

The other option would be if we kept this particular project as is going forward. Away from the. That's

an option as well as to approve it as is and then address the streetscape plan after this one's been approved and As Matt says, this kind of finishes out those larger downtown areas that the board had identified previously. So that's always a route you can go as well. I don't know what the feeling of the board is on whether or not it'd be included in this project, but those are your two avenues, prove as is or table this and we'd have to do some research before the next meeting.

Well, my thought would be, I don't know, what the savings will be from switching. at this point for this contract. But if we save in six figures and it doesn't affect the total application or whatever, and maybe you can swap out some other, replace with other projects that you need to do that could fit in here. I think we should at least look at that because I would like to know what the savings would be. And if it's not significant, okay. Because to Bridget's point, once they're in, they're in for a while. But on the other hand, when you do have to take them out for repaving and all that, that's labor that we have to spend. And it's still cost. So if it's okay, can we look at it and then...

To a few clarifications, we don't take them out every time we resurface. So I didn't want that to be thought that's the process. We could if we needed to repair them. The overall value does for this project does get into six figures. It's about $131,000. But if we're thinking about exploring that, I would recommend probably tabling that and getting a little bit more information I can bring back.

We just need to make sure that we would still get the federal funding if our match amount was to change. If they needed to preserve the match and we're still paying that amount out, then you're better off getting the upgraded crosswalks.

Absolutely. And not to be too nitpicky, I'm sorry, but you mentioned the certain intersections where there'll be two brick and two asphalt. So it'd be nice to know what the balance of that is.

Absolutely. The detail on the map doesn't quite show that, but I can get that.

Okay. All right, great. Thank you, Matt. Thanks for your patience. Okay, so we need a motion to table this until our next meeting. Ira, you're muted.

Did we want to get still public input at this point? Open it for the public?

We asked for it up front, but we can ask again.

Now that we've had our discussion, it might be interesting. Is

there any public input? Anybody in our listening audience? Okay, I'm not seeing any hands go up. So, Ira, do you want to make a motion to table this?

Yeah, I'll be happy to. Okay, I'd like to make a motion table this discussion with regard to the bill number 6905 for a future meeting.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, very good. Matt, thank you again. Okay, we're moving on to the conflicts of interest.

Yes, in 1991 the Missouri General Assembly adopted the ethics personal finance disclosure law which affects municipalities with an annual operating budget in excess of $1 million. The ethics legislation allowed political subdivisions to establish their own method of disclosing potential conflicts of interest and substantial interests. Accordingly, pursuant to section 105.485 of the Missouri revised statutes, On August 13th, 1991, the city adopted by ordinance its own simplified personal financial disclosure requirements. According to that section of state statute, the Missouri Ethics Commission requires each affected municipality to readopt the personal financial disclosure ordinance in an open meeting biannually by September 15th. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution readopting the City of Clayton's procedure to disclose potential conflicts of interest and substantial interest for certain municipal officials.

Okay, very good. I'll open the discussion and are there any questions or comments from the listening audience? Or the audience that's present? Okay, seeing none, open up for the board for discussion or questions. Okay, I don't see any there either. So Alderman Berkowitz. I'd

like to move to approve resolution 2022-17, readopting procedures to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good. Mr. City Manager.

Okay, the next item on here is the Mayor's Commemorative Landscape Task Force Recommendation. So at the meeting on July 12th, the Mayor gave a presentation on the Commemorative Landscapes Task Force recommendation to commemorate the African American history of Clayton. It is recommended that the city utilize a multidimensional phased approach to the remembrance of black history of Clayton by working with the Clayton Community Foundation, city staff and appropriate committees and commissions as determined by the Board of Aldermen. And I know that we have some members of the mayor's commemorative landscape task force present this evening. So Mayor Harris, I'll turn it over to you if you have any other remarks before the board takes it up.

I don't have a lot of remarks. I just would like to say, I think this is one of the most important things that our commemorative task force will recommend. The portrait was one, but I think this is really a key one. Could we go ahead and move Donna Rogers Beard and Jeff Ward over for panelists?

Okay.

I cannot see them on the screen, but maybe I don't need to. Oh, here they come. Here they come. Okay. I don't see Donna yet, but I just wanted to, again, remind our board of what fantastic resources we have in our population here in Clayton. and beyond that help us with all of these great projects. And we have in our audience, Chris Schmies who is a Clayton residents and is on this task force and has contributed greatly also sits on the equity commission. Jeff Ward, who is a professor of sociology and African-American studies, and I probably didn't catch it all, but a lot of things at Washington University, and who's been critical, critical in writing these recommendations and doing research. And last but not least, Donna Rogers Beard, who has kind of become an ad hoc member of our task force, but gets the credit for doing most, if not, I mean, 90% of the research on this neighborhood that we are looking to recognize and Donna, we really appreciate you so much and all the help you've given the task force as well. So I would just like, before you guys have any comments, which you may not, I think generally everybody's pretty supportive of this, but I'd like to ask Jeff if you would like to make any comments up front here since you didn't get a chance to present it as planned. I

think you're muted, Jeff. Wait a minute. Wait, Jeff, we're not hearing you yet.

