February 27, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Okay. It's 7.02 or 6.02. We're still missing Gary.

Gary will be absent this evening.

Oh, he will. Okay. Ah, okay. All right then. Well, it's time. So everyone who is listening online or in the chambers, welcome to our six o'clock discussion session for tonight. And I'm just going to let David and Matt take it away.

Yeah, so tonight we're going to be talking about the Municipal Garage Project and we do have representatives here from both Navigate Building Solutions and GEMMA. They've performed a needs analysis on the building and we're going to start with that particular presentation. We're going to talk about the building itself and then programming within the structure. And then we're going to switch gears a little bit and talk about the project and the financial implications, especially with the capital funds. So uh with that i'll i'll open it up uh to joe schweitzer from navigate building solutions

thank you all i appreciate your time tonight got it i forgot already I'm Joe Switzer with Navigate. Thank you for your time tonight. We have about 20 minutes of presentation, but I'm gonna introduce a couple of colleagues, Craig Schluter, owner of Navigate, John Emmert and Mitch Klican, both with Gem Architects. They've helped us on this project. So our objective for this discussion is to talk about conceptual options for upgrades and future renovations for the Clayton Municipal Garage Facility. We have a set of slides that talk about the existing conditions and how we have interacted with John and Matt and the entire occupant team that use that facility. Jim has prepared three options that they're going to present and probably focus on one of those. And then we've got some high level phasing and cost and schedule information. So just quickly for the scope of work to this, this is conceptual level. This isn't schematic design or design development. We're not going out to bid tomorrow. This is developing the project to a point where the big idea is been flushed out for consideration. So that's why we're here tonight, consider some big ideas. For project goal, really at the outset, the goal was to create efficiencies, motivate staff and protect assets. You know, if I were simplifying those are those are three main targets of the the renovation and development scope as far as the approach we've spent several opportunities of interactions with city staff with park staff with public work staff, questionnaires, group meetings on and on. So that's sort of the process. You're all likely familiar with the existing campus, but in case you aren't, it's nestled between 170 and Forest Park Parkway The acreage is about three and a half. There is an existing building that I'll tell you a little bit about. There's an existing salt dome. This arc shape across the bottom right is obviously Metrolink rail coming across the top. So the building that's there was really built in three different phases. There was an original rectangular structure that dates back to the 60s. An addition in the 70s off of the west side. And then the fleet repair, these are the bays where mechanics work on fleet vehicles to the south. That was built in the 2000s. If you add up all that square footage, there's about 24,000 square feet of building combined. I've included, I think in your board packets about five slides worth of photos. We're not gonna talk about every single one. The point of that is in case you don't have a chance to visit the facility, these photos are meant to give you the sense that the space hasn't been really touched very much since the 2000 addition. And much of that original 60 space is in its original condition. There's a fair amount of resurfacing pavement and other support structures like these bins and generators that need updating to serve the city of Clayton for the next several decades. This is some views of the roof. These are used from inside the main storage bay. So what's unique about the equipment that these departments use, in addition to it being fairly expensive equipment, a lot of it needs protection from the elements like wind and rain and snow. Some of it are powered by diesel engines that need either block heaters that are expensive to buy or kept inside a tempered space. So that's the type of thing that would live in this facility. These are some views of the mechanic spaces, and then some of the amenity spaces inside. The upper left is the lunchroom. Probably some cosmetic things that haven't been touched for 40 plus years. The upper right is there happens to be a shooting range facility that isn't part of the scope of the structure, but there is a small amount of space that exists. We hired a structural engineer to assist us, to come out and make some inspections. You don't need to read this verbatim. The big idea is that in general terms, the structural stability of the existing facility is serviceable There are some repair and maintenance items, as well as some minor things to bring it up to code, specifically where roofs meet walls and structural steel detailing, nothing that is too extravagant. Just bringing it up to code. Some tuck pointing to bring the facade up to code would also help. So that in a nutshell, represents what's out there at the existing site. This slide and the next slide just highlight interactions that we've had with staff of parks, of public works ops, and public works fleets departments. Comments on here largely were identified by the people, the individuals that actually do what day-to-day work is necessary to keep the streets clean, to keep the parks clean. This is straight from the source. Improved locker rooms, improved condition storage, places for a designated place to park one's vehicle that is locatable and dedicated. That person was one of the main topics just because of the expense of the equipment. Upgrades to lighting and power, provide heating areas for that equipment. Five current service bays, we've talked about the desire to increase the size of two of those to accommodate larger vehicles. Currently they're constrained and like a fire truck would have to be maintained either at some other facility or outside, you know, in elements, what have you. AV upgrades to help the training aspect. And there are a couple of code compliance issues that would like to be addressed. So all in all, great input from the staff. We've used as much of that to inform the options that John's about to present to you.

Thank you, Joe. So as Joe mentioned, we took all that great information that we got from staff input. We develop a program document that tells us all the needs, all the spaces that need to go in to the new facility. One thing that we learned was that we needed more square footage than we had in the existing building in a lot of cases. So you'll see in these three options that we are showing another structure outside of the existing building. So all three options include a renovation, pretty much a full gut renovation of the existing building in addition to an outbuilding. Real quick, I just wanted to... go back to the goals of the design process as we looked at these three options. So again, improved storage and organization leading to efficient space, improved people space for retention and recruitment was a really important aspect of all three of these options and protecting city assets and improving safety. So Really, what we wanted to point out is that we try to leave no stone unturned. So we always like to look at options. Sometimes we take different aspects of each option and end with a hybrid. In this case, we came back to option A as bringing the most value to the city. So we'll dive a little bit deeper into that as we go forward. Real quick, so option A shows a full renovation of the existing building with a fleet building outbuilding to the south. Option B, again, we renovate the existing building with office and fleet space, and then we take the maintenance bay portion of it and pull that to an outbuilding to the South. And then option C, again, full renovation of existing building. And then in that case, we actually looked at building a separate office, staff office facility. So this is just a little bit more detailed view of option B. Again, fleet and I'm going to try to point to some things on here. So fleet and workshop space was on the existing northern end section of the building. Again, gut renovation of that space. You'll notice that in this option, we had to show a small addition to that existing building. Ultimately, this option ended up being the most expensive. When you start doing smaller renovation additions like that, you lose low efficiencies from a cost standpoint. And then you can see here that we pulled the maintenance portion of it to an outbuilding to the south. option c i'm actually going to skip ahead to a more detailed view of that so option c again took the office space component of it and pulled that out to a separate building located in the center of the site we had fleet and workshop and maintenance in the existing building you can see just from a site standpoint that folks visiting staff coming in and out public accessing that office space you bring them further into the site, which creates some issues there. And then we'll go to option A, which ultimately, like I said, we ended up thinking that it brought the most value to the city and kind of checked all the boxes of what we were trying to accomplish from the beginning. So you'll see the new, we have a new fleet storage building to the south that accommodates 26 vehicles. We improve operational efficiency, less moving of vehicles throughout the site. You'll see in the floor plan, we renovated the existing building. One important aspect of this program is that you have, we'll call it kind of dirty spaces and clean space. Clean spaces being obviously the offices, locker rooms, the break rooms, those areas that are important to your kind of day-to-day staff use versus the other spaces where you have a lot of equipment or oils, other things happening in those spaces. So the idea was to really keep those separate from a programmatic standpoint. In this option, we do have good adjacency of fleet offices to the maintenance bays, which is important. We did consolidate some interior storage areas. We are addressing some existing drainage issues on the site. So with that new building to the south, we also are doing some regrading of the site. And then again, this idea of creating a welcoming entry to your existing building. So in this case, we have a staff and public parking which is on the Northern end of the site. So again, people would access this space directly off of the existing curb cut into this parking lot and into a main entry lobby, which is located here. So there's never any cross-pollinization of those vehicles or people coming to this facility with your maintenance vehicles other than going in and out of this existing curb cut. So this is a more detailed view of that floor plan. Again, it might be a little bit hard to see on your screen, but essentially right here is the dividing line between what we're calling this kind of clean renovated office people space from the rest of your storage and vehicle maintenance spaces here. So a clean delineation between those spaces. In this option, we are taking out the existing mezzanine space. Right now it's not accessible space. It's a little bit hard to work with in its existing condition. So the idea was to take that out, gives us the opportunity to get some tall ceilings in that people space, open up some bay space and create some more dramatic spaces within the office environment. We do have this separate fleet storage building, and then this space here is a drive-through wash bay that's attached to that new maintenance building. Then here's an enlarged plan of that space. So real quick, we have the entry into the secure lobby on the east end of the building. We have parks department, open office and private office space here. We have operations with private office, open office area. And then we have fleet maintenance connected or adjacent to the maintenance portion of the facility. All these offices have access to natural light on that south side of the building. Across this corridor, we have a training facility that also acts as the break room. So this space is divisible down the middle with an operable partition. So that can be one large open space for training or it can be divided into smaller classroom spaces. We do have new locker room spaces and then a series of workshops in storage spaces. And then we do have some additional high base storage here with some large racking in that portion of the building. You'll notice here a reference to this taller bay space. I think Joe mentioned that a little bit earlier, that one of the needs for that maintenance building is to get some height in there for some of the taller vehicles that you currently have. So we're actually taking that roof in the existing building and we're going to pop that up in that maintenance area. We've talked to our structural engineer about that and it is feasible. And we feel that that's going to create a much more usable space for the maintenance of your existing vehicles. One thing to touch on here is as with a lot of our projects, Gemma takes pride in looking at all the different options that we can incorporate sustainability into our projects. So with this building, there's nothing more sustainable than exist keeping and renovating an existing building. So right off the bat, you're kind of checking that box as far as keeping a lot of the existing building. We are going to address erosion control on the site and some stormwater issues. We are looking at possible with the color of the roof, potential green roof incorporation. We're also looking at EV charging stations, some parking solutions for dedicated parking spaces for carpooling. With a full renovation, we do have the opportunity to replace all the plumbing fixtures with low flow plumbing fixtures, increase the efficiency of your lighting. And then with all the carpet, ceilings, fit and finish of the space, we use high recycled content materials and look at that from a sustainability standpoint. So again, those are just some of the things that we're looking at or would look at as we dive deeper into the design of the facility. I'm going to turn it back over to Joe and he's going to talk a little bit about phasing of the project and how we think we can work within the existing footprint.

