January 23, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, well, here we are. Our last board meeting in January, and we're going to open up with our discussion on parking. Gary, we can be all knocked over with a feather. You're wearing a tie. Are you taking Debbie out for dinner after this or something? It looks good. It looks good.

Gary Carter, Director of Economic Development, City of Clayton. Tonight we're going to have a presentation on our residential parking zones and programs that we currently operate. There are currently four zones in the city of Clayton. Some of the zones, as you'll see on the map, I printed off new maps for you tonight too. So the top map with a green background is the current existing conditions. And part of the issues with those conditions current existing conditions are the zones are sometimes larger than they necessarily need to be because some streets are colored that in fact don't have restrictions on them. So that's one of the issues outstanding with those. But anyway, within the existing zones, residents receive a sticker for their cars and hang tags for their guests and employees. Some of the issues that, here's the map, same one that you have there. These are the current restrictions with some of the zones. So you'll see that some zones have two different time zones within them. Some are resident only except for Sunday. kind of trying to explain the current existing conditions. Here's an example of the stickers and the hang tags. I don't know what happened to this slide, it's gone haywire. some of the challenges that we have are that we don't necessarily have a good accounting for the hang tags over time they don't have an expiration date on them so unfortunately there does exist a black market for clayton visitor tags in the city um we typically find those in Clayton Gardens with downtown employees taking advantage of those and parking there for free and then walking into the office. It's not everyday occurrence, but it's not uncommon either. Another issue is that Currently, the most new residents are unaware of the parking regulations. So we always have that unfortunate event where we take it, the new person in town and then inform them of the program. We always take that ticket back, but it's more of a nuisance for everyone involved. It's uncomfortable for them. It's time consuming for staff. Another one of the issues that we have disjointed zones and where that primarily comes up is around the Clayton High School and Washington University. So under the current program, If you're in the same zone color but don't live next to the high school, you potentially could have a high school student who has the opportunity to park by the high school if the lot is full or for convenience or who knows what the reason may be. In addition, you also could have the opportunity to park Jason to I think it's Ellen would over there next to the university, even though you didn't live there and then walk to campus. The system is I'm going to guess at least 50 years old it predates everyone here, I think, for the most part, it is a paper application walk in application. It's a manual spreadsheet that's kept on file at TVB. And again, the stickers and the hang tags. The system that we're proposing tonight, and again, this is just a proposal tonight, we'll bring back everything with an ordinance at a later date once we have all the details worked out. But the current proposal is to expand those into five new zones. And that's the second sheet that you have there with a white background for It does a couple of things. Primarily, it eliminates all those streets that are unnecessarily in a zone because there is no restrictions. This proposal doesn't change any of the legislation. So streets that are one hour or two hour resident only except for Sunday, those all stay the same. This is the zoning process to identify those people that should be in those zones. And then we've also tried to eliminate the possibility of the Clayton High School and the Washington University issue that I just talked about. This would run on an LPR system, our license plate reader system, using our existing passport parking. So the passport app that we use to pay for our app on the street also has a permitting process. It's currently being used for residents that apply for the resident discount. So residents get a 50% discount by using the app and having that permit. This would expand it to the resident sticker. Basically, the sticker becomes your license plates. Initially, we would take the existing file that we have for all residents, which is plus or minus about 1,500 vehicles right now. and work with Passport to automatically dump that into the license plate reader system. So the residents first year expectation is that it would be seamless for them. There's obviously gonna be cars that have sold, replaced, no longer in the system. And that's something that will have to be worked out over time, but we will take that information, dump that into Passport and the residents should be, very few residents should have to do anything. We are proposing an annual renewal. So each year, just like the resident discount program, you'll get an automated email through the system that asks you to go into it and update the information if necessary or confirm the information. We are also proposing that visitors use the LPR system too. So not so much for ACME heating and air conditioning. If there's a truck in the neighborhood, we usually... recognize that they're working at a resident. Where it would probably impact residents the most is if they have a babysitter or house cleaner, someone that's routinely coming to the house in a private car and that which they would need to go into the system under this proposal and enter that information so that license plate doesn't receive a ticket when they're on the street. So here's a look at the new zoning, resident zoning map. You can see that the high school and the Washington University area are different from most of the other systems along with that in the Davis place around Central Presbyterian. And we've made an attempt to eliminate the zones with two different restrictions area. So people in a one hour park in a one hour, people in a two hour park in a two hour. You still will have the ability to park in any zone that's the same color as yours. We just don't anticipate that being highly used because we've eliminated the high school and the Washington University issue. This is just summarizing what we've spoke about earlier with the transition into passport system. There is going to be a cost associated with this. It's about $8,000 to have Passport take that database that we have and dump that into the new system. We do have a few neighborhood signs that had the actual residential parking zone number on them. but I've spoken with Matt and Public Works, and we believe that it'll be a minimal number. We may be able to take the number off or simply cover it. So it shouldn't be a large burden on Public Works to address that issue. Happy to take any questions that you may have at this point.

As you said, this is about a 50-year-old program. And so it's the first time I've ever really taken a look at it. And can you just give us a maybe 20 feet up aerial view of What are the objectives here for the program, even as it sits today? I mean, what's the reason for this setup with the zones? What are we trying to protect? What are we to provide?

Sure. I think one of the reasons we're trying to implement this is to eliminate some of the misuse of hang tags. in the city now?

My question really goes to why are we even doing zones? What's the purpose of having the zones where if I live in White Owl Forest and I'm a red zone, Well, I'm going to be able to park maybe somewhere in this area of maybe Clayton Gardens or something. So why are we doing it that way and why is it?

Because the zones represent the time limits on the street. So in a neighborhood that is one hour parking except for residential use, that's why we have the zones. So residents can... apply for that zone and we know that their street can be, their car can be on the street for longer than an hour at a time.

Right. And I'm trying to figure out though, again, The restriction of the zones, in other words, I got a zone. It's a red one. It's in my neighborhood. You've got red in other areas of the city, particularly up in Ward 1 and Ward 3. And so that's not my neighborhood. No. It's just not. So why is

it? The zone colors really represent the time or are trying to match if I can get back to the – can you get the PowerPoint back up? Thanks. I think you still go back one. So the zones are trying to match under the proposed system, the zones are attempting to match the restriction. So all one hours are one color, all two hours are one color. You're right. Alderman, that if you're in a red zone, you can park in any red zone that you want to. But what we've done is we've attempted to eliminate the obvious areas where people would actually want to do that. I'm not sure you have a reason to park in... Here in Y-Down Forest, you wouldn't necessarily drive over to Davis Place and park all day, I don't suspect, where you could have been inclined had you had a student in your house for them to park over at the high school or Washington University.

Right, and I get separating those two out completely. I get

that

100%. It's just how the rest of the city gets divided and why it gets divided.

We're dividing it by the hour restriction on the street. And another reason we're doing this too is to streamline this process for the sake of the city standpoint too, because there's an immense amount of staff time in processing those applications and maintaining those stickers. This issue now becomes automated through the passport system.

Right. Okay. I'm just wondering why shouldn't I be able to park in the Morelands if I wanted to or needed to, if I have friends there?

Well, Morelands doesn't have any restrictions, so you can.

Oh, I was looking at the gray. I thought that was a gray. I didn't know what that was. All right, so... but but like you said Davis Place say I've got friends in Davis Place so I'm living in Whiteown Forest and I'm not I'm I don't have free access to parking in Davis Place even though I've got friends there I want to visit them they all live in the same city why can't I do that

you can

I can but I'm restricted in terms of my time

oh Oh, I understand what you're saying. You're saying you're a resident of Clayton. Why can't I park anywhere in Clayton?

I suppose like on Sundays, you know, if you don't have the right parking permit and you want to visit somebody on Biltmore, you know, you don't have, but that's also just, I guess, understanding that on Sundays it's difficult over there with all the church parks. I think the

basis of the residential zone was to connect a neighborhood parking to those that lived in the neighborhood. and grant them first access. I can't remember the exact language of the ordinance in the code, but something to that effect. It doesn't prohibit you from... No, I realize that,

but I'm still restricted.

During the hours of enforcement, which vary. Most are 8 to 5. But... In your particular case, you are the same zone under the proposal as Davis Police. Yeah, I saw that. Thank you.

I think most of our parking restrictions, too, they come up when a resident calls, you know, and they're in very specific areas. You know, like this person has been parking in front of my house for, you know, days at a time, and I don't recognize the car. And, you know, you're not going to call on a friend, obviously, who's coming to visit you, so...

Other woman, that's our number one call.

Right.

There's a car parked in front of my house.

Right. Exactly. Right. But, you know, as I tell people all the time, we don't have enough parking people to constantly patrol the city. So it is, you know, you have to call, you have to report it. So I think that takes away a little bit of the, if somebody's visiting a friend or, you know, unless it's, you know, like on that Sunday or, you know. I probably, you know, an old town. It's problematic because they often get employees, as you know.

