March 28, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

Welcome everybody to our March 28th meeting. Glad to see some faces out in the audience. We are going to start our discussion session now, and the topic is flock cameras. I see we have Chief here and maybe some others who are interested in the topic. So take it away. All

right.

Good evening. So tonight I want to talk about our license plate recognition cameras. We contract with a company named Flock Safety. But I wanted to give you an overview of these cameras, what they're capable of doing, and our strategy for deployment. And so we've got that. Oh, okay. That's all right. Very good. Not a problem. So I should have plenty of time for questions as well when I'm done talking here. So this first slide, we'll talk about the overview of the cameras. First, I want to note that the license plate technology has been around, been used by police departments for a while. In fact, we've had them for over 10 years on our police cars, mobile LPRs, LPRs for short. So we've had them on our police cars two of our police cars for over 10 years St. Louis City has deployed fixed LPRs since at least 2015. But then recently, in the last couple of years, a company named Flock Safety came to our region, and they offered full-service LPRs to police departments. There was a couple of big companies out there, Vigilon, Genetech. they would sell you cameras, uh, Salem city uses Genentech. They would sell you cameras through a distributor. And then it was on the, the city, the police department to figure out how to install the cameras, make the connection, the cell connections connect with our database and they're very labor intensive flock came in. They offered full service. They'd help plan, install the cameras, uh, make connections with the, uh, cell companies, uh, make the connection with the database. Uh, and then also they would, uh, conduct the maintenance and replacement of the cameras when needed. And so with flock coming in, a lot of municipalities in the St. Louis region have joined up right now in St. Louis County. There's at least 22. I counted 22 on the map today, but there might be more than that. Our neighbors are using flock safety as well. You have U City, Richmond Heights, Ledoux, Brentwood, Maplewood, Frontenac, just to name a few. But there's at least 22 in St. Louis county. There's a lot more out in St. Charles county as well. Flock Safety also offers their service to private organizations, neighborhood associations, businesses and schools. And I'll talk a little bit about that later in the presentation. And do I control

this, Andrew? You can move. OK,

perfect. So and by the way, I added a couple of pictures right there. That picture right there is a There's a light pole at Daman and North Roseberry, and you see the camera right in the center of the light pole. It's not very visible there, but I threw a couple of those in the presentation so you have an idea of what they look like. So how do these cameras work? The main function is they alert us in almost real time. to stolen cars coming through the area. The camera reads the license plate of a car. If it's stolen, it will notify our officers through text messages, the in-car computer or email and let us know it's a stolen car. It will also notify us for cars wanted for other crimes, other felonies. Just recently, twice in the last month, our officers were notified of vehicles involved in gun crimes in St. Louis City that are passing through Clayton. We're able to successfully stop those cars and turn over the suspects to St. Louis City Police. Embracing persons would be included in that as well. If you have a driver who may have dementia, a silver alert, we could be notified of that. Kidnappings, runaways. We can also customize alerts. So we've had a couple incidents where in organizations in town where somebody was banned from making threats, we can put that person's plate into the system. It'll notify us that that person's traveling through Clayton and let us know and then alerts our officers maybe we need to respond to that certain organization to make sure they're safe. Investigations, that's another important part of the FLOC system. The license plates are kept in a database for 30 days. So our officers and detectives will search the database after a crime occurs. And if we can narrow down a time of occurrence for the crime, we can narrow down possible suspects and their vehicles. We can also connect crimes to... vehicles to other crimes in other jurisdictions. I mentioned we have numerous police departments in the area using them, so we were able to search their database as well. And we can also receive notifications. So Richmond Heights has cameras close to us. Our officers can receive their notifications as well. So just in the last, since the beginning of 2022, we've received nearly 60 alerts for stolen cars coming through Clayton, 14 felony alerts. And of those nearly 70 alerts there, we've had 30 direct interdictions, meaning we've either made arrests or we tried to pull them over and they ran from us, they fleed from

us.

All right. So we get questions about the capabilities of the cameras. They are not used for traffic violations. People ask if we can use them for red light, like red light cameras or radar cameras for speeders. They take still photos. So for like a red light, you would need to have video of somebody run through a red light or stop sign. These are taking still photos. We can't use them for traffic violations. Again, they're still photos. We don't use them for surveillance, video surveillance either. and they do not provide facial recognition. These cameras are typically pointed at lanes of traffic, so we're not usually getting the photographs of people. And then when you are getting photographs of cars, it's usually the rear of cars. We're aiming them at the rear as cars leave the area. So we're getting the rear license plate. So you don't get opportunities to get the driver. Even when you do get the driver, a lot of times you're just seeing the torso and not their face. Other limitations. So they're not a perfect solution. We often have stolen cars coming through town that have not been reported stolen yet. They're freshly stolen. The owner may still be sleeping and they haven't figured out that their car is stolen, so they haven't reported to the police. A lot of times the car thieves, they get one stolen car, they're out for another one. So if the car hasn't been reported stolen, we're not going to get an alert on it. We started seeing a trend towards the end of last year where stolen cars are ripping the plates off and not even putting a stolen plate on it. So we were getting no alerts on those cars. These car thieves know that if we try to pull them over, we're typically not going to pursue them. So they would just run off. So that's another limitation that we saw starting to develop last year. And then... Where we deploy these cameras could be limited by the tree canopy. They're solar powered for the most part. So when we're trying to put them down in the DeMond Hillcrest neighborhood, you had to deal with a lot of buildings and trees. So we have to find places where it gets ample sunlight to power the cameras. They can connect to electricity, but sometimes that's often lacking or we don't have permission to use light poles to do that. So our strategy for deployment, we're looking at crime statistics, crime maps, direction of travel for fleeing vehicles. As I mentioned that often stolen cars are fleeing from us. We saw a sharp increase. In 2021, we had 75 vehicles flee from us. In 2022, we had 142, 89% increase. A lot of times they're fleeing on Hanley Road, Big Bend, Clayton Road. So we're looking at where they're coming from and where they're going in our deployment of these cameras. Also, we're looking at entry points to Clayton. So if we have an area of Clayton with a high volume of crime, we want to know where those entry points are, and that's where we're going to deploy the cameras.

Chief, if they're fleeing and we've got the other municipalities also with the cameras, are we alerting them and that they're heading towards that?

Sure. So with fleeing vehicles, our dispatch center will notify the next dispatch center. In fact, there's a channel they use called point to point. So the whole metro area is hearing that a fleeing vehicle is going in a certain direction. So all the

dispatch centers are hearing that. So right

here is to illustrate how we use crime maps. This is a crime map of 2021. These are car crimes, anything involved with cars, stolen cars, car break-ins, damaged vehicles, attempted car thefts. And you can see there's a high concentration off the MUN there. in the Dumont neighborhood. And that's not, that's not new. That's not unique to 2021. That's been going on since I've been a police officer here. What you have there is a high volume of cars, density of parked cars there and places to hide. You have cars parked in alleys and open carports. So we tend to see a lot more car break-ins down there. And then you see some spattering of car break-ins and car thefts in the Davis place and Moreland's neighborhood as well. So if you go to the next paragraph, sorry. So this map right here is actually car crimes in 2022. And in this one, I added our camera locations there. And you can see the cameras. They have the green camera symbol. If they have a yellow gold box around it, those are cameras that are paid for by private organizations. The ones that are enclosed in a red box, those are future deployments that we have planned. And you can see that we started deploying the cameras along Daman first in the Hillcrest neighborhood. That was a partnership with the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association after they had a carjacking in 2020. They were looking for a safety solution down there. So that was our first deployment. Hillcrest paid for one camera. City of Clayton paid for the other. As we tested it out, saw that it was useful, we started deploying them further down to Munn. In the Munn neighborhood, we had a lot of activity. We really wanted to get them on Clayton Road, the county roads, but that became difficult. The county had a lot of procedures to go through. The Department of Transportation, if you recall, it ended up back in December, we passed an ordinance allowing us to enter into agreement with FLOC to put a camera on a county road. So now we have them on Clayton road as well. You can also see we also put one on Westwood in the Morelands neighborhood to deal with the crime there. And there's one right at Francis Place and Brentwood trying to capture some of the activity going into Davis Place. We also see a lot of vehicles leaving the Galleria, Brentwood Promenade. They're fleeing north on Brentwood to the Forest Park Parkway. So it captures their place as well.

You said that the ones without boxes are planned?

So the ones, I'm sorry, the ones with red boxes around them, those are future locations. We're going to put two on Hanley Road, one at Hanley and Clayton, and one at Hanley by Colerina, two on Big Bend, one at Big Bend and Clayton near Walgreens, and the other one's going to be at our city border on Big Bend right across from Barshoe there. So what we're looking at right now, it's going to be difficult to put the cameras in place All the neighborhoods, like Davis Place alone I think has 14 entry points. To put one in every entry point in Davis Place would cost us $20,000, $30,000 a year. So what we're looking at is these cars are coming off the main thoroughfares like Hanley, Big Bend, and Clayton Road to capture that activity there. DeMunn's a unique location because it's off Skinker. You have a lot of side streets entering there. We have two in the DeMunn neighborhood, one at DeMunn and Northwood. The other one's at DeMunn in Alamo. You know, you could put four or five, but we figured out if we put in those two locations, most cars, because of the designs of the streets, would have to pass through those cameras that they're in my neighborhood coming off Skinker. And even with the flaw cameras, we did see a big increase in car thefts last year. You can see in 2021, we had 31 cars stolen in Clayton. In 2022, it's 61. So 97% increase. But those increases were seen throughout the whole country, but especially in our region. You can see Richmond Heights had over 100 last year in 2022 and Maplewood had 89. I feel like if we had based off of our interdictions with the flock cameras, we probably would have had a lot more. We probably prevent a lot more car thefts with the alerts that we received on the flock cameras. Back in December, I believe it was, we had a car traveling through the Hillcrest neighborhood that was stolen. One of our officers tried to pull it over. It took off from us. We weren't able to pursue it, but later we found out the car was just involved in a robbery in Washington Avenue in downtown St. Louis. So, you know, who knows what those people in that car could have done had they been in our neighborhood long enough. So we have private organizations using flock cameras. It started off with the Hillcrest neighborhood and then Southmore as well. And both Hillcrest and Southmore, those installations happened in response to crime incident. Told you about the hacking in 2020 in Hillcrest and south more back in August of 2022, we had one of our residents. It was Sunday at noon. He was flourished with a handgun, somebody trying to steal his car. So that prompted that discussion and they decided they wanted to deploy flock cameras. Concordia Seminary has two flock cameras. One is actually in the neighborhood. The other one's leading into their entrance into their campus. So alert to anybody trying to get into their campus. The other one is actually helping out. They have residents in that neighborhood. They have some apartment buildings, but it's also helping out the city as a whole. And I know we've had some discussions with Clavarack Park and the Brentmore subdivision about putting cameras in. So we don't go proactively recruit neighborhoods to add flock cameras. But when they come to us and ask us about solutions to crime, we present it as a possible solution. A lot of times they're hearing about it from other residents in neighborhoods in Clayton. So that's why these conversations start. Chief,

I just want to be clear that the... The neighborhoods and the seminary funded the cameras, but they're not involved in all in the administration collection of data response at all. That's completely within your...

That's correct. They essentially signed over the data, the alerts to us. So the residents, obviously the residents can't get these criminal justice alerts for stolen cars. That purely

comes to us. That's correct. So that's

a summary of how these cameras work and how we plan to deploy them in the future. Anybody have any questions?

I have one. So

they're pretty discreet, but at some point it seems like people who are repeat offenders might figure out where they are and avoid them. And I just wonder, is there Are they, can you reposition them? You know, can you move them around? Sure,

sure. So FLOC does for a small fee, they will move them for us. So one of the things we do, we analyze which cameras are actually getting hits. And you can see, you know, the one on Clayton Road gets the most hits. But if we see that one's not really benefiting us, maybe we can reposition that somewhere else.