Thanks, John. Yeah, just a couple more slides, so hang with us. So as mentioned towards the beginning, the site's about three and a half acres, so it's fairly tight. It's fairly full. If you've done a kitchen or bathroom model at your own residence. You can imagine what, you know, trying to turn a parks and public works facility over for the next 40 to 60 years is going to take some planning and phasing strategies. So we've started this conceptually. We're not here to represent an answer, but some concepts theoretically could be, using temporary construction trailers either on site or at the adjacent parking lot in Shaw Park. Should that be available? Perhaps it's not, we don't know. Conversations you know during the design phase could figure that out. Another big idea is look at spaces within the city to see if there's space to rent for a period of time. Much of the asset investment is vehicles and getting those vehicles relocated temporarily so structural renovations could occur is just a... Jenga puzzle piece of how to strategize a plan. So again, this has got a lot of colors. This has got a lot text and numbers. This isn't meant to be final. This is just meant to show discussions and thoughts and concepts have and will take place to strategize the construction efforts From a total project schedule, conceptually this is about a two to three year effort, presuming you did it all at once. There's about a year's worth of design and permitting and bidding, et cetera, and then a year and a half plus or minus of construction. Some of that is determined on the parts and pieces that would make up the final construction component, whether some of that is built onsite or whether some of that's kits of parts and pieces that are fabricated at plant and brought onsite. But big idea, two to three years. From a budget bucket, John mentioned that we studied the cost of each of the three concepts. I think if I'm going out on a limb, I think the staff preference was for option A above options B and C. It happened that option A was actually a little more economical than the other two. The moving the fleet and moving the office space outside of that existing shell are on a dollars per square foot basis, a more expensive venture. So we've done detailed takeoffs to come up with this preliminary conceptual estimate. We would continue throughout the design phase to check that estimate as well as other soft costs of FF&E, you know, furniture, fixtures, professional services are individuals like ourselves, architects, civil engineers, the people, the machine that make a project happen. Financing costs are anticipated in this and an owner contingency. So big bucket, the project is something like 14 and a half to 15 million, something like that as conceived today. Next steps. This is going to be my final slide. I think Navigate and Gemma are recommending option A because it's economical and we think it meets the staff needs and it will be the best use of your current facility. What we think you should do next is use... our agreement to develop pre-con and construction phase services, specifically hire architects and engineers getting surveys done of the existing sites. We'd probably do a geotechnical analysis. We do know that there were deep foundations from the original building based on the soil conditions there and develop that scope of work. So that's the big idea. I appreciate your time. Thank you for letting us be here tonight. And John and Mitch specifically is here to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, David.

No, I was just going to say, I'll get into the finance piece in a minute and show some capital fund projections. But before we do that, let's go ahead and see if there are any questions while the information is fresh on the building itself. Any questions about the project, the alternatives, any of the information that was just presented?

I had a question about... A lot of this is sort of new to me. I guess I'm looking at this in some ways first time. So I'm wondering about you're integrating parks and public works into this building. Is that what we're doing?

They are already integrated in the current municipal garage.

In the current municipal garage? They share that space.

Parks operations and public works operations. That's correct.

Does parks, doesn't parks have a place also over at the center?

the recreation offices are over there, but the parks operation staff, for the maintenance of parks.

Correct.

The field operations, so to speak.

Right. I was struck when you said 60 years and I was trying to figure out what would be different than 60 years. There is something about 60 years, I think you mentioned. What did you mean by that?

Yeah, thank you. So it'd be hard to set a expiration date on a building, but I think we could pretty confidently say that if nothing were to be done to that existing building, the tuck pointing and deterioration could theoretically happen to further defer its usability and service life. So renovation, the proposed renovations are sort of its next step Refresh and extending that service life for a period of 40 to 60 years, whether it's some specific date in between there. I don't have that crystal ball, but something like that. roofs typically last 30 to 40 years. Interior finishes, you know, turn over quite a bit, but in a parks and public works type of space, the interior finishes for most of the space are fairly pragmatic, you know, concrete and epoxy paint and durable materials. Obviously in the people's space, as John refers, you know, those are carpet and tile and bright and shiny and... fresh and new all right thanks

yeah we can just go around order of seniority you guys just go on and do that

um yeah no thank you for the presentation i think um i i find it a little hard to be like asking questions per se because it's hard for me to kind of understand you know i mean matt and john and justin and tony i mean they know kind of what belongs in a municipal garage. So it's kind of hard for me to ask questions or, you know, question whether we need a, you know, something to wash the trucks. Do you know what I mean? So, I mean, I'm confident that we're not, you know, choosing an option that goes, you know, above and beyond what we need. So I mean, I guess so I guess to that end, I don't really have any questions per se. When in terms of the design phase, I guess I'm so it would be on what you guys have done, it would be another million and a half dollars worth of engineering and architecture. Is that?

Yeah. Yes, the answer. Okay. And that's, you know, based on some statistical analysis of past projects and that's not based on, you know, quotes or you go through a whole effort of contracting and negotiations and etc.,

In just terms of the cost that you guys came up with, I'm just because I feel like costs very, especially have gone up so exponentially in the last couple of years. So I'm just kind of trying to understand how you were able to come up with. Such an exact number. A number that I feel like we're going to be asked to potentially look at and, you know, really. But how do you know it's that number as compared to like $20 million and $10 million?

So that's a great question. We have a very well-tuned dartboard. No, I'm kidding. I'm sure.

That's kind of how it feels sometimes with construction these days.

Yeah, it may feel like that, but our firm, Navigate Building Solutions, we are specialists in consulting as an owner's rep. We have multiple people that do cost estimating in-house on a 40-hour-a-week basis, and we operate in this type of project type. So I personally have worked on a couple of public works projects. I personally have participated in, like, fleet storage and wash bays. You mentioned wash bays. Like, I've personally done that over the past couple years. Craig himself has. We've got several going for local municipalities. So we take... actual bid data from projects that we've done and use that information and and forecast and an escalation model to come up with something that's fairly precise now we would also throughout the design phase update that so it would be open book. We're not a general contractor. So we would be, we would be providing periodic updates to the city, to the decisions made, how they would impact cost plus or minus either way.

Thanks. And again, oh, go ahead.

I overlooked and Craig brought to my attention there is a contingency light item in that. That's a safety valve. Whether or not that were needed, that'd be a future

date. And just from your perspective, since it sounds like you have looked at public works buildings, Again, I've been inside our public works building. I understand that it needs to be renovated. But just from your perspective and looking at other public works buildings, do you feel like this is something that needs to be done very soon? Like if we're comparing ourselves to other municipalities with other public works buildings? I haven't been in other public works buildings. So it's, again, hard for me to compare. Yeah.