Yeah. And I think there's there's we're going to have to coordinate with the communication staff also because there's going to be a lot of communications during this transition process if it's so approved. But I mean, from from an enforcement standpoint. Yeah. We try to be as flexible as we can. And like you said, there's only three of us. So we have hot spots that we primarily deal with downtown being one of them in the areas around Washington University is another and then with all the construction. going on, we spend a lot of time there. So it's not very often that we are enforcing the residential zones without first receiving complaint for the car there. Now we do have certain areas that it just makes more sense than others, such in Old Town and proximity to downtown because we do get a lot of extraneous parking. and those are attempted the strenuous parking in um but you know in the heart of Davis Place or um Y down Forest with the exception though that that's closer over to the Parkway with that walkway over there we have historically gotten some of that along with um other parts of the area adjacent to the city, and those close streets to the walkways crossing over the parkway, we do get some parking.

Yeah, I don't think our neighborhood gets much of that in terms of on a daily basis, but if you have the wine and the festivals or the art fair and those sort of things, then... we do see more of that and most of the neighborhood's fine and it's like okay it's temporary and these are people that are participating in the city event and everybody's okay with it nobody i've talked to has ever complained so right

um i just i had a just a question first i i find um well i guess my first question is i feel like um when i go to other cities especially and i know st louis city um is park mobile Has there ever been any thought to not using Passport and moving to ParkMobile? I mean, I was just kind of curious what the thought is. It just seems like it might be a more streamlined process given that St. Louis City uses it. And it seems to be a more common app nationally.

I mean, certainly something we can look at. We've not had any issues with Passport as far as working. So we're relatively pleased from that standpoint. But if there's a desire for us to try to match the city of St. Louis, it's certainly something we could do.

Yeah, no, I mean, I just, you know, I just bring it up. I just don't know how often we look at.

There's where there's different fee structures and different services that they can provide. So something to explore perhaps.

and take a look at that contract too, and see what.

Yeah. I mean, I'm just curious.

Yeah.

I haven't seen passport. We don't have a, there's

no terminal term 30 days.

Right. So yeah, I just haven't seen passport outside of Clayton. Whereas I feel like park mobile is everywhere.

It really should be a County wide.

Right.

That would make it so much easier. Yes.

Right. You cities on their passport, correct?

I believe so. I mean, passport is a, National brands. And

I'm not disagreeing. I mean, yeah. And I guess my other question is, as we move to this, I do find Passport a little bit hard. When you go into the app, I really have no idea if I'm still a resident and like, I just don't, I don't feel like it's very user-friendly at times. So I'm just curious because this will be more significant so that, you know, if license plates are uploaded to the app, you know, just kind of being able to see on the app, okay, like do I, am I considered a resident? Are my license plates in here? So I just, and I'm just.

Well, from that standpoint, I mean, unless you're parking downtown at a meter, if you were a resident of say, Wydown Forest and weren't concerned about that, you'd really never have to download the app. It's more of a license plate. We're using the permit feature, which potentially may be another benefit of Because under our original negotiated contract, we have unlimited permits. So we don't pay that part. We won't pay for to transition to this. So you could... You'd never know that you were in passport as a resident, really.

Okay. You wouldn't

have to ever open your phone to say I'm parking in front of my house. It's really we're using the system to enter your license plate, which goes into the Jeeps for enforcement purposes.

Yeah, I guess I didn't realize that it was so dependent on staff uploading a particular license plate or passport. I thought it was more... I guess I thought it was, you know, for instance, I got a new car. You know, if I was already a resident in Passport, then I could upload my car and then the parking ambassadors would see, oh, this person got a new car because he had a new car uploaded and I'm not going to give them a ticket because they belong in this zone. So it's really the license plate uploading is really very much on like... a resident's not going to do that that's all going to be very well

they they will do that after year one so you so this gets approved and we go into that we have a excel spreadsheet basically of everyone in the system currently with a hang tag or a sticker or whatever so we will feed that to passport and they will put that in the system for us

okay

So, and then I'm suggesting that we do a renewal process because currently we've operated under no renewal process.

Okay.

So you could move out of town and change your hang tags. Not that that's done all the time, but it is done. Right. And we have no accounting of the system. But like

my husband's gotten a new car then. So what would we need to do if we were to go to this new system then?

You'll go in through a portal on the city website and just change the license plate

description or add a license plate. OK, I just wanted to kind of understand

how you also change it in the app on your phone. You cannot. You have to go on the city's website. That's

that's a question I'm going to have to get to passport and get back with you

there. That would be much. You would

think.

It would be much more user friendly if we could do it that way.

A couple questions. The $8,000 fee is a one-time upload, not an annual or something, right? That's

correct.

Okay. And I guess I see this as two different things. Bringing the system up to date seems to be one of the main reasons you're doing this. It's a little easier. Everything's through the same access. And I agree with you. I always have to look to see which app I'm under if I'm in the city or here. So, you know, it's not a big deal, but it'd be nice if it was consistent. Bigger question is in doing this, and this is like another step, I guess, and there have been some changes as far as who gets a pass or not, but most of it is pretty much the same as what we've already done. These streets need permits to park and these streets don't, right?

Yeah, under the old map, the green background on it This is several decades old, and it's probably changed. And unfortunately, I can't find an ordinance that implemented it. So it's changed as street restrictions have changed, and some restrictions have fallen off. So we have bigger zones than we need. There's no reason for some streets to have a zone color.

And that was my question, really. I mean, in Clavarack Park, I don't get to park in Davis Place. So, and I don't recall. Can you believe that? And I don't recall when I have gone to Davis Place ever having a problem parking. So I'm wondering if it's time to do a needs assessment to see which streets need permits and which don't. And then I look at the corner of Hanley and Wydown where there's not much restriction parking yet. I think they do have problems with the businesses there. Should there

be? Permits mirror the time restriction posted on the street. So there's an ordinance that says this section of Westwood, there's not. But just for example, this section of West would is one hour parking except for residents. That's why it would zone under the old and both new system.

Okay, so if I'm looking at where all the businesses are at the corner of Y down and Hanley, which doesn't have as much permitting, the resident permits.

So Forest Court has a restriction there. Right. and that first section going east of Y down, and then all of Y down forest.

Your suggestion is that in addition to looking at the parking system that we reevaluate all of the restrictions. Right, that's

all I'm saying. I agree with the updating. It all sounds great. I'm just wondering if it's time to relook where the need is. It seems to be that there is a point where residents are having trouble parking and where they're not, and it should, at some point, we should look at that and make sure everything aligns for those restrictions.

Well, and I think that's it. I don't remember who was actually on the board at this point in time, but we had looked at there was a proposal at one time of splitting the Morelands. I was just going to bring that up, yeah. And restricting parking on the single-family side. And not doing it on the multifamily side.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I understand that. But I'm trying to

get to the point of the Morelands, having lived there in the past myself. You have extreme density. You can have condos with 15, 16 units and seven parking spaces. Yeah. small parking spaces. So hopefully you don't drive a big car either. And that, you know, that's part of the problem in those areas. But yeah, I mean, we are always evaluating the time limits on streets. Right,

because what you're really looking at is not that issue of too many residences in a space. You're looking at people coming in primarily with businesses or non-residents coming in and parking in these spaces. And I'm just suggesting that looking at this, it may be time to do an actual needs analysis and make sure Any restrictions we have are actually needed and are equitable across the city about who's getting that kind of protection and who's not. I agree. I have no problem in my area. We're all good, but just saying where that is.

Great. I definitely want to support the move to update and modernize, get this in a computer and where even residents can maybe access it and see. I mean, that's great. I think establishing expiration dates and renewal process is important. And I would encourage you to think about if you haven't already, like spreading out when folks renew, right? So you're not dealing with all of the renewals at one time having to process them. And I'd support like maybe the first time is in one year, but maybe after that it's two years. I don't know, like just something to think about in terms of reducing the burden on the staff, but still ensuring that there's a check-in at some point. That would be something I would support. um and then I so I want to talk like more generally about what it means to have a residential parking zone so it looks like in our existing conditions we defined zones like mostly based on neighborhoods Like, like they're like regional neighborhood based kind of talk you're talking proposing switching to zones being based on. What the restriction is. Um, and so like that, my head struggles with that because it seems to me like the zone and the restriction could be distinct from each other. Like, like we could have one hour parking on even half a block and two hour on another, because there might be a good reason for it. I don't think there is, but you know, but it's still the same zone. Um, so that some kind of struggling with that idea, like furthermore, I don't think that It's okay to say that like, Ira can come hang out at my house in Hillcrest for four hours but Susan can't and my friend who lives in Richmond Heights or you city definitely can't like that's, I don't like like that just doesn't seem right to me. So, I think like. either eliminating the zones altogether except for the high school in Wash U, if that's really where the issue is, that would also simplify the process because the restrictions are posted on the signs. So that's how residents know about them. I mean, they're not gonna be looking at the website or whatever to figure out what zone they're in to know their restrictions. They're gonna look into the signs.

Um, we just need to come up for a mechanism to identify resident cars in that manner. Then

you could still have to like register your car.

