August 10, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, welcome everybody to our August 9th Board of Aldermen meeting. Will the city clerk call the roll?

Alderman Lentz? Here. Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Aldermen Patel? Here. Aldeman Gary Feder? Here. Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Alderman Lentz? Here. Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Aldermen Patel? Here. Aldeman Fader? Here. Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City

Attorney O'Keefe?

Here. Thank you.

All right. Now's the time for public requests and petitions. So if there's anyone in our audience here tonight or in our Zoom audience that has a question or comment that's not about something not on our agenda tonight, now's the time. Don't see any hands in the audience. How about on Zoom? Anybody? Yes, there's one. There is one? Okay. Okay, Mr. Berland, do you have a comment or question about something not on our agenda tonight?

I do. I'm wondering what the Board of Aldermen thinks about the proposal of Green Street's proposal to build this complex down the street.

When you say down the street, what? I'm

talking about on Brentwood, Manchester Road in Brentwood.

Well, I'm not sure we want to offer an opinion since that is not a Clayton location.

It will impact Clayton. I would be curious at some point in hearing an opinion. Not tonight. Not tonight.

Okay, great. Well, you know, send any one of us an email anytime. I'm sure we can have a conversation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Anything else from the listening audience? No. Okay. All right. In that case, we're going to move on with our agenda. The first thing on our agenda is unfinished business, but we're going to do this a little out of order. We're going to put that at the end. Is that what you still want to do? Oh, oh we skipped it I crossed it out you guys i'm sorry i'm fast forwarding um yes So yes, we need to approve the minutes from July 26 do I have a motion.

I will move to prove the minutes on July 26

second. All those in favor. Aye. Okay, so approved so now we'll go on with our agenda. And we're going to move the agreement with MoDOT to the end of the agenda, and we're going to start off with the city manager's report.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. In 2018, the city of Clayton acquired land at 7811 Maryland Avenue with the intent to create an urban park in downtown Clayton. The conceptual design for the park was approved in 2019, and since that time, the Clayton Community Foundation, or CCF, has been raising funds to help pay for the project. To date, the CCF has raised more than $73,000 towards the development of the park and recently received a pledge for an additional $50,000 towards the project. The city was also awarded the St. Louis County Municipal Park Grant and the amount of $225,000 in 2021 for construction of the park. A request for bids for construction of the park was issued in March of 2022. Based on the construction climate at the time, minor changes were made to the scope of the project and the attempt to bring the bids ended budget. The changes included removal of the water feature and scaling back a portion of the retaining wall and the concrete hardscape. Unfortunately, the bid still came in over budget with the lowest bid at $454,889. To move this project forward, city staff recommends applying for additional municipal park grant funding of up to $325,000. If approved, this would bring the total municipal park grant funds awarded for the project to 525,000, which is the maximum for which the city would be eligible. Current cost estimates for the project put the development of the park at just under 590,000. And that does include those items that were removed from the scope as a value engineering effort back in March of 2022. If this application is successful, the grant along with funds raised by CCF will provide the resources necessary to develop the site into a new public park as originally designed. The city should receive notification before the end of the year with the intent to begin work in early 2023. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution authorizing submittal of the grant application for additional funding of the park at 7811 Maryland Avenue. And we do have Tony Searing, our Director of Parks and Recreation here for any questions.

Okay, well, I'll open the discussion. I think first I'll ask anyone in the audience or anyone on Zoom, do you have any questions about this project? Okay. Tony, I just have one question. I'm just refreshing my memory. What are the things that were engineered out to save money that will now go back in?

That would be the water feature that was planned for the back portion right in front of the living wall. We had also value engineered out some of the retaining wall on the right side, if you were looking at it from the street view, and then some of the concrete hardscape at the front of the park. We had taken out some of the walls that were going to be there right at the beginning of the park. So we try to get rid of as much concrete as possible. Yeah, but that has all been put back in and the park will be bid as originally designed.

And have we concluded what we'll name the park at all? Or is that still ongoing discussion?

Still ongoing.

Okay, very good. Is Parks and Rec gonna eventually recommend something to this board or how's that gonna

work? We could do that or if there would be another significant donation and CCF is still raising funds for that, we would go that route.

Okay. Okay, very good. Other

questions for Tony? Tony, I was just wondering, are you worried I was, you know, the project went out to bid and then do you because we're not locking in anything right so in terms of it going out to bid Are you comfortable that it'll come back to bid like under what the grant amount will be? I

think so. Well, I think the new funds, the new price for the park that they gave us at the just under 590,000, those are newly estimated numbers. So those numbers are including the new construction climate of increased inflation and what have you. So those are newly updated numbers. So yes, I believe they should be close to that or much closer than the last bid.

And hopefully we're hitting a plateau with costs.

Yes.

Tony, I... Go ahead.

I was just going to build on what Bridget asked as well. If all the value engineering, if all that was put back in as it goes out and you don't get all the funding, is there flexibility?

We could read

us to get it and get it done, even though it's already gone out to bid. I mean, how's that timing all going to work?