Got a couple too. So you said that they're not used for traffic violations. Are they ever used for someone who hasn't? I guess that's the car for somebody who has an outstanding traffic violation or is it just all more serious crimes?

Yeah, it's all more serious crimes. We can actually select what type of crimes we want to be notified on. So I know that we can be notified. There's a lot of stolen plates out there. And it overwhelms our system of all stolen plates that come out there. And a lot of times, it's not the thief that has a stolen plate. It's the victim who had one plate stolen, but they left the other plate on there. So we're getting notified for victims driving through here. And so a lot of times we just click that off. We don't use that as notification. But yeah, we're looking at felonies, missing people, and stolen cars.

And the other question I had, and it's really impressive that you guys have integrated this and the communication between municipalities is great. When you presented to Clabrak Park, it was a great presentation. And what you explained to me afterwards was that what you all have in your plan is really enveloping and figuring out where the access points are and getting the information from those most strategically placed and what really is going to help you. And I'm wondering, as neighborhoods look at funding, putting them wherever, because people do get afraid and they want everything, is there any time it's too much that you're getting dinged all the time? And do you ever say, we got this, we've got the entry points here and here and here, and this is how we... best manage it or not?

No, we haven't got to that point yet. And as I said, if you leave it for the more serious crimes, if you put the alerts on for the stolen cars and the felonies, you probably won't get overwhelmed. When I had it on my system, I would get alerted every time a stolen plate came through town. It was pretty ridiculous. So you can refine that search and make sure that it's... You're not, you know, you don't want to have like desensitize our officers to the alerts that are coming through there. But we haven't gotten to that point yet. I think if, you know, we've been involved in the planning process for these organizations, especially Hillcrest. We had a lot of discussions with them on that. I would think we would try to put it in a place that's very strategic for that neighborhood and for our officers. Like I said, a lot of times it's limited. Our officers, they keep saying, hey, why can't we put them closer to St. Louis City, closer to the border as they're coming in? Because it's not necessarily real time. It's about 30 second delay on the alert. It buys us more time. The problem is We talked about that tree canopy. We got to find places that have solar, you know, they get sunlight. So that's one of the issues.

Yeah, and I think in that presentation, I think that for me at least, and I might've mispronounced it, what's most important is that if everybody understands that you do have that master strategic plan and then how these can play into that, but that you got this covered because when talking to you all, it's very impressive and it's being handled very well. And it's not the open beeping. There's not something at every corner but getting that message out that, yes, we do have a master plan for this and this is how you can fit into it.

And we discussed with Southmore, we told, we were on, we had a plan to put them on Big Bend. So they would get coverage from both those cameras in Big Bend. But I remember the one resident, he was like, you know, they wanted the specificity, right? Because if it hit their camera, they know that that car is in their neighborhood. So they wanted that.

And it's not South, not for that specific, that's kind of why I asked because sometimes people, are afraid and they want to be safe. And so right in, right in my, on my street and my corner is the best, but it's really not the best for how you all are operating and keeping that all under control. Yeah. These

discussions happen when there was a gun crime involved. We've seen this with the carjackings in 2017 in Davis place. We didn't have flock cameras back then, but in 2018, there was a case where a gun was flourished in the Carswell neighborhood that caused them to act. And they put, they put an L license plate reader camera on at their entrance, but it's not connected to a, uh, uh, a database and we didn't have that option back then but my point is that yeah whenever there's like some kind of alarming crime these discussions happen

and do you uh i was kind of surprised that does it has does wash you protect

so they have their own system and they're actually so they've had a system for a while too and they are looking to uh purchase a new system, find something because it's dated. But we use their system. There was a road rage incident, pretty serious incident in 2017, and their cameras helped us identify the suspect vehicle that drove onto their campus. So actually I was talking to Chief Koontz from Wash U. She actually started the real-time crime center in Salem City. She came from Salem City. So she's looking at adding cameras on Forsyth, which is our jurisdiction, which would help us. So we're working with them. They may use the flock system as well, but right now they use a different system.

Thank you. Chief, to the extent that we have a mix of private subdivisions and others that are just public, like Davis Place, how does that impact the availability of sort of working relationships as it relates to these kinds of cameras? Does it make it more difficult, for example, for Davis Place, which is large, has a lot of entry points? Yeah. Does that make it harder for Davis Place to somehow work some arrangement?

It would be. That's why I use that because, like I said, I think there's 14 entry points in Davis Place, and it would be difficult. And you see a lot of their activity off Merrimack, South Merrimack, but it would be difficult to put a couple cameras up and hope that they pass through there because I think along Brentwood alone, there's eight streets that feed into Davis Place. So that does make it difficult. That's why – using a broader approach, having a camera at Brentwood and Clayton, having one at Hanley and Clayton, and then the other ones on the other side of Hanley Road at our city border there. That's going to give us some coverage there. If people are coming into Davis Place, at least they're passing through those cameras at those points.

And Chief, did you say, I mean, our surrounding municipalities in the county are using FLOC. Is the city of St. Louis using FLOC?

So they use Genetech. So they've had a system for about since 2015. They are actually, they just put a bid out and a flock bid on it. So we don't get direct alerts from St. Louis City. However, if something did pass through and it's coming our direction, their dispatchers can notify our dispatchers. And we do have access to their database. we could, if we needed

real time is a little delayed, I guess.

Right. Yeah, there is delayed. Um, but we've had incidents that we know that the car that was involved in a crime in Clayton went through a certain location, Salem city, and we were able to use their, their information to connect a, uh, connect the crime. We had an interesting case. One of our detectives, um, this is actually in St. Charles, but, um, the stolen car and Clayton was hitting out in St. Neil Fallon area. So the detective went to where it hits the flock camera, where it hit, there's a gas station there just by happenstance. He went to the gas station and asked if, uh, if by chance this car pulled up and it did, and then the suspects got out and we got video, face video of these suspects as they got out of the car. So you can usually connect the dots that way as well.

Yeah. Okay, cool. Oh, very good. Nice

presentation. Since there's a trend, as you mentioned, of these people ripping the license plates off, and I don't know how serious that trend is but it certainly sounds like they're getting smarter about the flock cameras um does flock have any ideas on a solution to that well so they can't

um we can search cars now for a investigative purpose we can search by make and model um but you're not gonna be able to do an alert say hey because you know it's um Those are, we're searching for specific crimes, a specific location and time and dates. So I don't know there's a solution to that. Now that's only happened a handful of times. It happened, one was prolific. We had a stolen Mercedes Benz that was driving through Clayton in the mid-county area for three days straight and constantly getting chased off by the police and they had no plate on it. So I don' know how prevalent that trend is going to be going forward, but I don't know if there's a solution One of the things, these leases are two years. And I don't know if you want to get too far into the lease because the technology is changing rapidly and the criminals adapt too. So we'll see what happens in the future.

Very good. Thanks. All right. Where's Ira? We have like two minutes until it's time. We can just... Hang around until then because somebody else might want to come. Okay. Welcome

everybody to our March 28 Board of Aldermen meeting, City of Clayton, and welcome to all the faces there, the folks that are out in the audience. It's great to see actual people out here. Attendance is growing over time. People are starting to come, which is great. If we could call the roll.

Alderman Lentz.

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew.

Here.

Aldermen Buse. Here. Aldemann Patel. Here. Aldeman Gary Feder. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

Aldermen Buse. Here. Aldemann Patel. Here. Aldeman Fader. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe. Here. Thank you.

All right. Now is the time in our agenda when I ask for public requests and petitions from the audience, either in person or on Zoom. If there's anyone here that wants to talk about something that's not on our agenda tonight, now is your chance. So yes, you can come up. You have to come up to the podium, turn on the mic,

state your name and your address for the record. Oh,

my name is Dan Klauber And I live at 7715 Country Club Court in Clayton. And I'm here to talk about something that I think you're going to discuss this evening in a sense, but I believe you're addressing the commercial aspect of it. And I've got an issue with the residential side, which is marijuana and the recent legalization. So I think this is gonna be more of an issue for you guys than you perhaps ever knew. It has turned into more of an issue than I ever could have imagined. I was born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, and I will admit to an extent, not under oath, but I have partaken in my fair share of festivities over the years. So perhaps what I'm going through now as karma, I don't know, but I never expected this to happen. And I wasn't particularly opposed to the legalization of weed or whatever you want to call it. And I'm not some far out kook who I'm just a normal person who I bought my house. It's been about 600,000 when I bought it and I probably put 500,000 or more into it. well over a million dollars. As you know, unfortunately, you don't get much in Clayton anymore for a million dollars. It's always been a wonderful historic neighborhood with wonderful neighbors. I've never had any problem. The police officers are great. The city has typically been great, you know, and I've enjoyed living there with my wife and our family. There's children in the neighborhood. There's everything you could want, but... Last year, my neighbor, my next door neighbor who bought his house several years ago decided that he was going to take it upon himself. He had a marijuana card and he decided that he was gonna take it upon himself and plant marijuana trees and start growing marijuana on the top of his garage. And I remember as it all came down, as I said, I'm from Boulder and I kind of was a little bit amused. I think many of my neighbors were upset about it. It probably didn't bother me that much. And I didn't think, well, it's just not going to be that much of a deal. And anyhow, so we started it. Well, the reality and the experience that I went through, if you have other residents of Clayton who go through the same thing, you're going to end up with an awful lot of unhappy people here. It turned out that we had people coming in. at all hours of the night to take care of the plants and water them and set up the facilities. And by the way, this house that we're talking about is literally destroyed. He went in and the building department needs to condemn the house because he went in and he's knocked out the plaster. There are exposed walls, there's exposed wiring. It is a complete and total disaster. You can see it. It's open from my house. I've seen it. I'll testify to it, whatever. And I understand, by the way, that there's only so much that the city of Clayton can do with regard to something that is now legal in the state of Missouri. So I am an attorney. I've been an attorney for 30 years, and I'm going to give you my suggestions and my thoughts on this matter. But it has been a huge nightmare to me. The guy told me last year, he said, I want to be a good neighbor. And if you don't like it, I would stop. And I didn't immediately ask him to stop because I was foolish. I didn't realize it. Far and away, the worst part of any of this is the unbelievable noxious odor that emanates from six full grown, which you can grow. I mean, it is unbelievable, folks. I couldn't use my deck anymore when my wife and I walked out to our cars. It was offensive when you walked to throw away your garbage in the alley. It was offensive. It offended our neighbors. Anyone who walked by, you cannot believe the stench of, I mean, again, there are six big trees, okay? But still, you have no idea and I had no idea. And frankly, I did at that point. I asked him to shut it down, but it was too late. And he said, well, I'll finish it up and I won't do it again. Okay. I mean, we lived through it, whatever. And then just recently, I guess it's been either this week or last week, I noticed that my neighbor had had someone over without a permit again, as far as I know, doing electrical work and setting up a grow shop in the basement this time. Well, I guess that's better. And that's one of the suggestions I'm going to make. I think Clayton, my understanding is you can pass reasonable zoning laws and number one suggestion I would have, I've got four of them. The number one is anytime anyone grows anything, it should be completely enclosed, including a roof. Okay. Okay. The first time I went through this, there was no roof on the facility. And again, the stench is unbelievable and you can still see it through cracks, through different ways. And I just think, again, I can't imagine that the city doesn't have the ability to require that someone who's gonna be growing and cultivating marijuana has a roof on whatever. It's supposed to be locked and secure. So I think that's incredibly reasonable. The second thing is that the hours should be limited as far as maintenance and cultivation just to reasonable business hours. What, eight to six? What are the hours of normal construction here in Clayton? It should be limited to that type of thing. I literally had people coming over at two, three in the morning. They're very loud. They're very obnoxious. And I get they're just out there having fun and they're doing their thing. And I guess their lifestyle is such that that's what they want to do. But it's just astounding. I think the third thing, and I'm asking you guys for help with respect to this, the address is 7711 Country Club Court in Clayton. That's the house I'm talking about. It needs to be looked at by the building inspectors, and I mean tomorrow, okay? You can see and you can go on my property. I give you permission. You can see this house is clearly not habitable. It doesn't have a kitchen. I may have functioning plumbing. It may not, I don't know. And there's obviously been electrical work done. At least I think there has been in the basement to establish these grow lights, which you can see he put paper over the windows, but you can see through at night when he turns them on and you look, you see the pink, whatever. And again, the final thing is that I think, and I think you have the power and authority to do this. Can you not require that anyone who's going to grow marijuana be required to put in an incredibly efficient and effective filtration system so that, you know, the people who are living nearby the neighbors don't have to smell that stench. I mean, and I'm not talking about the stench from smoking it, although that's offensive and that happens too. talking about the stench from the plants so i guess that's kind of a question is there any reason that you guys can't you know do something about this and pass reasonable zoning requirements this is this is something that's going to happen folks you're going to see it i'm probably not the only one

we really appreciate your sharing your story with us because it is very informative and I'm going to ask the city manager or city attorney to address your question just briefly. It's something we would have to look into. Yeah.