Okay.

I think, I mean, if that, like, I'm okay with that. Um, but not act like one resident can park in Hillcrest and another one can't, or like, it just doesn't, it seems weird unless it's going to be like, actually, we're going to define them based on the neighborhoods or like today I thought it was actually based on like your block. Um, Because like the guy, people across the street from me have restrictions, but I don't. And I can't get a parking permit for my street because on my side of the street, I don't need a permit. So the city won't give me one. But that means like if I need to park on the other side of the street or workers do, like technically they're in violation. So fortunately we haven't been called. on and take it in. But it's just like, it's just a weird system. So those are my thoughts on that. Also, I do see differences here, right? So I understand you said the restrictions aren't changing, just how we define zones. And so i'm guessing that's why some areas that are zoned in current existing conditions are not zoned in the future because even though they might have been defined in a zone there aren't parking restrictions there

that's correct

okay um so that i think i can understand that there is one area that is not zoned in existing conditions, but is zoned in the proposal, which is the little block of Clayton that Barb Nort is online to ask about, which is why is that now marked as a zone two when it's not zoned here? And what does it mean that that's happening? Like, based on what you said, it makes me think parking restrictions are already in place there, but we don't give out residential... I don't know. I don't know what it means. Can you clarify that?

Oh, the dark blue right there. Dark blue strip

in the like 6600 block.

Yeah, that is represented because there is a residential restriction on that block.

Okay, it just isn't depicted on the... It

wasn't picked up under the old system.

Meaning the map you have in front of us is just missing that highlight?

Yes.

So that's just like a typo. You're not actually proposing, or like a... No, these are not new

restrictions. So that restriction is there today. The old map just did not have that picked up. And probably what has happened, and I can't, I'm just guessing at this point in time because this predates everyone, is that once the map had come into existence, this restriction on that part of Clayton Roads came after that and it was never picked up in a new map.

Okay. Barb doesn't think she has restrictions today. I don't know if she's checked her signs lately. We can just validate that. And then even though she's not a, she's actually not a resident, she's a property owner. Would she be able to get a permit so she could park at the building? Like would property owners or residents would have the right? Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Thank you.

So there's a lot of minutia here. And so I want to just look at the real big picture for me. So the goal of this overall is to provide access to residents. Generally, are there any other goals of this parking program?

streamline the process from a paper process.

I'm sorry. Yes, I understand that your goal is to try to make it more effective and efficient than it is right now. But what I want to make sure, for example, is we're not trying to drive parking revenue with this program by making people park in the city. That was never a stated goal, right?

No.

Okay. And do we have, other than the administration of this program, do we have any real problems right now in terms of resident complaints, recurring issues? What would be, if anything, a problem that we have?

Visitor hang tags that just continue to circulate without expiration.

Right. So is that a significant issue?

It's not an uncommon issue.

Right. But it strikes me as in the big picture of life, relatively mild issues in terms of the things we deal with. I

wouldn't consider it life threatening.

Okay. And then tell me about enforcement. How much time do we spend in whatever time period makes sense on enforcement?

For residential zones?

Yes. Okay.

I'd probably guess 20% of their time.

So it's, it is a more frequent and in what areas are there specific areas like Wash U Clayton high school areas are though, and the central business district.

Uh, forest court, uh, Y down forest, um, areas, uh, Jason to downtown in old town. Um, uh, current this, uh, past fall, we spent a significant time on gay by those new town homes. And that area does come up around the high school and Ellenwood, associated with Washington University quite often too.

Okay. What I'm trying to get at there is just to see, this could be mind-numbing in terms of all of the detail here, but making sure that what we're doing is addressing wherever the issues are, which is what I'm understanding, what you're trying to do. So, okay. Thank you.

yeah I mean I Rick and I'll just say like I don't I think it's been a little quieter recently, but it really is a constant like. I just get emails from residents that are adjacent to old town or people that are close to like. They live near Ladue Nails in Davis Place. I mean, it's a constant like parking. Parking is a constant problem.

Oh, I get it. It

really is close to like wherever the business districts are. So I know that you're not saying otherwise. I just feel like it is or people call and there was somebody in Old Town who somebody was parking constantly and they did. They had like a forged hang tag. I mean, it didn't exist. So it really is, it's bizarre. You would never think it happens, but it totally happens.

Yeah, so I used to live over there and I get those issues. What I'm trying to get at there is what... I don't think that when we have people visiting somebody somewhere else, that that's an issue for us with a problem or enforcement or anything else. It's the recurring issue that has to do with the high density areas, central business district and the schools. That's where the issues are. And so I just want to make sure that our program is really addressed at where are the issues? How do we keep it easy? How do we make sure we can actually enforce it?

And I just don't ever think that like, yes, Susan might not have a residential tank because she lives in Glavarac. And I do because I live on Westmoreland near the central business. She's still not going to get a ticket because she comes to visit me and she stays at my house for three hours. I mean, it just doesn't happen like that. Our parking ambassadors are not set up to ticket people like that. So

yeah, I mean, we

just, I just wouldn't worry about, I think that's a concern that's not worth worrying

about.

That's my point.

Right.

They attempt to make every effort to identify the car and the owner before we get into ticketing residents. And as Alderman pointed out, there's only three of them in two and a half square miles. Lot 52 across from the courthouse usually consumes one of them every day. So we're down to two. And most of the residential issues, with the exception of those high frequency areas that we discussed like around the Y down district, business district or over here adjacent to the downtown are responded to on a call basis.

I just mentioned as a footnote the early drive between Carswold and Hanley is a street that is important to the rest of the residents being able to exit or enter White Elm Forest. And I hear what Bridget says, and I think that's okay, except I wonder if we could actually enforce over there without the need for a call-in, only because as cars go out of the neighborhood And they're forced not to be able to move over so that cars coming from Hanley who make the turn onto Shirley, there's people parking over there making that impossible to do. So that's a parking situation that I know is from people. Some of them may very well be working downtown or visiting, but I don't believe that there was a residence there. of the actual neighborhood. I just want to ask if you could just...

But if it's an actual safety issue, then it's not who's parking there, it's whether it's safe to park there. So that's a different topic.

If it was up to me, there would be no parking at all on that block of

Shirley. So just to be clear, they are parking within the designated parking area. Some might actually be doing that. It's the volume of traffic that you're

talking about. Then you have the volume of of cars that are leaving can end up backing up to where parking might be legal, but they're not able to move over for the cars that are coming in off of Hanley going the other direction because they've moved into the center of the street and there's no more room.

Matt's not here, but I can speak with him tomorrow too about sightline distances.

But I think, I mean, I think Gary and his staff do a great job. If you just tell them they'll monitor every day for a couple of weeks and then the offenders will be scared away, you know.

That's usually how hotspot areas are done is there's a concentration for a few or several days. And unfortunately it comes back every six to nine months.

There are no residents on that street in a position called what used to be what we call the Rabbi's House, which is on that corner. Those are tenants now. Those are WashU students. And then if you go further down, it's just those are all, I don't know, apartments or something.

Now under the current ordinance, property adjacent to those zones are allowed to park there too. So I can't, I'm having a hard time picturing that particular intersection, Alderman, but I think there may be condos on the corner, that front Clayton Road.

Condos or apartments, I don't know.

Because they are adjacent to that zone, they are allowed parking sticker. So it may be them. I can't speak intelligently about

it. I'm just worried that they're there. Yeah. Some way that we can figure something out so that we're not parking.

Well, that would require working with public works to get that zone shrunk down to increase sight lines.

That's what you're asking, just less parking there in general. So you can look at that. Yeah.

Which, yeah, which shadow go over exceptionally well.

I'm sure it's a little after seven. So I'm going to call this to a halt. And also we have one resident or one attendee online. Oh, there's two. I can only see the one. Okay. So we have a couple of questions online. So I'm gonna go ahead and quickly try to get those. Ms. Newhart, would you like to ask a question or make a comment?

