April 9, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Okay well welcome everybody to our what's today the April 9th meeting it can't I can't believe it's already you know April and whatever but anyway welcome and welcome Jeff our incoming member so that's fun to see you here all right so will the city clerk call the roll.

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

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

Here.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney

O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you. Now's the time on our agenda for public requests and petitions. So I'd ask if anybody has something that they want to talk to us about, that's not on our agenda. Now's your time. I don't see anybody online, right? And I don't see anyone here. Any of the staff would like to talk about something that's not on agenda? Okay. All right. That's your chance. I try. Okay. So the first thing on our agenda is the consent agenda, which I believe is just the minutes. correct oh oh we're doing but the presentation is after the consent agenda on my uh piece of paper so sorry which would we like to do first the presentation okay we will do that first that's okay um so yeah so the first thing then is the presentation on the pcarb's uh work over the year

Okay. So that'll briefly summarize what's in our staff report. So just a reminder, we have seven members on the plan commission architecture review board. Historically, the annual presentation has also served as the joint meeting with the PCARB. In this case, we've already had quite a few joint meetings recently with them. So I'm just here to summarize with any questions so you can go to the next one. So the plan commission, their primary responsibility outlined in our code is more related to rezoning text amendments and site plan. So kind of how spaces are developed and the uses thereon. And the architecture review board is really focused more on the design and the materials associated with these projects. So next one. The first table here, this is what is included in your packet. So this is a summary of all of the applications that have gone before the plan commission and architecture review board in 2023 compared to 2022. This summary identifies each application. So there might be a project that requires multiple application types for approval. So for instance, a new single family house requires architecture review board approval as well as site plan review. So that one house would be tallied in both of those rows. This only accounts for that application once, though. So if the House took multiple attempts at the Plan Commission Architecture Review Board to get approval, it's still only counted once in each application category. So you can see that we've had a little bit of a shift. Quite a few of our areas that tend to have smaller application numbers have increased significantly since 2002 in those counts. And then if you go to the next one, I thought it'd be a little bit easier to kind of look at the summary in terms of the project type by use. So in this table, which is not in your packet, we actually categorize each project under residential, institutional, commercial or mixed use and then kind of by the overall type of the project. So in this A project itself is only represented one time. So a new construction single-family house is going to fall under new construction residential and only appear there. So it's just a slightly different way to look at how the projects reviewed by the Planning Commission have broken down. So you can see here that the majority of our project types are falling in the residential category, and within that, it's mostly exterior alterations. So that would fall under the architecture review board, something like a fence, a patio replacement, changing windows or materials on the siding of the house, that sort of a thing. With the commercial projects, last in 2023 calendar year, we had quite a few new construction mixed-use projects. So that would be most of our planned unit developments. For just commercial type, that would be only commercial uses. It could have a mixture of commercial associated with it, but it would not have a mixture of and residential. So that again, with exterior alterations being the largest category. For rezoning, that one single for commercial, that was a property on Brentwood. So the rezoning category would only include a rezoning project that was not associated with any sort of new construction, like a planned unit development, which would appear in your new construction category. So that is the summary of 2023 in review for the plan Commission architecture you weren't happy to answer any questions if you have any.

So, in the case of something like sterling bank apartment building I think went through a review yes. Would that be under commercial or residential.

That would be one of the new construction mixed use categories.

Has the workload, I mean, the amount of time you've been spending and your staff, has that changed dramatically year over year from 20? I guess you track it sort of somehow.

Yeah, we do track it a little bit. I would say... Overall, it has shifted a little bit. So we had some text amendments. We typically wouldn't be doing text amendments every year. So if you looked at that category of time prior to even 2022, it would be really low. So we've been doing more text amendments. And then we've had quite a few larger planning and development projects. But most of the residential side of things has been a pretty consistent number of new construction and alteration projects in that So I would say it's pretty well divided the same way over those two years.

Anybody

else have questions? I'll just go around.

Just a couple of things. I don't know if it's part of what you were doing here today, but I get some complaints occasionally that things take too long. Is there some way we're tracking time and everything in terms of these projects being applied for and getting back?

One of the things that we have been reviewing that our planner Ryan's been working on is updating some of our architecture review guidelines and then evaluating some of those projects that go to the architecture review board for approval, but there's really consistent approval characteristics to it. And so then identifying one of the things I think, especially the projects that you might hear about, would be the smaller alterations to a single family house, for example, where the process is two weeks to go through the ARB. And that might be something that's easily built into a larger commercial project schedule. But for a smaller single family residential, say they have a deteriorating front porch and they want to rebuild the steps under the really strict interpretation of our architecture review board, code right now that is considered a front yard alteration that's sent to the architecture review board for approval. However, we have really consistent data and historic decisions from the ARB. And so that's something that Ryan's looking at is how can we maybe streamline some of those where we already know the answer to provide administrative review. Another example is with retaining walls. So we had a lot of retaining walls that were coming through. So those would be under the exterior alteration category. a lot that were in the rear yard that were using materials that didn't technically meet the architectural guidelines, but we're consistently being improved by ARB. That's one update we made to the architectural guidelines is expanding and changing the material aspect to allow those to be administratively approved. It is something that we're trying to track and we've fixed the little ones that we can fix now, but we have a longer list of things that will probably be wrapped into the overall code rewrite that we'll likely do in the next couple of years.

