September 12, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

any here

some for different purposes but uh should be an interesting meeting uh welcome to our seven o'clock board meeting and will you please who's going to call the roll june oh june hi june's online there she is yes will you please call the roll

or not we

had her earlier you had her earlier June, are you with us? We can't hear you. June is in Kansas City at a Missouri Municipal League conference where David and I also were earlier today. So she is operating virtually.

Okay.

No. No.

I can go ahead and call the roll. Yeah. We can call the

roll while she works on

it. Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Here. Aldeman Gary Feder.

it. Alderman Berkowitz. Here. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Aldermen Patel. Here. Aldeman Fader.

Here.

Aldemann Rick Hummell.

Aldemann Hummel.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Okay, and before we get started with all of our business tonight I just wanted to acknowledge, and especially great since people so many people are here to hear about it. Our chief of our fire chief Ernie Rhodes has just come back from Hawaii, where he has been assisting in the overall huge effort to help rescue and help prepare, or not prepare, but recover from the emergency that they've had. Chief Rhodes, would you please come up and just tell us a few minutes of what you encountered there? I think everyone would love to hear about it. And we're so proud to have somebody like Chief Rhodes who is a member of the FEMA Rescue Team nationwide as our fire chief. Yeah, go ahead.

Yes, ma'am. Mayor, good evening. Thanks for acknowledging it. Certainly wasn't expecting that, but yes, was deployed to the Lahaina wildfires. Can't remember the exact day, but I was there for 18 days. And our mission was to search over 2000 structures that were completely destroyed by a wood driven fire that created structure to structure ignition. So had about five federal urban search and rescue teams deployed there with the command team and had about 450 people working for the operations, working for the ops section. And we managed to search all those structures over 18 days, utilizing canine human remains detection dogs. And it was a very technical operation. Some structures were completely destroyed and just basically a slab or a foundation. And then some were multi-story and had to do selective debris removal with heavy equipment and stuff. So it was very technical operation. Sometimes it was even a little challenging because it was OCONUS, which means outside continental United States. And so here in the St. Louis area, we can draw a lot of resources really quick. And then when you're outside the USA, you have to be a little creative every once in a while. We had enough resources, but you have to manage those very well. So really, the people of Lahaina are strong and beautiful and courageous, and their spirit is very strong. And You know, we worked really hard for them and it was well worth the trip to try to reconnect their loved ones with them. And so just grateful for, you know, you all allow me to deploy and do that and serve the nation. So I'm very thankful and humbled to be able to do that. So thank you.

Thank you for doing it. We're really proud, as I said, to have you on the staff. Now is the time in our meeting when we ask for public requests and petitions. So anybody who's here tonight to talk to us about anything that is not on our agenda tonight, this is your chance. So I'll give you that chance. And then do we have anybody online? Anybody online who wanted to talk about something not on our agenda today? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move right into the agenda. and the first item will be the city manager's report.

Yes, the City of Clayton's municipal code provisions related to solid waste and recycling were first adopted in 1947 and then revised in 1970. Specific sections were later amended to reflect the waste collection practices and contracts in place at that time. The City of Clayton has contracted with Republic Services for the collection and disposal of solid waste, recycling, yard waste and compost from all single family and multifamily properties. The new contracts go into effect on October 1st, 2023 to change the waste collection service from city funded to resident build. The new waste collection agreements require certain provisions in the municipal code to align with the new practices. The proposed amendments will take effect on October 1, 2023 along with the new contract. The required changes include the elimination of a current provision that allows private disposal contracts for residential customers. The city is also taking this opportunity to update the code sections to provide enhanced regulatory clarity and align the regulations with current practices. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve an ordinance amending Article 1, Collection Service and Regulations, and Article 2, Recycling of Chapter 235, Garbage and Trash of the Municipal Code.

Thank you. I know that there are a number of folks here tonight that want to address us on this, and that is great. We welcome you. I think before we have any comments from up here, which I don't know that we have too many, I would like to go ahead and entertain the input from our visitors. And to that degree, I'm just going to start off by asking that I see Mr. Kinman here is the sort of president of the CCBA, Clayton Condo Board Association. And since you're speaking for many, I think we'll ask you to come on up first and give sort of an overview of everybody's thoughts. Yeah.