Can you hear me? Now we can. Yeah, great. I just have a couple of things I'd like to bring forward as just looking at this whole presentation. And then have some questions for everyone. My name is Barb Nauert. My sister Linda Auburn and I own the four-family building at 6607 Clayton Road. And upon reading the proposal for residential parking zones, we need clarity on the issue in regard to parking in the front of the apartment buildings on 6600 block of Clayton Road. There are six apartment buildings, five owners and the seventh building is a mortuary which has its own parking lot. The 6600 block of Clayton Road has never been involved with parking zone stickers or hanging tags for resident parking. On your first map, Zone 2 is highlighted in blue for the side streets around our 6600 block but the 6600 block is not highlighted in blue. Currently, we have two-hour parking signs on the 6600 block, which sometimes presents a problem, but I will allude to that later. In contrast to your first map, the second map titled Proposed Residential Zones, the 6600 block of Clayton Road is highlighted in blue on the map. And this is the only block on Clayton Road that is marked in blue, and I want to know why. This has created my asking for clarity on the issue. I'm not clear on whether this second map means that we will be changed to the new proposal, including us in the resident sticker and hand tag revised program. Our Clayton Road block of apartments has never been involved with any permits, and we have not had any of the parking challenges that occur in other parts of Clayton. If we are going to be included in this new resident sticker and hand tag proposal, we as owners of 6607 Clayton Road are opposing it. We have no parking problems with our block and our tenants and their visitors and our service companies and as building owners who don't live in Clayton, we would be greatly inconvenienced by such a proposal. Our block is multifamily residential and because there are rear garages and rear parking areas for tenants, there's no place left to park except in the front of the apartment buildings on Clayton Road. Clayton Road is the only area our service people like plumbers, electricians, security system or HVAC vendors have available to park their vehicles. To suggest using virtual tags for visitor employees or even vendors, or anyone parking on the 6600 block of Clayton Road would be unreasonable, if not an impossible task for any tenant or owner of the building. We just want to make sure the city knows that we have not and do not want to have our block involved in any restricted sticker hanging tag program. And the question is, why is the 6600 block the only block on Clayton Road targeted? And I have one more comment. When there are repair issues in apartment buildings, we have found that a two-hour restriction for our vendors is not always possible as the repair takes more time to resolve. And sometimes we have to wait a half a day for someone to come to service our building. We are requesting that if a repair company comes to a building and exceeds the two-hour limit sign that we have in front of our buildings, they will not be marked at a certain time by your traffic control officer. And then when the two hours are up, they are not going to ticket us. We would appreciate your clarification on the restricted parking issue for our block, whether we are or are not included in the sticker hand tag program and your response to my final comment regarding the two hour limit ticketing issue.

So I have a question really quick that, that address again, which building do you own?

Okay.

So there is currently a two hour zone that's in front of your building,

right? But there's not a

two hour residential parking zone, but it's a two hour parking zone. That's probably why it's not in the existing residential parking zone. It was probably erroneously picked up on the proposed residential parking zone map. So, um, That's why it's on the new map and not on the old as far as these restrictions, we would have to talk about whether or not we would expand the residential parking. To the space in front of your particular building is outside of that area, so I don't know if it was just picked up with the other restricted areas and added to the map that's something we can take a look at there.

Well, we would appreciate. The other residential barb on Clayton, like down towards DeMunn, they actually have metered parking in front of their building. All the way down? I don't know. We can go look, but much of it's metered. Well,

I think it's metered up to maybe half of the block, but down by where the deli is. And the consignment shop, I'm not sure that they do. I'm looking at meters

on Google Earth right now. So I think we'll just look into it. We'll follow up with you

on

what's current and

what makes sense. The intention is not to change any restrictions and not change any restrictions there on Clayton Road. So we'll take a look at it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And now we have one other question or comment from Linda.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello.

Yes. Yes.

You can hear me. Yeah, I'm the other owner of 6607 Clayton Road. And as my sister said, we've had a lot of construction and renewal in that building and a lot of things going on. And it takes a lot of time. And it's very hard for construction people to not be parked in the front. And so we would like that looked at. But I also don't understand why just the 6600 block of Clayton Road On the old map and the new map, nobody on Clayton Road on the old map is restricted. And it looks like only 6600 block is the only one restricted. Are there other restrictions on Clayton

Road? Linda, this is Becky Patel. Thanks to you and Barb for asking these questions so we... are careful in how we apply this. The situation on Clayton Road appears to be a very mixed bag. So we have a restriction in your block, but it isn't part of the residential restriction that requires a residential permit. And then we also have the other block towards DeMunn That is, I would suggest we think of as commercial because it has meters on it. So it's like a different program.

I looked at that on Google Maps and everything in front of the homes, they're not restricted. No signage either, it looks like. Well,

meters restrict parking. I just want to be clear about that,

right? But the meters are only in front of the commercial new building there at I mean,

we'll take a look at it. I mean, I think that's the moral of the story here is that we're going to take a closer look at this section of Clayton Road and we'll see what we can do to like consistent with Gary's goals here, simplify and streamline the way that it's restricted and enforced. That would be great. And so we'll be in touch with you. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks.

Very good. Thank you, Gary. Parking is always complicated because there's so many unique situations. So it's a nightmare to try to plan it out. Okay. Well, I think without further ado, we'll start our 7 o'clock meeting. All right. So you want to call the roll? Alderman

Berkowitz. Aye. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Aldeman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel.

Aye.

Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldemann Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldemann Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. City Manager David Gipson. Aye. City Attorney O'Keefe.

Mayor Harris. Aye. City Manager Gibson. Aye. City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay, great. Now is the time for public requests and petitions. So if there's anyone in the audience or online that has a question or comment for us about something not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. And so I'll be looking for somebody to raise their hand. And I see no one. So we'll move on with the public hearing for a lot consolidation on Bland. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Thank you, this is a public hearing and subsequent ordinance to consider approving a subdivision plat for consolidation of two lots to create one lot. All lots have an R2 single family zoning designation. On December 12th, 2023, the City of Clayton received an application and a plat from Sanford Talley on behalf of Don Kotba, owner, requesting consolidation of two existing lots in the Northmoor Park addition subdivision. The site is developed with a single family home that is on the lot addressed as 7451 Bland Drive. A screen porch on the north side of the primary structure and a patio at the rear of 7451 Blan Drive sit atop the property line separating the subject parcels. The remainder of the 7449 Blanton Drive, I apologize, is undeveloped. The new lot would total 15,686 square feet. The plan commission considered and recommended approval of the lot consolidation at their meeting on January 2nd, 2024. The newly created lot meets all zoning requirements for the R2 single family dwelling district. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance.

Okay. Any comments or questions from the audience? Okay. I will ask the board if you have any comments or questions on this item. Any discussion? No.

I just want to say, I don't intend to oppose this action, but the thing that I thought about when I was looking at it was some of the, when we're waiting for the actual report from our comprehensive plan, but a lot of what I've heard from people is actually a desire not to consolidate into larger lots and build more bigger houses, but to allow for more diversity and development and variety and stuff. So I just wanna call that out for us to be thinking about as we continue to have these issues.

Good, good point. Any other comments? Okay.

No, I will say though like this one's a little bit unusual. I think it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be one lot a long time ago but it was never recorded. So, and it's not it's kind of an unusual piece of land so but I totally understand what you are saying yeah I checked it out. I absolutely I think I would agree with you in terms of what has been coming out of the cup.

Yeah. Thanks.

One final time, any other comments, questions? All right, so I will close the public hearing.

I'd like to introduce Bill number 7007, approving a subdivision plat for 7449-7451 Bland Avenue to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 7007, first reading an ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to consolidate certain property known as 7449 and 7451 Bland Avenue in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7007 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 number 7007, approving a subdivision plat for 7449-7451 Bland Avenue to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 7007, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for the approval of a plan to consolidate certain property known as 7449 and the 7451 Bland Avenue in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, next up is the consent agenda. It's the minutes and some records disposal. Does anybody have questions about any of that? Okay. In that case, Alderman Berkowitz. Your Honor, I haven't been called that yet.

Turn your mic on. I'd

like to move to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Any discussion?

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay,

the City Manager's Report. Bonham, CID.

First item is some reappointments on March 24 2020 the city of clayton created the 7730 30 bottom Community improvement district or CID for the property located at 7730 bottom avenue now operating as a meridian hotel. Only registered voters residing within the CID and the authorized representatives of property owners within the CID may be appointed to the board of directors in this case, the developers, the sole property owner within the CID. The CID is requesting that Terry Anderson and Evan Welsh be reappointed for four-year terms to expire March 25, 2028. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance.

Any discussion? Questions? Okay. Alderman Berkowitz. I'd

like to introduce Bill No. 7008, approving the Board appointments to the 7730 Bonham Community Improvement District to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? To the attorney.

Bill number 7008, first reading. An ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri approving the reappointment of certain board of directors for the 7730 Bonham Community Improvement District.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7008 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

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

I'd like to introduce bill number 7008, approving the board appointments to the 7730 Bonham Community Improvement District to the adjoining property owner to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 7008, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance of the city of Clayton, Missouri approving the reappointment of certain board of directors for the 7730 Bonham Community Improvement District.

Alderman Berkowitz?

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you. Okay,

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Aldermen Hummel? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you. Okay,

the contract for the ball fields in Shell Park.