I think the answer to that is that there's a good opportunity for investment now to continue the service life of this facility and its site spaces. I think if the city were to defer for a considerable amount of time, I think future versions of ourselves would probably look back and probably ask why. But I'm also not a taxpayer in the city of Clayton, so I'm respectful that you all have stewardship to make those decisions. But yes, I think there's a real opportunity here to make a good investment to keep that space in service. Thanks. You're welcome.

Thanks. That was a great presentation. And I agree with Bridget that it's our staff, it's our professionals, and you all know what these things are needed. Some of my questions, it is a huge investment. So my questions seem to kind of, as I looked at my notes from when you were speaking, are about this building continue to service our needs for the next 60 years, whatever it might be. And I appreciated your recognition and the value of sustainability with the lights coming in, with, I don't know what else you're doing. One of the things you mentioned was putting in some EV stations is if the fleet eventually does become all electric vehicles, is this a facility that can adjust to whatever the next iteration of our fleet is going to be?

So in the cost model that's presented, we have... space allocated for such infrastructure, but we're not providing that EV now. We do anticipate a couple of charging spaces for vehicular space, but not the snow plows, the dump trucks. We would allocate space for the main distribution panel on the electrical side that's the biggest upgrade that that space is as big as this desk right so it those sorts of things so we're making it um upgrade ready so if you're

pouring concrete and all that is it better to lay any other infrastructure

yeah conduit

now and that's what you're saying you're doing by putting everything

we can allocate space and conduit for such a thing.

Okay. Until the technology is there to power the big equipment, we don't feel that it's necessary to spend the money to upgrade all of the electric to the building and that's what it will end up taking uh when things get to the point that they can electrify snow plows and those types of things we'll have to upgrade the entire electrical service to it um and it's going to be very very pricey i know we looked at some preliminary estimates for it and it's it's a considerable expense to do it so we would rather defer on that until the technology actually catches up with that type of upgrade. We would be using it or we wouldn't be using it, although we had paid for it for a decade or more at least.

yeah and i was just going to add in almost every municipal project we're working on currently we're putting infrastructure in place so that down the road you could add ev stations and really what that means is just is pretty inexpensive conduit to locations throughout the facility so that when you do get to a point in time where the technology's there or the the time to invest in that technology for the city that you're not disrupting all that money you put into your new facility. You're not disrupting the day-to-day operations, and it's not costly. You're not saw cutting concrete up and that kind of thing. So there are definitely strategies that we would incorporate into the design that are inexpensive day one when you go to build, when you go to renovate, but it's going to save you a ton of money down the road and make that process easier.

great and similar uh question you're talking about having to do the uh geotech analysis and all that um if we're looking not at not just at what we spend today but that long-term best investment for the city whether it be solar panels or i don't know if you're digging deep enough or if the site's big enough for geothermal or stuff or things like that if there could be um some consideration of what is that savings over time. Certainly it's an expense now, but in 10 years, 15 years, when do we recoup? When does that start being a good investment? So you're looking at things like that as

you... Yeah, so we actually, on the screen, we've got an alternate. We worked with a vendor on a potential price for what it would take to put solar panels on the existing roof. Obviously the new addition could have... panels there too but the existing roof would be something like 300 000 i don't have in this presentation the roi analysis but that is available for reference um you ask about geothermal i am not a specialist in that technology i do know that the three and a half acre site that exists is fairly full of buildings and equipment so i i don't know i don't know that there's as good of opportunity in geothermal as there is in solar.

All right, and knowing eventually when we consider this and when we do recoup it, the cost that would be helpful. Something else you said that I just wondered, you said if you decide to do this all at once, is this something that has finite pieces that can be done over time or is it something that should be launched all as one big project over the next two, three years?

I would recommend as a singular phased project, it's going to take phasing within a singular execution to move Jenga pieces around. There was a slide and I won't back up to it, but to... To take 24,000 square feet and totally do a facelift when that space is being used, you got to displace for periods of time. So for argument's sake, to build like a training room and a new locker room area. You know, that build and upgrade right there could be three to four months worth of work. So right now, Parks has most of those two spaces and there's a wood shop on the west side of that blue area. So the red lines are existing walls and rooms. It's super complicated to just look at it this scale. i i think you know i don't like to dictate how clients spend their money so in theory you could you could pick parts and pieces and allocate it however however best the city deems i think you get your best value doing is a single single project with with phasing integrated and

then i think the last thing i've something that we've always talked about, that this would be something that wouldn't it be nice if we could partner with a neighboring jurisdiction with the same type of needs? Or that hasn't happened, unfortunately. But is this built to our current capacity? I don't know that we'll ever need more vehicles. They may change what they are, but I don't know if we ever need more space. But how much flexibility do we have if more space or a different type, a taller vehicle or something else is needed? How... How much is built into this plan to carry us

forward? Through that initial questionnaire process and staff interviews, we literally ask current staff to give opinions on that future need because we don't want to state for you, but we believe this will reflect future need.

Thank you.

Hey, Becky. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. I think I've been hearing about the need for this project since I joined the board three years ago. And so I also in my day job work for a manufacturing company with a focus on creating healthy work environments for hardworking people. And I think it's really important for us to take care of the folks that work in these conditions and have them be a place that they look forward to coming to work and doing the work that they do so well for us. So I felt like I appreciated the way that you presented that. And I don't have any other questions.

Thank you. Thanks. Great. Thank you. So I'm unclear on what is the cause of the need to construct the new building. I'm not sure whether it's because we're displacing the mezzanine, we're addressing inefficiencies that need to be addressed, or we just need more fleet storage. Can you help me understand why we're doing it this way? Yeah.

I think it's a both and. It's a great question. It's a both and answer. The mezzanine storage that is currently in use today, there are some places where head clearance is just above my waist, which is really an occupational safety hazard to walk through that space to find the right storage. piece of equipment that one would need. And yeah, the photo kind of gives an idea. There are locker room spaces up on that second floor that really aren't fully accessible. There's no lift or elevator to really access that. I don't think the stairs would really meet today's code standards. And part of Building code process is to do a renovation, you have to kind of take a look at existing status. And you have to meld that renovation into current codes. So part of the response, part of the both and, is losing the mezzanine, making space code compliant. You need something more than 24,000 square feet. And then from there, looking at some of the assets, I think some of the vehicular assets have to be parked in, I wouldn't say haphazard way, but to protect all of the major trucks and vehicles and trailers and equipment. There is literally vehicle to vehicle parking stacked up two to three wide down the length of that runway. So if one were to need to get to truck four, you got to pull one, two, and three out, get truck four out, and then back trucks one, two, three back into the facility. While that sounds like an inconvenience more so than a need, you'd have to think about if it's 20 degrees and a snowstorm and the guys are doing their best to keep the streets clean for city staff. So eliminating those inefficiencies is part of the need for that fleet building.

So does that create some capacity to do other things, or is it addressing all the things you just said is the consequence of doing that?

It's to address those things I just said. We do have a wash bay that currently the city does not have such a structure. Just my personal experience, I've seen several local municipalities and uh government bodies start to introduce those the reason is that when salt is in the back of that equipment it rusts out it has a much shorter lifespan and the cost of replacing those is much more substantial than the investment and the ability to clean it out and maintain it

makes sense um you showed us an aerial um and so it's very clear the um at least the impact or the effect, at least that Metrolink has by going through the site. What challenges or limitations does that pose in terms of the project when you looked at it?

That's an excellent question. It is reflected on the site plans, but in this aerial, if you can envision 10 feet buffer on either side, there's a maintenance easement that Metrolink owns, theoretically, and we cannot build in. So if you'll notice how our additions are situated and the existing salt dome, everything's staying plus 10 feet off to accommodate that. Now parking a truck underneath, something that can be moved, parking a trailer, those sorts of things aren't. It's permanent structures.

OK. Just this is maybe more of a suggestion. I don't know that it addresses our needs. You talked about or somebody talked about the, you know, the need for interim storage or facilities as we go through this. Can we use our city parking garages and or spaces we have in parking garages? Does that make any sense? Or are some of these vehicles such that they'd never fit there and it doesn't make any sense?

If we have vehicles that we can move into those types of facilities and there's capacity there that isn't leased, then we could certainly do that. But a lot of the taller stuff isn't going to work. I get that.

And then the other thing that came to mind was we had approved a grant for EB stations. And I'm sorry, let me restate that. We approved expenditures for EB stations. We tried to get a grant. Can that in any way be integrated into this? Does that make any sense?