Very good. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Honorable members of the board, great to be with you this evening. For the record, I am Brian Kinman, address 155 Carondelet Plaza, Unit 902 here in Clayton, 63105. As the mayor pointed out, I am here tonight really as a member of the board of the Clayton Condominium Building Association, as well as a member of board of the Crescent Homeowners Association. So in that regard, I put that out there first because I think it's important to understand that All the emails, and I've been sending you emails, you've been getting those, that have come from me have been discussed with each of those boards together. So the concept of what has been in all those emails is not just my concept. It is all of us in agreement in terms of what we were looking at and discovering. And we have also shared those with roughly 140 people who live in the Crescent and roughly almost 2,000 people, including the 140 in the Crescen that are a part of the CCBA. So there's been a lot of floating of this information and a lot of discussion about it. So in that regard, I'm up here to sort of represent the thoughts that have come from that. And while I don't want to sit there and just read you the emails, you've already done that. I just want to kind of go over a couple of, I think, key points. Number one, first and foremost, all of us participated in a detailed budget review with David, with the mayor, and with some others a couple of times last summer as the city was getting ready to think about the budget going forward. And the idea of pulling the waste removal costs out of that budget and putting it in the hands of the individual citizens was discussed at that time. We were in agreement at that time and We're still in agreement with that. We think that is an appropriate and good thing to do. So we're behind that 100%. I think the other side of this thing is we completely understand, and David has written some references to us about how the city views its responsibilities for safety, including safety related to the management of waste in this city. We completely understand those, accept those, think those are reasonable, and make an awful lot of sense. I think it's really about the manner in which we all go about this that is going to be really important. So we have been in discussions and understood at higher levels what was transpiring last year as relates to the idea of moving forward with this contract with Republic or whoever it was going to be, the bidding process that you went through and everything else. We understood that. We accepted broadly at high levels how that was going to go. Our expectation coming out of that, honestly, was that we viewed it and said, well, if they're going to end up with a contract with somebody that's been bid like this, and the contract is for something of this size and this magnitude, there's going to be some great economies of scale that will be in there. So we fully expected as a result of that, that the kinds of rates that the citizens would be asked to be paying would be, at worst case basis, fair market value, if not even discounted a little bit because of those economies of scale. So, most of us, particularly in the condos, sat back and we have budget processes too. And those budget processes begin in the wintertime and move into the spring. So, before this contract was done, we were already thinking about what we thought those were going to be. And I'll speak for the Crescent for a moment. In the Crescent, we were putting into our budget an estimate based upon additional monies that we'd already been paying Republic for extra pickups. along with conversations with some of our member condos, what they've been paying Republic for those pickups. And through all of that, we had come to a conclusion that we were going to be looking at about a $4,500 a year tab that would be coming from that. That was our expectation, nothing more than some of that general idea, understanding it could be very different. So when we did receive the information about what the contract value was going to be from Republic, We were surprised that it was as large as it was. The number based upon our current situation and status is about $9,600 a year, so a little bit more than twice what we were estimating it was going to be. So as we sat down and looked through that, we decided, understanding that we have Section 235.120, that ordinance that David was just referring to in place, we decided, well, let's go out and get a bid. Our expectation was the bid would probably be close. Maybe it would even be a little higher because we, again, assumed there would be some economies of scale. When the bid came back, it was literally at 37% of the Republic bid. So we were a little shocked and very pleasantly surprised, I'll say, in terms of looking at that bid. It was at that time because of my role as president of the CCBA, discussed it with my board, and we pushed this information out to our member organizations and said, you know, just want you to know this is kind of what we've been doing. We're a best practice oriented kind of organization. So we went through that process. And several of our member organizations decided to follow up on that and get their own bid. Others thought they were more of a wait-and-see kind of contest in terms of where they are. So there are several examples that are coming along. There are a couple of other condos that are in a membership that had an experience similar to ours, where the rates that they were able to get from a waste management were about half, a little bit less than half of what the Republic rate was that was coming in. We have other situations where the Republic rate was lower than the competitive bid that was going to be there. Generally not much. It was pretty close most of the time, but we weren't surprised to see that. And we had one situation, specifically the Whitehall, where the Whitehall had been, they had been paying for two additional pickups in addition to the one that came with the city payment that was going on before. So they kind of did the math and said, okay, if we're paying this for those two pickups and the third one comes in, we'll increase that by 50%. That's our expectation of what we would be paying. Again, when they got the result from Republic about what the new contract would be, it was double, actually more than double that number. So there's a variety of experiences in terms of where they are. And I think it caused all of us to step back and talk about it and think through it. And what we came to is that part of the problem here is that, you know, while single family homes have similar makeup and a little bit more ubiquitous in terms of the way you might collect trash, maybe they're not perfect, but more like that, in the world of the condos, there are many, many differences. We are very much like commercial buildings, many of us, and we have our own unique ways of collecting the trash, the waste, and putting it out for collection. So you end up with a lot of different results. So trying to put together a kind of a formulary approach to designing pricing is very challenging, very difficult. And I think this limited result that we've gone through is demonstrating that that's part of the problem. To continue the discussion, though, again, under Section 235.120, which is our right, we went ahead and at the Crescent, we actually entered into a contract with Waste Management. We've got a signed contract with them to move forward, and that was our expectation. When we went to communicate to Republic that we were going to be terminating our relationship with them as we were moving on, which was just about a week and a half ago. They explained to us that, oh no, the contract that we have with the city, you can't do that. So we're looking at 235.120. And we're looking at the response from Republic and saying, okay, we're not understanding. So we called over the city. It took a few days, but we got a response that confirmed what Republic had said to us. So we have to admit we're a little confused. Okay. So as we look at that, we think that under the current law, We have done what we're allowed to do, and we have followed the law on doing it. We've entered into a contract to do that. And many of our members have solicited bids under the same philosophy in terms of moving forward. The other side of this, though, is that we have been moving forward. I think it's important to understand why we're looking at this. It's not just about any value benefit we're going to get today. When we step back and looked at the concept of how this is put together, this year, this fiscal year that ends at the end of this month and the years before, there was a check and balance on making a negotiation with somebody like Republic. It lived inside of the financial budget of this city. So this city in making those decisions and the board of this city in confirming those decisions always understood how that fit into that budget. So there's a check and balance there. Can we afford it? Does this make sense? The challenges can take place. Now we're asking under this current philosophy and the new ordinance, we're asking or the city is saying we want to negotiate, but the check and balance doesn't exist anymore. The check and balance does exist in Section 235.120 because I can pick up and go to another contractor. If you take that away, there is no check and balance. And so the concern is not just, again, now, what happens in three years when there's a new bid? And more importantly, when Republic wakes up and realizes nobody else is going to be bidding against them. So how do we handle that? How do we manage that and keep that real and proper is something to think about. I think in addition to that, it's important. And I just want to share with you, I have had other organizations that are not in the CCBA reach out to me. One of the nursing homes locally said, I've been hearing about this. Can you share with me the emails and what you're saying? We're trying to get our arms around this as well. We have spoken with several of the large apartment buildings and like Clarendale and whatnot that are going on. they are unaware that they are gonna be pulled into this contract. The only notice that they've had is basically the same notice that we all received in the mail this thing in terms of where it is. And when we spoke to them, most of them said, Oh yeah, I got this solicitation from Republic, not understanding that this was a communication from a public. So I, and in discussions with many of them, and again, I have not audited this situation. All right. But the feedback that we've gotten, I know that some of the apartments are using waste management currently, and have been under contract with them for years and have been paying them for years. So if you pull them in, two problems. One, they're not aware of it. And two, they got a contract already that they've been working through. Others are using Republic, but I don't know what the numbers are going to be, but I think you might want to be prepared for the fact that like what happened with Whitehall, the new numbers are going to substantially higher than the old numbers. There's going to be a reaction. There's already a contract. There's some other issues there. So I think there's just some things to think about and looking at. I've read in detail several times through this ordinance. I think there are areas in the ordinance that probably need to be, frankly, cleaned up a little bit. There is no definition of residential housing. in the ordinance, and there really needs to be. And there's even places in the ordinance that talks about under like for example, Section 235.030, the city shall provide for the collection of all residential solid waste in the city. Again, we haven't defined residential, we've defined dwellings but not residential. And it said collection service shall be provided by city refuse collectors, plural, not singular. So are you allowing for multiple collectors or not? The question is not clear in terms of where we are. The other side of this is what do we really have here? I think there's some things to think through. Should these condominiums be treated differently? as a ubiquitous unit, or should they be treated like the commercial units are, commercial buildings are in the city of Clayton, allowing us to negotiate our own deal and go forward? The other side, if you leave 235.120 in place, if Republic's done a good job in setting up the pricing, we'll stay with Republic. If they haven't, we'll go out and get another bid and we'll use that and go from there. So we have all those issues. And I understand that you've signed the contract. I get it. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed. It doesn't mean it cannot be reevaluated or renegotiated. Perhaps there's even some legal precedent to allow that. I am not a lawyer, most of you are. But I can only point out from my years in the business community And the contract was negotiated that requires, you know, the city to let them collect all trash in residential side of things. And yet there's a at the time the contract was signed. There's a there's an ordinance on the books that wouldn't allow that to happen. don't know what that means for the contract but maybe there's a little edge there so we're saying to you our message from the ccba and crescent is i think this needs more thought this ordinance clearly needs more thought and i think the world of condominiums in particular are different enough that uh that the approach that has been used and i respect and understand how complex it is to put something like this together But the approach that's been used needs to be thought through in a little bit more detail. And we stand ready, as we always do, Madam Mayor, to participate in any groups that want to think through this. If you need that help from the citizens, we're ready to go. So I thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it very much and always open for questions.

Okay, great. I think rather than have a back and forth on this tonight, I think what we really are here to do is listen. And so we're going to do that. And I know anybody who's expecting us to make a decision tonight, vote tonight, we have put it out there already that we are not going to do that because we want to hear from everyone and then want to deliberate on that, have time to think about it and consider whatever options might be available to us and probably also talk to Republic. So thank you for that great overview. That was really comprehensive and thoughtful. And so I know there are other people here. I don't know if they would like to speak as well. If you do, that is great. But I would ask that you not repeat things that have already been said. But if you want to affirm your support of those things, you can simply come up, say who you are, give your address and say, yeah, we support that. So without further making everybody sit here to hear things over and over again. We've all been to meetings like that. Okay, yeah, so I'll let you decide who comes up first, but please give your name and your address.

My name is Jan Spaulding, 8025 Maryland. That's Maryland Walk on 4C. I have a number of our residents here. as well. I guess the thing that disappoints us a little bit here is that we were told in June, we had a big meeting over at the Claritin and our manager asked David Gipson specifically, if we would be able to, or if we had the ability to negotiate our own contract. And he said, absolutely not. Okay. Well, the reality of it is that that just simply was not true. And I find that to be very distressing. Okay. I mean, I love this city and I think you guys by and large do a very good job, but this kind of thing really shakes my confidence a lot and shakes the confidence of our residents. The other thing is, adding on to the whole business about commercial, you have to understand is that we're 100 kitchens. We're not like a house that has just one family putting garbage or smelly garbage out there. We've got 100 people dumping garbage down in our bins every day that's food-oriented. So I think we really are very much more a commercial than a residential type organization. I'd ask that you consider that when you recast.

My name is Jan Spaulding, 8025 Maryland. That's Maryland Walk on 4C. I have a number of our residents here. as well. I guess the thing that disappoints us a little bit here is that we were told in June, we had a big meeting over at the Claritin and our manager asked David Gibson specifically, if we would be able to, or if we had the ability to negotiate our own contract. And he said, absolutely not. Okay. Well, the reality of it is that that just simply was not true. And I find that to be very distressing. Okay. I mean, I love this city and I think you guys by and large do a very good job, but this kind of thing really shakes my confidence a lot and shakes the confidence of our residents. The other thing is, adding on to the whole business about commercial, you have to understand is that we're 100 kitchens. We're not like a house that has just one family putting garbage or smelly garbage out there. We've got 100 people dumping garbage down in our bins every day that's food-oriented. So I think we really are very much more a commercial than a residential type organization. I'd ask that you consider that when you recast.