Well, I think if we don't get the full amount that we're hoping for with this grant and if the grant would then be, or if the bids would then be over budget, we'd have to look at what we would value engineer out again. I think the water feature is a really good fundraising opportunity. So that could still be something that CCF could go after for a sponsorship. But yeah, I think if, if we go out to bid again and we need to find out how much we're getting from the municipal park grant, I think, and then that will determine how we move forward with the bid. And I do think if we ask for the 325, that's probably a little bit more than we actually need. So we need to really make sure that those numbers are tight right when we submit the grant application at the end of this month.

That gets exactly at the question that I was going to ask, which is like adding up what we've gotten grants and with a cost of 590. We don't need 325 now to close that gap so would would your intent be to determine that gap, like if it's 250 or whatever, and ask for that amount specifically? I

just got these numbers back from SWT last month at the end of the month for July. So they are pretty confident that they do include the inflation that we've gone through and the increased construction costs. So yes, our intent would be to ask for what we need. So I would not ask for the full probably 325 if we did not need it. But I will, we're going to confirm these numbers once again before we do the final grant submission, just to make sure there isn't something that's changed drastically again.

Yeah, I can't remember if I know whether the St. Louis County Municipal Park Grant system allows, like, can you put in contingency? And then if we don't use it all, like, does it go back to them? Is there a process for that? Correct, yes, there is a

process for that, yes.

Thank you.

Tony, since it's a small space and I know we've not resolved the name or even thematically what the park is about, some conceptual drawings that have been done in the past have sort of featured sort of different plaques that would be displayed in the area. Is anything that you've done in terms of cutback, would that reduce the potential for that kind of use of the facility?

No, actually we included that in both the bid that we submitted in March and it's included in the newly revised numbers that we have, even if it's a blank space that can be changed out and you can add the plaque spec in, but we have included that. Thank

you. I just want to check. Ira, do you have any questions or anything?

No, my question was same as yours, which is what did we, you know, what did we take out in order to accommodate a better bid? But I mean, I know we talked a lot about some things like, you know, it's right on the bike path. It wasn't, I thought there was some issues. So things we were trying to include, Tony, that had some relationship to bikes. Is that still part of it or is that not?

Yes, it is included. There's a bike repair station and bike racks that are included.

Great, thank you.

Okay, anything else? All right, great. I guess then we can have a motion.

I'll move to approve Resolution 2022-18, authorizing the submittal of a Municipal Parks Grant application for the construction of a pocket park at 7811 Maryland Avenue.

Second.

Further discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. There you go. All done. All right, Mr. City Manager.

All right, this is an ordinance for parking restrictions on Ellenwood. The attached bill amends Title III traffic code by repealing and replacing Schedule III parking restrictions. The purpose of this change is to add a section of Ellenwood Avenue to Table 3A, no parking areas, and deleting the same section from Table 3J, five-hour parking areas. Specifically, the section of Ellenwood directly in front of the Church of St. Michael and St. George would no longer be restricted to five-hour parking, and overnight 12 a.m. to 7 a.m., A restriction would be implemented to match the current south side of the church property on White Island Boulevard. Staff considered the change based on a request made by personnel at the school associated with the church to accommodate more public and staff parking. Staff believes the proposed change increases public parking without impacting the adjacent residential properties. Staff recommends the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance. And our Director of Economic Development, Gary Carter, and our Director of Public Works, Matt Malek, are here this evening for any questions.

All right, very good. um i'll open the discussion first i'll ask any questions from the audience didn't think so how about in the zoom audience i can't see no okay great um board members do you have questions for matt or gary i'll start with rich

um just asking if uh gary if we talked to the um trustees at ellen at uh skinker heights about this

Yes,

I have a question. As I looked at this and the various parking restrictions all around the city, they're kind of hard to follow. And I don't know if it's time for us, not looking at this particular request, but it seems to make sense. But I'm wondering at the stage that it would be nice to have some type of a system you know, looking at the traffic studies, the residential and the business density and where the need is so that we're consistent in how we treat neighborhoods as well, not depend on who has a trustee or who doesn't or something else. But I don't know what our criteria always is. It seems to work fine, but at some point it seems that if you can say, well, if we're within, you know, 30 feet of a commercial center, da-da-da, then the residents get this type of restriction. And part of the reason I asked that too, is I know historically there was a problem or there was conflict between neighbors of single family homes, not wanting people from the duplexes or apartments parking up in different parts of the streets and everything else. And is it time for us to have a system?

Okay. What typically comes up is when we have organizations and commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Central Presbyterian, for those of you that have been on the board, is a every five to seven year issue, I think. And any time Wash U in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the WashU campus with students parking. Those type of issues come up, but I agree with you. It may be time to look at that, but I think that's going to require a rather comprehensive plan for parking because right now it's been addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe it would be a good topic to at least bring up during a comprehensive planning process.

And that's fine as well. It makes sense. It just seems at some point you're probably seeing certain truths versus systemic things that when it's needed, when it's not. And even when we got a taste of what it might be like when we went to one-sided, one sides of streets that weren't wide enough for safety. For fire lines. And we got a lot of pushback right there. But when there's a rationale behind it, maybe as part of the comprehensive plan or just looking at this, I had done those quick Google searches. And I know that, of course, the city in California was looking at how they're being driven by cars and their building and everything. And so they actually had a commission together to look at bikes and parking and when they want restrictions and when they don't. So yeah, that may be fine as part of the Comprehensive Plan, but I hope we don't lose it because something that is defensible and uniformly I think will help everybody.