So we had $500,000 that we had allocated this year for the EB stations. We had anticipated that we would receive half of that amount through that grant. We were unsuccessful in obtaining it. So that money is still allocated within the capital fund at $500,000. There's no offsetting revenue. But when we talk about the capital fund here in a few minutes, that was something I was going to point out is that we have that half a million dollars that's out there. You know, we were kind of hesitant to move forward with the EV chargers. without having a grant because there are grant opportunities out there. And we feel like even though we weren't successful this time, we probably should be successful with one in the future. Okay.

That's

all

I've got. Thank you.

Thank you.

OK, I just have a couple quick questions. I know we're getting short on time. You mentioned the escalator. So Bridget mentioned this, too, that costs go up over time. What we found is even in a year's time, costs to build things go way up. So in your estimate, are you and this is going to take three years to complete or something like that? Did you is that built into this that? If it's going to be complete in three years or four years, this is the cost?

We've built in approximately 3% escalation. What our firm has seen over the past two to three years has been normalizing now, if that's the right pronunciation or the right way to describe it. The crazy spikes of ups and downs has started to get closer to level. So we have suggested 3%.

Okay. I think that, I hope that's good enough. And then my other quick question is, you know, I wish we could have partnered with somebody on this. I know we can't. But have you looked at using the space in our police building? We have at least two floors that are totally unoccupied there. I don't know how many square feet that is. It's a lot. And I don't know if the office piece of this could have been put there, or if there's some way of utilizing that space. I hate to see it go unused, continue to go unused. And so I didn't know if you even thought about looking at that. It would require some build-out as well, not probably to the extent of this kind of thing.

So to date, it hasn't been part of our analysis, but that's just where we are in this moment. It certainly could be considered moving forward. I would say that, and this isn't a judgment value, but there is an adjacency necessity for equipment and personnel just because one's got to be able to access the other. But yeah, we'd be happy to study that if that were the goal.

I mean, even some storage for some of the events that we do or I don't know. I just think we've got that space if it makes any sense. And David and Matt, you'll be the judge of that to just take a look at it real quick and see if there's something to be saved by using that. I appreciate

that. We can do that. We can put some personnel over there because where would they park in the morning? And then how would they get from that facility over to where their actual truck or work equipment would be? You would have parking demands at both of those facilities if that were to occur. The adjacency piece is pretty critical, but we can talk about if we could maybe shift some other usage over there.

Okay. All right. Thanks. Okay. David, you want to talk about the money?

Yeah. So we'll talk about money here. Thank you all. Thank you very much, Joe. I appreciate it. So we did talk about the capital fund and we went through some projections at budget time. If you talk to me in the last couple of days, this number is a little bit better than we had anticipated. Karen and I took another look at all the expenditures and found a million dollars that was in there for construction for the municipal garage, where we also have pre-construction costs. We backed that million dollars, extra million dollars out, which gave us a better cushion looking at the fifth year on this projection. But what I want to point your attention to on the first slide, and then we'll look at a little detail is that ending fund balance. So as you know, we have an internal fund balance target in the capital fund of 25% of ongoing revenue. That number is reflected here on the very bottom row. And let's go out and look at the fifth year, which is $1.5 million. with the municipal garage project in here, with the EV chargers in there with no revenue offset, and with the fire training center in there that we'll be talking about this evening, the estimated fund balance at the end of fiscal year 28 would be about $2.8 million. So that number will move a little bit as we talk about those projects. For instance, Oak Knoll roof is on here at 500,000. know if we go with the slate option then that's going to bump it up and bring this number down a little bit or if we go with a cheaper option there then it's going to inflate your fund balance some but the takeaway here is you know you've got some cushion even with the financing component for this project and those other projects already baked into the capital improvement fund so while 1.3 isn't a lot of money to do something with if we did identify something through the parks master plan you know, potentially then there is some money there to work with. You also have, just so you know, and it's separate from this and we'd hate to dip into it, unless there was some kind of one-time expense that we wanted to utilize the general fund balance is at about 79 right now which is just under 24 million dollars so that's out there as well and we've talked about you know as as we progress here expenditures expenditures expenses are going to continue to outpace uh revenues going forward so we're going to see that flip on us again so we were trying to keep a little bit of buffer in the general fund um But just wanted to give you an idea that that's about 79, 80% right now, which is a really, really strong general fund number. So if we did decide we're going to do whatever, pickleball courts, whatever it may be, you've got some money both in the $1.3 million anticipated balance here and in the general fund balance where you could probably get something else done. So this doesn't completely preclude you from doing any future projects if you were to lock into the municipal garage and the fire training center. So going down below, I just wanted to show you that we did put the municipal garage debt service in here for the project costs that you saw tonight, which is between $14.5 and $15 million. We anticipate with 20-year financing, and these numbers were provided by our financial advisor, that our annual debt service payment would be about $1 million. With the previous construction costs we were looking at, it was just over $900,000. So it's moved about $100,000 to the bad. It's gotten more expensive since the last time we talked about this. So as we talk about cost escalation and that sort of thing, if we were to defer components, that's something that would probably come into play. But with the million-dollar financing, we did include that. Going down below, I just wanted to point out we did have and we continue to have – trying to look at both sides at once. Here's that municipal garage pre-construction amount at $450,000. The reason we have that is there could be some expenses. For instance, the owner's rep or construction manager services typically are not reimbursable. So once the bonds are issued, then you can start to pay those costs. with the bond proceeds. However, a lot of times you can't reimburse the prior costs. So we had passed a resolution saying that expenses on the municipal garage, we can go back and capture those. That's an example of a service where we can't do that. So we need to leave some money in here that we can grab to pay for those particular types of expenses. We think the 450 is probably a little bit high for pre-construction costs, but we do think it's important to leave that in there. So that's what's budgeted for the municipal garage, and that's budgeted for this year. Here's your roof at Oak Knoll Park at $500,000. And then moving down below at $497,000, you can see the EV charger project is in there as well. And then finally, we've added to the bottom line here the fire training facility expenses that we would incur. So that would be $100,000 this year, $919,000 next year, and then about another $850,000 in fiscal year 26. These will be reimbursed. 75% of that will come back to us from those partner cities. And we have booked that above in the revenue section. So every project that's known to us that we would potentially do over the next five years, those are all baked into these projections here. And this is where we end up from a fund balance standpoint. So we still got a little bit of a cushion there, about $1.3 million before you get down to that 25% floor. But, you know, it all fits. So with that, I'll open it up. I know we're getting close to seven to see if you have any questions. I'm happy to send this out to everyone as well if you want to, you know, chew on it some more. And we're not looking to ultimately approve the project and do all that tonight. But we are looking to see if there's consensus to move forward to the next step, which would be engaging the construction manager to move on to pre-construction. And then we would go out to bid for those design services and issue that RRQ. So David, just

really quick, it would be essentially we'd be signing up for a debt payment of a million dollars a year for 15 years.

Or 20 years. Or 20

years. 20 years.

That's a 20-year debt service. That's correct. So it's about $20 million in total payments because you're financing 15 million at just about 5% interest, even with our AAA rating. Okay. One other thing to note when we're talking about debt service, as we've talked about in 2032, this debt service at $574,000 creeps up sometimes to around $600,000 a year for the police buildings. That goes off the books in 2032. The IRF funding gap contribution, that's $100,000 here. That goes off in 2034. And then we had another, let's see, we had that refunding. Karen's in the back. Karen, did we have one other in 2032? I

feel like we do.

Okay, great. Thank you. So yeah, you have about $600,000 that goes off in 2032.

That's good. Okay.

And so she had mentioned that we have some outstanding parks debt that's wrapped into that as well.

Any other questions right now on this, everybody? I think, David, you just need, again, agreement to move forward with the next step, which is getting the design.

That's correct. And we'll have to bring all of those things forward. So there would be a work order with Navigate Building Solutions for those professional services related to owner's representative. And then you would also, of course... Once the RFQ was issued and a designer was selected, those contracts would come before the board as well. So you'll have approvals at every step of the way. But I just wanted to show you financially what that impact is moving forward with the project overall. See if there are any questions

associated with that. Michelle, I just have one quick question. So just to make sure I understand, so is our existing tax revenues for capital funds sufficient to pay this debt service and or do we need to go to the voters for this bond issue for any reason? We do not. Okay. The existing revenues are sufficient.

Okay. Okay. Well, I think it's clearly needed. So I think, you know, I'm good with moving ahead. Anybody not good with moving ahead?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, here we go. We have Karen Dilber, our director of finance.