Thank you very much.

Hi, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Elizabeth Burrow. I am the treasurer at Hanley Towers. I will not repeat, but we obviously didn't do quite as well as the Crescent in terms of what we negotiated, but I did forward a service agreement to our alderman, Mr. Berkowitz, today. that indicated that we are about 50% of the rate with waste management, then we would be with Republic.

Talk into the microphone. I'm

sorry. I forwarded the service agreement with waste management where they quoted a price that actually had more lifts for recycling than what we currently have. And it was about half, 50% of what we would be paying under the rate cards that are published. The other thing I did want to mention when you talk about the comparison between a commercial building and a residential building, I believe the way those rate cards were developed is they determined the sort of the single family rate cards were two units or less. And anything above that went into the multifamily rate card. and we are 70 units, we're probably about 100 people. The economics associated with, I'm gonna put aside the residential because that was a separate contract. But if you're dealing with a multifamily, that's three, four, six, 10 units, the economics of picking up their solid waste is very different than dealing with a high rise condominium. When you understand how our trash is collected, it's put out, it's put in bins of very specific sizes there's an automatic lift on the truck. There's no human intervention. That is not true with smaller facilities. So we clearly have the equipment on site and we have sort of the vendor trucks that are more geared towards commercial than residential. And so the economics of the vendor are very different when they're picking up a very large facility than multifamily that's significantly lower. Thank you.

Thank you.

David Butler, I live at the Whitehall. In fact, I used to be neighbors across the street from Susan and around the block from Michelle over in Claverick Park. I serve as the treasurer on the Whitehall board. I also serve as one of the board members on the Clayton Condo Building Association. I just want to keep this simple. I completely support and actually the Whitehall completely supports the argument and discussions that Brian made. I also want to reinforce the last point. We have two four cubic yard containers in the back, big dumpsters, one's for trash, one's for the recycling. It's outside. It's very accessible. I've, in the last week, driven the Clayton commercial areas. Candidly, we are probably easier and cheaper to service our trash and recycling than any building in this city because all they have to do is drive down very easily down the width of our driveway, go around to the back, which is wide in a parking area and just forklift this thing, dump it into their thing and leave. And it happens for the residents that hear it in the morning. It happens very quickly. So again, getting back to this, as Brian points out, there's a whole variety of condos. But if you think about like the condos and some of the smaller things that might just be three units, that's different than, you know, these vertical buildings, you know, where we're you know, 19 stories. And again, in our case, it's a very quick and efficient dump. And so really to the trash collection company, we're pleased with Republic, but as Brian pointed out, we were anticipating one number based on, you know, the two that we paid for, we are anticipating a 50% increase. Instead, we saw more than double what we anticipated, which is actually more than three times what we were paying before. So thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else want to address this for us? Yes.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Aldermen. My name is Tony Sekenik. I'm an attorney with Sandburg, Phoenix, and Von Gonnard, and our offices are at 120 South Central here in Clayton. We represent the Crescent Condominium. It's a 70-unit condominium, as Brian said, with three commercial units. It's really simple. It's logical for the city to shift the economic burden of the costs of refuse to be billed directly to the owners when the city is underwater. But it's irreconcilable for me I can't logically fathom why we would eliminate Section 235120. It's been here for 76 years, and clearly your vendor, when they made the proposal, was well aware it's been on the books since 1947. Not only were they aware, I would conjecture that they probably were under contract with some of the multifamily apartments, separate and apart where those apartments were paying for the services beyond the services that were being subsidized by the city. For that reason alone, sometimes it's just easier to leave things on the books. And we are petitioning you to leave 235.120 on the books of the city. It was on the books when Republic made their proposal. They have no reason to cry foul. In fact, they misled people from my association that we represent. When they inquired, they were told they couldn't even solicit bids housewise. But the law has been on the books. It's been an ordinance. And it should remain an ordinance. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments regarding this topic? Okay. As I said, we're not going to debate it tonight. We're going to use this input to think it through. But I do want to just say on behalf of our board and our staff that we did spend a year trying to do just that. And we do... feel strongly that we want a consistent service throughout the city and we want a quality service throughout the city. And so we're very concerned that if we We are concerned if we go piecemeal that will endanger that. But again, we are going to take all this input, think about it, and think about what options might be out there to create a win-win for everybody here. So we thank you for coming. And we have a very long agenda following this. If you would like to stay, you can. I think right now what we're going to do is go ahead and introduce the ordinance just for the first time. As you know, we vote on everything twice in order to approve it. So in order to kind of complete our discussion tonight, we will introduce the ordinance unless somebody doesn't want to. And then we will table it until our next meeting. Any questions?

We have a lot of time to consider real things.

Yeah, that's all right. We think it will. Well, we wouldn't have a final vote.

Okay. Can you, can you, we're just only because the people on Zoom can't hear you. That's the problem. Come on. That's why you just have to talk to Mike. That's a good point. Because otherwise all these people. At the

beginning of this session, the honorable mayor said that there would not be any vote on this tonight.

Final vote.

No, that's not what she said. She

said any vote.

That sounds like a lawyer's response. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry what you said.

That sounds like the lawyer's response. That's not what I heard.

Yeah, we did specifically post on the agenda as well that there would be a first reading this evening.

Yeah, and so in order to pass anything, we always have two readings, and that second reading is where we really make the decision, which we said we would do.

And those can be amended between the first and second reading.

Yeah, so I think we're okay doing it this way. I think this, as David said, we had posted it before we even considered doing all this, so... We kind of have to follow our proper parliamentary procedures here as a group, but I understand why that's giving you pause. But again, we're not going to make any decision tonight. We're simply introducing the ordinance. Yes, David, you want to come up and give your comment?

Thank you.

Just respectfully, Mayor, I'm not an attorney. I'm an engineer.

Yeah, me neither.

But I did hear you say there was going to be no vote tonight and interpreting the way this works when you have this official reading that really is like the first vote. And then, then the next one's a second vote so just as a non attorney. It sounded very much to me when you said there's no vote tonight, then there was going to be no reading because that's how. So

not being a lawyer, I might not have said that well, but I'm going to turn to our city manager and our attorney and see what they have to say about all this. Do we have

to the board whether or not you'd like to introduce them? So

do we have to introduce it? I guess that's the question. I mean, we can do two readings in one night. We do it on a regular basis. Oh, yeah, that's that's true.

So like. And that's the situation we were trying to avoid. That's why we had posted it.

And so I'll just describe that for a minute because, and again, we can do whatever the board wants us to do. But a lot of times we do introduce things because people that aren't here who aren't paying attention will then know about it. And then they have an opportunity between now and whenever we attack it again to provide input. A lot of times people don't sit up and pay attention until we do something at the meeting so but i'm just saying that that's why we generally read something once and wait two weeks to pass it if it's something that's important

so

um

i'd like to make a motion

okay i'd

like to move that we table the first greeting for this evening we table it until our next meeting

okay okay

i'm sorry And it's a voice vote, correct? Okay. All those in favor? Aye.

Can I add just one thing? I

have to say any opposed. Any opposed? Okay. Now you

may. Just the tenor tonight. Everyone on this board is listening very hard and appreciating very much the public input. That's how a city runs well. We're up here as your neighbors doing our best. So we are tabling this for further consideration. We have heard you And I just want that understood. There's no backroom dealing or anything else. So please appreciate the staff and the board's efforts in this regard.

Can we make sure we get the output from whatever discussions you have and any revisions in advance of the meeting so that we can take a close look at them?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, if I could comment. I did vote for tabling it, but I will say I believe the standard procedure on any piece of legislation that is a subject of controversy, the standard procedure is to introduce it exactly for that reason. Introduce it, hold it over to the next meeting, and then vote on it. I feel certain now that if this is the final decision to have both readings at the second meeting, we will be criticized because why did we take up the matter and vote on it at the same night it was introduced? So I think the decision to table the matter is not a wise decision. I think that the general law in Missouri is exactly that. You can go to the St. Louis County Council or any organization You introduce the bill the first night. It means nothing other than you're putting it out there for consideration, and then you voted on it at the second meeting. So I think the idea of tabling it, the whole thing until the next meeting, sets us up for criticism, which is unwarranted because I think we did it right the first time. introduce it at a meeting, vote on it at the second meeting in two weeks. As the city manager said, it doesn't mean at all that this ordinance can't be amended substantially and circulated, doesn't prevent any of that from happening. The right way to do it, introduce it, and then whatever happens, you vote on it at second meeting.