The other part of my question was, are you tracking the time it takes from the time of application to the time for people to get approval? Is there some tracking that's being done by the department?

There is not because the majority of it's pretty regular. So we meet Planning Commission ARB meets twice a month on a regular meeting date. And to get on an agenda, the deadline is two weeks prior to that, unless you have a project that requires our consultant reviews that we have on another two-week timeline. So for anything that doesn't require site plan review, those projects are pretty regular the two weeks prior. The larger projects, we haven't really gone into a deep dive of how the averages of how those are taking because a lot of that is really dependent on how responsive the applicants actually are. So I know that's something that we are focusing a little bit more on in the plan review side under our construction permits for building permits. We found a lot of residents felt like the process is taking a long time on our permit side. One of the positives of our new CitizenServe online permitting portal is that we now request an email address for the property owner so that they can go into CitizenServe and they can see that we sent comments on Monday and it took four weeks for the contractor to actually respond to the comments, not it took four weeks to review the response. And so we found that perception was a big issue and so that that we are changing with how we're requesting those email addresses moving forward thanks go

ahead um no questions but i just wanted to let everybody know i mean it's been anna and ryan and hobie do such a great job prepping you know our meetings and so it's just it's a pleasure to work for um to work with you all and so um wonderful job

thanks Yeah, I was wondering, and I think you've kind of answered it, but it seems like you all are staying very responsive as things change, as things come in. Because when we looked at the two years of data, I wondered if COVID was part of the reason. Did things dry up? Some things get busy? And then what are the longer-term trends? Is staffing sufficient to do it? And are your guidelines sufficient to address it? And you've pretty much So they're looking at the guidelines of things that are repetitive and aren't problematic. You're updating those. Is there anything else that we should be aware of?

Yeah, I think the big piece with the guidelines is really helping to streamline some of the process in terms of what has to go to the plan commission ARB. But it's not going to really change the staff load on staff. On our side, because what instead would be happening is Ryan still going to do his review, but now it's administratively. So it doesn't really change that side of the process in terms of what Ryan Hobie and myself are going to have to do, but it will streamline it a little bit for the applicant side. Um, one of the big pieces that we are going to need to look at in more depth is once the comprehensive plan process is over. there's going to be a lot of next steps, so to speak that will, that will come onto our department. And so we're going to have to kind of evaluate how the workload is spread between the three of us. One of the things that is, you know, I'm very excited about is that we have both Hobie and Ryan who have background in training in being able to do the planning responsibilities. So we'll be able to kind of shift some elements around between the three, but there's we're going to have to set some clear expectations of how long it's going to take what the priorities are in terms of staffing in the next year to implement the comp plan and while still maintaining the the times that we have for review timelines on the application side so i'm sure we will have a large discussion about all of that in the coming year with this board

what would make you think that um okay gary anything

Just an observation since I usually come to about half of the planning and zoning meetings. You all do a great job, and my observation really is sometimes I'm there, and there are like four or five things on the agenda, and you see people who are sitting in the back who are number four, and so just in terms of making it a positive experience for people who are there or who tune in, I still wonder if there aren't ways for the staff to help make it more accessible to the people in the audience because, you know, at PNZ, the commission members all have all the detailed plans sitting in front of them and I'm not suggesting we make multiple copies and hand it to everybody, but I've noticed that people will sit there and because it's not a PowerPoint the commission will discuss it and the people in the audience have no idea of even conceptually what's being talked about because they have no visuals. And so I guess I'm thinking if there was a way on every application to even if it was just take one sheet, and be able to pop it up on the screen so the people who are there would get a better sense of what's going on. And I realize that's somewhat cumbersome, and I don't know if you want the applicant to do that, but just something to think about because I think it's the same way with aldermanic meetings. How can we make our meetings... more user-friendly so that people, when they come, actually feel that they understand what's going on. So that's just an observation. Other than that, I always think it's well done. But if there's any way to tackle that issue, that would be helpful. Yeah, I

think we can do it pretty easily. Ryan started pulling more of those plans up online. I have noticed when you talk about shifts, pandemic-related shifts, Now that we allow applicants to attend online as well for many, many of our projects, aside from the much larger development projects, the applicant is also online, oftentimes not turning their camera on. So it really changes even the dynamic between the person whose project's being reviewed and the board level, let alone the audience there who's observing it. So that's a good point for us to kind of evaluate moving forward. All right. Thank you.

So this is the first time that I've had a chance to go through this, so I have a few very basic questions, I guess. So the first one, I thought it was interesting in the definition regarding the ARB's review that one part of it was that it was supposed to be – in general conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures. And so if I recall correctly under our master plan process and things, there's discussion now about maybe not having things in conformity with that, that we might value that instead. So I've just wondered if you had any thoughts about that. And if we go that route, does that require some kind of change or anyway, I just, that was first question is just thoughts about that.

Yeah, I think it will require some form of change. Now, I don't know if that would be in the form of actually changing the adopted ordinances or just through the guidelines. We have heard pretty... growing consistent feedback from people. Some neighborhoods really like the strict enforcement of maintaining the existing appearance. But as materials have changed over time, you know, siding options and things, the actual material itself now is very different from your original sidings that were maybe metal-based or vinyl-based and how those appearances are. And The cost as well is a big factor compared to the full brick that we typically require. So I know there are a lot of areas and instances where there's more flexibility that's seemed appropriate or been supported when you talk about a rear yard or some element of the structure that's not really going to change the property aesthetically from the street face. It seems to be where we're headed right now. So I think that will be a big part of the next steps after the comprehensive plan is sitting down with ARB and with the different neighborhoods to really evaluate what their priorities are, and then how can we support them within our code.