Maintenance and improvement of the existing ball fields in Shaw Park was prioritized as system-wide long-term projects in the 2007 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Fields number one and number two in Shaw Park were last restored in 2009 and 2010, and are the next ball fields scheduled for renovation, which is optimally required every 10 years to keep the fields in good playing condition. The proposed renovation will include regrading, resodding, upgrading the irrigation and reconstruction of the infields. The fencing surrounding the backstops will also require replacement, and the addition of shaded dugouts has been included at the recommendation of adult players, youth parents, and coaches. Vernon Jones Sports Construction has submitted a proposal for the renovation project. Vernon Jones Sports Construction participates in the Interlocal Purchasing System, a nationwide purchasing cooperative. As a result, they have provided a lump sum bid for the project, factoring in a 5% discount on construction costs and an 8-12% discount on engineering fees from the normal price of their products. Funding for this project will come primarily from St Louis county municipal park grant Commission with their award of $525,000. The remainder of the funding will come from the city's capital budget of which $350,000 was your mark for the project and fiscal year 24. The total cost of the contractual work to be completed is estimated to be $706,000. Due to the size and scope of the project, we recommend including a 10% contingency of $70,600 to cover expenditures and to correct unknown issues that become apparent during the project. Should additional funding be available at the end of the project, new shade structures and bleachers could be added to enrich the renovation for spectators. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the execution of a contract with Vernon Jones Sports Construction in the amount of $706,000 plus a contingency of $70,600 for the renovation of fields number one and two in Shell Park.

Okay, thanks. I see Tony is here. Does anybody have questions about this project? I'll just go around. Ira, any questions? I just have a

quick question, Tony. I think it's great that there'll be some shaded structures for that'll be nice. Yeah, because there's just really no shade over there at all. I think that'll be great. Also in the picture that was in the staff report it just had are the ball fields, like the, I don't know the sand area when fields. yeah the infields i guess or will they um like the one in the top right it just shows that it and i don't care that it's encroaching on the soccer field i just thought maybe it was getting bigger it just might be problematic like

they're actually going to um when they regrade they're going to try to turn the soccer fields a little bit more so that they are less impacted or so that they are

Well, in the baseball fields too would get impacted.

Correct. So that they interfere less with each other for the opposite use.

Yeah. Does that make

sense?

Yeah. Yeah. So if they can do that, that's great because then there's just less harm for both fields.

Yeah, because they're going to do some additional grading so that maybe part of it where it slopes off a little bit, if they regrade that, they'll be able to turn it just a little bit more. so they interfere less with each other for the two different sports

yeah it's just kind of when i saw that picture i was like oh

yeah it's tied up there yeah

yeah definitely um okay thank you yeah

my questions really are maybe for the board to think about not so much for this i think the project looks great having spent a lot of time on those fields over many years um but i know that this was awarded through a cooperative and so that was never bid out yet i and i wonder how the city handles this we Recently, I know that we put out a diversity questionnaire when we do bid something out, and we ask questions about minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises. The supplier diversity plans and whether they have an equity policy in their documents and who they are. And when we go through the cooperative, it seems like we lose all that that this board has decided is important to us. And so I want us to keep that, you know, to stay aware of that. And if we have a voice, we are a member of a cooperative. If we can get it into the conversation that this is important to us, I suspect it would also be important to other members who use that cooperative. I don't know what that would look like, but I do want to bring that up. Same type of issue with sustainability. And right now the sustainability committee is looking at what to do with suppliers and how to make sure that equity or sustainability, environmental factors, the health of our kids are in all those things that we do. And some of the things that we've talked about putting in that is if someone's doing work with the city, make sure that they're aware of our idling policies, that they will follow those. And, of course, it's on the city to enforce that. With the ball field, it's looking at a soil removed, what do they do with it, the new soil coming in. I hope we have standards to make sure that it's clean soil and watch those types of things. Other things like making sure they're aware, I think the city has a no styrofoam with its purchasing, and get those policies into it. And I don't know how we do it when we're working with a cooperative, but I certainly hope we can figure it out. And just washing our hands and saying, oh, well, we can't do it, I don't think is the right answer. That we have to talk with them, we have to ask the vendors when they come, even if it's not part of us selecting them, make them aware that this is who we are as a city, and make those things important. It's the health of our kids, especially on a ball field, and what they're using and what they're doing out there, as well as just good stewardship of our city and our area.

Good points. I'm not sure if you know, but we can certainly reach out to the purchasing co-op and find out if they are doing any of those either sustainability or equity initiatives already.

That would

be phenomenal.

Yeah, I actually pulled up the company that we're using to see if they had a statement a DEI statement or something on their website. I did not see anything, doesn't mean it's not there. But yes, if you do that, I think it's great. The more people bring it up, the more it becomes something that we can make actually a reality. Sure, we can certainly ask about that.

And we can help you if you had like a list of items or questions in regards to that.

David's working on this, right? I mean,

you're- For the sustainability. With sustainability. So that's something that we would more build into a contract because the sustainability policy that we have is part of our purchasing policy. So if we had certain requirements, for instance, no styrofoam, something like that, then that would be enforceable through our contract as it's in our purchasing policy. So we can make sure that their contract align with those requirements and work with the contract on that particular item. As for the vendor diversity form, there aren't necessarily requirements that they do those things, but we're collecting data as to whether or not they are- So that's something I think we just reached out to burn and Jones, even at this point for this project and just ask them to complete the form or in the future if we're using a cooperative before we sign a contract say hey fill this form out before will. agree to your service and then have them complete it, it should be as simple as that.

And I certainly hope with time becomes becomes something else as well, and even when it's not just purchasing with the sustainability. When we're working with somebody again, the no idling is an easy one. We already have the ordinance. I think it's a

great point. And it's something with the supplier diversity form that we perhaps overlooked is what we do in those situations. So I think it's as simple as reaching out to those contractors and having them complete it before we sign a contract would be the way to do it.

Sounds great.

Thank you. No problem. Very good.

I'm fine with the project. It's more just a curiosity to make sure I understand what it is that we're doing. So I'm looking at a satellite image and then trying to look at the drawing that's in the packet. So these are the fields that are right behind the tennis courts, right? And so when I'm looking at the satellite image, it kind of gives me the impression that maybe we're repositioning the existing fields a little bit.

Just slightly. Yeah. So change of the angle.

Okay. But overall, I'm just was wondering, is there, I know there are some great issues but they may be far enough away that they're not an issue that's so my question is, is, are we changing the grade at all. Are we affecting any of the trees that are there.

We will not be affecting any of the trees. We are going to do grading, residing, irrigation, and then we'll do backstops and covered dugouts. But yes, we are planning on regrading and residing. Yeah,

and I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. When I meant the grade, I meant where it falls off as it goes down to the lower part of the park. We're not changing. We don't have to put any retaining walls or anything like that in order to achieve this. Okay, thanks.

Not that we were expecting.

Okay. Okay, very good. All right, Alderman Berkowitz. Thanks, Tony.

I'd like to introduce Bill No. 7009, approving a contract with Byrne & Jones Sports Construction for ball fields No. 1 and 2 in Shaw Park to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 7009, first reading, an ordinance approving a contract with Vernon Jones Sports Construction for the renovation of Ball Fields number one and number two in Shaw Park.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, Alderman

Brookowitz. Should I be indicating that this is still subject to the responses that they give to our questions today?

I'm not sure since it wasn't in the scope when we did the contract and everything that we could require it at this point, but we will ask that they do it on this particular one. And then going forward, uh, we can look at including that in the future scopes.

Okay. I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7 0 0 9 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor.

Aye.

The opposed. Hey, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

I'd like to introduce bill number 7009, approving a contract with Byrne and Jones Sports Construction for ball fields number one and two in Shaw Park to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 7009, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Vernon Jones Sports Construction for the renovation of ball fields number one and number two in Shaw Park.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Deuce. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Alderon Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Deuce. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Alderon Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, banking services.

City's current banking agreement is with Commerce Bank and expires in January of 2024. The expiring agreement began in January 2018 for three years with options to extend for two one-year periods, and the city exercised both options to extend. The Commerce Bank agreement provides for online banking, parking meter coin processing, positive pay fraud detection, with city funds being 100% collateralized. Commerce Bank currently serves as our depository bank and maintains custody of the investment portfolio for both the City of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation. In addition, Commerce Bank is our credit card processor and the city's two pension plans assets and retiree benefit payments are administered by Commerce Trust. On September 29th, 2023, the city issued a request for bids and proposal for banking services and received seven responses. Three bids were eliminated due to the inability to manage the city's parking meter coin revenue. The finance department interviewed the remaining four banks and compiled the revenue and fee data. Commerce Bank is offering interest revenue and fees that would result in the highest potential revenue for the city based upon current investment and transaction activity. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, accepting Commerce Bank's terms as outlined in their proposal for an initial three-year period with two one-year options to extend. Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance is here if you have any questions.

Okay, any discussion? I'll just go around in order of seniority. Comments, questions?

Just a curiosity question. Occupational hazard. I can't help it. Sorry. So Karen, I'm just curious in the responses from the bank shown here, why the interest revenue was so significantly different. I'm guessing it's the products that they offered or is it the same product? They just quote different rates.

It's the same product. They just quoted differently, different rates.

Oh, that's a big difference. Okay.

Mr. Banker, any other questions?

No, I mean, I know we've had a long, long relationship with commerce and it seems to me that it's been more than satisfactory during this whole time and they're very competitive. So it looks very, very good to me.

Great. Thank you. Thanks, Karen. Okay. Alderman Berkowitz.

I move to approve resolution number 2024-01, authorizing the extension of depository banking services with Commerce Bank.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, very good. All right, the last thing is the CEC recommendation.