Okay. And just one second. So thank you for essentially repeating what I said earlier. So we We want to honor the things that you have said in your request, so we have tabled it. We will then be voting on it twice the next time we meet, twice in one meeting. So just in case anybody of your friends say, oh, they didn't give us time to consider it, they voted out twice at one meeting, you can explain that you guys had input to that decision. Go ahead. I just had a question.

Yes. So this would be addressed at the meeting in two weeks?

Yes. Is

that the plan?

That's the plan. Thank you. Okay,

I think. Yeah, and I totally agree with Alderman Gary Feder. I think he's completely right. But under the circumstances here this evening, I think it was appropriate and is appropriate for us to table it for now. And possibly only because the audience has a misunderstanding of how this procedure operates. And I don't think it really does anything to derail or hurt our ability to still consider it and deliberate about it and change it and do whatever we want to do with this statute or this ordinance if we chose to choose to do so. So I appreciate your comments.

I think. Yeah, and I totally agree with Alderman Fader. I think he's completely right. But under the circumstances here this evening, I think it was appropriate and is appropriate for us to table it for now. And possibly only because the audience has a misunderstanding of how this procedure operates. And I don't think it really does anything to derail or hurt our ability to still consider it and deliberate about it and change it and do whatever we want to do with this statute or this ordinance if we chose to choose to do so. So I appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Very good. Okay. So unless there's any further input from our audience members or anybody online, we are going to move on in our agenda to some other items. And so we do. Alderman Buse mentioned, we hear you and we respect you guys. And we are glad you came to share with us your input. So just know that we're earnestly trying to do the right thing. So have a good rest of your evening or feel free to stay.

Thank you. Have a good evening.

Okay. One minute to clear out. All right. All right. Everyone, thank you for bearing with us through that agenda item. It's important. And thanks for being patient. Okay. We're moving on to the collective bargaining agreement for police.

Yes, the bargaining representatives have met, discussed and agreed upon the attached successor collective bargaining agreement, which contains a resolution of the issues that affect the wages and terms and conditions of the union members employment. The police union members have ratified this agreement and is being presented for board approval. The agreement has a term of three years ending on September 30th, 2026. Key provisions of the CBA that were not included in the city's current practice are first, a stipend for detectives. It was increased from $1,621 annually to $2,100 annually. Juneteenth was officially added to the paid holiday list. Corporal is now a position with an established pay grade rather than a stipend. Pay was increased commensurate with the city's compensation study and the pay scale will be increased by 2.5% in both fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26. Post-accident drug testing was revised to be made consistent with the current policy established for the fire department. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the collective bargaining agreement with the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 15.

All right. I'll open it up for discussion. Any comments from our audience? I see none. I'll ask if there are any questions or comments from the board going in order of seniority. Thank you. Not okay. Okay. Okay, very good. Alderman Berkowitz.

Let's introduce bill number 6987 to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the city of Clayton and the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police. Internal Order of Police Lodge 15 for fiscal year 2024 wage increases to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6987, first reading an ordinance approving a collective bargaining agreement with the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 15.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6987 on the day of its introduction.

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

I'd like to introduce Bill No. 6987 to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Clayton and the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, Returnal Order of Police, Lodge 15 for fiscal year 2024. Wage increases to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6987, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a collective bargaining agreement with the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 15.

June, are you with us? Uh-oh. June? Okay, June, we're going to have Andrea call the roll.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman Mickey Andrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldemann Rick Hummell.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman Mickey Andrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Aldemann Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Okay, next the bargaining agreement

with the fire department.

Yes, the bargaining representatives have met, discussed and agreed upon the attached successor collective bargaining agreement which contains a resolution of the issues that affect the wages and terms and conditions of the union members employment. The fire union members have ratified this agreement and is being presented for board approval. The agreement has a term of three years ending on September 30th, 2026. Key provisions of the CBA include the city will register and cover the cost of every member to be added to the Missouri firefighters critical illness pool. CBA was updated to include a 144 hours special event overtime cap that was approved in 2021. Juneteenth was officially added to the paid holiday list. Engineer is now a position with an established pay grade rather than a stipend, and pay was increased commensurate with the city's compensation study. The pay scale will be increased 2.5% in both fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665.

Thank you. Any discussion? Online, any discussion from our board? Okay.

I'd like to introduce bill number 6988 to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Clayton and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665, for fiscal year 2024 wage increases to be read for the first time by title only.

Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6988, first reading an ordinance approving a collective bargaining agreement with the Clayton Fire Department Shop of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I think that needs to be a roll call. I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Well, doesn't say it on my sheet, but okay.

She doesn't have a second.

Let's go ahead. Yes. I think it's after the second. Yeah. Okay.

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6987 on the day of its introduction.

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

Let's introduce Bill No. 6988 to approve a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Clayton and the International Association of Firefighters Local 2665 for fiscal year 2024 wage increases to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6988, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a collective bargaining agreement with the Clayton Fire Department shop of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665.

Yes. Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye.

All right,

moving on to the public hearing for property tax levies.

Yes, first I'd just like to thank everybody on the police and fire negotiating teams. I see we have Susan Peterson with Fraternal Order Police representing them in the back as well. Both processes went really, really well. Everything was professional and extremely productive. So I appreciate everyone's effort. All right, property tax levies. Each year the city must approve property tax levies which are then submitted to St. Louis County for billing. As part of the property tax levy process, the board is holding a public hearing to seek public input on the proposed tax rates. Calendar year 2023 is a reassessment year and there were significant changes in residential and commercial assessed values. The city experienced significant new construction growth, increasing residential assessed values by over $1.7 million and commercial assessed values by over $33 million. Subject to the maximum voter approved rate of tax levy, the city is allowed to receive additional revenue up to the lower of 5% or the consumer price index or CPI, which was 6.5% for this year and for the value of new construction. Per the fiscal year 2024 proposed budget plan, we are submitting the maximum allowable rates for your review. For the general fund, general revenue, residential rate will be decreased by one cent. The commercial rate will be decreased and there's no change to the personal property tax. For general obligation debt service, residential, commercial, and personal property all decrease by three-tenths of a cent. Police building debt service, residential decreased by two-tenths of a cent, commercial decreased by 1.2 cents, and personal property had no change. On the special business district, which is in our downtown area, residential decreased by three-tenths and commercial decreased by 1 .5 cents. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen conduct a public hearing and have a first reading of an ordinance setting the annual property tax rates for calendar year 2023, which is our fiscal year 2024 at the rates referenced in the memorandum.

Thank you. So I will open it up for discussion while at the same time requesting proof of publication, which I forgot to do earlier. Any comments or questions? I just want to just note for everyone that every one of those rates decreased, which we've been doing every year since the 90s. Yeah. Okay. All right. Since there's no discussion, I will close the public hearing and Alderman Berkowitz.

So I can introduce bill number 6989 to approve the proposed property tax levies for tax year 2023 fiscal year 2024 to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6989, first reading in ordinance, levying and establishing the rate of annual taxes for general municipal purposes, police building debt service, general obligation debt service, and special business district purposes to be collected by the city of Clayton, Missouri for the year 2023.