And I do think if we are looking at this during the comprehensive plan, that's going to be a very broad look at this and a big part of our comprehensive planning and discussions we'll have with the community are those points where commercial and residential meet and what that looks like. So I think we'll probably have a generalized discussion on parking. But as Gary had mentioned, to really get into those tables and try to figure out what kind of restrictions should be in which type of scenario, uh, that's going to require really a separate effort. That's, that's more detailed. So the comprehensive plan might be a good kickoff point for that discussion since we'll already have the community engaged and we can kind of start that conversation, but then it'll take a pretty, pretty detailed study to, to figure out exactly, um, what kind of revisions we may need.

Yeah, because I think it's an equity issue too. One neighborhood feels that they're not being treated the same as somebody else and those are never fun situations. So thank you.

Just to get back to this specific situation, my recollection was that those restrictions were put in place because of the neighborhood not wanting the cars there because of the school and the staff parking there all day I'm in agreement with this, but I suspect Becky and I will be hearing about it. And I can tell you that if Joanne were still here, she would be fighting against this. But be that as may, I'm okay with it.

Gary, just from a process standpoint, just because of like the church, you know, it happens in Ward 3 all the time, as you know, was there, was the resident where they weren't surveyed at all or anything? Because when there's a request made, isn't there a survey of the neighborhood? Or is this a different situation?

This is a little bit different situation. This is affecting the property adjacent to the church and it is already a five hour time period there. And the issue that keeps coming up with patrol is that they have a lot of specialty teachers and staff that come to the school who are not necessarily assigned there on a daily basis. And then when they are there, they are there all day, which is longer than five hours. So that was staff trying to balance the needs of everyone but still protecting those properties, the residential properties by maintaining the restrictions, the residential restrictions there in front of those properties. So it was a balancing act. I'm not sure that this is extremely time sensitive. So if you'd want to hold it to the next meeting, I'd be happy to reach out to the trustees and talk to them about it. But I think at the end of the day, staff's recommendation would still be what's before you tonight.

One thing I think is important to point out, if you haven't gone out to the site to take a look or looked at it on a map, we're talking about the south side of the street here, which is directly in front of the church. On the other side of the street, which is purely residential, there is a one-hour parking restriction that's currently in place and would remain in place. So the spaces directly in front of all of those homes are still protected with the one-hour parking zone. So I just wanted to make it clear, this is just the one side of the street.

Yeah, I think that's what I wanted to say and why I fully support this change is that you know the survey process that you talk about Bridget, I believe, allows people to provide input on parking restrictions like in front of their property like on their frontage or whatever. And this is like the property is the school church that frankly, you know, needs it to be able to be open to parking. And so, you know, given that I don't see this as like a nuisance, it's not going to increase the traffic in the neighborhood. It's not going to, if anything, it'll keep people from coming and going potentially. So it's, I guess it's hard for me to imagine how it would negatively impact the neighbors who will still have the parking restrictions that they've requested on their own property um line

and i i would agree i just in it's actually like by the churches it's actually both sides of the street it doesn't matter that it's along the property where the church is so it's what do you

mean

well like in front of korea for instance they would like to extend like the amount of parking that they're COB, Jean Gatza, available to have during the day, but they mean. COB, Jean Gatsza,

Oh, so this is already an area where people are allowed to park though we're just changing what the restriction right

yeah i'm just saying it's not just property that's affronting the particular place.

COB, JeanGatza, I think, in this case, it is case, it is okay and

other situations okay and other situations that's what I just wanted to be clear about just so that we're doing the same process survey wise throughout the city so. if necessary. Okay, yeah.

Yeah, I support doing this. I just want to say, if you think it'd be, you know, really just better to go ahead and notify the neighbors and then approve it next time, that's totally fine. I mean, it never hurts, so I don't know. You guys, it's up to Ward 1 Alderman here on that.

I guess my concern is I don't really want to have the the debate with the residents over it, because I think Becky and I are both in agreement with it. And so I'm, I don't know, what do you think it's worth reaching out to them?

um yeah so I never want to suggest that I would not be open to seeing a different perspective so um I guess you know like I said I I feel very comfortable with this this recommendation um

Why don't we table it and let us at least let them know, because my guess is we pass it now, we're going to hear that we didn't tell them about it.

We can let them

know. They might not disagree with it, but they might just feel

like...

Two readings?

This is an ordinance, so it requires two readings.

could do first reading tonight. Yeah, let's

do that.

And then let them know and do second reading in our next meeting.

I

think that's a

good solution. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Any other comments from anybody? All right. Alderman Lentz.

I'm going to introduce Bill 6906, approving an amendment to Table 3A and Table 3J of the parking regulations in Schedule 3, parking restrictions to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6906, first reading and ordinance amending table 3A and table 3J, the parking regulations in the schedule three parking restrictions of the Clayton City Code.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so that's the first reading. Do we need to move on with the rest of it or just we can stop here and table it?

It'll be on the agenda in the next meeting.

Great. That's what we'll do. Thanks, guys. All right. And I think the next thing that we will be looking at is the contract for a new ambulance.