As you stated tonight, we have the zoning amendments that align with Amendment 3 on the agenda. We're currently in the process of working on the offenses section of the Code of Ordinances. Our plan is to take that to the Board of Aldermen in April, and so that's where some of these things may be addressed. We're going to have to go through, and again, we're in that process right now, taking a look at the offenses section the way it's written, seeing how far we can go under Amendment 3, and these are some of the other things we'll take a look at. So I've written these down and made a list. I know the attorney has as well. So we'll have that conversation and see exactly what we can and can't do under this amendment. If you've read the amendment, cover to cover, there's a lot in there. And as far as the restrictions you can put in place, we're somewhat limited. So we're feeling out those boundaries and see exactly what this will look like. So more to come on that.

Can I ask, are you saying that he's running this as a business?

No, I want to be real clear about that. I don't know. I don't have for personal use as much as he apparently, as he grew last year. I mean, we're talking an unbelievable six plants is a lot, guys. Again, you're going to be dealing with

this. So six is what's permitted by state law. Now, you do have to get a license through the state for the home cultivation, whether or not that license was obtained or acquired, I don't know. But six plants is something that's legally permissible. For

medical, yeah, that's... And then you can have six smaller ones. It's

six flowering plants, so you can have more plants that aren't flowering. Yeah, you can have less that

aren't. So theoretically, you could have more. But I mean, I would... I mean, Mr. O'Keefe, can you... give me any help at all that zoning offers any kind of remedy to this? I don't

think the zoning regulations are going to offer you any remediation from the concerns that you have. I would indicate one thing, neither the constitutional amendment nor any of the ordinances we enact To regulate to the extent allowed. Trump, any private right of cause of action you may have for maintaining a nuisance.

Right. And I've thought about that. And that's probably my, I mean, absent opinion. Yeah, I mean, there's something in the code about odors. I believe it's in Section 220, if I'm not mistaken. We have a public nuisance.

Yeah. But a private cause of action in terms of impacting you and interfering with your use and enjoyment of your home. And obviously, I think you're going to have to wait and see what you experience with the new circumstances. And regarding inspection of the house, I'm sure we'll follow up on that later. and you may be hearing from folks. And as having read the amendment, as you indicate, the goal was to see to it that local governments did not impede the rights established under Amendment 3. So we are constrained in many ways, but traditional concerns like your nuisance claim and like others of that ilk we do not intend to interfere with those rights.

Yeah, I think that's unfortunate for the citizens of Clayton because they shouldn't have to resort. I mean, I can do it myself.

Well, I might add from that perspective, it's unfortunate for citizens of Missouri. Clayton is in no different position. No,

you're right. I mean, it's everywhere and I think sometimes people didn't, they didn't necessarily. What about Is there anything about if the home isn't even habitable? I mean, this house is in unbelievable condition.

That's another analysis we may

have to take a look at. It's a private residence. You know, there is language in the statute. So anyhow, I don't want to take your time up, but I would just encourage you to the extent that it is possible to regulate this as carefully as you can and to think about these things. I do not believe for a second that I'm going to be the only one who's going to be addressed with this. I mean, I tried to talk to him as I normally would neighbor to neighbor in a friendly, decent way. And of course that went nowhere and you know, you're left with this and then you're left with filing an actual cause of action against your neighbor, which isn't something that most people look forward to doing. So anyhow, Gary, you've helped me. I appreciate it. I appreciate your time. If there's any questions.

I did want to add, so Dan and I talked about this yesterday and, you know, I think what through staff it looked like, you know, there wasn't a lot we could do, but when Dan indicated some interest in coming here tonight and talking about it. I strongly encouraged him because I thought the whole board should be aware of this and that both not only because of the marijuana issue, because it is also this recurrent issue about people who seem to start renovating a piece of property and then just go away and having torn it up, leave it in decrepit situations. And this is not unique. We have a number of these properties around the city and somehow we need to come to grips with it.

I think this particular property has had some issues with building permits in the past and I think it is literally fair to say it has been two or three years that I have been living with it like that and again I don't like to bother people and as long he kept the outside okay and I was okay with it but I mean it's it's just it's been vacant for for that long and You know, that's a whole separate issue. All right.

Well, we thank you very much, really. And we'll look into all of those issues you brought up. Yeah.

If you have any questions, my number is 314-517-5840. Name's Dan Fowler. And I'm happy to talk to him.

You've got his email.

Okay.

Okay. Okay,

take care.

Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. We still have Time for more public requests. Yep, come on up. Oh, and I do have a hand up on screen. I see that, I'll get to that. Oh yeah, no, come on up, I'm sorry. But Peter, I know you've got your hand up on the screen. We'll get you. Okay, go right ahead.

My name is Elizabeth and I live on Brighton Way and Ms. Frazier has all of my specific information. I'm here today because I wanted to know this previous gentleman, what he was talking about fits right in with my concerns is that I do not see a vision from your office mayor about what you see for Clayton to be in the future, in the future that you would like to see it. I went to the state of the city um, event. And it was lovely that you acknowledged the work of the police department and the fire department. It was great, but I heard nothing about what you expected to see how you expected to see Clayton as you went on during your, uh, tenure and to where you wanted it to go. And, uh, the two things that I've heard since I've been coming to these meetings, a lot of them is that you do want us to be the new downtown. And I have heard you say those words twice. And I don't, yes. And I am not exactly excited about the idea of Clayton being the new downtown. I think of downtown as being streets that are empty and lined with 25 and 30 story buildings where the sun only shines on the sidewalk at high noon. And that there are no small businesses like you were saying at the state of the city meeting that you wanted to have more small businesses come into town, that with a lot of the growth that we're doing, that would bring more people into Clayton and therefore more businesses would come in. The problem with this is that the type of growth you have is not conducive to having small businesses have any place to come to in Clayton. I drove through five different municipalities in the last three days looking and some of them are on Manchester and their streets are lined with small businesses independent businesses but their streets are also not lined with 20-story and 30-story buildings right up on the sidewalk and that's what we're starting to see with the um um world news building that's going to be built that's a 26-story building that will be right on the sidewalk and so that and and the fact of having growers in the city of clayton in the environments of clayton those are things that i'd like to know where the um where you stand what you're looking for and how you expect to get there, how you expect to help the city to get to the vision you have for Clayton. And I think that everybody who's a citizen of Clayton would like to know what that vision is and how you're doing with it. And maybe we'll get some more specific information between now and the next state of the city about what you're trying to do and how successful you're being.

all right well i thank you for your comments and i'm i'm always really thrilled when somebody wants to know what we think about the future of clayton um because quite frankly most people just kind of go along and they don't really think about that but it does take a lot of care and planning um and you know first i would like to address this briefly and but i want to tell you that um We can, I'm happy to have coffee with you anytime and go into great detail on a lot of the specifics that you mentioned tonight. But the first thing to say is the vision for Clayton is not my vision necessarily. I mean, I hope I agree with it, but I have one vote on this board. This board sets the vision, not just me. And our city manager has some input too. And so I think that's the first thing to understand. And so- I forgot where you said you lived. Where did you say you lived? I live on Brighton Way. On Brighton Way. So you have your two aldermen here, Bridget and Gary, and you should go to their coffees if you don't and ask them the same questions because they too have ideas and visions for the future of Clayton and particularly downtown, most of which is in their ward. I think in general, Just to say that, you know, it's true that the basics are our job one, public safety and financial security. Those are job one. Those are the most important things that we are stewards of. Beyond that, I think what we're trying to do here is create a great quality of life. And a lot of things fall under that. We've got 11 parks that we maintain. We're trying to be more welcoming and diverse. We've got our equity commission folks sitting here tonight to talk about that. You know, we... We are trying to balance the beautiful neighborhoods with sort of the bustling central business district. And yes, there are tall buildings. Many of those have been there since before I was mayor, but more are coming. And part of the strategy, I think you mentioned, which is to provide a better market for those businesses, small or big retailers, with more people living in downtown and the way to do that in downtown is multifamily. And that's what you're seeing going up in various parts of downtown. We only have the one new office project and, and that, you know, that's that, but I don't think we'll see any more office for a long time. So that's just the basic stuff. I have a lot more ideas and goals for Clayton that some of which I've shared, some of which probably I haven't shared yet. And presumably we can all come together for what would be a shared vision of Clayton. And if we're not communicating it well, Andrea is going to help me with that.

Mayor, you might mention that we do have a master planning process.

Oh, that's a good idea. Well, oh, right. So we, good. Thank you, Rich. We are about to embark on a comprehensive plan for the whole city. And I know I talked about that at the state of the city. And so we will be involving the community in that. And so I hope that you'll listen and look for those opportunities because we would welcome any thoughts that anyone has about the future of Clayton. I mean, after all, you know, we're here representing you and want to do, you know, want to provide the quality of life that people that live here and work here

would like to see. Thank you. I already signed up or send in my application to be on one of the commissions or on the boards. Thank you very much.

You are welcome. Okay. Thank you, Rich, for that very helpful. Anymore? Oh, we have somebody online. Okay. Peter, would you like to talk about something not on our agenda tonight?

I was going to speak about the medical or the marijuana ordinance. which is on the agenda.

So why don't you, if you don't mind, would you wait until we know it'll be very soon. And then I see that Alex has his hand up, but Alex, do you want to talk about something that's not on the agenda or no,

on the agenda? Sorry.

Okay. All right. Very good. I think with that, we can begin with the public hearing for marijuana.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing to consider amending multiple sections of Chapter 405 zoning regulations and Chapter 410 overlay in urban design zoning districts to address the recently approved constitutional amendment to Article 14 of the Missouri Constitution. In November of 2018, Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment to allow cultivation, production, transportation, and sale of marijuana for medical purposes. Shortly following the adoption of the state regulations, the city adopted local medical marijuana regulations in June of 2019. The local regulations included provisions for the location of medical marijuana facilities, operational standards, and permitting licensing requirements. In November of 2022, Missouri voters passed another constitutional amendment to Article 14 of the Constitution to allow cultivation, sale, and use of marijuana for recreational purposes. In an effort to align the city's local regulations with the Missouri Constitution, staff completed an audit of the existing local regulations and is recommending a series of amendments. The existing regulations clearly reference medical marijuana, and do not address cultivation, production or sale of marijuana for recreational purposes. To align with the Missouri Constitution, the majority of the changes proposed by staff are removing the term medical to allow the regulations to apply to both medical and recreational marijuana. In addition, the definitions and buffer location requirements are updated to conform with the state calculations. Currently, there are marijuana uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the C2, HDC, and S1 zoning districts. The city has many overlay districts, some of which restrict the allowed uses from the base zoning district. The Northeast Downtown Overlay District, which is a large section of the Central Business District and the Clayton Road Urban Design District, both restrict uses by containing their own allowed use sections, which supersede the base zoning. Based on review of location regulations, existing land use patterns, and past inquiries from interested businesses, the areas of the Northeast Downtown Overlay and the Clayton road urban design district could be ideal locations for a marijuana dispensary. The current regulations would prohibit a dispensary in those locations, and therefore staff has recommended modifying the allowed uses. The plan commission considered this request at its meeting on March 6th and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve the amendment as proposed.