All those in favor? Aye. The opposed. All right. Moving on to the budget first reading, I'll open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, in August, the Board of Aldermen received the city manager's proposed fiscal year 2024 operating and capital improvements budgets. As part of the budget process, the board is required to hold a public hearing to seek public input prior to formal budget adoption. The public hearing is occurring tonight, September 12th, 2023. The board reviewed the proposed budget during a public meeting on August 18th, 2023. the Board of Alderman has studied this proposed budget and the public has had opportunity for reviewing the budget document. The attached ordinance approving the fiscal year 2024 operating capital improvements budget is presented for first reading. A summary of the budget that includes a reconciliation of changes since the proposed budget was included in the packet. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen conduct a public hearing and have the first reading of the fiscal year 2024, operating capital improvements budget as presented in the proposed budget. And I would just mention, as far as those reconciliation items, they were on page 28 within the packet. We did reflect the increase in transfer for the special business district and then the associated expenditures related to additional events there. So that change was made. We did have a slight change in personnel cost. I think it was about $17,000. Here we go, $17,530. So that was a reduction. And then we had a decrease relative to the municipal garage project of $164,000. And then finally, you'll find us seeing a big amount that went up on the revenue side of things. And that particular change... Sorry, this... screen just flipped on me is uh one million two hundred fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars that is the federal grant that's being received for the Central Business District resurfacing project so those are the changes that have been made since the budget was uh reviewed with the board of aldermen on August 18th

great thank you for covering that um all right uh any discussion Any questions from the audience online? No. Okay, I will close the public hearing. Alderman Berkowitz.

I'd like to introduce bill number 6990 to approve the proposed fiscal year 2024 to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6990, first reading, an ordinance adopting an annual budget for fiscal year 2024 commencing on October 1, 2023 and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. I just want to comment for those who don't participate in these meetings a lot, especially our two folks that came for trash. We, we are doing what we normally do with something important like the budget. We are holding a first reading, we're letting people have time to consider it, and then we'll come back and do it. have the second reading at the next meeting. I also want to point out that there weren't any questions tonight. We have gone over this thing umpteen times in other kinds of meetings before just to discuss and ask questions and so on. So that said, moving on. I'll open the public hearing for the rezoning of 500 South Brentwood and ask for proof of publication.

Thank you. This request is for a public hearing for review and consideration of the rezoning of certain property from R5 medium-low density multiple family dwelling district to C1 neighborhood commercial district. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of South Brentwood Boulevard and Roslyn Drive. The 7,900 square foot site is developed with a one-story commercial building that is currently vacant. The request was recommended for approval by the plan commission on August 21st, 2023. The subject property is developed with a single story commercial structure that previously housed a dry cleaner. The front of the property contains parking and the rear contains a service point that connects to Roslyn Drive. Properties to the north are zoned C1 and contain commercial uses. The structures are primarily two stories and contain parking fronting the street. Properties to south are developed with three-story multifamily structures and are zoned R5. and include below-grade parking. Properties to the east contain single family homes zoned R2, single family dwelling district, and to the west is a special development district containing offices in green space. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to C1. the zoning district is described in the code as the most restrictive commercial district intended to provide a variety of goods and services within a pedestrian-friendly commercial environment compatible to adjacent residential areas thereby maintaining the quality of life established in neighborhoods a table provided in the packet identifies the permitted and conditional uses in the c1 district staff recommends that the board of aldermen approve the rezoning request with the conditions set forth in the ordinance for adoption

very good all All right, I'll open the discussion. Is anyone in the audience or anyone online have a question or a point they'd like to make about this? No. Okay, great. Anybody on our board have questions or comments about this? Yes, Mr. Cater. I do.

I was wondering... And I might have missed it, but I didn't actually see who the applicant is or if we know what their, my impression is we know what they intend to do with the site, but I don't see that spelled out.

So the applicant is the property owner and the owner of that property, there's a sign out front right now looking for tenants. He had stated to the plan commission that his intention would be to have some sort of small office in that building. So the building as it stands is going to remain. He has no intention to demolish the building and redevelop the site in any way. He just wants to reuse the building for that

purpose. So like a simple commercial small sale operation. Right. um okay

I when I thank you I kind of when he was at the plant commission and I kind of inquired as to why maybe he wasn't gonna because it you know is zone residential although it's always been a non-conforming use because it's been commercial for I think David said like forever so um it's such a it's a relatively small site that you couldn't really build much on it and you wouldn't want to build this probably not a single family home that face Brentwood right there so yeah I mean I would anticipate maybe a financial advisor or something. And I would guess if any, I mean, it couldn't be anything that needed substantial parking or anything like that. So.

Just a quick question. I have no opposition to the zoning, but since my dog and I walk by the site many times, I'm always struck by the fact how little parking there is. And as a, as a, it's prior use as a laundry people sort of come in and out and they're there for five minutes and they leave again. I have some concern as to how parking will be handled there, but I don't think that's germane to rezoning the site, but. I don't know if Anna can offer any insight or if we're getting ahead of ourselves, but I just would observe that I do have some concerns how there's so little parking in the back, so little parking in front. It's going to be a tough use in any event.

Yes. So the parking based on the use will be evaluated at the time that we have a use for that site. But the C1 district generally, the uses that are allowed within there would be kind of supported on this restricted site. The structure itself and the development of the property is non-conforming as mentioned under the current zoning. So it has been vacant for over a year and has lost some of those non-conforming rights. So it'll be easier to create a conforming use under a c1 district than it would be as the property is currently aligned so the exact parking requirements or site access for to you know abate any safety issues will have to be evaluated once we have a specific proposal okay thank you

anything else All right, I will close the public hearing. Alderman, oh, Alderman Berkowitz has vacated. Okay, Alderwoman McAndrew.

I will introduce bill number 6991 to approve a rezoning from R5 district to C1 district for 500 South Brentwood Boulevard to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Okay, any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6991, first reading an ordinance providing for the rezoning of certain property located at 500 South Brentwood Boulevard from the R5 district to the C1 district and other actions related thereto.

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6991 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those

in favor?

Aye.

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

I'll introduce bill number 6991 to approve a rezoning from R5 district to C1 district for 500 South Brentwood Boulevard to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion? City

attorney.

Bill number 6991, second reading in consideration for adoption, an ordinance providing for the rezoning of certain property located at 500 South Brentwood Boulevard from the R5 District to the C1 District and other actions related thereto.

Great. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Great. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Fader?

Aye.

Aldernan Rick Hummell?

Aldernan Hummel?

Aye.

Mayor Harris?

Aye.

June, was that you trying to

speak? Yes. OK, well, there you are on the phone. You get to do the next one then. OK. OK, great. OK. All right. Moving on. Well, open the public hearing and request proof of publication for the rezoning and and plat for 7814 Forsyth and all the other addresses listed there. All right,

this request is for a public hearing for review and consideration of the rezoning and related plan unit development for proposed mixed use development. The rezoning plan unit development and subdivision plat are being addressed together in this report, though the plat and the land use elements entail separate ordinances on the board's agenda. The project received architectural review board approval and the plan commission recommended approval of the site plan, lot consolidation, rezoning and development plan on August 21st, 2023. The 29,759 square foot site includes five parcels located at the southeast corner of the intersection between South Central Avenue and Forsyth Boulevard. Site is currently improved with one- and two-story buildings that have housed a variety of retail, restaurant, and office uses. The majority of the tenant spaces are currently vacant. The project consists of the demolition of all structures on the subject properties, the rezoning of the six lots to PUD, the consolidation of the six lots and the construction of a mixed use commercial development on the site. The proposed development measures 20 stories and a total height of 239 feet. The structure would contain 245 hotel rooms, a ground floor restaurant with outdoor dining, a seventh floor bar and terrace, ballroom space, a ground level jazz club, and an attached 235 space parking garage. Access to the parking garage is proposed off of South Central Avenue. Pedestrian access to the restaurant and hotel is provided at the intersection and along South Central Avenue. Access to the jazz club is proposed on Forsyth Boulevard. City standard streetscape will be installed along the project limits on Forsyth boulevard and South Central Avenue. A drop-off or valet zone is proposed on South Central Avenue from the intersection to the entrance of the parking garage. Plan unit developments are distinct zoning district and therefore an application to rezone the subject properties from HDC high density commercial district and northeast downtown overlay district was filed by the developer. The subject properties and proposed development meet the minimum requirements for a mixed use PUD. Staff is of the opinion that the development contains a reasonable ratio of commercial and residential, of commercial uses, sorry. A PUD must provide public benefits to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the city above and beyond what can reasonably be achieved by application of the zoning provisions of the original zoning district. The Board of Aldermen may approve alternatives to the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, or design standards applicable to the property proposed to be rezoned to a PUD in exchange for developer-provided benefits. The number of public benefit points required to offset the requested code modifications for this project is 35. The plan commission recommended awarding 38 points for the proposed public benefits. Detailed tables containing the code modifications and public benefits were included in the packet. staff believes that the proposed development meets all criteria for approval including conformance with adopted plans compatibility with the surrounding area storm water drainage open space and landscaping utilities lighting circulation design and layout staff recommends that the board of aldermen approve the rezoning and plan unit development per the required development commitments set forth in the ordinance exhibit c fourth forsyth central pud document staff also recommends the board of alderman approved the subdivision plat with the conditions set forth and the ordinance for adoption and i see that the developer is here this evening

let me clarify something we're going to have two separate votes one for the rezone and one for the plat

That is correct.