He's not on mute on his end.

No, he's not, right?

Uh-oh. Now you look muted on the screen. Like the mute button is on. Okay. We still can't hear you, darn it. Nope. What

do you think is going on?

He didn't say he's having audio issues.

me now

yeah yes great now we can hear you

yay sorry i'm having audio issues here um and i was going to say i really don't have any comments to make i think um i'm glad to hear that the proposal was supported um so i'll you know i'll i'll take that audio time as my time um I'd be happy to answer any questions the board might have and to provide further context if desired.

Okay, I'll ask also Donna or Chris if you have any comments you'd like to make it this time. All good. Donna, any comments from you?

Yeah, I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I thank the board for hopefully taking the first step to officially recognize and commemorate this community that existed three to four generations and was an integral part of Clayton's history. But remember, it's also important to remember that they lived and thrived here. And it's crucial to appreciate the circumstances that led to the destruction of this economically and racially diverse community. I'm just happy to be part of the process.

Excellent, excellent comment. Any questions from any of you guys while we have these experts here? I'd say the comments at the last meeting, people were fairly overwhelmed by the amount of appendages and information attached to this recommendation. So that's good. We have a lot. This is a rich, rich mine of information about that community that we can put out.

Yeah. I regret that I missed that prior meeting. And I thank everybody who's worked on this. And I think in reading over this and looking at the other information, One of the things that struck me and I guess leads to my question is when it says, by telling the history of our African American community, we are recognizing the true history of diversity and the pursuit of equity and inclusion, building a foundation for a more inclusive future. So in doing this, I think we do have to know our history because what is it? Know your history or you repeat it. But in knowing the history, it is just a foundation of where we need to go to be that inclusive community that we want. And I don't know if there's any discussions in the task force on steps beyond getting the history out there or what you all envision? And this is huge. I mean, this is enough for now too, but I'm just asking.

Yeah. Jeff, you want to take that one?

Well, I don't know that we've discussed, I don't believe we've discussed at any length what a longer term strategy would involve. I know, you know, I've been a part of conversations with groups like the Equity Commission and discussing things like the Arts Festival and the sort of other events in the city that are opportunities to engage broader community and invite people in and so forth, and rebrand Clayton to some extent. I think that's part of the answer to that question. But our task force has really been focused at this point on this plan for a phased multi-dimensional approach to remembrance of this community and really telling the story, which I think is important. In part to just disabuse people of the notion that Clayton has always been a white place, you know that you know it's it's just not true and though it was not a you know majority black community. There was a significant and important Community that contributed. To the early history of the city. And so we think that in. prioritizing this remembrance, including acknowledgement and disavowal of the policies and practices that led to its decline, we position our city to be better understood and embraced as a welcoming, inclusive community, including not only by African Americans, but by non-Black residents of Clayton who can sort of see themselves in our community. I'm also a resident. You can see our community perhaps in a different way.

Right. So said answer, I mean, we talked mostly about different phases of commemoration. But Jeff actually has lots of ideas about different other organizations and events that we can connect to to kind of expand the impact of what we're doing.

The work is great and awareness is the necessary foundation as you all put in your documents. And I think

what I'm looking forward to is when we get the display up about Ralph Clayton's portrait, when we get at least the first steps of this commemoration in place, a plaque or whatever it might be at a site, just the first simple step that we can start communicating to the community about this and start educating. Chris is the communications expert on this team, and she will tell you, I mean, we need something to talk about and something to draw people to, and some of these events will do that. And I hope the Equity Commission will jump in and help us with that too, yeah. Okay, very good. Any further comments or anything? In that case, I think we're ready to vote on this recommendation. alderman berkowitz

um i'd like to move to approve the mayor's commemorative landscape task force recommendation

second all those in favor aye any opposed okay we've got it and um the next step um the lovely Andrea will help us with a plan to implement this commemoration. You'll get back to us with that sometime soon. Okay, very good. All right. And the last thing on the agenda is the community engagement piece.

Yes, and this is just a follow-up to the conversation we had two weeks ago on July the 12th. I gave a brief synopsis of our conversation

Wait, wait, one second. Sorry, I'm getting ahead of my, I tend to race through our agendas and not think. Thank you guys, Commemoration Task Force for coming. Thanks for taking your time out. Appreciate it. You added a lot to our meetings and you're adding a lot to our community. And if you would like, you can go away now because we're just going to talk about something else that you probably don't care about. So, all right. Thank you.