That is correct. The fire department is requesting approval of a contract for the purchase of a 2023 American response vehicles, trauma Hawk custom type one ambulance on a Ford F five 50 cabin chassis. This purchase includes a striker power load, cot fastener and power pro cot. The fire department worked with American response vehicles also known as ARV on the design of a new ambulance after purchasing through a cooperative, the total discounted price from ARV, is $398,463. The new ambulance will replace the 2015 Ford F-450 and Horton Type 1 ambulance that served as the reserve ambulance that was badged as 3297. This ambulance was involved in a front end collision on July 21st, 2021 that resulted in damage to the cabin chassis. Chubb, the city's insurer, deemed the vehicle a total loss. The Public Works Fleet Division and Finance Department have worked with Chubb Insurance to come to an agreement after three iterations on a total settlement valued at $78,638 for the ambulance and the power cot that was also damaged. This ambulance was scheduled in the Equipment Replacement Fund, or the IRF, to be replaced in fiscal year 2025 based on a fiscal year 2022 estimated purchase price of $300,000. Currently the contributions to the IRF to replace the vehicle total $206,293. The difference of the ARV proposal and the sum of the IRF contributions and the insurance settlement is $116,031. So that's our gap. This remaining amount can be covered by the IRF fund balance. And then to make up for this unexpected expense, the 2033 purchase or the next purchase of that ambulance. So again, the equipment replacement fund, we put our vehicles on a schedule. So the next time this comes around, we'll buy a new cabin chassis and just refurbish the box that's on the back, the actual ambulance part where the patient is the paramedic is treating the patient. So rather than a full replacement, a brand new custom box, we would just refurbish it at that point in time. That would yield us savings the next go around that will help offset the additional 116,000 we'd be putting in at this point in time. So staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing a contract with American Response Vehicles and the amount of $398,463. And I would just point out that there is a pretty substantial lead time right now for these. It's typically, most cities are seeing anywhere between a year and 24 months in order to receive an ambulance. We do have an active ambulance, just so the public is aware. This was our reserve ambulance, and our neighbors can certainly help out with a reserve ambulance if one is needed in the meantime. But we would place this order now and hopefully receive shipment within the next 12 months. We'll just kind of see how that goes. But we do, I believe, have Assistant Chief Paul Mercurio on Zoom this evening if you have specific questions about how that piece of equipment is utilized. And then John Wolfe, our Assistant Public Works Director that's in charge of fleet is here this evening as well if you have any questions about the air for just vehicles in general.

Okay. Okay. I'll just ask first, anybody in the audience have questions about this? And anybody on Zoom? Rich, any questions or comments?

Just remind me, we just bought an ambulance not too long ago. The main one we have is...

currently? That's correct. So we have an ambulance that we just received shipment on probably 18 months ago or so. It's a newer unit. That's our primary ambulance. So once that primary ambulance, typically what happens is we would have these staggered. So this ended up pushing the reserve replacement up. So our ambulances aren't going to have that gap that we like where the primary ambulance becomes the reserve when the reserve ambulance is replaced. So that's a gap we're going to have to smooth out over time and probably push the replacement date out a little bit on one to try to get that that gap back. Unfortunately, they were both in accidents within three weeks of each other and now our schedules kind of condensed on them. Thank you.

Bridget, anything? I do not know.

Ira, any questions? I don't know. Susan?

Really quick, I know the money comes out anyway, but if there's that delay in delivery, when does the money actually go out of our funds to pay for it?

So we won't actually pay for it until we take receipt of the bill. Yeah, once we place the order though, then we'll go ahead and basically encumber that money. But yes, it's not gone until it's gone to be spent.

Becky, questions,

comments? No, I don't think so. Thank

you. Alderman Gary Feder.

you. Alderman Fader.

No questions, thank you.

All right, great. I think we're set. So, Alderman Lentz.

Introduce Bill 6907, approving a contract with American Response Vehicles for a new ambulance to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6907, first reading. Approving a contract with America Response Vehicles for the new ambulance.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6907 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed. Let the minutes reflect the board is given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6907, approving a contract with American Response Vehicles for a new ambulance to be read for the second time by title owner.

Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6907, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance approving the contract with American Response vehicles for a new ambulance.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermwoman Patel. I'm sorry. Aldermwoman Buse. Aye. Alderawoman Patel. Aye. Alderon Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermwoman Patel. I'm sorry. Aldermwoman Buse. Aye. Alderawoman Patel. Aye. Alderon Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right. Next is the public art for Forsyth Point. I know we have somebody from foresight point here if you want to maybe you want to come up just for the heck of it and see if we have any discussion um does anybody in the listening audience have their hand raised okay all right oh wait a minute i'm so sorry oh