On January 11, 2024, the Clayton Community Equity Commissioner, CEC, unanimously approved a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen that the CEC and the Board of Alderman send a jointly signed letter to Governor Parson requesting that he fill vacant positions on the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. The Missouri Commission on Human rights does not currently have a quorum of commissioners and therefore cannot conduct business. The City of Kirkwood Human Rights Commission recently sent a similar correspondence to the governor There was sample language that was included in the packet. And with that, I'll open it up for any discussion.

Okay, let's go around. Any discussion?

It seems pretty simple to me as letters go, asking the governor to please appoint someone so that they can actually have a commission. So that's my comment.

Yeah, okay. Bridget, anything? My comment, it seems... Fairly straightforward. The only thing I wondered is if the Equity Commission would be recommending someone that we should suggest be appointed. Well, I don't know. A next step.

Yeah, I was going to say, I believe we discussed this and one of the things that Kirkwood did and that we talked about was just encouraging people to apply. Like, I think you can apply. It's not like you could go on any person who's interested and presumably a resident of Missouri could apply for it. And so to ensure that the argument isn't that there aren't interested people

So maybe something that we could do with communications is put out in our publications that there are openings on this commission. If anyone is interested in applying, this is how you go about it.

That's a great idea. Have a link. Okay, great idea. Good. Any other comments?

Well, just to Ira's point, it seems pretty straightforward that it needs to be done. I guess what I was wondering is just if there's some additional background here. Are there any political issues here where the governor is being reluctant for purposeful reasons? Has he stated that? Is this a hard commission to fill? I just wondered if there was any story behind that in terms of would it be helpful to word the message any differently? I have no problem with the message, but if there was a significant problem, maybe we could do something even more strongly.

I do not know the answer to that. I have not studied the whole situation. But maybe you guys

talked about it.

We did not. It has not been suggested that the governor has made any comments on why he isn't fulfilling this duty, rather than it just happened to happen.

It just strikes me, and I don't know that it's this commission, that it seems like the governor has not filled certain positions almost strategically. But I don't know if that's the case here or not.

I think if you're being partisan politically, thinking about what he might care and not care about, I think it's very likely that's what's happening. But I think that's an educated...

Well, and so then this letter says to be signed by the Equity Commission and or the board. I just wanted to make sure that we were all in consensus on should we be the one signing it? Should we add it to them? Or do we prefer that it's just the Equity Commission that signs this?

I think it should be us. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be? And I was wondering if you were maybe suggesting we would add a line at the end saying, Governor, if there's anything we can do to help.

Well, yeah. I mean, just make this easy so that if for whatever reason he were to state that he can't find a qualified applicant, we could help solve that problem. Solve

that problem very easily.

OK. I think the suggestion from the Equity Commission that we encourage applications kind of addresses that. But we could try to craft something that adds a sentence to it. I do think it should be signed by the Board and the Equity Commission. I think that's much stronger. And my guess is, seeing how things get appointed elsewhere, I think that the appointment usually goes to somebody that's owed. somebody that wants a job on a commission. And so it's not necessarily an appointment of someone that's either super qualified or whatever. It's like, oh yeah, Joe helped me with that project, so he'd be good, I'll appoint him. That's a lot of how appointments get made in all parts of government. Of course, except the city of...

You could certainly get an application of somebody incredibly well-qualified to fill that and get that application. It

looks like there's one at-large opening. And the

third congressional district.

The third congressional district has an opening. There are some others that could potentially be, I don't know, out-state maybe.

Clayton's in the second district. We're

in the second district, so ours is filled. We just have an at-large seat that's available if someone wanted to apply.

So I think it's a great idea to sort of put that in our news and have a link if that can be done. And you guys, I'm happy to add, we can add a sentence here if somebody wants to say what it is.

Okay. Well, I wasn't looking to wordsmith as much as I was offering a suggestion because I just don't know the story here. That's all.

I don't think we do know. So I'd be in favor of just leaving it as it is. Let's leave it there. Okay. Because the Oakley Commission did like this version.

It's almost exactly what Kirkwood said. Yeah.

And there's no reason to reinvent wheels? Yeah. Okay. All right. Very good. So I don't think um that's it for our agenda topics um but do you want to talk about the sales tax uh david

Yes, so the grocery sales tax of course is something that we're watching. There have been multiple bills that have been filed. Some talk about grocery sales tax, others talk about food. Everybody's trying to figure out what this will end up looking like and how far it will get. Currently on the advocacy front, we are members of the Metro Muni League here in St. Louis, but then also MML throughout the state. And both of those bodies are currently lobbying in Jeff City on this. There's a group of local communities that just got together and hired their own lobbyists. That was Brentwood, Crestwood, De Pere. There were a couple others on that list. And so we talked to them and actually it came to us and said, would you like to participate? We said, sure, because the dollar amount was pretty low and we figured that would help. By the time we did that, which was the next day, they said, no, no, no. We don't want to take anymore. So Richmond Heights has gone out along with town and country and they engaged another consultant. So they're out soliciting other cities to see who else might want to join in for another lobbying effort. Now, all of these lobbying efforts need to be coordinated, but they want as many voices as they can get in Jeff City, you know, talking to folks because while it's only, and I can't remember the number, is it around 8% of our sales tax revenue? That's just on the grocery. Okay. Yeah. you know, these other cities are looking at really, really significant decreases. And of course we partner with them on a lot of things. So I just wanted to let you all know that in my discussions with Richmond Heights, you know, if that number and it looks like it's going to be, it looks like they have at least two cities, you know, South of $4,000 or so I'm inclined to go ahead and join whatever group they put together just as another voice in Jeff City on this. I just wanted to see if anyone had any concerns with that before I sign it. Don't really necessarily need to put anything on here. The dollar threshold is extremely low, but I wanted you to be aware of that particular effort and that we could participate at a pretty low cost there.

Just to add on, I know you have a question, but just to add on, this tax would affect us not just because we have one grocery store, but because it also would affect the public safety sales tax and every other sales tax that we benefit from. And so it would be more than just that one thing. And as David said, we try to be collaborative about with other cities and there may come a time when there's something else that affects us more than affects the other cities, but we wanna be a good partner in general. So in addition to that, you mentioned it, but the Municipal League and the Metro Mayors have banded together to hire more lobbyists with a cap of 25,000 total so that those two organizations will be adding to what they already do. And the real key is probably hopefully getting the Missouri Municipal League to coordinate a lot of this. So it's a unified message. But anyway, okay.

I was going to say too, really quick, and I just want to emphasize a big part of this for us is not just saying don't pass the grocery sales tax exemption, but to try to keep it from expanding to all food. if that were to happen and we saw during the pandemic, once you start talking about restaurants, then the impact to us is significant because as we learned, as we went through that hotels and restaurants make up about 40% to 50% of our sales tax collection on any given year with a restaurant being a big chunk of that. So you could be talking about, you know, 25 to 30% combined between groceries and restaurants that we would see disappear from, our sales tax revenue, which would be devastating for us. So this is certainly an item we need to be aware of and fight as much as we can.

I just want to add one more thing, which is that nobody would have a problem with a sales tax bill like this if it had a means test, if it was over a certain income. is exempt is you know can't participate or over a certain you know net worth or however you want to do it but if you know for people to be for anybody to not have to pay sales tax you know i can afford to pay the sales tax kind of like the senior property tax increase deal there's no means to us it's just a blanket uh you know a blanket bill And so it would, it really, it will, I forgot what the fiscal note was for the state, but it's like a billion dollars. And I mean, some cities would really, I mean, absolutely go under if this passed. Okay, cool, I'm sorry. Go down the line,

yeah. Well, no, I was just gonna ask, because there's local grocery taxes. Is this just eliminating the state one? Is that, or what, or is

this- This is any sales tax related to-

Any sales tax. All related to grocery. All of them. So they would take away, because I guess there's- They're taking

away our taxing authority on certain products.

It would be everything. So

it's not just taking away the state tax. It's taking away everybody's ability- Local

sales tax, CID taxes, any sales tax on those items.

It would be accomplished by redefining retail sales. Got it. So it would reach every tax.

And really, it comes down, too, to an issue of local control. So a lot of these things, they start whittling away at local control.

I have to educate myself more on this. The little bit I was paying attention to as this came up, I thought it was primarily food. And I believe there are states that don't tax food. So what it all encompasses, I don't know. And I would actually like the Equity Commission's view of this because I... do we as a community support or not support exempting food from taxes? And that's the question that's hitting me. And I have to educate myself more on the bill that's actually out there and everything else, but that's my reaction to what I'm hearing today.

I lived in California for years and they do not tax food. And it was a surprise to me when I moved there. And I think that it's like a great policy, right? And I don't think that it's right for the state to change the rules about what we can and can't tax, right? Um, like without providing us a remedy for our, uh, revenue. And so if they're going to do stuff like that, then they have to abolish the Hancock amendment or they have to do something else. Like they can't just take away a source of revenue from us. Like, like it has to actually be like, it has to be something that's like equity based and this is the right thing to do, but let's talk about then how our local government governments are able to function and what remedies we can give them to recover that revenue in the ways that they deem most appropriate.