All right, so yes, again, this was a follow up to the conversation we had on July the 12th where we talked about our methodology for community engagement. This fall, where we go out to the community and really tell the story of the city's finances on the operating side and talk about service levels and potential changes there or additional streams of revenue. So we had talked about A traditional survey, we had also talked about a specialized engagement tool, specifically the Balancing Act tool. And so what came out of that was a direction to go and seek some advice or at least get an opinion on these tools and how they best be utilized. We did that. Andrea had a conversation with an individual that works in this area who wasn't familiar at all with Balancing Act. And so what we heard from that conversation was absolutely do both. The traditional survey will give you the statistically significant results that you're looking for. But the balancing act tool is going to engage people that are less likely to do those surveys, the people that want the interactive interface that you get with the online product. but also in the biggest benefit to the Balancing Act program, again, is the educational component that we talked about that quite a bit at the last meeting. The fact that you interact with the budget, the fact that you can front load it with a video, it tells you a story as you participate with the program. So you don't get any of that with a traditional paper survey that comes in the mail. You may have a little bit of information at the top for context, and then you just start filling in bubbles when you use the interactive tools such as Balancing Act, really you're learning as you interact with it. So that was the advice that we got was to go ahead and utilize both and see what kind of results you get with the new online tool because it's something we haven't utilized in the past. So that was one part of the conversation and really the biggest part. The second part was we did mention this other engagement platform that we'll be utilizing. We've actually already purchased it. I know that Andrea and Gabby Macaluso, our communications manager are gonna work to build the city's site, but it's a product called Bang The Table. I included a four minute demo video and also an example from another community in the packet. There's links, live links in the memo if you click on it to get an idea of what that looks like. And that isn't really specific to finances the way balancing act is. It's more of a generalized communication and survey tool that you use on an ongoing basis. So that is something we're gonna be building here over the next several weeks. It's kind of a standalone website that would be connected to the city's webpage, but balancing act would interface with that as well. So we think the combination of those is really gonna up our game as far as communications are concerned. And after we had the property tax issue on the ballot last time around, that was certainly some of the feedback that we received from the community was that we need to utilize some of these things to better communicate our message. And so that's our recommendation is that we go ahead and purchase both of those tools to be implemented this fall. They would both be in the 2023 operating budget. So I really don't need a vote or anything like that. But if there are concerns about placing that into the operating budget, we'd like to hear it. Otherwise, our approach is to go ahead and and fund both of those things. And then on October 1st, when that money's appropriated, then we would go ahead and get moving and go live with them. So with that, I'll take any questions you might have related to balancing act or the traditional survey. And Andrea, is there anything I missed there or misstated? Okay, excellent.

Yeah, any questions from our Zoom audience? Okay,

Mr. Berland. Oh.

Thank you very much. First, I want to compliment the people who worked on that commemorative task force. I know that was a previous item, but they just did an outstanding, outstanding job. My question involves, did you mention something called bang the table?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. My question is, number one, what is that? Number two, if it's something you purchase, should that also be included along with the funding for the balancing act and the survey?

So the balancing act and survey, that particular funding will be included in our 2023 operating budget, fiscal year 2023 that goes into effect on October 1st. The bang the table product, which is actually put out by a company called Granicus They're the host of our current website. That product was purchased through the 2022 or the current operating budget. So that's why I have those separated here. Again, the Bang the Table product has been purchased, but I would recommend that if you can pull up the PDF file of this agenda packet, if you have questions about Bang the Table, there are a couple of links as mentioned where you can go and actually demo it and see firsthand exactly what we're talking about. Thank you very much. Thank you. All

right. Any discussion from the board?

David, I like that. I think I'm in favor. The medium or the mode in which we use to get feedback from the community needs to be multifaceted. And I applaud that you're looking for any and all avenues to do that. And I think that's commendable. That's what we should be doing. So thank you.

Well, thank you. That credit goes to Andrea and her team. They're doing a great job going out there and finding the best products for it.

Mm-hmm. Okay, very good. All right, since you don't need to vote, just kind of head nodding and I think we're all nodding, so we're all good.

I'll just include that in the 2023 operating budget. Thank you.

Okay, we've come to that time in the meeting when we can share anything that we've participated in that we want the rest of the board and the community to know about. So I'm just gonna go kind of, well, I'll go in seniority. It's hard to do with Zoom and everything. Ira, you're first.