that's okay that's okay i'll give a quick background here

quick report don't go away

So the subject property here is located on the north side of the Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood Boulevard and North Merrimack Avenue. It has a zoning designation of planned unit development or PUD. On March 24, 2020, the Board of Aldermen approved plans for 965,061 square foot mixed use building with a 14 story tower at the west end and a 16 story tower at the east end. The development is currently under construction. PUDs are approved through a point system with points awarded for different public benefits in exchange for relief or modification of certain zoning and subdivision regulations. Per ordinance 6648, which governs the development, the public art was awarded five points. The approved development plan for the property states The buildings will include public art or sculpture at both the western and eastern towers, outdoors and accessible to the public at the corners or in a location otherwise approved by the Public Art Advisory Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The developer shall hire an art consultant to assist with selection of the artist and the proposed locations of the public art the developer is committed to in the PUD. U.S. Capitol development is developing the Western Tower and has secured the services of via partnership to assist with the selection and approval of the public art for the corner entrance to the West Tower. The proposed art piece will be located at the southwest corner of the development. The location is catty corner to Chapman Plaza. A sculpture titled Campfire has been selected for the West Tower Lobby entrance, and we have it on the screen and it should be shared on Zoom. The piece will be positioned at the corner of Forsyth Boulevard and South Brentwood Boulevard opposite Chapman Plaza Fountain. Its position will place it partially under the building's portico. The piece campfire is made of 12 steel curved ribs that include LED lights on the interior. The LED surface is described as a canvas for the artist's composition. The composition is described as slowly changing forms and colors. The exterior of the ribs is described as mirrored and designed to reflect the surrounding environment. The reflective elements of the piece are not anticipated to pose a distraction to the surrounding environment. The Public Art Advisory Committee met with representatives of the development on Tuesday, June 28th to discuss the concept. The committee unanimously voted to recommend approval to the Architectural Review Board, who then reviewed the proposed artwork during the July 18th, 2022 meeting and voted unanimously to approve the piece. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the public art installation as submitted. And it's already been stated, the applicants are present this evening, as is on a crane our director of planning and development services, if you have any questions related to the zoning.

And so sorry I skipped over your

that's okay i'm sorry it wasn't as brief as I advertise there.

Okay yeah.

William sherburne I was hired by the developer, along with meredith mckinley from via partnership we. looked at multiple opportunities for the space. We arrived at this piece. We think it's perfect. We think it will compliment the building in a really positive way. We also think it'll compliment the piece at the East Tower, the Barbara Hepworth, which is more of a classic piece. This is more of a modern piece. We think fully integrate this walkway and this meeting place so i think mr David Gipson described the piece very aptly and we think it's perfect for the space so if you have any questions i'm happy to try to answer

William sherburne I was hired by the developer, along with meredith mckinley from via partnership we. looked at multiple opportunities for the space. We arrived at this piece. We think it's perfect. We think it will compliment the building in a really positive way. We also think it'll compliment the piece at the East Tower, the Barbara Hepworth, which is more of a classic piece. This is more of a modern piece. We think fully integrate this walkway and this meeting place so i think mr gibson described the piece very aptly and we think it's perfect for the space so if you have any questions i'm happy to try to answer

Very good. I'll just go around the tables here. Rich, anything?

I like the piece. It looks great. I'm just questioning or curious how far under the portico is it? It's hard to see whether it's going to be out in the public or is it going to be hidden underneath? I

think it's going to

I'm sorry, sir. Do you mind speaking into the microphone so they can hear you at home? Thank you.

When you see it from Chapman Plaza, it will have a presence on that corner. But I think it's also of the scale that it will be intimate enough to, you know, if there's a cocktail gathering or retail people walking from space to space that it will feel appropriately scaled for that space. You want to try to marry the two. You want it to have a presence, but you want it to be comfortable in that space. And I think it achieves that. Thank you.

Any other comments, Bridget?

Yeah. And I'll add that, as Mr. David Gipson said, we are very pleased to have the approval of the ARB, and the Public Arts Commission. Sure.

Yeah. And I'll add that, as Mr. Gibson said, we are very pleased to have the approval of the ARB, and the Public Arts Commission. Sure.

Bridget, did you have anything? I just

have one

comment.

Oh, Ira, I can't, there he is. Okay, yeah, sure, Ira, go ahead. Sorry. That's

okay. Yeah, no, I think it's an impressive piece. I like it. I was, but I kind of an aside I was struck with the space that it's in. It doesn't seem to have any, any seats or benches or anything for people to actually maybe sit and maybe actually enjoy and admire it more than just walking by.

But, and We certainly took that under consideration and we talked about the idea of permanent seating, which I think would be a mistake in this situation. The developer is fully aware of how this space can be utilized, how it will activate this corner, how it will energize that this area of Clayton. And so I think temporary seating is really the better way to go because it will allow the developer to use the space in different ways. So I think doing something permanent would be a mistake and they're fully aware of that and willing to utilize and use temporary seating for various events.

Understood. Okay. I'm going to try to go in order of chronology, if I can remember to. Nice job. Oh, thank you. Alderman

Gary Feder. A couple of questions. What's up on the screen, you see the different colorations, which seem to be quite a pastel and it looks like from the description that these lights will change colors. Is that based on a particular pattern that daylight versus nighttime? We also got some additional copies of what this might look like at different times of the day. I didn't see anyone when it was really dark outside. I'm sure it looked nice, but I have no sense of, are the colors really different at night than they are during the

Fader. A couple of questions. What's up on the screen, you see the different colorations, which seem to be quite a pastel and it looks like from the description that these lights will change colors. Is that based on a particular pattern that daylight versus nighttime? We also got some additional copies of what this might look like at different times of the day. I didn't see anyone when it was really dark outside. I'm sure it looked nice, but I have no sense of, are the colors really different at night than they are during the

day? That's a really good question. And so the artist has done many of these in various places all over the world and it will look different in daylight, dusk, winter, summer, and he takes that into account. So it's a program that will sort of modify and allow for a different view. And part of it is sort of trial and error. We'll get it in there and see how it feels, and it can be adjusted. But I think based on the success of his other pieces, we can surmise that it will be really well done in terms of the way that the colors change.