So is it possible that it would be neighborhood specific rather than citywide?

Yeah, I think a lot of what has led to some of the issues that have been brought up in the engagement so far is trying to apply the same guidelines to drastically different neighborhoods. So right now within our code, the same guidelines that we would use to review a house in Brentmore Park apply to clay shire and so just i mean not even thinking about the materials just think about the age of the structures in those neighborhoods think about the the design the roof lines that you see all of that is incredibly different within the two areas and they also have very different opinions probably about what elements of those existing character that they would want us to protect so I don't know exactly what it will look like right now. We have urban design districts over a few areas that take a step beyond just generally protecting the character, which is the language within that section you're referencing for the architecture report. So it could be something that we'll have to figure out. Is it urban design districts that cover more areas or instead is it the architectural guidelines, which again are not hard code requirements, but more used to help facilitate the design process from a resident standpoint. So it could be as simple as having those guideline documents for different areas of the community to help kind of advise people on infill development and renovations.

And then with regard to the report itself, as you I'm wondering if you look at these over time, you've already talked several times about perhaps looking at how it might affect staffing. I'm wondering if it gives any help on the budgeting process. Seems to me that we have I don't know if this is a predictor of future permits and the fees that come from that or whether we can draw any conclusions from this or if it's more backward looking. Any thoughts about that?

Yeah, so again, CitizenServe or Permanent Portal is one of the nice aspects of that is we're able to build reports. So that's why kind of referenced in your project, we only go back to 2022 in the report you got because that's when we first created a unified report to use for CitizenServe to make sure that the data is pulled consistently. We can look back at spreadsheets from prior years, but There's a little bit of a difference probably in how projects were categorized. The nice part about CitizenServe is we'll be able to pull this and use it for staff time, and we do use it in that manner. As far as estimating some fees, we can use it for Plan Commission Architecture Review Board because those fees are an application fee base, so we can just kind of identify. We might expect a similar number of projects over the next year, so what might the fees collected related to that staff time What we can't really do is use this to enforce our building permit fee collection because building permit fees are based on the cost of the project, and we don't ask for that information during this level of review. But we do ask for that information on a building permit. So the same type of report that's generated to create this table and the one that was in your packet, we do those same reports for building permits. And so then Similarly, we'll be able to estimate using some of those numbers. We can kind of see what projects have gone through for ARB approval. So for example, a big PUD project is likely to have some impacts on what fees we would collect in the building permit stages once it gets there. So we can see that it got approved from our text review board in 2023, project when it's likely to apply for a building permit, and then that's kind of how we try and estimate when that larger fee would be collected for a fiscal year for a building permit.

So that was a helpful overview. I'm wondering, however, if there is a specific conclusion we can actually draw from this regarding the future year, or is it based on what you said? Probably not.

Probably not. We try to use this tool the best we can to influence some of that, but It's unfortunately not as clear cut.

Okay. And then if you'd indulge me, one last question. I'm curious, my observation is the participants on the commission that I'm at least aware of often have architectural or legal experience. I'm wondering other than that, is there some missing expertise or is there other expertise you find helpful to have on this commission?

Right. So everybody is supposed to have some knowledge and background related to the development and architecture process. So it's kind of run the gamut, I would say. A big issue that we hear about a lot within our community is related to stormwater management. and some of those engineering concepts with Site Planner View. So right now, we have a lot of people that have a lot of experience with development, so we're able to still touch on that aspect, but that's probably the one piece of expertise that is not really obviously represented on the board right now. So I think it's nice to have the positions that are flexible and have knowledge and also interest to learn more about Whatever might be touched by the plan commission architecture we would so I do think we have a lot of people that are flexible, given what the priority of the community is. That's the only one I could say is not currently represented but Bridget can attest to that it is a priority clearly of everybody who sits on the Airbnb we usually get a lot of questions about it. but they are often asking the questions of maybe the engineer who's designed the project which again they're professional engineers and they're able to provide those those responses so

great thank you

okay thank you anna any any other questions or comments for on a great job great job All year. Really lucky to have all you guys, as Bridget said. Thanks. Okay. Moving on then, I think now it's time for the consent agenda. Maybe we can have a motion for that. It's just the minutes, unless there are any corrections.

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Any discussion? Alderman Berkowitz? Yes.

Aye.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldman Gary Feder.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldman Fader.

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay, next up is the Oak Knoll Roof. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, Mayor. The City of Clayton entered into a lease agreement with Clayton Early Childhood Center for the property at No. 1 Oak Knoll Park, effective January 1, 2023. That lease agreement specified that the City is required to replace the roof at No. 1 oak Knoll Park prior to January 1, 2025. The City received three bids for the work on January 25th and the lowest bid from Vince Gray Slate & Tile Roofing Company in the amount of $653,494. After some clarifying questions, the city received an amended bid from Vince Gray Slate and Tile in the amount of $609,847. At that time, it was noted that should the board wish to move forward with the amended bid from Vince Grey Slate and Tyle, this is for the slate roof, materials will need to be ordered by March 11th, 2024. That date has passed to ensure the project can be completed by December 31st, 2024. As the low bid received was over the city's budgeted amount of $500,000 for the project, staff was instructed to rebid the project with multiple bid alternates. Bid alternates for the roof material included faux synthetic slate tiles and slate-like architectural shingles, as well as the replacement of flashing gutters and downspouts with a material other than copper. Rebid documents for number one Noel Park roof replacement project were issued on March 1st, and three responsive bids were received for the project on March 26th. The bid summary was included in the packet. Materials for both the synthetic faux slate tile and the architectural asphalt shingles are more readily available, and the project could be scheduled for completion prior to December 31st, 2024. Staff will begin executing a contract based on the board's decision on the materials.