So that's really, really a good point. And so that's been brought up. And I've learned just today or yesterday that we actually have, and I can't think of the person's name, a judge looking at whether or not this is a Hancock violation. So the municipal league has got getting that going. So who knows, but it's, it's relevant. It's an unfunded mandate.

Yeah. That is, that is part of the narrative too, is if you want to talk about taking away grocery sales tax, that's fine. But what, what's the revenue replacement there? Just like when, just like working the other way, when Wayfair, the online sales tax was enabled, they said, okay, Cities can now collect online sales tax, but we're going to roll back your cable franchise fees in exchange for that. So that in the end, you know, they were trying to get it where it nets out. This particular case, there's no right where it's just, we're taking away a revenue source and we're not adding anything back in, which is devastating. So if they want to talk about other ways to make everybody whole, I think everybody's open to doing that because I think everyone understands from an equity standpoint what they're trying to accomplish. But absent that new revenue stream, it's really going to impact local service.

Maybe I'm aligned saying the same thing Susan was saying, but I want to be clear. So this, I wrote down grocery sales tax. So is this just, is the definition anything that's sold by a grocery store or is it a type of product? What has impacted? So

like I said, there are multiple bills and all of those are written a little bit differently. Some are just talking about groceries as in ingredients that you would prepare something with, maybe food that isn't all the way prepared. And I think that's where they're having trouble drawing that line between what's an ingredient versus a prepared food. If I buy a deli sandwich that's already put together at a grocery store, what category does that fall into? And the scary part is you have some that are expanding the conversation that, well, let's just go ahead and exempt all of it, which is the worst case scenario for us. So I don't have a clear definition for you at this point, and that's something that everybody's kind of watching to see where that line is drawn. Because it will be sometimes referenced as groceries, sometimes referenced as food, and everybody's trying to figure out where's the line? What's the difference between the deli with the pre-made stuff versus a restaurant at that point?

So where I'm coming from is... You're asking us for feedback regarding our participation in a lobbying effort, and so I want to be clear what the lobbying effort is. Is it to say no or is it to say make it clearer, make it better, the different things that we just got done talking about? So that's one of my questions is what are we lobbying for or what are we lobbying against? It is a no unless you replace the revenue stream. Okay. And then do we know, I guess I'm guessing the answer is no, but do we know how this would actually impact us as currently written or is it because it's written so many different ways that it's really hard to figure that out? That's correct. Okay. Um, and are we aware of whether there are any citizens that really, um, uh, would be adversely affected by our fighting this, um, again you know susan's question i would guess given the demographics of our community that may not be the case but um just wondering

they're very well maybe if so on we're just not aware i'm not aware okay uh but as a as a city as an organization as the local government here we would be severely impacted if it became all food we would be impacted pretty heavily if it just remained groceries but we're certainly looking at it from that angle. I would imagine there are certainly residents and people that come here every day that this would be a positive thing for them, but as a local government, we would really, really struggle if we lost that

revenue. Can you give us a range of the impact you think it might have on our budget?

Here comes Karen Dilber with the information.

okay please keep in mind these are estimates based upon my best guesses i was taking into consideration strobs walgreens cvs and dgx because they all have what i would consider pre-packaged food items this does not restaurants or any of that none of that's included because i'm working with a rough definition our average our five-year average from 2019 through 2023 Our grocery and pharmacy store sales is 4.15% of our total sales tax. So that is about $425,000. And

that is not breaking out what in there would be exempt. That's the total revenue from the total tax revenue from those entities. Or is that the total tax revenue? From food.

So that is my best guess at what our total tax revenue would be from pre-packaged food items, which would be like chips and soda and anything you can buy at the grocery store that's maybe not deli food or a sandwich that someone makes for you.

Not all of Walgreens receipts. It's a percentage, a small percentage of their overall receipts.

And I estimated, again, just based upon my experience with Walgreens and CVS, about 25% of their sales from prepackaged food items. And with DGX, I estimated about 40% because they do have other things in there that aren't prepackaged food. So, and these are just my best guesses.

Did you consider, Proxels also does sell packaged?

Yeah, there you go.

Pretty much. They've got a big shelf full of stuff that they sell.

And it's hard to capture a lot of this, too. You might have a take-up some sort that sells olive oil that's on a shelf, and that olive oil would then be exempted from sales tax.

And Tony just pointed out if she went somewhere and bought a bottle of soda, that would be, what is that, $1.29? That would be exempt, too, probably.

Right. And what about the public safety sales tax? What portion of that? Any way to guess that one?

We don't have that broken out

specifically. The public safety sales tax is a quarter

cent. I know that the Municipal League has run that number countywide, but I don't know what our exact impact is.

That's important as well. Does that tie into this sales tax? Any of that sales tax that comes from food would be gone. Oh, because it supports public safety. It's for public safety, but it's an extra 1%.

That's a county collected sales tax that's passed through the cities.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

I

have another comment. Yeah. You indicated that what you're looking for is to see is that if they're going to do this, then they need to replace it. And I guess I wonder how does that fit with our understanding? It's like we're telling them, you do have a right to do this, but you have to replace it. In other words, do they have the authority to do this to begin with? And are we saying to them, yes, you have the authority, but if you do it, you also have the authority to replace it and find something else we can tax?

I don't think that there's been a final decision on whether or not they have the authority to do it. I think as a part of these conversations, though, everybody's making it very clear that you have to stop taking away revenue without giving us other opportunities to gain revenue.

Right, it's the without giving us the opportunity for additional revenue, which is, I'm suggesting, that might give a wrong message. As to whether or not, because then we're saying you have the right to do that. If you do this, and then you have to do this.

I think it starts as no, but that general conversation has been going on in Jeff City forever that You try to balance these things if we add something, and any time you go to reduce a revenue line, you don't replace it anywhere else. We're constantly sliding down this hill. You're

questioning whether the state has the right to say what we can and can't tax at all.

That's right. i mean i just think we're yeah

and

our

attorney yes

we could be we could be providing a precedent that if that if the deal gets worked out that they do prevent uh substitute now it becomes okay if they want to do this they can do this yeah

well i mean they they do have the ability to take away taxing authority just like they had the ability to reduce what we can collect in cable franchise fees um they

so they have that they have that they do have that authority Without having to replace anything. That is correct.

That's why I think the basic message at this point, because all these different bills are, I would say, ill thought out. So there's no means test. It's not clear what food items would be on or that it would cover. And it's really not even clear if it's an unfunded mandate, which is why a judge is going to go before a judge and he'll analyze it. And then that'll be something that could be carried forward with the lobbyists. So I think at this point, the simple thing to do is just to try to stop these bills from moving forward until things can be worked out that are more well thought out and logical. Is there a cost to us

in pursuing any of this?

There is, and again, the total bill that Richmond Heights is, I believe they've already signed the agreement, it's $12,000, and they're soliciting a number of cities, and I think there'll be other participants. So it'll be split equally between every city that jumps in, and I would anticipate anywhere between four and six on their particular measure, so $2,000 to $3,000 to go and at least sign on to this particular lobbyist.

You're saying what we're paying this lobbyist to do is say, Don't take it away unless you give us alternatives.

Well, to say just no outright or give us something we can read and then no. I mean, it's...

I'm not clear what we're paying the lobbyists to argue. Because I am not sure that it serves our community to say that food should continue to be taxed. And until I get myself more educated on that and where we are as a community and a region, if that's what they're arguing, I don't know that I'm ready to support that.

Yeah, it will definitely be a no message without, well, it'll be a no message We'll see if they keep pushing and if they do, then it's going to be okay. If this looks like it's got traction, then how are you replacing that revenue? But at the same time, there isn't even enough clarity in what's been written. And I think that's kind of the first thing is what exactly are you all trying to accomplish? What's food? What's the definition here? All of these are very poorly written. It's really opposing the entire way this is happening at this point.

So that's going to

continue to evolve. Is it opposing the

way it's done, how sloppy it is, or is it opposing?

It's opposing all of that. And the concept of taking away a revenue stream without replacing a revenue stream at its core, that's what we're really opposing here, is that this is an extremely damaging bill if there's no revenue replacement.

If we would decide that we didn't want to tax... produce or something like some sort of like would we have the authority to remove our sales tax from that within the city of clayton. Like the point is, if we think that's a principled approach that we wanna take, perhaps we would have the right to do it within our city. But the point is that the state should not be like identifying things that it doesn't want us to get revenue from anymore and handing them down without giving us alternatives or collaborating or working with the cities about how to stay solvent. provide public safety like which is right so

just to be clear on that point i think the state already decides that there are certain products that are deemed to be essentials that aren't taxed right now isn't that the case so the state's already doing it they're just broadening the definition at least that's what we're seeing right here and and it's going to have a way more significant impact to all municipalities as a result. In expanding

that, where currently there's some of those exemptions, but it's just the state portion of the tax that you're not paying. This would go to all entities that collect the sales tax.