My other question is, when I looked at it, I really liked it. And then when I saw the name Campfire, I thought, you know, it's kind of the light bulb went off. Yeah, it looks like a campfire. And I thought that was pretty neat. So I'm sure this is probably a pedestrian type of question. But is it tacky to put a little label on this piece that says Campfire? Are people ever going to know that this is actually called Campfire other than the Board of Aldermen?

I mean, that's another good question. And I think it will be identified in a tasteful way somewhere in that space, because I think that's a good point. I mean, the whole idea of this piece is a gathering place. And I think this corner will hopefully become a gathering place. As we reviewed all the submissions for art, that's what resonated with us, this idea that this could be a gathering place and a campfire signifies that.

That'd be great if it was identified, obviously, in a tasteful

Well, I just want to say, I think it's a fabulous piece. And I agree with Gary. I love the concept of campfire and gathering spaces. And I know that you all have talked a lot about your goals of adding vitality to this part of Clayton. And I think this is just the kind of thing that can do that. I'm glad to hear you plan to have events out there and supply the furniture if needed or whatever. But I just think it's a terrific terrific piece, terrific concept. And I think the community will be talking about it. I hope you'll publicize it when it finally goes in all that good stuff. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you so much for coming. Thanks. Thanks for your patience waiting through our agenda, by the way.

Yeah. Marshmallows when you have the opening.

Have pre-made ones, pre-made some more. Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I move to approve the public art for Forsyth Point West Tower at 8027 Forsyth Boulevard.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. All right. There you go. Have a good night.

Thank you.

Okay. Now going back to the beginning, we can bring up the agreement with MoDOT for the business district resurface.

John Potter, Thank you, Mayor this item was last before the board of aldermen for consideration at the July 26 2022 meeting. John Potter, During the discussion at the meeting there were questions from the board regarding the removal of brick paper crosswalks across walks were listed as part of the project grant application, however. they were non-participating items to be fully paid by the city. City staff has confirmed with East West Gateway that the brick paver crosswalks could be removed from the project grant, as well as the existing grant agreement for the central business district phase one project. The cost of the brick paver or crosswalk for both projects is estimated to be $364,520. 233,520 is for phase one, which should begin 2223 and 131,000 for phase two east west gateway confirmed by email that removal of these non participatory items is permitted under the grant. And that the agreement can be executed in its current form with the items removed during design if desired. This means the decision on whether to include these items in the project can be made at a future date if the board would like. If brick paver crosswalks are decided to be removed from the project, staff will plan to retain a small quantity of these items to make any repairs needed to existing brick paver cross walks in the city. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission for the funding of the Central Business District Resurfacing Phase 2 project. And we have Matt Malek, our Director of Public Works here this evening. There was a map in the packet as well. I hope you all had a chance to take a look at that that shows all of the paver locations within the CBD. And as Mr. Malik had stated last time, this would, as it's currently written up with the brick paver crosswalks, replace all of the brick print asphalt crosswalks that we currently have in the CBD. So I will turn it over to you.

Very good. All right. Are there any hands up in the Zoom audience? No. Okay. Okay. So let's go around. Rich, any comments or questions here? Okay, Ira, thoughts, comments? Okay. Bridget?

Matt, can I just ask you, looking at the map, can you just remind me, I know we just talked about this a couple of weeks ago, but replacing the brick print here would pretty much complete a lot of the CBD. There was still a few intersections, right?

Correct. So between phase one and phase two, regardless of the decision to put in brick pavers or not, when these projects are complete, all the brick print will be gone. So the decision on whether we do brick pavers is kind of what's before us, but can be decided later since it's not in the grant. But yes, all the brick

But then in terms of completing the, I guess, streetscape with brick pavers in the downtown business district, do you have any idea how much, like once we do this, there will still be additional intersections that don't have the new brick pavers?

No, this project, if we were to carry out these two downtown CBD projects, phase one and phase two with installing the brick pavers, that would complete the downtown core.

Great. Over here, Alderman Buse, any questions? Becky, questions?

So just to clarify, there were is still remains a decision to be made about whether to use the brick pavers. And do we know when that's going to happen and who's making that decision? Like, is it our, we can make a decision and

I think we should make it tonight if we can. I feel like I know kind of what I'm thinking, but I'm, you know, I'll, I was going to kind of round off this

motion doesn't include whether to do brick pavers or not. It's authorizing the agreement, which can later be modified.

That's correct. We're just seeking direction on the pavers and then we can adjust during the design process if we want to take those out. But the motion this evening, the item in front of you is really approving that agreement

for the federal money. Thank you. Alderman Gary Feder, any thoughts?

for the federal money. Thank you. Alderman Fader, any thoughts?

I would go forward with the brick pavers. I don't think I fully understood until the last week or two, the difference between the brick print and the brick pavers, but I think having just walked from my house to call these and seeing how much of the streetscape already has this built-in brick appearance that it's totally consistent to continue that theme. And so I think to move away from the brick pavers would be a mistake. So if it, whether it's required or not tonight, I would not favor, I would, I would go forward with the brick pavers as is contemplated by this agreement.