Okay, thank you. Okay, normally I go last with any comments or questions, but I think I'll start it off this time. I just feel a little bit more strongly about this topic than some. And so I think though my thoughts can be summarized, I'll try to do it quickly, is really falling under the sort of the triple bottom line concept that people who've been in comprehensive plan discussions with me, have heard me talk about, which is social sustainability, environmental sustainability, and financial sustainability. And so if I look at this in that way, one, social, we have an opportunity. to preserve the integrity of some of our history, our historic architecture. And we know a lot's been lost across the community and we know the community is concerned about that. We hear from them frequently about it. So that's one thing. As far as environmental sustainability goes, I think we've learned, at least I've learned a bunch over the past few weeks about asphalt shingles. how negative or what detrimental effects they can have on the environment in terms of their production, but also their use and then their disposal. The faux slate, which I actually asked to have the bid for, is better for sure. But it is a petroleum product nonetheless. And so that's part of the sustainability question here. Slate is a natural product, so there's no There's really no environmental impact other than just what it takes to dig it out of the ground. Financially, I'd say the business, we're kind of in the business of protecting our assets as a city. And these bids show me that if we're looking between faux slate and slate, the cost is really the same looked at over the long term which is the life of slate which is 100 years and that's what we've had for the last hundred years and so um i just you know the cost is equal in that if you look at it that way and i think we just have one of those rare opportunities right now to do a couple of things at the same time to preserve our history and to be more environmentally sustainable and the cost is the same so um that's that's what i have to say about the topic and thank you for listening and now we'll just go around in order of seniority

uh yeah i agree mayor i think you you had you had sent a letter an email around to to all of us would you want to make that part of the record

uh yes okay yeah i'm not sure thank you for asking that but how it was no it wasn't the letter well we did get a letter from landmark association today so we could make that part of the record can we make my i mean yes that'd be great should we make my email to everyone i think did i copy you on it yeah yeah so i did copy june so yeah that would be great thank you um

Yeah, I've got a couple of comments. I mean, I agree with the mayor on this, and I've said it before. My interest is in that social kind of sustainability where we have an architectural history in Clayton, a lot of old buildings. We have 100-year-old houses in my neighborhood. They're almost all 100 years old. Um, you know, and I've got a slate roof and, and I know I told the board this before that I had made changes to my roof at some point. And I, I, I, which was not going to be seen from the front. And then, so we put on fake materials at that point, fake slate. But I... The front of our house has real slate, and we've actually had damage done to that slate several times, and we have replaced that with real slate. And that's all we want to have in the front of our house to preserve that architectural history in our neighborhood so that these materials that were used 100 years ago all over the city, I think we need to preserve that if we can preserve anything in our city. I also want to point out about these numbers. You know, the mayor mentioned this. We're looking at numbers that it's a sum zero. I mean, we're talking about a $600,000 for a 100-year period. roof, we're looking at $300,000 for a 50-year. Well, you multiply that by two, and of course, in 50 years, if we have to replace the $300,000 one, it's going to be more than that. So we're talking about a sum zero, really. We're talking about the same dollars. The only issue is being able to or wanting to pay for it now, knowing full well that we are a little bit tight on our budget. I get that. But we're going to get a 100-year roof out of it. And I think that's well worth the value when it comes to the numbers for anyone who's really more concerned about that. I see Vince Gray had a number here for the fake tile of $447,000. That's with the copper gutting. But it's $418,000 with an alternative material. If you look at that number alone, you know in 50 years that's going to be way higher than if we pay now $600,000 for slate. So I think the numbers game is actually in favor of slate at this point in time. And so going to the third pillar, which of course is the aspect of what happens to these materials when they fail, And I can tell you that the back of my house, which took the fake slate, didn't even last 50 years. It had defects and we had to replace it. The company came and did it. That was nice of them to do, but they still put on the fake slate. In fact, it was da Vinci. And so we had, we've had issues, even with the fake slate. So, I mean, I just, I just think we're doing, it's, we're in a fiduciary duty to do what's best for the city and when it comes to doing, putting on a new roof on Oak Knoll in an Oak Knoll Park, one of our nicest parks, we want to preserve The beautiful the beauty of the park. I still think we should do, we should do slate so that's my feeling about it

yeah okay Bridget any thoughts um can I Tony can I just ask you about. The it just seems like the bid from roadie exteriors was pretty it was pretty significantly less so i'm just curious if you know much about them or if we've seen their work done around or.