And I forgot to request proof of publication.

Thank you. And we do have Anna Krane, our Director of Planning and Development Services, joining us online this evening.

Thank you. And we do have Ana Crane, our Director of Planning and Development Services, joining us online this evening.

Okay, I'll just

let our audience member comment first. Is it Peter? Peter, now's the time. Well, maybe. Okay, well,

there he is. He's got his hand up now. Peter, now's a good time for you to make your comment.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, this is Peter Markowski. I'm Associate General Counsel for Graybar Electric at 34 North Merrimack Avenue, where we have been for over 40 years. I was surprised to see that, in fact, the northeast downtown overlay, which includes Graybar, is being considered for this. And I'm curious whether any notice went out to any property owners in that area.

I'm going to let the city manager address that.

Notices did not go out for this as it's a text amendment that's applied

citywide. Okay. Was there any polling or any other information gathering from property owners in that area? No, sir, there was not. Just for the record, Graybar is opposed to this amendment. We don't see any need why we would want Graybar or the city of Clayton, frankly. to have this type of business in the Northeast downtown overlay district, which is clearly a business area. See no reason or good explanation for why this would be expanded into that area and can only imagine how it would affect the property values and the safety of those that go and come and go to businesses within that area, the hotels in that area, the restaurants in that area. And for that reason, Graybar opposes.

Okay, well, we appreciate

your input. And do you want to give any background on why certain areas are a fit and others aren't?

So again, we made that change based on inquiries that we've received in the past, and then looking at just where are our business areas in the city, what... what areas would meet the requirements. For instance, Graybar is within 500 feet of St. Joseph's Church. So that particular site or at least 500 feet around that church, you couldn't have a dispensary, but there's areas within the Northeast downtown district overlay that are far enough away, for instance, to potentially open a dispensary. We were just looking to open up areas where we've received inquiries in the past.

And David, if you can just, Peter, I appreciate your comments, but we are required by state law to allow dispensaries in Clayton. So it's not as if, I mean, again, we haven't gotten any applications, but we cannot outlaw medical marijuana or any sort of marijuana dispensaries in or we will be in trouble with the state of Missouri.

Well, I understand that. And I also understand how zoning works. So I do appreciate the concerns.

So I want to add, I asked the same question of David yesterday, why these two areas? And so my understanding is, I think it follows up on Bridget's point, is that we're required to, by state law, to at least have some areas designated where at least this type of use is a possibility. Not necessarily that it's likely, but it's a possibility. And so that the purpose of identifying these areas is to take them out of the category in which they are absolutely barred and convert them to an area where at least it would be a possibility, but it's still, you know, we're still subject to conditional use permit procedures. And there obviously would be, it seems to me lots of issues about parking availability of parking traffic impact. A lot of things that as this, as a potential applicant work through the process, they might find it extremely difficult to get Clayton's approval in either of the areas that are identified. So this is not, city saying come on down this looks great it's just saying we're not absolutely barring you everywhere in the city and here are a couple areas where at least it might be possible and i think that's all it's saying at this point i believe

but you had something

I guess I'm confused, or I guess I'm asking the question of perhaps of our counselor. Are we required to allow these uses, or do we still have the ability to do our own zoning and restrict certain types of businesses within certain areas?

We are entitled to establish an enforcement zoning regulations. But those zoning regulations cannot bar the vending of marijuana in accord with the constitutional amendment, in accord with lawfully enacted zoning regulations. So we cannot not make allowance for the activity as a permitted use either conditionally or, uh, permitted of right under our zoning ordinance in some one or more places. Uh, so yeah, our, our ability to say thou shalt not vend marijuana does not exist under state law and under the amendment approved by the voters of Missouri last November. Um, and with respect to the locations chosen and I can defer to Ms. Crane and the city manager, but, um, These businesses will be subject to the same standards as any other business if they choose to locate at a given location. Indeed, traffic impacts, adequate parking, operation in a safe manner, all of those requirements that are applicable to Joe's widget store are applicable to a store that wants to vend marijuana.

I have a quick question. So I'm thinking of John's Pipe Shop. I don't know if anybody ever walks by there. But Is there any regulation, will there be one that we can include about letting the smell out?

Again, we have performance standards under the zoning ordinance. But we are also looking to craft appropriate, and we have a smoking regulation, which we're going to extend to marijuana so that folks who want to smoke marijuana are subject to at least the same constraints as folks who choose to smoke tobacco. that'll be part of the regulatory scheme that's coming on. But with respect to the zoning standards, again, this business is to be treated as any other business. And that is the intent of these amendments.

Thank you. Alex, you have your hand up. Did you want

to comment on the marijuana ordinance? Alex? Alex has nothing to answer. Yeah. Oh, okay. His hand went down.

No, his hand is up. You just switched them around. Sorry. Alex, would you like to

comment on the marijuana ordinance? Now's your time. I would not. I would not comment on the

marijuana.

Okay. All right. Then Only put your hand up when we're on a topic you want to talk about, okay?

I'll do the best I can, Mayor. Okay.

We won't forget you. All right. Okay. Can I ask something? Yes.

Yeah. So would it be a problem to delay this to give notice and input from the businesses in the area?

So for

a text amendment, we typically don't send out notices. If we were to send a notification, I think we would probably need to send it to every qualifying property in the city if we were to send it to one. So that would be an extensive list outside of just the downtown area, but it would be all of the commercial areas on Clayton Road and DeMond everywhere

else. And within 185 to 200 feet of the perimeters.

Correct, the property owners outside

of those. Of all those districts. We are required to provide notice when we are talking about a specific site.

Yeah, I understand. I just wondered because I heard what he said that, and I understand that this is quite, it's a new business for us, right? The other question I had is, is something that, should be considered within our comprehensive planning? Or do you think it's outside of that?

I think we need to make adjustments now to make sure that we're aligned with Amendment 3. So right now, we're not aligned with

it. We are not in alignment with Amendment 3. It does not have to be enacted tonight, certainly. And if it took a meeting or two, I don't think we're likely to put the town at risk. But we are not in conformity with the Constitution at the moment, and waiting for the comprehensive plan to be finalized would not be a time frame that I would

recommend the city adopt for this.

You do have the option as a board to pull out those specific areas if

Yeah, the Planning Commission has reviewed it and provided their recommendation with respect to adopting the authorization for these areas. You are free to amend that if you wish, if you don't think one or more of the locations. You can't remove all of them, but if there is one or something that you don't think appropriate, you can certainly amend that.

Well, yeah. And I don't have the expertise to substitute my judgment for theirs if we're required to do these certain areas. So that's helpful to know that this is what we're required to provide amount of space. And this is where the planning commission has found it most. Yeah. And

again, this really came about adding those two additional areas. So those currently do not allow, we don't allow medical marijuana dispensaries and the Northeast overlay, which is a portion of downtown. And then that Clayton road urban design district, which is on Clayton road from big bend to the city limits basically. So that, that commercial stretch there, most of the inquiries we've had have been in those two particular areas. So we do have other commercial areas that qualify, but that's where all the interest has been. So those were the only two modifications we made at that point in time. So I just,

I might add that unlike some, provisions of state law, which say thou shalt make allowance for this. The drafters of Amendment 3 and the voters who approved it adopted very specific standards that are unlike state mandates for a lot of other land uses, including the fact that local governments cannot enact regulations which unreasonably impede investment-backed expectations of those who choose to involve themselves in this enterprise. That is a unique standard for land use that is unlike any standard involved in almost any other land use where the state says thou shalt not interfere.

So We're all grappling with that.

So if we have a traffic or something, some other standard that we're currently enacting and it's not working well for this business, I guess we're figuring out what unreasonably impedance

as well. All right. If there are no further

questions from the board or the audience, I will close the public hearing. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6961 to approve an amendment to Chapter 405 and Chapter 410 related to marijuana facilities to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6961, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 405 zoning regulations and Chapter 410 overlay in urban design zoning districts related to marijuana uses.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6961 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

Somebody call my name out. I thought I heard somebody say mayor. No, okay. I'm sorry. All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed. All right. Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6961 to approve an amendment to Chapter 405 and Chapter 410 related to marijuana facilities to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 6961, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending Chapter 405 zoning regulations and Chapter 410 overlay and urban design zoning districts related to marijuana uses.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

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

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldo woman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right. All right, I will now open the public hearing for 7730 Bonham the Hertz rental car business and request proof of publication.

Yes, this is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted by Heather Mosher of the Hertz Corporation to allow for the operation of a 450 square foot rental car office and parking. Hertz will be open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The rental car agency will operate out of the Limeridian Hotel, utilizing an existing vestibule adjacent to the parking entrance for office purposes and parking vehicles in assigned spaces within the garage. Hertz intends to cater to a combination of local and out-of-town customers. The hotel is surrounded by office, retail, and restaurant uses which are compatible with the rental car use. Hertz has reached an agreement with the property owner for 30 dedicated parking spaces for parking of rental vehicles. The use of existing parking garage will benefit the operation of the rental car agency as well as the public by providing an area out of the right-of-way for rental operations. The plan commission considered this request at its meeting on March 20th and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve a conditional use permit for the operation of Hertz at located at 7730 Bonham Avenue, per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

Good. Any questions or comments from the audience on this one? All right. And I'll just go around in order of seniority. Any questions?

Ira, any questions, comments here? Nope. Bridget? Okay.

All right. Very good. I can close the public hearing and Alderman Lentz.

Move to approve resolution 2023-11, granting a conditionally used permit to Hertz Rental Car Agency located at 7730 Bonham.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. The consent agenda, Mr.

City Manager.

Just one item on there tonight, which is the minutes.

Okay. All right. So we, let's see. So I know there's not any discussion, right? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve the consent agenda with the one item listed.

Second. Any discussion? Clerk, want to call the roll? All right. Alderman Lents. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz aye Alderwoman McAndrew aye Alderwoman Buse aye Alderwoman Patel aye Alderman Gary Feder aye Mayor Harris aye

Alderman Berkowitz aye Alderwoman McAndrew aye Alderwoman Buse aye Alderwoman Patel aye Alderman Fader aye Mayor Harris aye

all right now we come into the exciting part of the meeting um it's time once a year we get a report from some of our boards and commissions and uh tonight is the night for the Equity Commission to shine. We have, you know, watched you guys work so hard for a couple of years now. Maybe you'll tell me exactly how long it's been. How long has it been to you now? Go on and okay. So yeah, so we appreciate your time and effort very much. And we are very excited

to hear your annual report. Thank you very much.