But you just won't read the report.

It's just one report for both items.

Okay, so right now we're just considering the rezoning. And I will open up for discussion. Any comments from anybody here or online questions from our audience? Okay, see none. I can ask the developer if would you guys like to address us in any way?

Thank you, Mayor. Steve Mether with Midas Development. I would be happy to go through our entire presentation, or if you'd like to keep it brief, I'd be here to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay. Why don't you hang there for a minute? I'm going to ask our Aldermanic Representative to the ARB if she'd like to kind of summarize or give us any input or any interesting things that came up then that informed the Board of...

I mean, I will say we had a, you know, certainly a long discussion. There were Many comments by many members of the plan commission. I think overall people think it's a very nice project. Obviously some highlights are the seventh floor terrace, I think will be very nice. It will be open to the public. It's not that it's just open to guests of the hotel. Um, the restaurant, um, will be, um, you know, obviously open to the public as well. Um, it, you know, really the pictures of the, um, hotel look very nice at the lobby level. Canopy is the name of the hotel brand that's coming. There's only a couple around the country as I understand it. Um, obviously I think something that this board has wanted for a long time is an entertainment entity in Clayton. Um, I was promised by the developer that if for some reason they can't find a independent operator of the jazz club, that they would do it themselves. Within, I believe, a year of occupancy was what we came up with so that there is a concrete date for So that there is some sort of, you know, finite time period for when they get their occupancy permit. So I know that that was something we discussed quite a bit. I think everybody on the plan commission liked the way the hotel looked. likes the fact that it has the alternating colors of glass. I think some of the other things that also, I think the art pieces, you know, there's some murals that are on the back, which is the back of the garage facing where the, which would face the jail, I guess. There'll also be a really nice mural as you walk up from what is now, I guess, our new Barcelona restaurant. As you come up Forsyth, you know, rather than looking, I mean, because when you look down the alley, you will see the parking garage, but first you'll see, I think, a very attractive mural. There'll also be an art piece up at that corner where the restaurant will be something I think hanging was what sounded like. So those are kind of the highlights, but I think overall members of the clan commission really liked the project and are excited to see it go forward. And it was

a unanimous. It was. Yes. All right. Any, I'll just go around in order of seniority, any comments or questions for the developer?

No, not really looking over this and listening to that explanation. It seems it could bring a lot of benefit, the openness, the public accessibility and the sustainability awareness in there. I always think silver is a low bar to reach for with LEED certification, but hopefully that will always be improving. So I think it looks great. Thanks. Thank you.

Before, if I could just to there was the one other thing I also wanted to mention was, of course, there was some concern the garage is open facing east. It's high enough up that there won't be light, you know, the lights won't filter through like the headlights. Also, the way the garage is oriented. The lights would only really come through as cars are moving versus when they're parked. Um, so, but also there's no, the way that the building is going to sit, you know, it's, there's no, I guess, residential community that necessarily will stare right at the garage. So that was certainly a concern, um, that we talked to the developer about. But I'm glad you addressed that.

Alderwoman Patel. Hi, I have one question for you about the terrace on the seventh level. So it sounds like it's intended to have like a bar, but also described as open to the public. So it wouldn't, so like you don't have to be like Would it be the case that you don't have to be purchasing things from the bar in order to hang out on the terrace? That is

correct. The terrace actually sits adjacent to the ballroom, the bar on the seventh floor. So it can be used by all of those uses.

Cool. As

well as the general public.

Um, they're like years ago I, um, was in San Francisco and there's this, it's like a thing called popos. Have you heard of this privately owned public open spaces? And so like some cities have many of these and they like, they catalog them to say like, and you can look and see. what places are available and you can go to these, like some of them are tiny little terraces and some of them are big and some of them Are ground level and some of them raised. Anyways, I would love to see us develop places like that across Clayton. So thank you for that. And then I have a question probably for our city manager or attorney, which is the commitments as it relates to restaurants and entertainment. We understand it can be, and even the murals, for example, we have had experiences in the past where developers have committed those things to us and not followed through on them. And so I would like to understand what, if any ability we have to like codify that commitment or put in a remedy in the case it's not followed through on like what I want to make sure I understand how that works.

So there are protections for each of those items. The first one is they're going to be required to go to the public art advisory committee. And then they'll make a recommendation to the Board of Alderman based on the art pieces that are...

I'm not concerned about whether the art will be approved. I'm concerned about whether they will actually put in art.

That'll have to be installed in order to get an occupancy permit for the building. Oh, it has to happen

before occupancy.

Yeah, I mean, it's part of the zoning.

Okay, I didn't understand

that. The other item too that we did add a condition for it relative to the jazz club or the entertainment venue is that the entertainment space is occupied within 12 months of the occupancy for the hotel portion. So once the hotel opens, the clock has started on the jazz club and they have one year to open it.

And if they don't, what happens?

Then we've got another

zoning violation there. It would be then subject as a prosecution. Correct. Okay.

And the art actually has to be like proposed and in progress or done in order to get the occupancy permit. Okay, thanks. Not that I don't think you want to do all these things because it's going to be super cool and everybody's really excited about it.

From the process standpoint, like the Public Art Advisory Commission, so the building on the curve, which is officially underway now, the Public Art Advisory Commissioner, which I'm a part of because you're part of the Planning Commission. We met, I don't know, about a month or six weeks ago and the art was approved. So again, it was approved before the building was.

I appreciate that. And in the past, when murals have been sort of talked about and not followed through on, there was nothing in the plan. Yeah, this is more formalized than those past examples. That it would even be there, let alone have a a provision to ensure it. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure. I want to be very clear. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Alderman Bader, anything?

I'm certainly in support of the project. The point that's been raised here about the jazz club, I think there's been a reference to some language about one year. And I haven't seen that in what's in front of us. In fact, I was concerned that what's in front talks about with reference to the jazz club, the development will include a 4,500 square foot live performance venue in pursuit of a jazz club or similar business, which makes it look like, well, we're going to try to get a jazz club. And I also don't know what a similar business is. If everybody is sold on this being a jazz club, which I suppose those of us who remember Finale would like to see a jazz club, but I don't know what similar business is. And even I think in the The ordinance itself, it talks about the jazz club being maintained for entertainment use or live performance. I just want to make, I just, again, I have full trust in the developer when they say they're going to do what they're going to but I think our language right now is fairly sloppy on it. And I think we need to be real clear that whatever is in the final analysis is if you guys mean jazz club, it's a jazz club. If you mean similar entertainment, I like to know what that is. And if you're serious about the one year and we're serious, then I think it needs to be embodied in the document so we don't because we've had other examples. I think we're on multifamily, we require some retail and then it doesn't happen. And the argument is, well, it's not in the developer's best interest because they know they can't use it for anything else, but it sits vacant because they don't want to cut a deal to make it happen. So I think we're all excited about the jazz club. It's got to happen. And we've got to make sure that the language is real tight on that. And again, if you meet a jazz club, I'd like you to say that. And if you're, I don't know what similar entertainment is. It could be a karaoke bar. I suppose someone could argue in some ways that's similar. So, but, but whatever it is, if it's a jazz club, let's commit to it. Let's put it in there. If it's one year, let's be committed to that. And then I think we'll all feel comfortable and we've got it in the writing and we've got a button down.

check with anna here real quick i know in the development uh the pud document itself under the development uh commitments which is on page eight of the documents page 63 of the packet it does specifically say in there the space label jazz club on level zero zero as shown on sheet a101 shall be maintained for an entertainment use or live performance venue for the should say life of the development there

Yeah, so I would recommend the one year being added as a condition under planning and zoning to Exhibit C for the one year. The reason we referenced live performance venue is the next item tonight is revising the entertainment overlay district, which adds a definition of live performance venue. So in the discussions with the plan commission, jazz club is the term that has been used, but it was discuss that it might not be specifically jazz music only for the life of the development. And so the goal with the language in the proposed ordinance is to reference the live performance venue, which will be defined within our city code that does allow for flexibility of the type or genre of music, but still meets that entertainment goal, the commission.