I have not personally seen their work done around. They do a lot of work for the St. Louis Building Authority and other building authorities throughout the metro area. And oh, we did call also just we confirmed with them that they were using prevailing wage because that was our first concern. I'm sorry. They are using prevailing wage, which is required for this project. So I have not personally seen their work, but they do work for many building authorities around the metro area, St. Louis and on the Illinois side.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. It just was significantly less. So I just kind of wanted to make sure that, you know, so... um i you know i i absolutely appreciate um the mayor's comments and ira your comments i am still just uncomfortable spending what is ultimately twice as much on a slate roof at this point i don't we are preserving we're not tearing down a building and i quite frankly that's what i see when i go into the park i see the building so I do like, I will say I do like the synthetic slate tiles better. I think they're more attractive. I don't, if somebody wants to explain to me other than appearance, although I actually saw many homes that had some sort of slate roof or slate-like roof that had normal gutters, they didn't have copper gutters. So I guess I'm not sure why we necessarily need to spend more on the copper gutters unless there's some specific reason. Again, I think $300,000 is a substantial sum. And I hear from people when we were replacing the crosswalks in downtown you know people said why are we spending all that money replacing the bricks um i understand why we're doing it but in this instance i i still i just don't think that it is worth the extra three hundred thousand dollars and i get it over a hundred years but i can't wrap my brain around um thinking about something that is a hundred years from now we can't even imagine what life will be like 100 years from now. I've got to consider my fiduciary responsibility right now today. And for me, that is still spending. And again, I am happy to spend a little bit more if it certainly the rest of the board thinks that having the synthetic slate tiles would be more attractive. I think they do look more attractive in the email that we got, so I'd certainly be willing to spend a little bit more to get that. But at this point, I'm still not ready to spend the money on the slate roof.

Yeah, my look at this is very similar to Bridget's. I mean, I think we all know that slate is beautiful. It is beautiful. It's something that a lot of people who are talking about listening to Ana's presentation, people moving away from some of these materials because they're It's just not feasible financially to do it, and there are alternatives. On the sustainability side, environmentally, one of the things that's often overlooked when you're getting that granite counter or something else is the transportation costs of moving these heavy, heavy materials across the country. And that's one more thing to just factor in there. It's not decisive. I think that if we're talking several hundred thousand dollars and we ask the Sustainability Committee today, the present value of money, do you want us to invest in this slate roof that will last longer and 100 years from now we'll have that benefit, over the next 100 years we'll have that or are there things that you need today? I think they could come up with quite a few things that could help us today, from EV charging stations to helping our restaurants recycle and not have styrofoam. There's a lot of things, sustainability. I very much appreciate the awareness of that. And we always have to think of that But in the balance of this and a little bit that I know, but those slight tiles, they seem to be a pretty reputable product that's now been tested. I know the school district did that on their buildings at least, I don't know, 10, 15 years ago. And when I called to find out how that worked out, nobody seemed to know, which I took as meaning that they haven't had any problems. So given that cost savings and time value of money. And whenever you spend money on one thing, you're not spending it on something else, given the budgetary conversations we've had over the last few years. I have a hard time supporting going with a slight roof. The gutters, I don't know. I would think that we would not need copper if there's some reason that – the roofer would suggest that it's a better product with whatever material we go with. That would be something we need to consider, but otherwise I think the savings and the time value of money and the other things that the city can definitely invest that money in, I would go with a less expensive product.

So I found this a difficult one to try to resolve. Looking at the comparative materials, I really felt that the shingles were not a serious contender here for a lot of reasons. So to me, it was sort of a question of the slate versus the faux slate. And finally, I decided I would go by the park this afternoon and take a look at the buildings because I hadn't been there in a little while. And what really struck me is they're beautiful buildings in a beautiful park. I mean, as much as I love Shaw Park, Oak Knoll really is something special. And these buildings, the stone, the windows, the dormers, the roofs... they're really critical to these buildings. And I think about people who come, especially to our coffees, and if there's any theme, it's always whatever happened to Clayton, you know, all these buildings we used to be so proud of, and now it's all glass and it's this and this. And I think Bridget and I frequently say on that topic, look, we don't own any of these buildings. This is, you know, it's the market and people at the end of the day are going to do what they want. But these are our buildings, you know, we own them. I don't know what they're going to be in 20 years, but I think we're going to own them for a long time. These truly are historic. It's not, we have buildings that are 100 years old. I'm not sure they are historic. These truly are You know, I think that the money issue, I understand the concern about it. I do think when you think about buildings that these really are really long-term investments. And I think we're going to get our money's worth out of them. I think we have done our fiduciary duty. We started with one bid and one product. We've really worked hard to consider other alternatives. I think we're I'm a little concerned about the timing if it's going to be the slate, but I'm sure we can resolve that. But at the end of the day, I think I, by the way, noticed the, you know, we have our new pavilion there with it, with a very nice roof, but it just yelled out to me faux slate. I mean, it's very nice, but I said to myself, this is what, you know, what you try to do when you try to pretend you have slate roofs and you don't. And it, it's inconsistent actually as nice as they are. I think it's somewhat inconsistent with this beautiful, with these beautiful buildings. So I don't, I don't like the economics particularly, but I think in the long run, it's by far the better way to go. So I would go with Slade.