I'm Ben Uchitel. I have the honor of chairing the Community Equity Commission. And I would just quote from the bill number 6759, which created the CEC, the Community Equity Commission, it was established to provide the mayor and the Board of Aldermen with insight and guidance on matters of equity, diversity, and inclusion. When those were passed a few years ago, everybody seemed to be in favor of it. We seem to be going around our nation, running into opposition and problems. But I think we can be proud of what Clayton is doing in the way of facilitating and working on being a better community in every way. The report that we prepared, you all have it so I won't go into any details, but I would just highlight a couple of things perhaps. We continue a tradition, monthly tradition of reflections on various aspects. For example, Black History Month, Women's Rights Month, Gay Pride Month. It's something that is pretty good and you might want to consider something along that line in the future on a monthly basis. One of our big accomplishments in 2022 was the ridding of all indentures, all our subdivision indentures that contain racially restrictive provisions. And I think our community can be proud as being the first one who has done that in the area. Took a lot of doing and not only on a subdivision basis but also the Board of Aldermen, you passed an ordinance that made it very clear that this is no longer even considered. No longer even considered. And we worked on a faith-based membership, faith-based meeting. We considered that. We had a meeting where we're working with the various faith-based organizations to further their efforts in this regard. We're sort of a facilitator and try to be a facilitator in these areas. Affordable housing, boy, that's a tough one, but it's something that we'll continue to work on in many different ways. We had a meeting just yesterday to consider these aspects. And by the way, I want to do a shout out for Susan and Gary who are automatic liaison on the CEC. So I won't belabor it anymore other than to say we're moving forward. It's something that Clayton should really be proud of because it's an aspect that it's hard, takes ongoing effort. We talk about ourselves as being a welcoming community. Is it really? We hope it is. And to the extent it is not, We want to work to make it so. So I'll thank you for that, and if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

Well, I'll just go around. Rich, any questions for Ben or the group? I wrote any questions, comments.

No, I, well, um, yeah, thank you all of you. I mean, it's been, um, a short time that you've been in existence and from what I see and hear from the membership and its recommendations and the times you've interacted with the board, it has been enlightening. Uh, it is clear that this is a very hardworking commission. And they really know what they're doing. I mean, they have expertise in many areas that we all appreciate. So I'm thrilled we started it. Mayor, I'm thrilled that you were very much a part of making sure this would happen. uh and so i'd like to just thank all of the members for all their long hours hard work research uh and it's a it's a commission that this city should be very very proud of um i think going forward i i guess uh you know ben i hate to throw any more on your shoulders but I would like to see us do a little more proactive kinds of things in terms of that welcomeness that we talked about. You know, whether we are welcome, well, a welcoming community or not, as you say, some would say yes and some would say maybe not. But I think there's things to address in that area, ways that maybe we could actually be a little more proactive in creating more ways that we can clearly be and clearly visible as a welcoming community for equity and inclusion. So just one more thing to put on your agenda and all the hard work you've all done already. Thank you. Just to say thank you very much for your service.

Bridget.

Ben, thank you so much for the presentation. And I guess I just want to echo kind of what Ira said. You know, you are such a hardworking group and I just really appreciate all the hard work of all the commission members. And also I think we've had some ex officio members that have provided great contributions this year as well. So thank you to all of you for all your hard work. We really appreciate it.

Where do

I start? It's been humbling to be a, with you all as you've done all this and sticking through resistance and really brainstorming on things like that and getting to Iris' point on welcome as well. I think that what kind of goes under the radar is what you mentioned, Ben, is bringing together of different groups in Clayton to talk and hear and listen with each other. We did that with the faith leaders in this room doing it. We had a representative, Gary, contact with the American Jewish Committee, they call themselves, right? AJC School District. Some of the things that you're pursuing with essay writing and issues of equity with the school district and bringing that together. Fontbonne presented to us all kinds of things. So that kind of welcome part that people's concerns and their triumphs are shared together I think it's going to be really powerful. You can't quite check a box that this was done, but the communication and the awareness of issues and the awareness of strength is becoming much broader because of the work of this committee. And I really appreciate that. That's great.

Alderwoman Patel.

Oh, yeah. you know, follow up on all the gratitude for the hard work. We know, you know, this is certainly a tremendous model of, you know, completely volunteer work and hours of dedication that all of you, even just even being at these meetings that you come to to make sure you're here to represent your recommendations are

really appreciated. Yeah.

Um, and, uh, like the, the only thing I would add is that I want, um, you know, as an elected official serving on the board, I just want to encourage you to like continue to thank you and ask you to continue, um, to continue to challenge us, um, like push us. I don't think anything you've done so far has been easy. Um, and it will probably continue to get harder. um to see the areas that we can like grow and stretch into um to really make a difference and I I just want to you to know that I'm like really interested and excited and open to what um what we might be able to do um and I'm also just a big believer that um you know, the challenges that you might bring or the opportunities and the suggestions are a sign of how much you care for our community and you want it to be better and you want it be like available and open to all. And I think that's, you know, something that we all share. And so even in moments that might seem like they're conflict, like I don't see that as a problem. Like that's where growth happens and- and all that fun stuff. So thank you, and I look forward to what's next. Great.

Alderman Thader, any comments as the other liaison?

I think credit, of course, to the mayor and the members of the Board of Aldermen who decided to create this commission. I wasn't one of them. I can take no credit. However, this is the time to know that having hung around City Hall for many years, sitting out there instead of up here, From time to time, I would hear Ben Uchitel come up to the mic and say, you know, essentially what we really need is some kind of equity commission. And I think it's remarkable that not only that we have an equity commission, but that Ben is the chair and doing a great job. His predecessor did a great job as well, but I think it's wonderful that Ben's desire for this commission has come to fruition and doing a great

Thank you. Just a final word, because we worked hard to get the commission set up, but Mayor Michelle, under her aegis, it was established. So thank you.

Yeah, I think it was easier to do because I had a great partner in creating some momentum behind it. And so I thank you for that, along with all the other things you've created momentum for in this world of ours. So thank you very much. Yes. Yes. And to all the comments and, and, and also especially Ira, your comments about getting out there in the community. I think that would be great for all of us. Okay. If there are no other comments about this, I think, I thank you for preparing such a great report and for, being here to share it with us. Next on our agenda is a resolution for municipal judge evaluation or selection process, Mr. City Manager.

On March 14th, the Board of Aldermen discussed two Community Equity Commissioner CEC recommendations related to updating the selection process for municipal judge, which was formalized and adopted by the Board of Alderman in January of 2022. The attached resolution will update the selection process currently in place and the request for qualifications will be used to solicit applications for the municipal judge position. The key updates of the attached resolution in our queue are as follows within the resolution, increasing the three member panel to a four member panel to be appointed by the board of aldermen and mayor. The interview panel shall be comprised of an elected official, a member of the Clayton community equity commission, and two others who have expertise in criminal justice and a demonstrated interest in equity issues such as public interest law, administration of justice, and so on. Lawyers are preferred but not required for that particular position. None of the panel members shall have, in the judgment of the Board of Aldermen and Mayor, either bias or direct or indirect conflict of interest in serving on the interview panel. and then the change within the RFQ, information on previous and current related experience and services provided, including municipal experience, and application of the recommendations of the Missouri Supreme Court Commission on racial and ethnic fairness standards, as well as principles of equity and transparency consistent with the Ferguson reforms. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached resolution to update the selection process for municipal judge.

Thank you. All right, I'm gonna let make sure first of the equity commission members you addressed us previously on this and to a very in very thorough fashion. Do you want to say anything further tonight? Okay. And then secondly, I think so there's a hand up on the screen. So Alex, would you like to speak to this topic?

I would, please.

Okay, go right ahead. Say who you are and everything.

Okay. Friends, my name is Alex Berger. I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk to you this evening at this meeting. First of all, I want to say thank you to Ben Uchitel and his continued contribution to our community. And Ben, it would be fair for me to say that your history of contributions certainly defines the term as superstar. And I just want to say thank you.

And Susie is sitting right beside him, by the way. Many contributions from you as well. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

The topic that I wanted to talk about was limiting the addition to the interview committee by identifying a member of the equity commission to automatically be part of the interview process. I think that the comments made by the city manager around identifying qualifications that would be required of interviewees and what skills or education et cetera, that would be needed in the evaluation for a new municipal judge is absolutely required. But I don't believe that limiting the interview committee to a member of the Equity Commission is in our best interest. All citizens, not just committee members of the Equity Commission, should be eligible to be a participant in this role of identifying qualified municipal judge. And I also want to say that the evaluation and selection of people for assignments like the interview committee for the municipal judgeship should be based on qualification skills and education, not simply because they are a member of the Equity Commission. Limiting qualified applicants is not in our best interest. And I know that all of us are committed to the future of our city and our community, but I think that we want to have an open door for people to volunteer, participate, and not limit that opportunity. Thank you for listening to my comments and any consideration that you give to my recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, Alex. And I don't see any more hands on screen. I don't see anybody jumping up out of the audience. So we'll just go around now and take some comments from our board or questions.

Is that me?

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm looking over you, but you weren't looking

at me. We'll go in order of seniority. Okay. Yeah, sorry.

Yeah, I think it's... I fully support the expansion of the committee. I think it makes a lot of sense. The equity lens is important and... It could be while we've had the opportunity to have some excellent people on the committee, the panel, you never know who we're going to get in the future. So obviously being able to expand it is a good idea. However, I would agree, I guess with Alex in a sense that I believe that we shouldn't limit limit ourselves to that one group of people that I think the we should be as expansive in our pool of candidates as possible. And so I would suggest actually some wording that I would just insert after the I would suggest a member of the Clayton Community Equity Commission or other resident with an active interest in demonstrated knowledge of equity issues. And then to others, as I just think that would give us the ability. I mean, for that matter, there's ex-officio members, there's people who've come off the Equity Commission, there are others who participate but may not be actual members. So I think we need to be sure that we get anybody that is qualified.

Okay, very good. Going in order, Alderman Berkowitz, comments or questions?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure that I, I don't think I agree with Alderman Lynch. In fact, I strongly disagree. And it's because I hear the word from Alex and from Alderman Lynch, I heard the word limits. And I don't think that this resolution as written limits anyone to anything. We've increased the number from three. If we were okay with three from the general population, now we have four and the fourth member would be somebody from an equity commission who would have the kind of lands that I would really appreciate as part of a quote interviewing committee, which is really all this is. So I don't see it as limiting. I think if people would like to have five or more, I'd probably be in favor just so that we didn't necessarily eliminate some great candidates. But I think to say that adding or having someone from the Equity Commission actually limits You know, as a board member, I want to know that we have the most qualified people from the community who understand our community, who know what is happening in our community, the kinds of things that we would like to have asked of a judge. I would like to have that person from our equity commission sitting on that panel so that they can ask the kind of questions that I'm in no position to ask because I'm not on the panel, but I'm on the board of Alderman and I need to decide whether I want to vote in favor of this candidate or not. And it's kind of like what a doctor said to me just about three months ago when I asked, why do I have to have this test? And he said, well, why wouldn't you want to have the test? More information is better than less information. And I see an appointment from the Equity Commission as giving me more information that I can use. So if we have somehow kept the numbers down for some reason, Maybe that's the question or that's the issue, but appointing someone from the Equity Commission is a no-brainer for me. It's something we really do need to have happen. Again, the panel is not selecting a judge. We're selecting the judge. The panel is giving us the information to help us select the judge and to have somebody from the Equity Commission to enable us to do that. is an excellent idea, and we should support it.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Bridget.

Well, I guess I would, I actually, I do agree with Alderman Lentz. I mean, first off, I think it is an excellent idea to add somebody that really has only this equity lens. I think that that will be a very important addition to this panel. Ira, I would say that I don't think Rich was saying it could be somebody from the Equity Commission. He's not saying it shouldn't be. I think it's just... being aware that we can't predict the future. So in a few years, there might not be somebody on the equity commission that feels qualified to interview a judge. There might very well be somebody that is, but I think it's also thinking about, you know, as Rich mentioned, there might be an ex-officio member who is particularly qualified, but they're not actually a part of the commission. So I think this just allows for a little bit more flexibility. It allows a member of the Equity Commission to be part of the panel, but it allows also a past member or an ex-officio member or perhaps somebody else in our community who has an excellent equity lens but hasn't had the time to apply or be a part of the commission and maybe will be a few years after that. But I just think as we have all said a million times, we have an incredibly expert group of citizens. So I think it's allowing just a little bit more flexibility in this instance, rather than restricting and only to the Equity Commission. So as I said before, I would be in favor of Rich's addition of the language.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Alderman Buse, would you like to comment?