Have you got the laptop with the information in it? I just wanted to point out that the parks and stormwater debt is $495,000 in addition to the police debt. So the way this is represented on this form, if you look at the parks and storm water sales tax line, we take our total parks and stormwater sales tax, and then we reduce it by the amount of the debt. So it would go by- And we have that in our

debt service fund. Okay. Yes. Great.

Okay, great. So everybody okay with moving ahead or anybody not okay? Okay, it looks like you got it. So we'll look forward to the next steps.

Excellent. All right, thank you all very much. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

It's 7.01. So we can move right into the regular meeting. And again, welcome everyone. And if June, you could call the roll. Alderman

Berkowitz. Alderwoman McAndrew. Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Alderman Gary Feder. Alderman Rick Hummell. Mayor Harris. City Manager David Gipson. City Attorney O'Keefe. Okay.

Berkowitz. Alderwoman McAndrew. Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Alderman Fader. Alderman Hummel. Mayor Harris. City Manager Gibson. City Attorney O'Keefe. Okay.

Okay. Now's the time in our meeting for public requests and petitions, and I'm not able to see if we have any attendees, but I'm going to depend on June to let me know. Does anybody have a comment or question about something that's not on our agenda tonight?

Only applicants are present in the room this evening.

Okay. I can see someone's leg. That's about it. Okay, so... All right, so moving on then, we have the unfinished business of the Oak Knoll Roof Project.

All right, thank you, Mayor. Bid documents for No. 1 Oak Knoll Park Roof Replacement Project were issued on December 1, 2023. Scope of work included removal and replacement of current slate tile roofing system, removal and replacement of the current copper gutters and downspouts, as well as repair or defective underlayment as necessary. The city received three responsive bids, and the lowest bid was from Vince Gray Slate Tile and Roof in the amount of $653,494. This was the low bid received, and it was over budget at $500,000, and the ordinance authorizing the project was first read at the last meeting. In the meantime, staff was instructed to go out and review potential alternatives for a fake slate roof. In doing so we have three options to be considered this evening. The first one is to accept that original bid for $653,494 plus a 10% contingency of about $65,000. The second option, we went back to Vince Gray Slate and asked if there were any other options that they had that were slate. And they talked about a thinner slate tile roof that could be used in lieu of the original proposal. And they revised some of the sheet metal supply costs. That change would result in savings of just about $45,000, bringing the total cost down to $609,847. along with a 10% contingency. The third option would be to rebid the project, changing the scope of work to replace the slate tiles with architectural slate-like shingles. As a courtesy, we received approximate costs of 105,000 to 117,000 for removal of the old slate tiles and installation of asphalt architectural shingles in that slate style. This cost does not include the replacement of the copper gutters, downspouts, roof caps or flashing, all of which are likely to exceed $100,000. Should other copper-like materials be used, which would be a noticeable architectural difference, the cost for that scope of work is expected to be reduced further. We do think once those... prices are added in there. The overall savings to go with that type of option, you're probably in that 50 to 60% range over what the slate tile costs would be for option three there. So if we'd wish to move forward with either of the slate tile options with Vince Gray Slate and Tile Roofing Company, we would need to order that by March 11th to ensure the project's completed by our deadline, contractual deadline, which is December 31st, 2024. So those are the three options that were provided in the report. We did have some conversations with Mayor Harris today. She was talking about another type of faux slate material. It's kind of a composite tile. I'm not sure what the exact material is on it. It looks like there's some contractors out there that potentially do it, but I don't know offhand what those potential savings would be. The architectural shingle option that you see there in that slate style is the same roofing material that we utilized on the pavilion. and Oak Knoll Park. So we use that as a reference point for this particular submittal. So we do have Tony Searing, our Director of Parks and Recreation here, as well as Justin Whipple, our Park Superintendent, if you have questions about the options that we have explored here.

Okay, let's do it in order of seniority. Go ahead, Alderman Berkowitz.

All right. Yeah, I think I made mention last time about these composite materials that were put on my house. And it was about 15 years ago. I know that they've improved since then. In fact, the company that had warrantied my tiles offered me a whole different tile as a replacement. I think it has to be considered. We have to look at that possibility, City Manager, because this doesn't really cover the gamut of our alternatives, of our choices. know that the um i i will i will i will say frankly i i i don't trust the 50 years on an asphalt tile because they're an asphalt shingle because i've never seen that before so i i kind of i'm sort of not i'm not believing that at this point um but i i do want to say that when we're looking at the replacement roof on this building and you know considering who we are, and Clayton. I mean, I was just driving down Wydown, and I'm looking at the train station, the place where people would wait for the train down Wydown. You know, beautiful red tile on those roofs, you know, and, you know, Clayton is just, that's just, that's our history. That's who we are. That's who or green tiles on our houses and on our public institutions. So I would like to just make mention that we should make the effort if we can, to put the actual slate in. But if we're not gonna do that, then I think the composite slate would be the next best thing and should be looked into.

Okay, thank you, Ira. Bridget?

Tanya Kessler- um yeah I was just curious the cost if we were going to replace I mean I don't I haven't had to replace the roof yet so i'm sure it's coming soon, though. Tanya Kesslar- But it said related to the if we were to do the architectural slate like shingles. I understand obviously we're replacing all the gutters, but do you have to replace copper? I mean, is that something you have to do? I'm not trying to, it just says that the cost is not likely. I guess there's copper-like materials. I'm just trying to understand what, you know. We would not

have to replace the copper gutters. It would just, I just wanted to be noted, it's going to be an architectural difference. So it won't look like number two open hole or it will not look like what was there, what is currently there. Right. Okay.

um yeah i just didn't know if copper had to is and then copper has to be used with slate is that there they go together yes no

you don't

have to it's

more the architectural stuff

you know what you guys i've done a little research we have a slate roof too i think my my what i know what i think i know is that uh If you're going to do slate, you want to do copper because it will last the life of the slate. Other products may not. And so you don't want to get up there and have to redo the gutters when you've put on a big slate roof. So that's what I've been told by our roof repair guys.

That's what I just wanted to understand. Thanks. You know, I totally understand. I understand Ira's point. I understand the historical significance. I'm just still having a lot of trouble spending this kind of money. to redo this roof for this cost. I think if you were to ask, I mean, I don't know, maybe not. I think if we were to poll our general public, I would guess a lot of people would rather spend the extra potentially $400,000 we would save on pickleball courts. In our park. So I'm not going to fall on my sword on this. I am certainly happy to put slate on, but I would still be in favor of bidding this out and just doing the slate-like shingles. I think it's an exorbitant cost that is just not... financially, it's just not necessary. And it's just so above and beyond what, it's just so much more than I think what a really good product would be. I think there are beautiful homes throughout the city. And I just don't, for me, maybe because I just don't think that a slate like roof is necessary on this building. So that's...

Okay. Susan?

Ditto. I was having the same thoughts. The slate is absolutely beautiful, but whenever we spend something, it's not just how much do we spend, it's what aren't we going to spend it on instead. And when we went through the analysis that we just did, certainly as was pointed out by City Manager David Gipson, we do have a cushion to do some other projects, but we never, that's a that's hard to do. And if we're talking about this big of a difference, it's hard for me to support for our community going with this much, much more expensive option. And I would like us to invest in some to look at it and getting a less expensive option and still keep the same functionality and the same beauty and beauty with that building. So that's where I'm coming out with it as well. And I will also add that Vince Gray is a phenomenal company. They've been around a long time and very reputable and wonderful to work with. But I think it's a product that might be a little bit too pricey for us right now.

Ditto. I was having the same thoughts. The slate is absolutely beautiful, but whenever we spend something, it's not just how much do we spend, it's what aren't we going to spend it on instead. And when we went through the analysis that we just did, certainly as was pointed out by City Manager Gibson, we do have a cushion to do some other projects, but we never, that's a that's hard to do. And if we're talking about this big of a difference, it's hard for me to support for our community going with this much, much more expensive option. And I would like us to invest in some to look at it and getting a less expensive option and still keep the same functionality and the same beauty and beauty with that building. So that's where I'm coming out with it as well. And I will also add that Vince Gray is a phenomenal company. They've been around a long time and very reputable and wonderful to work with. But I think it's a product that might be a little bit too pricey for us right now.

Okay, Alderwoman Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. I definitely support option three. I cannot in good conscience even really consider the $400,000 plus difference between the two when we look at the other projects that we have to do in the city and the opportunities that we have. I think looking at like the infrastructure stuff and the other things that we frankly, need to do to provision like basic city services and public safety. And then think about the other things that we are going to want to do as we see the results of the comprehensive plan and the livable communities master plan. I would definitely only be able to support moving forward with option three.