So, um,

I recognize that there are multiple perspectives when looking at this roof. And I find the sustainability and preservation aspects to be well important of lesser importance to me than the economic impact. And so when I look at the economic impact, one of the things that comes to mind is what strategic importance do these buildings provide the city? And in fact, we lease these buildings out. But we can't separate these buildings from the land, the park, the egress, the parking and all the other parts that come with it. So the dilemma that I have is that these are beautiful, wonderful buildings that are incredibly expensive to maintain that don't have a strategic advantage for the city. necessarily, at least as they're being deployed now. So that I guess is just a vent and a frustration. So then I go to the economic impact and given the unknowns associated with these new products, we really don't know what the useful life is. We know what the warranty is. We don't know what maintenance requirements are and are they significantly different or similar to that of Slate. And so then I, and then finally I look at, and this may be isn't a compelling reason, but it's a fact. Our capital budget seems to have more than adequate funds compared to our operating budget, which is where we have all the pressure. So in my mind, we have more flexibility in the capital budget. And so when I look at the roof, I look at the useful life of 100 years on the slate and I draw the same conclusion that others have that I think that's going to be the better investment for us in the long run, even though I'd like to spend a lot less money than that. So that's where I am.

Thank you. You guys, I just want to say I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that's gone into this. I spent a lot of time thinking about it myself, but you each have done the same, and that's what a good board is. And so I appreciate that, and I know we all appreciate each other for that, so thank you. I think we can have a motion to call for a vote unless anybody has other things to say. all righty alderman brookowitz oh i guess and we can put it um just a check um i guess

i i think it would be in order for a motion to amend bill 7017 by inserting whatever contractor's name you want in section one

so your motion would just use the contractor's name i guess motion, or the thing is written blank. Right. Bill need an amendment? Okay.

I move to amend bill number 7017 to include the name of the contractor Vince Gray in the blank that is provided.

Yeah, and I'm sorry. I was just called to my attention that the contractor bid three different products, and it would be the slate material, correct? You're right.

Thank

you. So the motion is to amend Bill 7017 to insert Vince Gray with respect to the bid for slate roof and copper gutters, right?

That's the way it would be.

Well, I don't know that everyone's in agreement with the need for the copper gutting.

They didn't bid it without it. And I will say, Tony might want to address this, but I think when you do slate, you've kind of got to do copper.

That's correct. It would not be economically advisable. If you're going to put a 100-year roof on, you should put a copper gutters and flashing, which will also last 100 years.

Do I have to mention it? It doesn't seem to be part of it. No, the bid includes it. Excuse me. Yeah. All right.

Second. Okay. All right.

So

is this...

Let me do the motion.

Okay.

And

re-second it.

I move that Bill No. 7017 be amended to include the contractor, Vince Gray, along with his bid for slate roof.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. All right. And so it passes as amended. The amendment passes, and so now we can have a motion for the

bill. I don't think the bill's been introduced yet.

Well, to introduce the bill.

I will be

doing that.

If we will be quiet long enough.

I would like to introduce Bill No. 7017, as amended, approving a contract with Vince Gray for Slate for the No. 1 Oak Knoll Roof Replacement Project to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill No. 7027, first reading in ordinance approving a contract for the No.1 Oak Knoll Park Roof Replacement project

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All righty. Oh, I can't do that because it wasn't unanimous. Sorry, I'm in the habit of reading along.

That was the vote on first reading. It was not the motion to waive the rules. The vote was not on the motion to wave the rules. That motion has not yet been made. Okay. Unanimity is required on the motion to waive the rules. Right. I still need to move that the board give unanimous approval.

Okay. We do that even though we know that's not. It

depends on how the board votes. Okay. If the member votes no, the bill,

the motion will not pass. Will not pass. I move that the board gives unanimous consent and consideration for the adoption of bill number 7017 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. then we just introduce it okay right now we just introduced the bill

okay i'd like to introduce bill number 7017 approving a contract with vince gray

that's been

done

the motion to read the rules has failed the bill will be on there's no need i got

it okay you're right there has to be a second reading on another day i know okay

So I'm confused now. We're not doing a second reading tonight?

No, ma'am. The motion for second reading failed.

Okay. The unanimous. That's right. I'm sorry. I'm catching up. Okay. Right. Right, right, right. Okay. Very good. So we are moving on to the next point on our agenda. So It passes for the first time, and then we'll read it for the second time next time.

Yes, April 23rd.

Correct. Okay, very good. Terrific. Thank you all. Failure to appear.

All right, the Clayton Community Equity Commissioner CEC had a subcommittee that discussed law enforcement and municipal court operations. One area of particular focus was the city's code provision related to the charge of failure to appear in municipal court. On March 14th, the CEC unanimously recommended approval of the attached ordinance that modifies the failure to appear offense within the municipal code. The changes clarify that failure to appear is not a chargeable offense when the original charge was a minor traffic violation or municipal code violation. The revisions are consistent with state law and Missouri Supreme Court rules. The proposed ordinance revisions do not impact the ability of the municipal judge to issue a bench warrant for a failure to appear. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the proposed ordinance revisions.

all right uh open the discussion and we'll just go around any comments or questions

no one from the commission from the from the cc is going to be here

no one's here this evening

online nope now

I mean, I'll just, I'll make a comment just in terms of what I've read. It looks like the interest here is to avoid another or a subsequent charge in the event of a minor violation or a failure to appear. And I think that makes sense. So I'm in favor.

Any other comments, questions? OK.

Alderman Buse? The only comment is, once again, I think the Equity Commission worked really, really hard and carefully and worked with our staff to get this done right. And I just really respect that. Very good for the city. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderman Buse? The only comment is, once again, I think the Equity Commission worked really, really hard and carefully and worked with our staff to get this done right. And I just really respect that. Very good for the city. Alderman Fader?