So, yeah, I'll just sort of round this off. I, you know, last time we discussed these papers a lot and whether we wanted to make the investment. And I, I think at that time, some of the questions, at least some of my questions were, well, once we're done with this, are we, are we done installing it? Well, then how long will we last? Will they last? And will we keep on spending two or 300,000 every five to 10 years to replace them? And I think what I've learned in the meantime is no, this is kind of a, almost a one and done and maintaining them is not going to be really a big cost factor. So I think, you know, to the extent that we do have a streetscape that has been with us for a long time, it does set Clayton apart. It makes our downtown look better. And to that extent, I think that's why a lot of our residents and businesses want to be here, because we do these extra things. But this particular one, is not gonna go on costing money over and over again. So I too, I think I was the one that originally questioned doing them. And I think that we should, I think that we continue with these. And I think we might as well give that direction tonight as long as well as approving this, that works. Okay, it doesn't have to be in the motion to make that happen, does it?

Okay, so I'm a little confused. So the motion right now is that we do not make a decision on waivers or if we're doing it or not. The additional cost of the waiver

It occurs to me, right, that at some point this board made a decision about streetscape and guidelines that staff were to follow when doing public works on the street. And so the motion tonight, as I understand it, is to approve the agreement, the contract to move forward with this area under the existing streetscape. And if we want a separate motion to deviate from our established streetscape norms, then that would actually be like a separate motion in my mind. And to say to continue with the streetscape that's already been through a lot of review and approval would not require a motion.

I think that's just another way of saying it. You know, what I'm saying is that we don't So if we were to sit here and say, yeah, we want to change that aspect, then we would have to come back later with something perhaps. But at this point, I just wanted to express support for going ahead and maintaining our streetscape and approving this.

Okay. My understanding is that this motion says that we're going to go ahead with the funding and then we're going to this is really we're approving our contract agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. and the brick is paid for independently of that, whether or not that funding goes forward.

Correct. It's actually built into the agreement. So we're required to have a match. We have our own project expense that's in there. It's listed within the agreement. So within the agreement, if you start looking at the numbers, the brick pavers are in there. So it's approved this evening. It would approve the agreement with the brick pavers in it. What East-West Gateway has told us is go ahead and approve the agreement But if you decide you don't want to do the brick pavers at some point during the design process, you can remove it from the program. And as Alderwoman Patel had pointed out, probably the best course of action if the board did want to remove those would be a separate motion totally aside from the agreement to say we'd like to take the brick pavers out and then we would amend everything at that point in time.

So, for example, if we wanted to bring up whether or not it's a good idea when we have our budget upcoming budget conversations, we'd still have a way to do that.

East-West Gateway has indicated that we could pull the plug on the brick pavers. Yeah,

and we even asked about phase one, which this board's already approved the grant funding agreement on because it has a substantial amount of brick pavers and it's still under design, but we asked about that and that funding agreement is already approved, but we could still modify that one as well to pull it out because it was also listed as non-participatory when we put the grant together.

And the timeframe to modify it. I know it doesn't affect the agreement, but if the board decided. In order to

capture phase one, which is currently under design, you're probably going out to bid in the six to nine month window. And then phase two wouldn't be going out to bid for probably a couple of years, which is this agreement.

So we would have moved through our budget process. If somebody wants to talk about it again at that point. Okay. I think we've gone through all those details now. So thank you. All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6905, an ordinance to approve an agreement with MoDOT for the Central Business District resurfacing phase two project to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Number 6905, first reading. Coordinates providing for the approval and execution of a STP urban program agreement between the city of Clayton and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and actions related thereto.

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

I'll move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6905 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6905, an ordinance to approve an agreement with MoDOT for the Central Business District resurfacing phase two project to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 6905, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval and execution of an STP urban program agreement between the City of Clayton and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. And actions related thereto.

Alderman Lentz?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderaan Buse? Aye. Alderna Patel? Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderaan Buse? Aye. Alderna Patel? Aye. Aldermen Fader?

Aye.

Mayor Harris?

Aye. Thank you.

Okay, I think that concludes all of our business. And so I think we can go around and see if anybody has news or anything to share, starting with Mr. Lentz.

Yeah, we had both pension committees yesterday And the big news, other than the fact that we're struggling with this year's performance, as everybody is well aware, big news is that the committee approved the reduction in the target interest rate from 7% to 6.75% on the uniformed pension fund. What that does effectively is when you work through all the actuarial maturations, it probably will increase the cost to the city. It will increase the cost of the city. But I think the board felt it was the right thing to do based on the projections that ACG has given us for going forward and in fact, it really is better to get the money in now while the market's down anyway. And because of that, that was done in the morning, the afternoon meeting we had a bit of a conversation about what the other with the non-uniform pension board because of what the uniform did And there's, as you may all know, there's still not quite parity between the two pension benefits. So we may want to look at that as a total package at some point, including the interest rate issue. So that's really the only thing to report in that. It is pretty big. All right.

Alderman Berkowitz, anything to tell us?

Nothing significant at the last ARB meeting, so I don't really have anything to report.

All righty. Okay.

Bridget? No, nothing to report, but I just wanted to thank staff and Matt, whoever was instrumental in getting the dumpsters over at Shaw Park because I feel like there was a lot. They're really very filled up. So I think a lot of people really suffered in the flooding. So I think it's great that people are able to find a place to put wet mattresses and stuff like that. That was a good idea. Thanks a lot for getting that together.