Yeah,

Rick. I think my fellow aldermen have articulated all of my points. So I'm in agreement with the three prior speakers here. And I just think that when we have an opportunity to substantively replace the roof with something that looks and functions similarly um and we have the opportunity to be more prudent about how we spend the money and make it available for potentially other projects or create cushions for very large projects like the municipal garage we should take advantage of that opportunity when it presents itself so i would prefer that we look at some form of an alternative three

okay um i am very you know uh I'm the only preservationist on the board, I guess. Maybe, maybe Ira falls in there. I just think we have these historic buildings and we should make every effort to maintain them as they were meant to be. And I do think it's part of the character of Clayton that we have buildings that are made of these materials. It does give us our, you know, our, our, our look and our feel. The one thing that I do have sort of a question about is the lifespan of the architectural shingles. So, you know, I've done a little research on my own. I know that maybe, you know, but I've been told by the Landmark Association and also Old World Roofing, if I can bring up their name, they've done our roof before. that architectural shingles are a maximum of 30 years, not 50. And so let's just say it was 25 years. We'd be looking at $440,000 over the life of the roof over 100 years. So that's a difference of $167,000 that we are giving up our slate historic roof for. I just don't believe the 50-year guarantee. I'd like to see numbers on that before I would believe it. I just don' t believe it. So, I mean, I think we're I care about the historic nature of these buildings, so that's a big factor for me. I don't believe we're going to save as much as we think we will by going with architectural shingles. They definitely don't have the look of the slate and that building will be an outlier with the other buildings in the park. So that's my opinion. So I do not support at this time going with the architectural shingles until somebody at least can prove to me that they'll last at least 50 years. Even then we're still going to spend, we're going to do this again in 50 years. So that's where I'm at. And I guess we can take a vote at this point.

I would just point out one thing very quickly, if I could. On the 50-year information that was provided, the warranty is valid for 50 years. But if you notice in there, it's prorated after 10 years. So it starts to fall off significantly how much they would actually cover through that warranty as time progresses. So I don't think they're saying they guarantee that it'll be in the same condition in 50 years by any means. I think by the time you probably get to 30 years, there's not much of a warranty left on it. Uh, at all. So I just wanted to make it clear that it's not a 50 year guarantee. It's a pro rated 50 year warranty that that's going to drop off significantly towards the tail end.

Yeah. So we'll have to replace the roof three or four times in a hundred years with shingles. And I don't know, is it, we just have to strike that balance. Is it still worth it to you guys? I mean, and if it is, that's, that's what you'll, that's what your support. Any other comments or questions here?

I've got one comment, and that is that I don't know that the issue of composite shingles was actually a composite slate was addressed by any of my fellow aldermen or women. And I'm just hoping that I could hear something about if there would be a problem with obtaining a bid for those composites, which look a lot more like slate, have a lot more of a much better appearance than shingles do. and if we would all be willing at least to take a get a bid for for the other kinds of slate they call it composite and they call it probably some other kind of fake slate or whatever but It's not an asphalt shingle. It is a slate. It's a much more slate lookable product, which is what I put on my house. And nobody's been able to tell the difference. It looks just like

slate.

Right. So I'm wondering if that's... Are you all saying you just want asphalt and that's it? Or...

No, I'm saying that we only have a choice at this point, I think, to make on either slate or no slate. And then if we want to pursue the other option, we need to have more bids brought to us. I don't think we can approve the expenditure of something that hasn't been bid out. So I agree with you. I'd like to see that as an alternative.

Right. That's all I'm asking.

Correct. And to be clear, that architectural shingle amount is just a quote. It doesn't constitute a bid. So we could certainly, if we're going to go bid it out, bid it both ways and see what we end up getting.

I think that'd be great.

And I assume that this is not the same. This option, or if we bid out this other material, has less of a lead time to get it done than if we went this late?

Well, I don't think we'd know because we haven't bid it, but...

would assume so yes but yes we have not been it but i would hope that it would not take the months that it would take to get the slate

thank you and then the only other comment i have for what it's worth because again i remember when i was on school board they replaced uh they went with probably what uh ira's talking about uh that looks like the slate but wasn't it was a huge cost savings in the beginning there were some issues and this was 15 years ago so it was a different product and so i reached out to a couple of school board members today saying Has there been any additional issues? Do you know? And they didn't know, which implied to me that it hasn't been an issue. So for what that's worth, there are other older buildings around here that have gone that option.

Yeah, it looks pretty good. I don't know what the savings will be. It will be more expensive than the shingles for sure, but maybe it's enough of a savings too. make it worth it. So, all right. So we're going to go ahead and get, rebid this in those ways. I sent you, I sent David and Tony earlier today, just a link to the kind of faux slate that at least that I've seen, but there are, I'm sure there are many brands and many companies. I know there are a number of companies that do it. So

And so we've got a note here to bid it both ways with the composite faux slate and then also with the architectural shingles that were in the packet this evening. We do need to dispose of that bill that's on here, so it's been first read. If we could have a second reading in the positive, then we could take the vote. And if you all wish to defeat that bill, then you can, and we'll move on from the slate tile.

So is that the best way to go, to read it, vote it down, and then you do the bids?

We would dispose of the matter before you, which is the actual slate tile roof.

Okay, very good. All right.

David, the name of the company that I went through was Tamco Products. In case you want to take that down and take a look at that. We will. Thank

you.

All righty. So any other questions or comments before we have the second reading? Okay. Alderman Berkowitz.

I'd like to introduce bill number 7010, approving a contract with Vince Gray Slate and Tile Roofing for the number one Oak Knoll Park roof replacement project to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7010, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Vince Gray Slate and Tile Roofing Company Incorporated for the number one Oak Knoll Park Roof Replacement Project.

Alderman

Berkowitz?

Nay. Alderwoman McAndrew? Nay. Alderman Buse? Nay. Aldermen Patel? Nay. Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Nay. Alderwoman McAndrew? Nay. Alderman Buse? Nay. Aldermen Patel? Nay. Aldeman Hummel?

No.

Mayor Harris?

Nay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. There's the consent agenda next. And Mr. City Manager, what is in that?

Three items. We have minutes from February 13th. We have a liquor license for Jensen Fusion Cuisine on Maryland. And then we also have an appointment to the St. Louis County Council for University of Missouri Extension. That would be Alderwoman Buse.

Okay. Any questions or comments about any of that?

Can I make one note, please? Sure. Alderman Buse pointed out to me that there was a typo. She is actually on the IRF board instead of NIRF. Good

catch. Okay. Alderman Berkowitz.

I'd like to move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, June.

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

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

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, next up is the Server Training Certificate Program.

You guys are good. You can go. Yeah. Yes. I just wanted to make sure the owners of Jensen were here so they don't sit here for the next,

you know. Thank you. Thank you, Bridget. I couldn't see them on my screen. Okay. Okay.

Okay, server training certificate program. The city of Clayton performs alcohol compliance checks to ensure that establishments and servers do not sell or provide alcohol to minors. In a 12-month span, the police department conducted 53 compliance checks and had 15 instances where alcohol was sold to a minor. That is a 28% failure rate. On November 17th, the Board of Aldermen discussed implementing a server training requirement similar to that required in Columbia, Missouri, and subsequently directed staff to develop an ordinance and discuss it with impacted businesses. The ordinance being considered would require every individual that sells alcohol, be it retail or liquored by the drink, to complete the State of Missouri Alcohol Responsibility Training or SMART program every three years. SMART training is conducted online at no charge to the applicant. The training is typically completed within an hour or less. The server would then need to file the smart verification with the finance department and pay a $5 processing fee to receive the City of Clayton server certificate. The certificate would then be kept on file at the place of employment. Staff shared the proposed legislation with a number of local businesses during the week of February 19th, and that feedback has been provided as it was received in writing. The SMART program meets the criteria that they set out, most of them, seeking that the burden not be excessive on the staff and that it be low cost. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance approving a server training certificate program.

Okay. Any discussion or comments from the audience or online attendees? Okay, discussion for us. Alderman Berkowitz.

I think we have discussed this already. I think it's really a very important thing for us to have in the city of Clayton, so I'm very much in favor of it.

Yeah, go on.