Just a question. I don't know whether Kevin can address it, but I'm fine with the ordinance. But the one provision in it that I thought was a little strange was in the ordinance itself, it talks about in Section B sort of defining what are minor traffic violations. And if you read through them, they all sound pretty minor until you get to the one that I sort of wondered about, which is... The one that says a traffic ordinance violation occurring within a construction zone or school zone. That strikes me that typically I would think that's actually a little more serious than any of these other things, particularly the school zone. So I'm just wondering why that one would be sort of treated as minor.

Good question. Thank you.

While he looks that up, if you look at B above, those definitions were taken straight from the revised statutes in Missouri. So that's how state statute defines a minor traffic violation.

And I take it that means we don't have the discretion to vary from that? I guess what you're saying is simply quoting the statute, and if that's what the statute says, that's what it is. But it concerns me a little bit that conceptually we're saying we're not really concerned about minor stuff, but there's one thing in here that doesn't particularly seem minor. But maybe that's a flaw in the statute. It is a term of art in the statute. I guess we have to live with it.

Good point. I don't know why we couldn't vary it, though, for changing when we I'm not saying we should. But the statute was used as something that was adopted by the Equity Commission, the things that were exempting from failure to appear rules.

If I may, again, this ordinance deals only with the question of whether an alleged offender of one of those violations can be charged with an additional charge of failing to appear in court. It doesn't mean that a warrant for failure to appear cannot be issued, that they cannot be taken into custody and held to account to respond to the charge against them. It merely means that these persons facing these alleged charges cannot be charged with an additional separate violation. So, the ability to hold them to account for the allegations originally brought to them continues.

Would that require a bench warrant then? It

is a bench warrant. That's what we're talking

about.

A warrant issued by the judge for the defendant failing to appear saying, bring the defendant before me so that they can answer the charge.

Okay. I guess we're...

It sounds to me like it probably doesn't make a big difference from a practical standpoint because the judge has the discretion to go forward anyway and deal with the violation itself. It's just this added charge, which probably doesn't tie the hands of the judge. And so it's just an odd placement in that statute. And I agree with you.

Well, yeah, and I do too. But the state made a determination that they considered that to be a minor charge. Maybe take it up with the state. Does

everything else they do make sense?

Yeah. I

know.

Okay. In that case, Rick, did you have any comments or questions?

Just wanted to say that I agree with Susan's sentiment echoing the recognition of the Equity Commission and I have no other questions.

Okay. In thatcase?

Did you open it for public discussion?

I would, but there's no public here.

Okay. But

thank you for the reminder.

All right.

And there's nobody online. I can see that.

Okay.

Well, Jeff, you're not really the public anymore.

Quasi-public. Until two weeks come, you don't count, period.

You're in that limbo land. Yeah, okay.

I'd like to introduce Bill No. 7018, approving an amendment to Section 130.190, failure to appear in municipal court to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7018, first reading and ordinance, excuse me, an ordinance amending section 130.190, failure to appear in municipal court.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7018 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favour?

Aye.

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

I'll introduce bill number 7018 for approving an amendment to section 130.190, failure to appear in municipal court to be read for the second time by title only.

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

Bill number 7018, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending section 130.1900, failure to appear

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McCandless. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McCandless. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye.

Thank you. Okay. That concludes our agenda, unless the city manager has anything else at the spur of the moment? No. Okay. I think we have time tonight to do a roundtable if we'd like. So we'll just go in order and see what you've been up to.

For some odd reason, our director of parks and rec canceled our meeting last week.

There was a battle of priests

and

sirens.

What? Tornadoes? We had our

ARB meeting.

We went into the meeting and then resumed our meeting. I

did not cancel. We would not have had a quorum. Just

teasing. Good out. Yes, we did go down in the basement. You know, there is

leadership. There's leadership involved, you know? So I'm just kidding. All right. Anyway, the Parks and Rec Commission meeting was canceled last week, and I have nothing else to report.

Okay. I'm trying to remember if there was... We did have, as I set up, a plan commission meeting last week that... obviously the biggest event was probably the tornado. But equally big, the demand hotel was the big part of that discussion. It was passed or recommended by the plan commission to come before us. It is a very attractive building. I will say that the, or attractive renovation, I should say it's, I mean really all the people that were here were in favor of it, except for one. I mean people. It was really supported. I didn't get any information from anybody, any constituents that were against it or emails. So it seemed pretty. It seems to be well supported in the community. So if anybody has any questions, feel free to reach out. But yeah, I think it'll come to us next meeting, Ana? Yeah, next meeting. And that is all I have to report on. Very good. Thank you.

All I have is really to build a little bit of what Iris said is under the leadership of our Parks and Rec staff, director we we did get a follow-up email her report by email apparently the meeting no one could make it in person and it wouldn't have been legitimate at that point in time to change zoom so she was on top of all that as well uh but reading from tony's it's kind of funny when you're sitting in the audience but her update uh we are we talked about the pools that There's 92 lifeguards hired. It's still not up to what fully staffed is 100 to 125, but it's better than it's been in the past year. What is frustrating is Remembrance Park is again delayed. More AT&T lines were discovered. So still waiting on that and let's see. Those were the two things in your report I found most interesting. That and a good bite. Oh, this was interesting too with With the Anderson Park, there had been some discussion of should we put in a skate park, BMX track or something, a recreation area like that in any areas that aren't being used. And apparently that does not fit the requirements for wetlands management. Though the orchard idea is still something that would be permitted if we pursue that. And then there was a very nice few words for Alderman Berkowitz, as it would have been his last meeting had we all met. And that's my report a la Tony. Thank you. There we go. It's a thought

that counts. Oh, well. All right. Alderman Gary Feder.

that counts. Oh, well. All right. Alderman Fader.