Excellent. I like that. We I mean, we wouldn't want to I don't think personally, I don't think it has to be jazz.

I agree.

Okay, it does specifically say an entertainment use her live performance venue. So those new definitions that are in that entertainment overlay district ordinance

those uses would apply to this as well.

Yeah.

And if I could add, I wouldn't know how to define jazz to begin with.

So

that's

fair. So I think, so don't make me bring those trash guys back in here. Okay. And so the, I think that the, The goal is, is to be a jazz club, but I think also we were a realist here in that. Can you do six nights of jazz? Right. I mean, is that, and so it will be a live venue club featuring jazz, but there probably will be other genres that will be in this club. All right. I mean, that's kind of what, that's why it was structured that way.

Good point.

Let's do it. Okay. If in keeping with the discussion and talking with the city manager, It may be in order to make a motion to amend Exhibit D,

I believe.

Is D the development standards? 3D under the development commitments. But I think that's Exhibit D to the ordinance, isn't it? Exhibit C. Exhibit C? So amend

Exhibit C, Section 3D on page 8. to read that the space labeled jazz club on level zero zero as shown on sheet a1-01 shall be opened within 12 months of the hotel certificate of occupants and be obtained for an end payment use their live performance venue for the life of the developer

yeah

so uh We can move that

amendment. Well, and I didn't know if Alderman Rick Hummell had any comments before we started making motions.

amendment. Well, and I didn't know if Alderman Hummel had any comments before we started making motions.

I have a question and comment, but it's not germane to this, and I'm fine to defer and take this action and ask my question.

Okay. All right. So moved.

Okay. Second. Yeah. And shall we vote on the amendment? Yes. Is it roll call? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. Alderman Rick Hummell.

Okay. Second. Yeah. And shall we vote on the amendment? Yes. Is it roll call? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. Alderman Hummel.

Thank you. I was hoping that you could briefly give me an idea of why additional hotel rooms in Clayton are either a good business decision or why they're necessary. And I know you have a huge portfolio of hotels, so I'm sure you have a great deal of expertise there. And then why this particular brand? Why is this brand a good fit for our community?

This brand is an upper upscale brand. It is as close to a boutique hotel as a big chain like Hilton has in their portfolio. And it is attractive to demographic groups that aren't represented currently by the hotels in downtown Clayton. So it matches very well with some of our other hotels, like the Residence Inn, as well as some of the upper upscale hotels like Derbyshire, who wouldn't compete head-to-head with them, but provides a different niche to the guests that are staying there.

And so any insight on, I know the market's hardly been stable given COVID, but occupancy levels of hotels and why Clayton's a good market to add more hotel rooms?

So we track a lot of stuff, right? And so Clayton is unique in that there has not, until the residence inn opened, there hadn't been a new hotel built in Clayton in 35 years, right? Guests love new. I mean, they just do. And so there was a lot of demand. that was Clayton demand, that was really staying outside of the city limits. They were staying in newer products that were outside of the city. Once we built the Residence Inn, it was pretty clear that people came back and wanted to stay in Clayton because the Residence Inn ramped up in like 90 days, which is very strong. And I don't think from my looking at Star Information, the other hotels in Clayton haven't been hurt by our new hotel that's been opened. If anything, we're helping elevate the rates. Okay, great. Thank you. That's all.

Very good. And I was just going to add too, because I know we've talked about this in our steering committee meetings as well. hotel occupancy. And just because I think it's helpful so that we don't think that all of our hotels will be vacant, or at least, you know, half empty. But in 2020, 20 and 2019, before the pandemic, our hotel occupancy was at about 72%. And in 2023, we're up to 63%. So we're not quite in the 70s yet. But I think it's at least encouraging that we're getting there. So

That's it as business travel starts to make some full comeback, which we hope it will. Yeah. All right. Any other questions by anybody for our developers here? Okay. So if there's no further discussion, I'll close the public hearing and Alderwoman McAndrew.

I will introduce bill number 6992 to approve a reasoning and a plan unit development for 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 210-1418 South Central Avenue to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6992, first reading an ordinance providing for the rezoning of certain property located at 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 21014 and 18 South Central Avenue to a planned unit development district to be known as the Forsyth Central Planned Unit District, providing for the change in the zoning map of the city of Clayton, Missouri, approving a planned unit development for the subject property and other actions related thereto.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any

opposed? Okay.

I will move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6992 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

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

I'll introduce bill number 6992 to approve a rezoning and a planned unit development for 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 2101418 South Central Avenue to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 6992, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the rezoning of certain property located at 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 21014 and 18 South Central Avenue to a planned unit development district to be known as the Forsyth Central Planned Unit District, providing for the change of the zoning map of the City of Clayton, Missouri, approving a planned unit development for the subject property and other actions related thereto.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay. Now we can move into the plat for the same development. Alderwoman

I'll introduce bill number 6993 to approve a locked consolidation plat for 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 21014 and 18 South Central Avenue to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6993, first reading an ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to consolidate certain property known as 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 21014 and 18 South Central Avenue and widen an adjacent alley in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? I'll move that the board gives unanimous consent to consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6993 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? All right. Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent. I'll introduce bill number 6992 to approve a lock consolidation plan for 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 2101418 South Central Avenue to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Discussion. Mr. City

Attorney.

Bill number 6993, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to consolidate certain property known as 7814 Forsyth Boulevard and 210, 14, and 18 South Central Avenue and widen into Jason Alley in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

Father Woman McAndrew? Aye. Father Woman Buse?

Aye.

Father Women Piquel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder?

Father Women Piquel? Aye. Alderman Fader?

Aye.

Alderman Rick Hummell?

Alderman Hummel?

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

All right. Congratulations, gentlemen. We are all really looking forward to the vibrancy that this vision of yours is going to bring to Clayton. So we'll be watching, hoping. Yeah.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

okay um the last thing is it the last thing besides the consent agenda okay Last thing here on our agenda, other than the consent agenda, is a text amendment for the entertainment overlay district. So I'm going to open the public hearing and request proof of publication. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing to solicit input regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 410, Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts, to modify definitions, use regulations, and the boundary of the district of the existing Entertainment Overlay District, or EO. The existing overlay district was adopted by the Board of Aldermen on May 18th, 2019 and then modified in 2021. The Board of Aldermens has continued to discuss the goals and visions of the EO as the city has not seen a business utilize the options of the EO. As a result of those discussions, the Board of Alderman directed staff to further refine divisions for live performance venues as a subset of an entertainment venue as it related to liquor license and use operations. There are four categories within the proposed amendments. First is the boundary itself. The proposed expansion includes the majority of the Central Business District, located south of Maryland Avenue, north of Shaw Park Drive, west of Hanley Road, and east of Brentwood Boulevard. This boundary captures many of the centralized parking garages in downtown, some of the larger retail spaces, and still provides separation from the denser residential districts. definition section the proposed amendment includes adding a definition for a live performance venue this use is more specific than the entertainment use definition and includes qualifying criteria for the operation under uses permitted with the addition of a new use definition the permitted uses section is amended to include the new use the section is further amended to remove the modification of liquor license a new section has been added to the eo to regulate the operation of uses and the liquor license regulations were relocated to this section. And then under use regulations, a primary function of the EO is to allow for modifications to the liquor license requirements for specific uses within its boundaries. The current EO allows for entertainment uses to obtain a liquor license provided that no more than 75% of gross sales may be derived from the sale of alcohol with 25% from food sales required. The proposed amendment maintains the current entertainment use provision and adds another for live performance venue. The proposed amendment would allow a live performance venue to obtain a liquor license provided a minimum of 20% of annual gross income or a minimum of $200,000 is derived from sales and activities other than the sale of alcohol, which could include ticket sales, admission fees, food sales, et cetera. As entertainment uses and live performance venues may be associated with undesirable impacts such as traffic, parking demands, and noise, these uses will require a conditional use permit. On August 21st, 2023, the Plan Commission held a hearing to solicit input regarding the proposed amendments. The Plan Commission discussed a shared desire for supporting vibrancy and entertainment uses in downtown. Members supported the amendment as a step in the necessary direction, and many felt that the additional actions may be necessary in the future including removing more barriers and procedural requirements. The Plan Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance.