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I think, you know, obviously there's been a few, given some of the feedback we've got from just a couple of the Establishments in town. I think what concerns me is that we had a nearly one third failure rate when our police department went out and did compliance checks so there's a problem here. And being that I am a mother of two high school students, I know that we have a problem here in Clayton alcohol is a really serious issue so You know, I think our all-in coalition does a great job of trying to certainly alert parents. But I think one of the things we can do as elected officials is make sure that the people working in our restaurants and grocery stores and just other convenience stores are at least up to date on the technology because these technologies fake licenses are getting better and better, and it's a lot easier for kids to get them. So I don't, I think that this is not, you know, again, this is free for servers to do. It's an hour online, and they only have to do it once every three years. So I don' t see how it's very burdensome, and I would certainly be in favor of moving forward with this.

Alderwoman Buse.

I would agree with that. I think it's something that will certainly help our city and enforcement and health and safety of everyone who comes here. The one question I had is I wish there were a way that it was self-executing. It looks like now that we have to go in and ask to see the certificates of the servers or if there was some way, if not now, in the future so that an establishment would have to file something every year or something else you know, stating their full compliance with the ordinance, something like that. So that it's not totally on our law enforcement to find out if there's a violation. Something more, again, self-executing, I think would be very helpful.

Okay. Alderwoman Patel? I have just a couple questions. Someone just alluded to this being free. And while the training is free, as I understand it, and online and short, we are proposing that the server themselves comes in to the city of Clayton during the hours that we're open and shows that they passed the test and pays a $5 processing fee to receive, I guess, a physical paper certificate. Is that accurate? David's nodding and said yes. Okay. And then one thing I wonder about is that it's not uncommon, particularly for people in any industry, but especially in this industry, to have more than one job. And so I'm curious what happens for folks who work at multiple businesses or change jobs. um places of employment how they like quote-unquote transfer that or have it active at multiple establishments

what this does is just certify that they're a licensed server within the city if they want multiple copies from finance because they work at three different restaurants then we'll provide that for them

at no additional cost or at a

$5? $5 to get the certificate. And then if they need additional copies to bring to multiple employers in town, then we'll provide that without any further charge.

Okay. And if they like, because it's good for three years, right? So they might work somewhere for a year, decide to go someplace else. They don't have to worry about whether their current employer still has their piece of paper. They can just come in and ask for it, and we will have the record and be able to give it to them. No charge, no

hassle. Certificate is portable. So they'll be on file here as a certified server, and then they will need a copy of that certificate at each place of employment, and their employer would need to keep that on file.

All right. That satisfies my questions. Thank you.

Yeah, good. if i may on that on that point a technical suggestion that with the board pleasure will interlineate now and introduce as already changed, but on the second page of the bill, section 600.310 subsection C, which specifies each person holding a service certificate who is employed by a person licensed under this chapter shall deposit the certificate with such employer during the tenure of the holder's employment. It is recommended that we insert after the word certificate after the words deposit the certificate insert the words or a copy thereof so that they don't have to surrender the certificate to each to an employer they can make a copy of and provide a copy oh so

they could actually hold it themselves and create a couple copies to give to their multiple employers we're

trying to make it as easy as yeah i mean once they're certified with us then they can go do what they've got to do

Thanks.

So I think we do have an issue. I think this is a very proactive and low cost way to address the issue. So I think it's important that we proceed with it. I guess I'm just a little unsure about some of the, if there's even some additional burdens we can do without. So the applicant actually has to come into the city hall. Is that because they're, We need to know it's really them that took the test or help me understand why they physically have to. The

other reason is we don't have the online permitting process set up for this just yet. So we'd like to get to that point where we can do all those things electronically and we will get there. But currently, we don't have that technology in place. So it would need to be physical.

Okay. So obviously, if we can strive to do that, I think that would be great. And I agree with Susan's comments regarding the administration of this as well. So I don't have any other comments. Thank

you. Yes, I would echo that too. I mean, why couldn't they just email it to us?

They can. We need to collect the $5 somehow and tie that to the permit itself, the processing fee.

I'm going to ask a really dumb question.

Those are done at the same time.

Why do we need to charge them? We

also want to match up their ID though with the certificate itself. We need some way to verify that that person is the one that actually So the certificate from the state is going to have their name on it or their course certification, and we want to match that up with our identification at the time we issue the certificate.

And we really do need to charge the $5?

We don't have to. We typically have some sort of processing fee to recover some of the time spent administering these things. So we try to go with a nominal charge in this case, but we don't absolutely have to, no.

I don't, I don't think we should. I don't think these are working people in our city and they, you know, that's not like they're making big, big bucks, you know, where they are. I mean, I don't know. I just, I'd rather we didn't.

Hopefully we'll be saving our police department resources in checking on these bars. So,

right. And it's, it's just, it's like extra processing to collect the $5.

Yeah. Okay. We can remove the $5 fee. All

right. Not a big thing. Looks

like there's consensus here.

There's general nodding, Michelle.

General nodding. Okay. I like it. All right. So we would close the discussion if there isn't anything further. And Alderman Berkowitz. Give

me a

hand here,

Mr. Attorney. Go ahead and introduce it as is. We'll do the two amendments just to be formal. that I have trouble seeing. So it's, I'm sorry, if you would introduce the bill as is, we will then entertain suggest amendments so that the records clear as to what's changed.

All right. Like to introduce bill number 7013 approving a server training certificate program to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney, you want to read it the first time then?

Yes, ma'am. Bill number 7013, first reading, an ordinance approving a server certificate requirement. If it pleases the board, it is suggested that the board consider first a motion to amend the bill on page 2, section 600.310, subsection C, to add the words or a copy thereof after the words deposit the certificate. Second.

Don't

move. We have a motion and a second. Is this just a voice vote?

Yes, ma'am.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay.

And then a motion to amend the bill on page 2, section 600, excuse me, .330 subsection A to delete the last sentence of subsection A The wording, the words being there shall be a fee of $5 for each new or renewed server certificate and the fee of $5. For each duplicate server certificate. So moved.

Second. All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent twice.

No, that motion is not yet been made.

Yeah. Okay. You know what? What do we have to do now, Mr. City Attorney? Sorry. If

it's the pleasure of the Board President to introduce the bill for a second reading. A motion to waive the rules and proceed to second reading. Give unanimous consent. So moved. Oh, right.

Sorry, guys. We didn't vote on the first reading. We just voted on

the amendments. We didn't vot on the bill.

I'm sorry. We voted on first reading. Then we did two amendments.

Now you're going to move that we give unanimous consent.

Now we're going to move unanimous consent. I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill number 7013 as amended as a result of two motions this evening on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, now let the minister reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

I'd like to introduce Bill number 7013, as amended on two occasions this evening, approving a server training program to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7013 is amended second reading in consideration for adoption and ordinance approving a server certificate requirement.

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

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

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, the Fire Training Center with Maplewood.

Yes, so this is exciting. This is an ordinance that would accept Maplewood as a full member. The city of Maplewood attended the Fire Training Center Commission meeting on February 2nd, 2024. During the meeting, their city manager requested that the city of Maplewood be allowed to become an equal member of the Central Core Fire Training Center with the cities of Brentwood, Clayton and Richmond Heights. And if you recall, Maplewood is a partner in our training generally. So the four cities already trained together, this would add them as a fourth member for the commission. The commission's board of directors unanimously approved a motion to accept the city of Maplewood as a member of the commission. If Maplewood's membership is approved by all parties, thereafter all costs associated with the ground lease, training center construction and operations will be split equally among the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Maplewood and Richmond Heights. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance to accept the City of Maplewood as a full member of the Central Core Fire Training Commission.

Very good. I'll open the discussion. Any discussion from the attendees or audience? Okay, any discussion from the board? I don't see any. So, Alderman Berkowitz.

introduce bill number 7014 approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement to accept the city of maplewood as a member to be read for the first time by title only

second any discussion mr city attorney

number 7014 first reading an ordinance approving a first amendment to the inter-governmental agreement for fire training commission to authorize the city of maple wood to join the agreement and commission and ratification of amendments to the bylaws of the commission to effectuate Maplewood's membership.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay.

I'd like to move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7014 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in

Aye.

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

I'd like to introduce bill number 7014, approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement to accept the city of Maplewood as a member to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 7014, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a first amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement for Fire Training Commission to authorize the City of Maplewood to join the agreement and commission and ratification of amendments to the bylaws of the commission to effectuate Maplewood's membership.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye. All right, the training center expenditures.