Sure. Since this commission has taken off, there's been tremendous community interest and support and work done. I would be surprised if we ever got in a place where we didn't have incredibly impressive people serving on this commission, especially if we as a board, whoever was at the board at the time, continues to recognize and use the value that people are willing to give by serving on these commissions. I think that my understanding is Commission came up with this particular recommendation, you know, knowing that they'll be turning over just like the rest of us. But the unique lens that the commission brings is what we talked about before. They have been out in the community talking. They've listened to the Jewish Federation. They've listened they've listened to the ex-officials coming and talking about the issues with WashU in our community or everything else. And all that has then come back and it's been, and they talked about it as a commission So the equity lens isn't one person coming in from our community. And we've got, again, we've got amazing people around us with equity knowledge and sensitivity. But it's a unique commitment to knowing Clayton's issues that they've shared with each other and bringing that lens to what, as I pointed out, is a selection panel, asking questions, bringing information to us. I think it's a recommendation that can really help move us forward with welcome and everything else that we say that we want. And I hope that we value the work that they've done and with this recommendation.

Thank you. Thank you. Becky, anything?

Yeah, I would just say that I support the resolution. I think that the... recognition of the importance, you know, it almost felt like in some ways, like we overlooked this opportunity to include the equity commission, which is a group that we have specifically, you know, chartered to advise us on this topic. And it almost felt like, I mean, we created this whole process in the interest of equity And then it kind of felt like we forgot to include them. Like that's one of the ways that I'm thinking about it is like, kind of like duh, of course we should do this. And so I think it's a great recommendation. I definitely see it as an expansion, not a limitation. And I see no reason to complicate the matter by my esteemed colleagues amendment. I like the idea of just keeping it the equity commission. Like these are people who have stood up and volunteered and identified themselves as interested in this, interested in serving their community. And I think it's not just important for them to feed into the process, which is obviously part of what we're setting up and certainly something that someone else could do. but that it's also important for them to be able to report back to the CEC on the process and hopefully continue to inspire confidence in our systems, that our systems are designed to support equity and justice. And that we definitely lose that report back if we don't have a member of the commission on the panel. And so for those reasons, I support the resolution and I do not support the amendment.

Thank you. Alderman Gary Feder, comments?

Thank you. Alderman Fader, comments?

Well, I have to say I was in favor of the resolution as revised. I think I helped revise it. So up until the last day or so, I thought the resolution was fine. I will say that some of the comments about potential changes are somewhat intriguing to me. I think irrespective of how this resolution ultimately reads, I had suggested, I think, last time that I think the Community Equity Commission needs to have a bigger role in this process in ways that aren't even addressed in the resolution. For example, in making suggestions as to who the other members of the panel should be. So we have two municipal experts, preferably lawyers. I think the CEC should definitely weigh in in making suggestions about who those people might be. I think in addition, irrespective of how we deal with this, that it would be important for the CEC to get copies of the transcripts and other materials from the interviews that are made available to the Board of Aldermen so that we could get input from the CEC. Similarly, potentially asking the CEC providing questions to be asked, at least to be considered by the panel. So I think there are a lot of procedural things in this process that aren't even in this resolution that would help the process. Now, all that being said, it does seem to me that it's difficult for me, even though I supported the resolution as written, to oppose an amendment that is an effort to make this a more inclusive process. And that's one of the things the CEC is about, is about inclusion. I would hope and expect that if this were adopted with Alderman Lentz's amendment, that certainly someone from the CEC would apply to be on the panel. And as far as I'm concerned, that person in my own mind would presumptively be the best person to serve, even if there were other people. But It's certainly one of the things I've learned through the CEC process is, for example, there are a lot of people in our community in corporate settings who are involved with DEI. We've learned that religious leaders are very active in their various congregations in pursuing these things. So there are other people out there other than just the people on the commission who I think could be a viable candidate for this panel. And so again, I think there are reasons As a practical matter, are there going to be a lot of people who apply for what at the end of the day is just essentially an interviewing process, not the selection process. It's probably a commitment of a week worth of time. Maybe that's a plus or minus. At the end of the way, I don't think we're going to get a lot of candidates, even if we amend this. I think there's a high likelihood the CEC member will be the person who will be the fourth person. But I have to say, I'm somewhat influenced by, I think, by the comments of all the people who've spoken here about the amendment that we should always try to be inclusive. And I think opening this up, I'm a little concerned as a practical matter. Now the board has to, it's a two-step process. Not only do we have to pick the judge, now we also have to pick the panel But, you know, that's what we do. So at the end of the day, I think I would be supportive of the amendment because I think it is a more inclusive process and at least includes other people in the community who might be at least as well equipped to serve as those who are currently on our commission.

Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I just want to say I appreciate everyone's comments and point of view. I guess that's my job actually to bring in everybody together. And we try to gain consensus all the time. We don't always have it. But in my opinion, you know, having been around this road a few times, around this block a few times for the last 15 years, having some flexibility is really good. And I agree with Alderman Bader that it's actually kind of hard to imagine that the fourth member wouldn't be from the Equity Commission, given the expertise and the hard work that you are putting in. But down the road, we just don't know. I just hate to, I agree with Aldermen Lentz and Alderwoman McAndrew that it's better to have some flexibility and be open to other people who really might want to really do this.

In the interest of flexibility, what about Alderman Berkowitz's suggestion to say something like up to five to include exactly then the language that Alderman Lentz supported? Because in my mind, we risk actually excluding the CEC from the process if we

don't Yes.

Well, I would completely expect that 95% of the time it would be someone from the CEC. I would completely expect any conversation around who would be on this committee or panel would include a conversation with the CEC and it would probably be with their blessing that we picked someone else outside of the CEC. But as Ira said, you know, more info is better than less. I would say more options are better than less. So why would we want to? I mean, I just don't see that it's a big issue not to make it possible that someone else that they might think is better, that just doesn't happen to be a member at that moment, be a possibility. That's all. I don't see that it takes anything away from them. It doesn't take anything away from the possibility of them being on the panel. It's just an option. That's all.

I don't

understand why we're talking about options when we have other members that will come from the community. It's like if anyone was just joining this conversation, they would think that it was a matter of somebody from the CEC saying, with the exclusion of anyone from the community. I mean, that is just not the case. I mean, and I don't understand why this conversation-

Only because the way I read it, I assume that at least the two that we've, other than the elected official, I assume that we'd have the court understanding, knowledge and experience, and then also an equity knowledge that doesn't have to be as knowledgeable about the court process. I mean, that's certainly good, but it's not required. That's the only reason I was thinking about it in that term.

So why don't we increase the numbers so that we're not excluding, we don't have to exclude. We can increase the number to five That means, again, I mean, anyone that would hear that we're talking about four members, anybody can stand up and say, oh, you know, how come it's only four? You should have five. If you have four, you're excluding members of the community. I mean, there's always that argument. I think if we have a member from, and we have decided to have, as you said, 95% chance, well, why don't we just make it 100? I mean, let's just make it 100% chance that somebody from the Equity Commission, which you know, I think would be have, you know, we could have board members that have no interest in having somebody from the equity commission because they're afraid of what they might say and afraid of what influence they might have. We are a board now. We've decided we think this is important. This is part of our community on identity. We want this to be our city that we will have somebody will have an equity commission that has knowledge that holds meetings that listens to Jewish Federation or listens to whoever, they have a tremendous amount of knowledge. And we want to have them on this commission so that they can ask all the right questions. And we want make sure that that's going to happen in 10 years, no matter who's on the board. You know, they could always change this resolution, but they'd have to do that publicly and that's fine. But I think for now, I think we'd like to make a statement of who we are. This is who we are. We want to make sure that our equity commission is going to have a place at the table when it comes to choosing our judge. That's a big fat statement for this city to make. And for us not to take the opportunity right here, I think is foolish. I think it's not who we, I think it is who we are, so I'm not telling anybody to be someone they don't want to be. But we, this is our opportunity. Remember the thing about welcoming. This is one of the indications that we make to the community that this is who we want to be. We want to make sure our judge is going to be chosen from a panel of people. And it could be five people. It could be six people. It doesn't matter. But one of the members on this committee is going to be a member from our equity commission. And they're going to ask the questions that we want to know the answers to. And that's what this statement is about. That's what this resolution is about. So I don't know why we keep wanting to paralyze or dilute this recommendation from the equity. I'm not diluting

anything, Ira. I'm not suggesting they don't be part of it. I don't know why you're even suggesting that. That is not what I said. I simply offered the fact that we could add someone else that doesn't necessarily have to be. They probably will be. I just don't understand why we're... I'm not diluding anything. I'm not trying to dilute anything. So

if everybody... well a little more discussion but then i'm just going to call for emotion or not you know i it's fine um but did you look like you're gonna say something okay

i think that again i want to stress having um then with this commission the amount of community knowledge that they have taken in from different groups within our community i thought i knew equity i have learned so much and i'm much more um COB, Jean Gatza, aware and hopefully empathetic to members of my community that I wouldn't have I wouldn't have known their experiences here. COB, Jean GATZA, Except for having been on this committee, which is why I think it's a wonderful recommendation that they've made. COB, JeanGatza, And rich I understand what you're saying and I and I, but I do hope that we capture that what i'm talking about that it's not one lens is this is our Commission's lens. And maybe it could be worded that the commission recommends somebody, but I don't think that people here want that. So I don't know what it is. And I also was curious procedurally if the commission wants to respond to how they feel about the recommendation.

They're welcome to.

And I don't know if you do or not.

Not earlier, but.

Well, it wasn't there when Rich said, when Rich changed it. I don't know. If there's anything else they want to say on it.

I figure they're not shy. If not, that's fine.

I think the point is that the CEC has been studying the issues of

equity with respect to traffic violations and

So we're pretty knowledgeable from a equity standpoint. I would certainly say that the subcommittee members probably shouldn't be considered as candidates for this election process because they're heavily involved in it. But we have other people on our commission that are knowledgeable and thoughtful. And we are viewing this from a equity standpoint, from an equity lens, that's our expertise. And I'm not unmindful of the fact that the staff has recommended the resolution. It's always something that's of importance. So I support the resolution as originally indicated. Thank you.

Thanks, Ben. We have someone on Zoom that would like to speak up. Chris Schmies.

Hi. First of all, I would like to say I am proud to be on this commission and I am proud of Clayton for having this commission. So thank you for appointing me on this in the first place. As to why the Equity Commission and why not opening it, there are other positions, people who are on this, who are from the community and can be from the community. But what makes us different is that we have made this sincere effort to really understand the Clayton lens of this. We've met with the chief. We've met with different groups in Clayton, we've made this a part of our business. And more importantly to Ira's point and to Susan's point, this is what it says about the community. To me, this is a vote of confidence from the board in having an equity commission. Do we believe that the work of a commission that is sanctioned by our board is a lens we want to have formally? So I would just ask that you consider that as you make your decision. Is this who we are and what we want to say we're doing or not? Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. Okay, I think at this point, I'm just gonna ask if somebody wants to make a motion to amend. Do you wanna make a motion to mend the resolution?

I'll make a motion to ammend the resolution with the wording do allow for other residents with the interest in and demonstrated knowledge of equity issues.

And is there a second? Second. All right, is this just a voice vote then? Oh, but well, but we need to agree to vote on the amendment first or do we, yeah. So although we can do a voice vote for that or we do, okay. I think a voice was fine unless we need, you're the expert. Well, it's likely to be a split vote. Okay, so we can do. Okay, very good. That's what I'm asking you. Okay,

so here we go. Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman McAndrew. I'm sorry, Alderman Berkowitz.

No.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman

Buse. No. Alderman Patel. No. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. All right, so you have the language

Buse. No. Alderman Patel. No. Aldermen Fader. Aye. All right, so you have the language

of the change. And so I guess now Alderman Lentz can introduce the revised amendment.