I'm abused. Nope. I have a few things. We had a wonderful Oak Knoll musical night, a week or 10 days ago. The weather was wonderful. And it's always even better in Oak Knoll Park than it is anywhere else in the shade and the breeze. So that was really great. Um, thanks to, um, parks for doing that. Uh, the pillow is gone now. It was still sort of there, but it was all great. I mean, the staff had done a lot to get it ready. And even though the Okinawa project on project isn't complete, it looked, it looked really good and it was great. Um, we had a sustainability meeting and we talked about a few different topics, the ongoing discussion at ARB related to solar panels. That's ongoing, I think, and basically with staff or the ARB right now, right? And then we talked a little bit about waste collection and idling and the making sure that we communicate about, that we look to accurately assess and then communicate about the potential environmental impact of rear yard pickup as we consider that service. And then we've had some activity related to a Lights Out campaign, which has to do with Reducing outdoor lighting in May and September when birds are like in peak migration and outdoor lighting has been shown to negatively impact that and the bird population so. So I think we're likely to see a recommendation on that. In the next. next meeting or two. And then I do just want to take a minute to acknowledge that today is the anniversary of a really significant event in St. Louis, in our region. It was eight years ago today that Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson and that was a really significant event I think for our the people of St. Louis and St. Louis County for government and the way we think about policing and things like that. I know that we've done things in Clayton that have followed up on the reports and the awareness of that, you know, and it really jump-started a national conversation and movement and action. So I just want to acknowledge that today. Alderman Gary Feder.

I'm abused. Nope. I have a few things. We had a wonderful Oak Knoll musical night, a week or 10 days ago. The weather was wonderful. And it's always even better in Oak Knoll Park than it is anywhere else in the shade and the breeze. So that was really great. Um, thanks to, um, parks for doing that. Uh, the pillow is gone now. It was still sort of there, but it was all great. I mean, the staff had done a lot to get it ready. And even though the Okinawa project on project isn't complete, it looked, it looked really good and it was great. Um, we had a sustainability meeting and we talked about a few different topics, the ongoing discussion at ARB related to solar panels. That's ongoing, I think, and basically with staff or the ARB right now, right? And then we talked a little bit about waste collection and idling and the making sure that we communicate about, that we look to accurately assess and then communicate about the potential environmental impact of rear yard pickup as we consider that service. And then we've had some activity related to a Lights Out campaign, which has to do with Reducing outdoor lighting in May and September when birds are like in peak migration and outdoor lighting has been shown to negatively impact that and the bird population so. So I think we're likely to see a recommendation on that. In the next. next meeting or two. And then I do just want to take a minute to acknowledge that today is the anniversary of a really significant event in St. Louis, in our region. It was eight years ago today that Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson and that was a really significant event I think for our the people of St. Louis and St. Louis County for government and the way we think about policing and things like that. I know that we've done things in Clayton that have followed up on the reports and the awareness of that, you know, and it really jump-started a national conversation and movement and action. So I just want to acknowledge that today. Alderman Fader.

Apropos of Alderwoman Patel's comments, the Community Equity Commission is going to meet tomorrow at 5.30. We have some very interesting things on the topic, on the agenda. We have a couple of excellent new members. And I think the first time in two years, the meeting will in part be live. So the commission is going to be meeting here, even though it'll be a hybrid meeting. So I think particularly with new members, that will be very helpful to bring those people into the discussion. So that's at 5.30 tomorrow.

Becky, we had some new members join sustainability. Have they come? Carol? Carol

Klein attended our last meeting. Oh, great. Okay. Yeah. Good. And I'm going to meet with her in a week or two.

That's great.

Yep.

Wonderful. Okay. I don't have a lot. I do want to say that just to thank all of our staff, public works, fire, police, everybody, parks for getting us through this last rainy season, um, may not be over, but I mean, uh, the rain, the amount of water that came down was just, you know, really out, out of the ordinary is a 500 year rainfall, I think. And, um, I know that public works and everyone had to work really hard. Um, I did get a note from, um, uh, chief, um, my mind's going crazy. Chief Rhodes. Chief Rhodes, about some of the things they were doing. And they were involved in numerous water rescues, other rescues, including those 50 dogs on Hanley. And they did lead area command and also chief went down to, where did he go? He went somewhere.

Still in Eastern Kentucky with those floods. So he was deployed last week and he'll still be there through the end of this week. So we'll see him again on Monday.

Yeah. So just everybody really pulled out all the stops and the community really, really appreciates it. And I know we always set a great example for all the communities around us and that's something we are really proud of. So thank you. Also in the kudos department, Matt, thank you so much for hanging the flower baskets. I don't know if you all have noticed, but there are four flower baskets hanging from light posts right out here at Beemason and Forsyth, and these are at least in part paid for by Clayton Community Foundation donations. And so It's been a long haul getting them out there because of parts, but they're out there and they look glorious. So thanks for, even though you had all this other stuff on your plate, thank you for getting that done. Appreciate it so much. We hope to see many, many more. So I'll be encouraging everybody to sponsor one. Yeah. Okay. All right. That's all I have. And I think we can adjourn if we can have a motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All those in favor. I very good. Thanks all.