Yeah, so I mean, I think the way to get a better effort underway with something like this that's either more clear or has a means test or has a funding substitute is to stop these bills because they're all uh very you know bad and to start over so stopping these bills is the key so that that's what the lobbyists that's what the metro mayors want to do and that's what the muni league wants to do and emma and the missouri municipal league as well and so we would just be joining that effort adding a little bit of we would just be contributing to that and in hopes of a better situation, maybe something better could be developed that we could support. Because again, nobody wants to deny those who really need it the ability to save money on groceries. That's not the goal here.

One last thing about just the advantage of having a lobbyist there, and that's the real-time information that you get back from Jeff City. So the Municipal League puts out regular updates that we get. We get an email every week with a capital report. But when you have a lobbyist in this level of service that comes with it, as things change there, you'll actually get a phone call that, hey, this is what's happening. This is what they're talking about on the floor right now. You get access to what's... really going on a whole lot quicker than all of a sudden we get an email from MML, either on their regular schedule or every once in a while you'll get an alert type email and then you have to scramble. But that access to information, being able to answer some of those questions a little more thoroughly as these bills evolve, that's a pretty big advantage to us.

So, I mean, this is an expenditure that actually doesn't require a vote of this board. But I'm sensing that by heads that are nodding that we're pretty much okay with this. I know Alderman Buse, you may not be. I can take a vote, but I'm looking at four heads nodding. And I'll count mine in as five. So I think we're, as a group, supporting this expenditure. That's what I'm seeing here. Anybody disagreeing with me?

Yeah. And I'm okay going forward. But I also am sensitive to what Alderman Buse is saying as well. And I'm just... I'd like us to be able to somehow get reported back. I mean, what is going on? Where are we at? What are the lobbyists actually looking to accomplish and hoping to accomplish within their work? And I'd kind of like to know if it gets down to Gee, we've got some north side or north county municipality that has people in it that I wouldn't want to tax on food. I just wouldn't want to see that happen. I just want to see if it's moving in the right direction, make sure we're moving in the right

We'll provide regular updates. When I get reports, I'll pass those along.

I don't care about Clayton's people being taxed on Straub's food. It's the last thing I'm going to worry about. I'm not losing sleep over that. But I would if this is a concerted effort to tax people who are in a position who cannot afford food, that this is just a further burden to them. That's all.

Right, and I can easily pass along the, it's pretty much a weekly update from the Muni League lobbyists. It's quite an update, but I can pass it on to you guys, and you can see all the things that are going on that are being addressed or trying to be addressed. Okay, so that is settled. All right, and in terms of a roundtable, shall we go ahead and do one? You start.

I don't have much to report. I didn't make the last Parks and Rec meeting. I will report I did. I did speak with the chamber's president Ellen today and she seems to be she had talked with Gary already so Gary Gary went forward on with him at the

International

the pop-up small festival and she is all about supporting it any way she can

otherwise

We had a plan commission meeting a couple weeks ago where we had, you know, consolidated the block that we talked about. It was a pretty short meeting. I think I don't know if I remember correctly. Yeah. And then Gary and I had a coffee this past Saturday that, as per usual, was very well attended. Talked about a lot of different things. And then, yeah, I mean, the State of the City was very nice. So Mary did a great job. Thank

you. But other than that, that's about it. Thanks. I'll start with that. Nice job with State of the City. Okay. The IRNI actually had a Ward 2 coffee scheduled, and that was the day that everything closed down. So we're trying it again this Sunday. And then there was a Sustainability Committee meeting. As we talked about earlier, one of the issues that the committee and Dave are working on are how to, the standards to put into our vendor purchasing agreements. There we also had discussion with grants deb grossman who's leading it is you know she's doing she's. he's great and between her and Alex amstead where the applications for grants and everything and i'm sure help with a lot of other steps it's just been really impressive. there's a grant out there now or waste reduction grants that we filed for to see if we can get up to 40 I think $48,000 we requested. There was a charging station grant went in. We were not granted. That one was denied. What else was here? The mayor, there was some kudos for you to the mayors for climate change and how that will help us have access to benchmarking materials. Our Clayton High School students through MIAC are handling a bulletin board on sustainability issues at the Center of Clayton, putting things like the idling ordinances and things like that up there to help with education. Let's see, what else was there? Some of the conversation too is the city is already doing so many things. So a topic will come up and we'll say, oh, we should do this. And then we'll hear, oh, we've been doing that for a long time. So there was that idea that we need to, I think the community is proud of us and would be really proud if they knew how much we were actually doing already. And that's my report on that.

Very good. Thanks. Becky? The things I'll add to what's already been shared is I went to the St. Louis Auto Show last week, something I'd never been to before, for the Ameren EV experience and talked to somebody there about the fleet assessments that they can do, and I understand they're connected with our staff to try to look at that from a technical and financial perspective, all the different aspects of considering potentially incorporating EVs into our fleet. And then we had an equity commission meeting where we primarily talked with the comprehensive plan group and then the issue that we discussed today. I think that's all, yeah.

I don't have any commissions or of the like to report on, but I do want to comment on the announcement from the school district regarding not moving forward with the project in the context of affirming their announcement that they intended to begin engagement in a broad facilities master plan with the community. It's my short time on the board. It's clear that our... our master plan, our overlay district, our livable communities. We've had broad and frequent outreach with the community. We found all kinds of creative ways to make sure voices were heard. There was plenty of time for those messages to be delivered and for lots of engagement question asking and the like. So, um, I, I am simply want to affirm the fact that they're going to move forward with that as part of their process. I, and, um, I want to support them in that endeavor.

Very good. Yep. I'm sure we all do. Yeah. Okay. I don't have a ton, but I will say that I did go to a chamber lunch with the leader today and our own Charlie Brennan was the guest speaker and it was very entertaining. And I encourage you to go to these chamber lunches if you can, because there's always a really interesting speaker. It supports the chamber and you can, you know, um, meet your constituents there. And, uh, it's, it's very fun. Charlie had a lot of great stories. Um, I'm trying to talk him into it, to doing a book. He's, he's got two books and they're, they're like only in St. Louis is the title and all these amazing stories of connections and people that came from St. Louis. He should do one only in Clayton. Um, there's a lot of the stories he told today had some connection to Clayton. So it was really, it was really interesting. Um, I did go last week, or it was after our last meeting, I went to the state of the county, Sam Page's address, and it was at UMSL, and it was pretty informative. And he did commit to supporting going after a use tax for the whole county, which will greatly benefit all the cities that have a use tax. And so the municipal league will be helping with that effort if necessary. that's so desired uh he also revealed the new logo which was immediately panned and so i don't know i don't know where that's gonna go but it's an interesting one it's got it's red and it's a fleur-de-lis so i don't i don't know how that how that came about um the um the council um shalonda webb the uh chair of the County Council did send out a note and you probably read it in the paper, but she made a request for some legislation to be developed that would essentially have the county responsible for legislating all of our public safety, really police, maybe it's all public safety efforts. So essentially taking over our police departments in the cities. That has been met with immediate pushback, and we met on it today with her actually. And she's tabled that for now, and so we're hoping she really tables it and comes back with something different. I think she was really after something totally different, and the way she phrased that request was really horrible, and the cause of a lot of concern. I am in the process of working with the Osage and Andrea and I, we finally got a meeting with the elders, which will be this Friday. And so I'm kind of excited about this to talk to them about how we could commemorate their presence of old in our area. So I've never been to an elders meeting. So by Zoom, we will go and see what they have to say. And then last but not least, and we have a member of MIAC here, Liam. You guys, your last tour was at the police department simulator. Did you go to that? Okay, would you like to come up and tell us about your experience? And say your name and address and all that. Oh, is the mic on? Yes, it has to turn green. Okay, very good.

All right, I am Liam Ferguson. I'm a senior at Clayton High School. And I think it was last Wednesday when we went to the police station. And we got a finished tour that we previously started at another meeting. And then I can't remember his name, but he was in charge of all the training things and this augmented reality thing. And he had a bunch of like Situations? Yeah, situations and different tools you could use that were safe, obviously, but let a lot of the students use it. So it was pretty interesting to see. I didn't participate myself, but yeah, it was really interesting.

Well, very good. Did the students that participated, did they kind of feel some stress when they were in the situation?

It seemed like it. Like at first they were pretty confident, but whenever they realized how difficult it was, they just like lost all their confidence.

All right. all right well great um thank you for coming to our meetings one of uh one of the jobs of the my group this year is to attend certain meetings and at the end of the year make some suggestions uh to that group uh and kind of report back to their group each time on kind of what they heard so liam has been following our meetings and um some of them are more interesting than others would you agree all right yeah okay all right thank you very much and you know what has the hockey game started You might want to get to the hockey game. Nine o'clock, start. Oh, nine o'clock. You still have time. Yeah. Okay. That is it from me. So I think we're able to have a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Very good. Thanks all.