I'll move to approve resolution 2023-12 as amended revisions to the municipal judge selection process.

Is there a second? Second. And shall we do roll call again? Okay. Alderman Lentz? Aye. Alderman Berkowitz? No. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Aldermen Patel? Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder?

Is there a second? Second. And shall we do roll call again? Okay. Alderman Lentz? Aye. Alderman Berkowitz? No. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Aldermen Patel? Aye. Aldeman Fader?

Aye.

Mayor Harris?

Aye. we was voting to approve the amendment, right? I'm only the resolution with the amendment. The first vote is for the, I'm only hesitating because I felt like I might be in the twilight zone when I heard you say, I, I didn't expect that. Well,

absent getting no resolution passed. Absolutely.

Absolutely. I'm sorry. Okay.

Don't sue me.

I just, I just, I would have voted

for

the, I know exactly. Exactly.

I had a mental minute. Sorry. Okay, very good. So we don't

have to do things unanimously.

I know govern. I know. Well, I just said that a few minutes ago, didn't I? Okay, I think we're done with that item. Again, we thank you so much for your work and fully expect you to participate in this judge process

as much as possible. Okay. Next on our agenda

would be the Uniformed Employee Retirement Fund Reinstatement.

At the Board of Aldermen meeting on January 10, 2023, the Board approved Ordinance Number 6801, adopting the January 2023 Uniformed Employees Pension Plan Restatement as Exhibit A and substantially the same form set forth therein and adding certain plan enhancements. The enhancements included a one-time backdrop, a forward drop in the purchase of military service credits. At the time it was passed, Exhibit A misstated the effective date of the forward drop. As stated in the multiple meetings regarding the implementation of the forward drop and the cost statement that was made available to the public, the intent was to have the forward drop effective on January 1st, 2023. Staff recommends approval of the corrected uniformed employee retirement fund plan restatement to reflect the board's intent to start the new forward drop date program on January 1st 2023.

Okay, very good. I'll open the discussion. Anybody in the audience or online? Questions? Okay, I'll open it up to the board. Questions

or comments?

This is just a correction.

That's what was intended. Alderman Berkowitz, anything from you on this? No.

Anybody over here? No? Okay. Very good. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6962 to readopt the Uniform Employees Retirement Fund Pension Enhancement and Plan Reinstatement with Corrections, amending ordinance number 6801 to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6962, first reading and ordinance amending ordinance 6801 and readopting a corrected city of Clayton uniformed employees retirement plan and trust restatement.

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

I move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill 6962 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

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

And I'll introduce Bill 6962 to readopt the Uniform Employees Retirement Fund Pension Enhancement and Plan Reinstatement with Corrections, Amending Ordinance 6801 to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6962, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending ordinance 6801 and readopting a corrected City of Clayton Uniformed Employees Retirement Plan and Trust Restatement.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Alderaan Harris. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Alderaan Harris. Aye.

Okay, the Oak Knoll Pavilion Roof. Tony, your moment has arrived. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, a priority project identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is to provide an alternate pavilion at the location of the current uncovered picnic site at the north end of Oak Knoll Park. The purchase and installation of the pavilion was approved by the Board of Aldermen at its October 25, 2022 meeting. At that meeting, staff was instructed to explore the cost of installing either slate shingles or slate look shingles on the roof of the new pavilion so that the prefabricated structure would fit within the overall aesthetics of the park. Staff received a proposal from Old World Roofing to install the slate roof at a cost of $44,605. Additionally, staff requested quotes from roofing contractors that supply architectural shingles with the traditional look of slate. One responsive quote was received from bone dry roofing in the amount of $11,607.13. Funding for the Oak Knoll Park Pavilion project has been included in the city's capital budget for fiscal year 2023 and the amount of $110,000. The approved project with the additional cost of the contingency and the $11,606 cost of the slate look roof will bring the project into the total costs of $106,453 which is still under the approved budget. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance, allowing for the purchase and installation of architectural slate-look shingles on the pavilion at the north end of Oak Knoll Park through bone-dry roofing in the amount of $11,607.13. And Tony Searing, our Director of Parks and Recreation, is here if you have any questions.

Yeah, I'll go around, but I have a question, so come on up. But we'll start with Rich.

No questions. Ira, any questions or comments? No.

Anyone? Alderman Gary Feder, question, comments?

Anyone? Alderman Fader, question, comments?

Slate-like?

Slate look.

Slate look, yeah. I mean, that seems on its face to be somewhat suspect. Can you give us a comfort level that that really is a good look?

That was my question. Are these, you know, the architecture, I'm getting into the weeds, I realize, architectural shingles or are they the kind

of fake slate that really looks like slate. Is that what I'm saying?

I do. Well, maybe. The texture, the thickness, and the color variations that are typical with slate, that's what it looks like.

So it's like, OK, you didn't have any pretty pictures.

um i could that's all

right yeah i i'm you know you know there are shingles and they're obviously shingles even though they're called architectural shingles yes and then there is faux slate which is

i would say there are more along the lines of shingles versus faux slate

okay all right well What you got to do, but we don't want to pay for slate. No,

but.

Well, and the other option would be to do isn't the pavilion at the pond metal roof. The covering. Oh, it is. Yeah, that was. Yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah. So, all right. Yeah, I wanted to make that. I just wanted to understand that. Sure. No, fair enough. Any other comments or questions from anybody? Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. If there's no other discussion, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6963 to approve a contract with Bone Dry Roofing for the Oak Knoll Park Pavilion to be read for the first time by title loan.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Number 6963, first reading. An ordinance authorizing an agreement for the purchase and installation of architectural slate-look shingles on the pavilion at the north end of Oak Knoll

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Okay.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6963 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Oh, sorry, Ira. All those in favour?

Aye.

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

I'll introduce Bill 6963 to approve a contract with Bone Dry Roofing for the Oak Knoll Park Pavilion to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Discussion? City Attorney?

Bill number 6963, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing an agreement for the purchase and installation of architectural slate-look shingles on the pavilion at the north end of Oak Knoll Park.

Alderman Lentz?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz?

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Fader?

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you. Okay,

next is tennis

court. In 2012, Shell Park Tennis Center underwent a major renovation, which included replacing the playing surface with a post-tension concrete system. To properly maintain the system and keep the playing surface in excellent condition, it is recommended that the courts are resurfaced every five years, and it was last completed in 2018. To that end, McConnell & Associates has submitted a proposal for the resurfacing project. McConnell & Associates participates in a purchasing cooperative And as a result, they have provided a lump sum bid for the resurfacing factoring in a 9% discount from the normal price for their products. Proposal includes two mobilizations, meaning that only half the courts will be completed at a time to allow for the use by residents programs in Clayton High School athletics. The full project is expected to take approximately four to five weeks and will be completed in the fall. Funding for the project has been included in the city's IRF budget for fiscal year 2023 in the amount of $91,307. The total cost of the project will be $68,840. It is recommended that we include a 5% contingency to cover expenditures to correct unknown issues that become apparent during this part of the project. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance executing a contract with McConnell and Associates in the amount of $68,850 plus a $3,500 contingency to resurface the courts at Shaw Park Tennis Center. Okay, thank you.

Any discussion or questions from you all? Can I just

add, so it says like completed this fall and like four to five weeks. I mean, it's kind of like, I feel like they never have enough courts ever.

Right. We are waiting. Is it

better to do it in the summer maybe when like at the athletics? Or I mean, I don't know. There's no good timing. No,

there's not. No, it actually is better to do it And we've already worked with Clayton High School tennis program to make sure that we're not interfering.

Yeah,

no, it actually works out better to do it in the fall than in the beginning. Well, they, McConnell and Associates would not be able to do it in this spring. I suppose

they could do it during the school day too. And oftentimes then by three o'clock.

They're usually done by that time. But if how the resurfacing will work is it's like paint text or multiple coats of paint so that it's not like crack ceiling where they would be able to use it right after it was done. So they will be closed. But yes, we're working with the tennis program to make sure that we're not interfering with their schedule as well, which is why we're doing it in two mobilizations.

Any other

questions? I had a quick question. Maybe I should know this, but I'll ask it anyway. I know tennis has done very well in the last couple of years. Cost benefit, are they... For these types of expenses, what does it cost to run those tennis courts? I love, I'm a tennis player, but I'm curious how, because I know that we were talking about the income that's coming in. That's the only reason I'm wondering. I assume that we support our recreational facilities.

Yes. To be honest with you, I don't know off the top of my head how much it costs to run the tennis center, but they have been doing phenomenally well. The last few years with our most recent contractor who's been running the tennis center, they do at least 12 weeks of summer camps in the summer months. And then also the regular tennis clinics and programs and private lessons that they run. Last year I think they were about, if memory serves me, they were about $20,000 over their expected revenue. So they're doing quite well. So I do think it's an important investment in the courts to keep them in the best possible shape. And like Alderman McAndrew said, they do get used quite often.

Right. Which is why I was wondering if they pay for themselves or where it falls on that. Yes. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else? Good question. All right. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6964 to approve a contract with McConnell & Associates for the tennis court resurfacing project at Shaw Park to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6964, second reading and consider... No, it isn't. First reading. Pardon me. First reading, an ordinance approving a contract with McConnell and Associates for court resurfacing at Shaw Park Tennis Center. I apologize, I got lost in Alderman Berkowitz's house. I apologize.

I had to find a power plug. My battery died. Sorry, guys.

That was good. Oh, yes. I like to fast forward

also. I haven't finished reading it, I've forgotten. Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6964 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favour? Aye. Oppose? Okay, let the minutes reflect the board is giving unanimous consent.

I'll introduce Bill 6964 to approve a contract with McConnell & Associates for the tennis court resurfacing project at Shaw Park to be read for the second time by title loan.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney, this is the second time.

Thank you. Bill number 6964, second reading in consideration for adoption, an ordinance approving a contract with McConnell and Associates for court resurfacing at Shaw Park Tennis Center.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay. Last but not least, we have ADA improvements and Matt is here. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, the Public Works Department is requesting approval of a construction contract with Kingsland Concrete Contractor LLC for the year 23 ADA improvements project. similar to past years, this project will include the replacement of various sidewalks curb ramps curbs and streetscape that do not meet Ada requirements throughout the city. areas of work are identified through our Ada transition plan inspections and citizen reported issues. bids were opened on March 14 in the city received two bids kingsland was submitted the lowest responsive responsible bid and the amount of $108,129. This has traditionally been an annual project and the 2022 version of the project was bid twice last year with the city receiving no bids each time. So we're very happy to have people coming forward this year. The list of repairs did continue to grow during that time. Therefore, we would request approval of the base bid plus a contingency of $11,871 for a total cost of $120,000. The intent is to spend the full contingency on similar repairs. Funding for this project in fiscal year 2023 budget is being provided by the 2014 bonds, the amount of $100,000. An additional $20,000 will be included in the next fiscal year 2023 budget amendment to appropriate the increased amount from bond funds. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing a contract with Kingsland Concrete Contractor LLC and the base amount of $108,129 plus authorization to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed $11,871 for a total of $120,000 for the fiscal year 23 ADA improvements project. Any discussion up here? Questions? Yes.

um just so i understand the contingency isn't actually a contingency it's we're gonna we're gonna um spend it but we're gonna wait to spend it to make sure we don't need it as a contingency

that that is the intent and the reason it's done that way we've done it in past years is The budget amounts $100,000 traditionally for this project. We put together an estimate of quantities and items we know that we intend to hit, but we shy ourselves just from that number so we don't intentionally go over budget. And then we'll work towards utilizing all that budget as the project progresses, identifying additional work to chip away at our priority list.

And the budget of 100,000 included those projects that we didn't get to because we got no bids in previous years?