Okay, thanks. I did miss the last meeting of the ARB just because I was in a plane at the time, couldn't possibly get to it. But I think it seemed like there was not much in there. I did today participate in the Clayton Chamber of Commerce's sponsoring of a tutorial on pickleball, believe it or not. And it was a tremendous success. The Ellen did a great job of, you know, getting good people together and, and it was, we didn't have it at the Shaw Park facility I was a little sorry about that but we did have it down in Forest Park. And it was really well done. And it was a great tutorial. If they have it again, I urge everyone to do it. You got to at least try this game at least once. It's really running. It's just running crazy all throughout the country. So it'd be good to at least get to know what it is. But other than that, I have one comment that just it's occurring to me today and it could be before. You know, I wonder if we could organize our agendas for the meetings in accordance with, I know there's a method to the madness as there is now, but I wonder if we can incorporate maybe another priority, which would be, you know, if we have outside people who are participating because they're they're volunteering their time and they're really working with us or working for us in a lot of ways. that we don't have them sit through three, four, five agenda items that really don't apply to them. If we could sort of try and prioritize our audience or not the audience but the participants for those agenda items that are really people who are working at our boards and commissions or whatever and that sort of thing. Just an idea, just a thought if we could save them the trouble. And it reminded me, Mayor Harris, you were mentioning that they could get off now because what we were going to talk about. And clearly the first three items did not interest them either, but they were here for them anyway as well. So I just think if there's a way to focus on that a little bit.

I agree completely and apologies to the whole world. I did not think of it in time. And I also didn't, I hadn't predicted that our discussion, that Matt was going to talk so long.

No criticism, no criticism about that. Matt, Matt answered all our questions beautifully. So

yes, he did.

Yeah, he did. So anyway, that's it for me.

Okay. All right. Bridget. I don't have anything to report. Nothing to report. Not a thing. Mr. Gary Feder.

Okay. All right. Bridget. I don't have anything to report. Nothing to report. Not a thing. Mr. Fader.

I can't remember if I mentioned last time, but I was very excited to see the B mural go up. Oh yeah. Come on park. I first lived, I first went to DeMond park when we were married in 1973. Didn't really go there until our daughter was born in 76, but basically had been going to that park since then and now have three grandkids who've grown up in the area. So it was very exciting to see it done. And hopefully the fundraising can be completed because it's a very nice addition to that part.

And I don't know if I'm not sure at this point who was copied on this email, but, um, There was something in the press recently about monarch butterflies being on the endangered list now. And so we reached out to our parks department. Tony's gone, but Justin answered the email. And I think maybe we'll be able to possibly convert some of the planned vegetation for Taylor Park to pollinator-friendly stuff. Just as, you know, maybe we can do more as a community than we're already doing, which is a lot. for the monarch butterflies. So that was good. Okay, I have nothing. Is that pretty much the end of our agenda? I just

have one quick thing to mention. So the redistricting commission that the board had formed per the charter did meet and make a recommendation. There's a requirement in the charter that they make that recommendation by August 1st. that recommendation again has been made so that we are now posting public notices for a public hearing that will be held on August 23 to consider the redistricting option from the redistricting committee. So I just wanted to put that out there and let everybody know that that is forthcoming. On August 9, we are at least going to front load some information, put it out there for both the board and the public at the meeting, just going over the standards for redistricting what criteria goes into that particular decision. That way, when we get to the meeting on the 23rd, everybody kind of understands the ground rules and what we're trying to achieve there. So I just wanted to make that mention that those public notices are going out for the public hearing that will be held on August the 23rd. And I want to thank the commission for their work. They did meet twice going through it. There were a number of options that our planning and development services department had put together And they really put a lot of thought into consideration into that and certainly thank them for their

time. It's my impression that a decision needs to be made by the board in September as a matter of law. And so I am concerned that we get all this information out to the public as soon as possible, because since occasionally we are criticized for not spending enough time on important decisions and having seen the particular recommended plan, I think it is significant. And I think it's very important that the community get ample opportunity to understand the recommendation and what the alternatives might be. And again, because it has to be such a compressed schedule since we're almost on August 1st now only gives us about six weeks. So I just think we need to do everything possible to make sure the information is out there. So our public really can participate if they choose to in the public hearing in a John Pimentel, A meaningful

way agreed, and we will post those those options and certainly the recommended option, along with those criteria so that anybody reviewing it. John Pimentel , knows again what we're trying to achieve with that from a timing standpoint, the Charter. does state that the board needs to take action on the redistricting commission's recommendation by September the 15th. So the Board of Aldermen actually has two meetings, the public hearing on the 23rd. There's also a meeting on September 13th. So there are two meetings between really where this can be discussed and considered and ultimately the decision be made.

Okay, great. Anything else? All right. In that case, let's have a motion to adjourn. Mr. Berkowitz?

I would like to make a motion to adjourne.

We're all coming over to your house. Okay. No, not really. I can tell you're at home. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That's it. See you next time.