Very good. Okay, I'll open the discussion, and I think we may have some questions or comments from the audience. Yes? Are you here for that, Dan and Linda? No? Yes? Okay. I kind of thought that's why you were coming.

Good evening, Mayor, all the persons. This is a great idea. I'm Dan Phillips, president of the Park Tower. This is a good idea. It's been being prepared for a long time. I couldn't be more pleased that you're moving forward on it. We've been building residential units, condos, apartment buildings for some time. So I hope we've substantially increased the population that'll use this. It'll stop people going out to the county as much because they'll have a place to stop off. And after work, they'll have a so we strongly support it. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Thanks for sharing that. Okay, any other discussion online in the audience here? Okay, how about from the Board of Aldermen? Any questions, comments? Oh, okay. Yeah, come on up. Just don't forget your name and address.

I'm Rich Goldstein, 8025 Maryland Avenue. I'm also president of Maryland Walk Building Association. But I also live in Fort Lauderdale, downtown, where there's great music and entertainment. The only caution I want... music and entertainment, et cetera. The only caution I have is that you need to be aware of the residents that are living there trying to sleep at night. So however you work out those rules in Fort Lauderdale, I know a lot of people that are complaining about the noise. And so just keep that in mind.

And we do. Thank you very much. Yeah.

Okay. Any other comments

go

around? I have one comment and I appreciated that the awareness of the residents around there. And I think this is leftover from our experiences during COVID, but I'm fully in support of this, of doing this, but I hope we're also prepared and very clear on when we will react and how we will address any issues that do arise. If there's, you know, trash in the streets or public urination and all that kind of stuff that we've struggled with before and how to crack down on so um as long as we are aware of that as a city and put that all together with i fully trust our police chief to get that done um this is great very good anything else anything over here yeah

uh just a question i i think it's a great idea and i'm all supportive of it um my question is it seems to me you could have a jazz club or entertainment venue, whatever it is. And if it was like, it could be one where you charge people to come in and so therefore you generate sufficient fees doing that. I'm just wondering about the food piece because as I read the ordinance As I read it, it looked to me like arguably as long as your liquor sales were at 75%, if your other 25% was just based on fees that you charge people to get in, literally you would not have to have any food You could have peanuts and pretzels, and that would be it. But I'm not sure if that's the intent, whether there is a belief that you ought to have some food element. But at least I read the ordinance to say you really don't need any. I think the term they use here is prepared food or meals, but it doesn't look like you'd necessarily have to have that. So I just wonder why. Either Kevin or Ana, is that the intent? Because it seems to me that does make a difference.

Do you have

any expectation of food?

I can certainly just say from my perspective and from our discussions, I think that is the intent. Because you think about certain venues that we hope will come to us. I mean, bigger venues. Let's go really big. Let's go to the rep. No food. I mean, they can't serve food.

That's fine with me. I think that's a better solution by not requiring it. But just the way it's worded here, I just wondered if there was any inference that you have to have some 5%, 10% of meals.

20%

of the revenue is non-food.

Okay, that's fine with me

If I can just build on that a little bit, my only familiarity is on college campuses. If there's a fraternity party or something, there is a requirement of a certain percentage of food just based based on health and safety standards. We're not a college university, but whenever you have an establishment with a lot of alcohol, I don't know what the best practice is as far as requiring a certain amount of food being sold. But it's something I don't, I don't know the answer to that, but I have seen it on college campuses where they do. I've heard it helps sober you

up if you have something to eat. That's what I've

heard. Yeah. But I think if you think about entertainment venues in general, they, they often don't have any food that might have snacks for sale or something like that. And so I think that's what we're trying to do is allow those kinds of venues to operate and to have a kitchen that It's just not going to be viable, you know, for many of

them. And I always get a cookie at the rep, by the way. That's

right. So they, you can buy a cookie.

Yes, but they don't have food service. It is not a requirement as it's written. There are communities that require, they don't require the sale of food necessarily, but the provision of food. like bags of chips, but we didn't write it that way. If that's something that you would like to, we can add it in, but right now it's not written that way. I'll also direct specific attention to the clause about the number of performance venues, because I know that's something that this board is specifically, or the number of performances that you guys have specifically discussed at the last few discussions on this. I just want to make sure that I call your attention to that before it's adopted in the way that it's been written right now, because we highlight 50% or minimum of six days a month. I know it was thrown out a lot with this board, whether we wanted to do a percentage of the number of days that the business is in operation or just have a minimum total number of days per month. So I just wanted to make sure that you took a look at that.

very good all right any further questions discussion anything okay all right um all right so i will close the public hearing alderwoman mccandrew

i'll introduce bill number 6994 to approve a text amendment to article 15 entertainment overlay district to be read for the first time by title only second any discussion mr city

attorney

Bill number 6994, first reading. An ordinance amending Article 15, Entertainment Overlay District of Chapter 610. I think that should be 410. Excuse me. Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts of the Municipal Code of the City of Clayton, Missouri. That's a typo in the title, which we'll correct on the execution

direct. All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? All right. I'll move that the board gives unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6994 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? All right. Let the minister reflect. The board is giving unanimous consent. And Alderman McCandless.

I'll introduce Bill No. 69994 to approve a text amendment to Article 15, Entertainment Overlay District, to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6994, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Article 15 Entertainment Overlay District of Chapter 410, Overlay and Urban Design Zoning Districts of the Municipal Code of the City of Clayton, Missouri.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Hughes. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Hughes. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye.

aye

alderman Rick Hummell

alderman hummel

aye

mayor harris aye thank

you very good um the last thing we have here is just our consent agenda uh mr city manager do you want to say anything at all

the eight items is listed

okay any discussion of any of those items i would just want to note that with regard to the boards and commission's appointments we still have an opening on um sustainability And the reason is that we are trying to find someone from Ward 2 to join because all the other members are either Ward 1 or Ward 3. And so we're just giving it a little more time to see if anybody applies. All right. So if there's no further discussion, we can call the roll. I think I got them. Oh, sorry. Yes.

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

Second. Okay.

There's no further discussion.

Yeah, go ahead, Jim. Sorry. Alderman McAndrew?

Aye.

Alderwoman Butte?

Aye.

Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Sater?

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

All right. I think at this point we would often do a roundtable, but I'm going to suggest that perhaps we would go into a closed session right now and just discuss any...

You want to let Ben know we passed his liquor license as part of the consent agenda?

Oh, okay. I didn't realize he had his hand up. He just put it up. Okay. Mr. Paramba?

Yes, this is me.

Yes. Do you have a question or do you, do you know that we did pass your liquor license? No, I

was just on there for a couple hours. So I didn't, I wasn't, I didn't.

You lost track of us.

I may, I may have missed it. You know, when I made dinner for the kids, but I had it on. Sorry about that. I just wanted to make sure that.

Yes, it was, you know, there wasn't any discussion or controversy about it. We just passed it.

Okay, well, great. Thank you so much.

You are welcome. Enjoy the rest of your night.

I appreciate it. Bye-bye.

Excuse me. Yes, I'm sorry.

Okay. Yes, sorry. We do publish what's on that consent agenda, but if you didn't pull out our agenda, that's fine. I'm sorry about that. All right. So instead of going around, I think since it's quarter to nine, I'd like to propose that we do have a closed session to further discuss some of the issues that came up tonight with our attorney. So if you would go ahead and read the blurb.

I would like to move that the Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by Section 610.021, Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate, and or personnel negotiation of a contract pursuant to Section... 610.021 part 12 and or proprietary information pursuant to section 610.0 21 part 15 and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to Section 610.0 to one parts 18 and 19 of the revised Statutes of Missouri

all right second second yeah all those in favor or do we do a roll call okay

roll call

Jim

Alderman McAndrew.

Aye.

Alderwoman Butte.

Aye.

Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Sater.

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. All right. Thank

you,

June.