Yes, that list continued to grow. It's an ever-growing... a growing list and we never complete all of it. And there are many little deficiencies at different parts throughout town. So there's not a set of plans like you would think of on a normal construction project, but that list continues to grow. So this is to chip away at it a bit more and reduce it. Thank you.

Other questions?

Yes. Yeah. So my understanding is that this is, so the city is ADA compliant except for the repairs that we have to keep up. Is that right?

In 2014, the city of Clayton completed ADA self-evaluation and development of a transition plan. With the completion of two more projects, which are both our downtown street resurfacing, will have replaced or brought into compliance approximately 750 curb ramps. within the city. So we'll have touched all of them. Bus stops, sidewalks, other things develop over time as deficiencies, as just a tree grows or things. So to say we're 100% is I don't think is ever a reality. There's always something out there. It's just knowing if it's there. And we do inspections every two years to try to identify those items, create this list. And so it's a constantly evolving kind of chase.

So we're essentially where we want to be as long as we keep staying aware and responsive when an issue arises. I'm just wondering if there's something aspirational that we're still holding back and we haven't done yet because we haven't been able to

fully fund it yet. So whenever we developed the plan in 2014, FHWA and MoDOT, the key things they really looked at were curb ramps, entry and exits to the right-of-way, and those were things that were mandated to be brought into compliance. So far, they had not gone so far as to say every sidewalk along every route that you touch. And that is really where there's big costs associated. If you get a cross slope that is just out of 2%, just a little bit, you're replacing a whole run of sidewalk potentially. So the meat of it is still out there with sidewalks and addressing those as we go. So it's not something that's coming to an end. but the critical items, the ones that you might get the attention of the Department of Justice from and those things, we're in a good spot, especially when you look at neighboring cities or others within the region or the state. We were one of the first to have an ADA transition plan.

Oh, we would hope so. And also, are we a little better every year too? Do we expand where we are doing things? Again, my question to them is, are we just maintaining or are we continuing to get better, better, better every year?

I think we're getting better. It's just a big hill to get over. And with the board's approval a few years ago, we increased our spending from $50,000 to $100,000 a year to try to achieve that goal.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions? I have one little question. I just want to say too that... You're right driving around communities that are right next door, we are unbelievably you know head and shoulders above what they have in terms of 88. You know capability. with our street crossing signals and all the things that you do. It's great. Is this, this is all over, just all over town. It's not just, there's not a, yeah.

The bid package had some identified locations based off priority, but it will be, those priorities could change and we may decide something else has happened and we need to focus effort there.

And does it include trip hazards on sidewalks?

Anything like that, that would be a deficiency of ADA, yes.

Okay, cool.

And just so everybody knows, we still do that throughout the year. We'll do grinding and other things on smaller gaps. These are the ones that require full replacement. So there's a lot of work that goes on on a regular basis with our staff.

Yeah, we're intending to even do more grinding with some equipment replacement. But usually if you get... More than half the thickness of the slab, you need to replace the slab.

Yeah, I know we've got some of those. Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry. Oh,

I was just going to add one more thing. Again, just so you know, the CEC, this is on their list to look at because the welcome of our city includes many, many people. So this is a big area and you'll probably be asked to come talk. But yeah. That's good. I'm

glad that they're looking at it.

Is there a sidewalk plan? Do you go by area? And I had a neighbor stop me the other day and complaining about the sidewalks on Y down. Um,

So inspections are done every two years in conjunction with reports, we might get from the public so we'll. When the transition plan was done, there was an impedance score given to each location and that took into effect, maybe the differential settlement of location, the amount of foot traffic, it would receive. So those kind of things are considered but it's mostly done now through updating through our inspections and reports from the public. So it's not a specific area at a time. With our grinding, we're going to be looking at doing that with grinding them.

Anything else? Thank you, Matt.

All right. Alderman

Lentz. I'll introduce Bill 6965 to approve a contract with Kingsland Concrete Contractor, LLC, for the fiscal year 23 ADA improvements project to be read for the first time by title owner.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6965, first reading an ordinance approving a contract with Kingsland Contract Concrete Contractor LLC for the fiscal year 2023 ADA improvements project.

All those in favor? Aye.

All right.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6965 on the day of its introduction.

All those in favor? Second.

Aye.

Aye.

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

And I'll introduce Bill 6965 to approve a contract with Kingsland Concrete Contractor LLC for the fiscal year 23 ADA improvements project to be read for the second time by title owner.

Second.

Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6965, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance to bring a contract Kingsland Concrete Contractor LLC for the fiscal year 2023 ADA improved project.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Okay. Nothing else, right? I think we can have a few minutes and go around and share anything that was important that went on for you this past couple weeks.

Okay. Sustainability had a meeting a few days ago, last week. And A lot of stuff going on, a lot of information. I think we've talked about the Midwest Climate Collaborative over at WashU, which they all participated in. Lots of information, lots of sharing of information that we're getting from others, other municipalities as to what they're doing. And that's all being put into this strategic plan that they're coming up with. But probably one of the... best actions right now is the fact that with um uh alex elmstead now working for the city part-time some of the things he's doing for us will be writing some grants that i think will be very helpful for the sustainability committee so he's looking at some solar canopy issues and where we could add solar canopies in parking lots and things like that. So it would be kind of neat. Just this morning, there was a CCF art committee meeting, which is really focused right now on the public art that they're planning for the city end of Wydown. That's one of their major initiatives right now. And it's just getting started. They've got a consultant, they're planning on getting a commission piece and going out to a nationwide search for artists and all that. But what I was really gonna bring up, and since Tony's here, she might wanna talk to this, was the fact that if we can designate the, the median of Y down as a public park, we could also get a grant for that and help defray the cost of the installation. And I understand from Alex that that was discussed and you were working on that, Tony. Is that somewhat true? Yeah.

So annexing space with the parks, huh? It's

just designating it as a park. I mean, we've got a run on it. It was

mentioned and that's as far as we got. Obviously, I've talked to my boss. And that, because Public Works maintains that right away. So yeah, it was thrown out as a, hey, what do you think? And I said, I'm not sure. Let's talk more about that.

Alex seemed to think it was a fairly easy kind of grant to write or process to have that done.

Don't know about that.

But- Internally, we may have other issues, but okay.

It's been talked about in years past.

Right. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. That's all.

That's all? Okay. Ira, anything from you there?

Well, as many of you may already know, there's been a lot done, and I'm glad we have our director of Parks and Rec with us to maybe help us understand a little more about it. But there are several people, a large number of people who... Use our outdoor swimming pool after the hours, after we close the pool. We have this same group most summers, most years coming to the parks and rec and asking if we could stay open longer and longer and longer. This year, the problem is twofold. And one, of course, is always budget. But the other part is the availability of lifeguards. And I think we've talked about this previously as the issue that was raised, and it's still hanging around. And I think the group has been trying to make some effort to propose things and maybe help in some ways so that they can have their lap swimming in the after hours times. But it looks like it's going to be an ongoing discussion and ongoing issue for Parks and Rec to deal with. But I think that's all I want to report.

Okay, very good.

Bridget? I was gone last week, and so we did have a plan commission meeting, but I believe it was fairly light because Ana was gone as well. So nothing too much to report. I'll just remind everybody that we have some big projects coming on the pipe. So if you're interested in hearing about them, or I'd encourage you to attend the meeting, but if you can't, you're always welcome to follow up with me afterwards. Or I can pass on the staff report for the meetings just because, you know, got some big things coming. So, yeah. But no other. Thank

you. Nothing else happened in the last

couple weeks.

Yeah. Susan?

I'm just wondering if I should take on a little bit to what Ira was talking about. There is a group of avid swimmers who want the pool open. We don't have the lifeguards. We contract out lifeguarding services. And that also includes things like cleaning the bathroom. So while they have offered to come and volunteer their time or be hired, it probably is not something that's contractually realistic. And then if it gets that far, even the cost for a small number of people keeping the pool open would be something that the board would have to look pretty closely on. So realistically, it may be something to look at for next year when there might be more lifeguards around. But the conversations are continuing. They do love their outdoor swimming. also remembering that they do have the option of the indoor pool, but there's something about outdoor that is something that they're very attached to.

Okay.

Anything else? Okay.

Becky. I think the one thing I'd like to share is I attended a an event like fundraiser hosted by a family of a Clayton high school student who is a transgender athlete. And just kind of wanted to share a little bit about that in the interest of visibility and awareness. And so our Missouri State Legislature, as you may know, is doing a number of things to try to restrict the rights of transgender students young people, um, and their families, um, to take care of themselves and their health. And, um, one of those things includes, uh, restrictions on, um, the ability to participate in, um, athletics, Misha athletics. And, um. There was already a process in place that Misha put in place to, um, it like requires students to sort of like apply for a waiver. I don't know the official language that they use, but to say like, I am a transgender student, I, uh, student athlete, I, you know, was identified female at birth, but identify male now and want to swim on the swim team. And they, and Misha works out like how to accommodate that and, you know, uniform requirements and things like that. And, um, One student in Missouri has ever taken advantage of that waiver process, and it is one of our students at Clayton High. And so the Missouri State Legislature is trying to take away that the ability for that student to participate. in high school athletics. So just to kind of share with anyone listening and all of you, you know that there's an impact there that hits close to home to our students and families in our very own communities.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Gary Feder.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Fader.

All the women, Andrew and I continue to have monthly breakfast at Starbucks, and we always get 10 or 12 people, so we We get some nice attendance and we're both going over to Maryland Walk tomorrow where we understand surprisingly one of the topics is the bicycle lanes. So we'll have the usual discussion of that plus whatever else they want to ask us about.

You guys are experts at it, so you'll represent us well. Yeah. Okay. Well, I don't have a lot. Just the highlights. It's been busy, but I want to report that Mayak had a very wonderful tour of the police station with Jenny Schwartz. And she did a fantastic job. And also the landscape task force that I'm working with. We have, actually I've contacted the leadership of the Osage Nation nationally and they are very excited about working with us and do believe they have a really good footprint here in Clayton to be recognized. And so I'm very excited about moving forward with that because I know we'll learn so much from them too. And then lastly, I've somehow found myself on the advisory board of this organization called United States Global Leadership Commission. And what they do is they lobby and promote in D.C. the importance of international relations as it applies to economic growth. And so they asked us and Clayton, do you want to host a Midwest conference session and they'll bring in a guest speaker. And so that was this morning. And I didn't know what to expect. I've really been sort of unclear about what has been expected of me being on this advisory board, but I just want to report it was really enlightening. It was really interesting. The speaker was one of the executives of USAID, which is the biggest global sort of relief contributor, supporter of, you know, they're in every country and they, of course, respond to disasters, but they also do a lot of other programs in terms of embedding sustainable businesses and so forth so that communities can help themselves. And so I found it very interesting. A lot of great people were there. There was a representative from Enterprise, from Boeing, from WashU, several from WashU, from all the colleges, the St. Louis County. I just, you know, I was really, I was pleasantly surprised. And next time we have something like that, I'll try to promote it to you more because I think you would, I know you all were invited, but I think you might actually enjoy it going. So

very good. That's it. Yes. Oh. Oh, yes, I can.

Madam

Mary, if I may. You may be wondering, who the hell are these people? Well, that's

what I was just about to wonder.

Who have stuck it out throughout the meeting. And I'd like to introduce you to Amanda Radden and Kyle Cronin, who are associates that have joined our law firm. And I told them that if they wanted to see what a municipal meeting ought to look like, they should join us tonight in Clayton. I didn't tell them it would take all night, but... I thought a little surprise would be good for them. So that is the reason why you have sort of extra guests at the meeting.

All right. Well, good. We were just kind of wondering about you. So it's nice to meet you. Thanks for coming. You're welcome anytime. And you can see the pro in action. Yeah. Okay. With that, I will take a motion to adjourn. Thank you.

Move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. It's a wrap.