Yes, the Central Corps Fire Training Center Commission requests to begin the necessary pre-construction work for the fire training facility. The City of Clayton will pay the invoices related to pre-construction and subsequently invoice our three partner cities for reimbursement of their respective portions. If approved, the expenses and reimbursement revenue will be included in the next quarterly budget amendment. Estimated total costs for fiscal year 24 are $101,500. Clayton's share of the cost is 25% of the total or $25,375. The remaining expenditures related to the facility will incur in fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26. The total program budget is $1.88 million. The City of Clayton's portion of the total project cost is $469,354. The commission has also applied for a grant that could potentially fund up to 50% of the total project. that would significantly reduce these estimated amounts. The grant awards will be announced within the next 60 days. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the expenditure of funds for the pre-construction portion of the Central Core Fire Training Center project. And we do have Jason Hildebrandt, our battalion chief, that is in charge of our joint training as an attendee here. And we can move him over in case you have any questions. We also have Chief Ernie Rhodes in the back of the room as well.

Thanks. Great. I'll open the discussion. I'll go around. Alderman Berkowitz, anything?

No, no comments.

Alderwoman McAndrew.

No comments.

All good.

Alderman Patel. I have two questions and I maybe should already know this, so I appreciate your understanding. Where is this construction taking place? Where is this facility located?

So it's in Shrewsbury. Last year, we brought a ground lease to the Board of Aldermen at the same time we set up the commission. And it would be at that particular site. I can send that information out to the board. It's along Interstate 44 on an industrial piece of property. The nice thing is, you know, it's closest adjacency you're going to find for to you know maplewood one of our partners now um so anyway it's it's close and uh it's industrial and we think the zoning works which would be the next piece after we design it is to go get the approvals in shoesberry

Thanks. And then is it, it seems like we are taking, like we're taking the responsibility actually for the contracts and then we're getting reimbursed by the other partners, right? That's correct. Is there any, like I assume that you do a little bit of risk assessment in terms of their abilities to pay people their portions. Is that, can you talk a little bit about if or how you think about that or what would happen if they would, like their budget priorities would change what that looks like?

So if they were to back out somewhere during the construction process, we would certainly drop them as a member to the commission. I'd have to go back and look at the agreement itself and also the bylaws to see how we would capture whatever revenue. I think they would be walking away from anything that they put in up to that point. The other difficulty would be the fact that they would drop out of our training commission, and if that were to happen, we would probably remove them from our training partnership altogether.

Yeah, it's unlikely.

I'm not worried about it. It is a priority in all four of the cities. As I stated, we do train together. If you look at any incident scene that comes up that's major, you're going to see all four of those cities. So we all know it's important that we train together, that we're speaking the same language, and we can anticipate how each... citizens going to attack a situation.

Thanks.

No questions.

No questions. I just want to say, I think this is great. And you have, I know we're, you haven't really talked too much about this yet, but I know that there's a potential grant as well. And I think this is really a great move for our firefighters safety. I went to a fire training session a couple of years ago that was held in in the city of St. Louis. And I don't know how these different training stations compare, but it's very intense. There is real fire. People need to be safe and we need to have a really good structure for this training. So I think this is really dollars well spent. Okay, with no further discussion, Alderman Berkowitz.

I'd like to move to approve the expenditures and reimbursements for the fire training center facility.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that is done. Now,

the last thing is the- Mary, if I may, just an answer to the question that a member being dismissed or according to the bylaws, a member being dismissed It does not relieve the resigning member from any obligation for charges incurred, services or benefits actually rendered, dues, assessments, or fees arising from contract or otherwise. They do, however, forfeit any interest in the facility owned by the commission.

Thanks. Thank you. Okay, the Equity Commission recommendation.

Yes, on February 8th, 2024, the Community Equity Commission or CEC unanimously approved a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen that the Board of Alderman consider partnering with the School District of Clayton and the Clayton Community Foundation to implement a Voices for Change writing contest. Details for the writing contest were included in the packet.

Go ahead. I just wanted to let you know, Mayor, that folks from the commission were unable to make it tonight. And I can answer some questions or provide additional information as requested. Okay, very good.

I'll just go around. Alderman Berkowitz, any questions? Yes.

Well, as long as Alderman Patel is willing, I would love to know more about what the intent is and what they're looking to get done.

Yeah.

Looking to accomplish.

No, I'm happy to speak to that. So one of the things that the CEC has been around three years now, a little over since they really formed. Oh.

Yeah, the first meeting was like right before shutdown. So four years.

Yeah, believe it

or not. Thank

you for the correction. I mean, that's the only reason I remember. No, that's great. Yeah. So anyways, one of the things that they, you know, as part of what they've been, what the reason it was created was, you know, to address a variety of different needs, one of which was identified as like educating the community and kind of raising awareness around equity. And members of the commission partner with other communities in our region to understand things that they do to meet similar needs. And they got this idea, an idea for something like this from the Kirkwood Human Rights Commission and felt like it was a good time to put some focus into that sort of educating and awareness process um aspect of what uh what the commission is working on the commission does have a liaison from the school district of clayton um cameron pool and so he um like agreed or supported this idea and worked to define how it would actually happen through the school district, through the high school. And that's the background. What other questions do you have?

That's it.

Alderwoman McAndrew, questions?

uh no uh no questions it looks like it's just open to juniors and seniors um which is fine um i'm not sure but i mean versus just opening it up to all the high school students i don't usually the younger kids don't go to the awards night in may usually it is just more of a senior night so maybe that's part of it but yeah so but it sounds great it's i think it's wonderful to um get our high school students involved and inspired. And so, yeah, it sounds great.

Yeah, all the women abuse.

It's great. I know that some people put a lot of work to make this actually happen. The one part that I hope that we recognize as this is put out there is this is a very good example of a partnership between the city and the school district, obviously administrated within the funding of CCF. But whatever the actual naming of it and distribution of information, I hope that we do make clear that the city and the School District are behind this together. clayton equity commission but i'm not sure everyone associates that as this is the city and then clayton high school's the district so um making that clear i think is a very good example of how we all need to move forward

very good old woman patel any further comments no thank you alderman Rick Hummell

very good old woman patel any further comments no thank you alderman hummel

um i i think this is a good idea i'm a little unclear though um what what we're being asked to do. I know we're being asked be a partner, so I guess I'm just unclear. Are we gonna vote on this? Is that what we're gonna do? And then second, are we going to fund any of this or is that the community foundation? And I guess it's our, if we approve this or are we... So anyway, I just am unclear, what are we doing?

So you would just support and approve the partnership between the three entities for this particular project, all of the funding would come from CCF. So being a member of this particular partnership, the CDC would be involved in the process, we would be one of the avenues that this would be advertised out in the community. you're really just giving your support to the project overall. And while CEC is kind of running things on the back end, we're not in a position where we're going to take city revenues and pay that out for an essay contest.

Yeah. I don't have any objections. I just wasn't clear what we were doing. So, okay. That's a great question.

Yeah. My understanding and impression is that the city itself won't even really have like administrative overhead beyond the taking the materials provided by, um, the school district and, um, Cameron and publicizing it. So, um, and the, in the, um, an anonymous donor has already funded the award amount.

And part of the partner as well is somebody from the city will be on the board of Alderman will be, um, on the judging. the review committee as well as someone from the equity commission so those are two city

that's right

roles

yep so the board of alderman representative i would assume would just be the cec liaison

I don't think it has to be that. So, I mean, I think we can be open to if there's someone who's really interested in reading essays and reviewing them, that we could be very open to that being whoever's interested in it. Yeah.

Okay. But at least it's It might be you or Gary. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, yes, it could be anyone. Yes. Very good. Okay. And if none of us want to do it, they can still do it without us. It's like we're invited, not required, I would say.

Okay. It sounds interesting. We'll see. We'll be very interested to see what kind of change they're going to write about. Do we need to vote?

Yes, if we could just get a motion to approve and support the Voices for Change writing contest. That would suffice.

Okay. I will move to approve the motion, the Voices for Exchange essay contest recommended by the CEC. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, very good. Okay, I think that's the end of our main business. um i'm for time's sake it was okay with everyone if we move we skip the round table tonight um and i know we have a different link for the executive session so um we need to i guess adjourn this meeting and well read read the read the executive session blurb and i'm going to just say i'm going to need one minute after you do that i'll be back in one minute I have a two-minute break here. Okay, go ahead, Rick. Sorry.

I move that the Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by Section 610.021, Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the revised Statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate, and or personnel negotiation of a contract pursuant to Section 610.0121 Part 12, and or proprietary information pursuant to Section 610.021, Part 15, and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to section 610.022 on parts 18 and 19 of the revised statutes of Missouri.

Second.

Aye. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buce. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buce. Aye. Aldermen Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, see you guys in a couple of minutes.