Uh, the, um, the chamber of commerce legislative committee had as a guest, uh, Wesley Bell, who's running for Congress. And the only reason I mentioned that is because he talked also to some extent about his role as the current County prosecutor and his dealings in St. Louis County with a lot of the municipalities, particularly the police departments. And he, I think really went out of his way to praise our police department in terms of really being top-notch great to work with, um, and really in contrast to some others, which he didn't specify, but certainly just went out of his way to say that we were really fortunate to have a wonderful police department. So I thought that was worth mentioning, especially since the chief is here.

Yeah. Very good.

So since our last meeting, we've had, as I'm sure all of you are aware, lots of opportunities for public engagement. So after our last meeting, I know Gary and I both went to the school board forum, and I thought that was very well attended by our citizenry. We had an open house for the Washington U Concordia Seminary Overlay District proposals on March 27th. We had a very large turnout, particularly represented well by one particular subdivision. So there's real passion among many of our residents regarding this proposal. I attended the Livable Community Master Plan meeting chapter or part one, which was here versus the other one. So I'm not sure how that one went, but I'm looking forward to seeing those things come to fruition. I attended the home opener lunch as well. And so this is the first time I've attended that. And while it was nice to see people, I wonder about the... The impact that that's having, and maybe that's the new world of not as many people in our downtown I don't know. I'm sure it was well attended. I just don't know how much connectivity or city value we get from that. So perhaps someone can explain that to me and I'm missing that. I attended the PCARB meeting as well because of the DeMunn Hotel, which was helpful because we had a coffee in our ward on Saturday. And we talked about three major subjects. The first was the proposal from the Clayton Community Foundation on public art on the east end of Clayton. And the residents generally were all in favor of the idea and had lots of ideas on how it should be done. And my understanding is that it's still very early in the process. They're still in the point of trying to either raise the money for a plan A or raising it for a plan B or figuring it all out. So there's more to be said there. The hotel, amongst the attendees that were willing to talk about it, generally the biggest concern was over parking. And as we flesh that out further, perhaps the hotel isn't really going to contribute to the park and in fact has mitigants for the parking. So the real issue is parking's just an issue in that neighborhood because of the density of residents along Rosebury, DeMunn, excuse me, Southwood and some of the others. And so I think there may be some interest in looking at a parking district among some residents in terms of expanding our program we discussed recently. And I think that's pretty much

it. Okay, well, I went to some of those same things. I won't go over those again. But I do want to mentioned that there was an east-west gateway meeting last week and this is the um you know multi multi-county organization that really involve involves mostly transportation issues in a way but they are sort of ever expanding their role in the region itself the east side you know it's illinois and uh the missouri side of things including all the counter colleagues counties And the main topic, of course, was the crime reduction study and plan that's getting underway. And there was a lot of heated discussion. It's usually covered by the press in some way. But it's really interesting to hear all the different perspectives from all the different parts of our region. And I just want to report that I think it's really good. great that all these counties are coming together on this and i do i am really really hopeful that this plan will take effect and get traction we've got some really great experts helping with this um the guy that wrote the book thomas apt uh and and others so um anyway um it was it was interesting and good and i'm really uh fortunate to be part of that discussion um we had a really good event i would say a great event um regarding our really our first historic marker i mean we've done the ralph clayton project as a as a task force the commemorative task force but this is our first actual marker in the ground which is a community remembered which is you know commemorating the black neighborhood that was here in clayton really in the uh uh the late 1800s into the uh early into the 50s 1950s and um it was a very vibrant neighborhood and and it the great the the fun part of this was they were actual residents or descendants of residents that attended this and some of you attended as well and i appreciate that um But we had quite a few people there and people were really excited about it. People that had some connection to that neighborhood were they just they had all had their stories. And it was it was really, I think, very poignant and it was appreciated. So that's great. And we're going to keep charging on other commemorations. Cards Home Opener was good. I thought it was a little bit less well attended than previous ones. But I wanted you know, the weather wasn't great. So I don't know. And then we had an election will congratulate you officially in a few weeks, but you know that that went successfully and I don't know if any of you did, but I was lucky enough to go and see the totality of the eclipse. Cause I, I ditched my friends for the chamber legislative meeting. And I went and drove, you know, to halfway to St. Genevieve to see it. And it was really incredible and moving to see that whole thing. So there you have it. That was my, my time. So. If

I may, Mayor, I would like to commend the board members who are, who's a, Intuitive judgment is correct and called to the board's attention. The fact that the statute defining minor traffic violations makes two exceptions, one of which is for speeding more than 19 miles per hour in excess, and that is accounted for in the bill which was just passed in subsection B1A. E, which says that it's minor violations or traffic violations for exceeding the speed limit by less than 20 miles per hour. But the sentence also excludes from minor traffic violations offenses occurring in a construction zone or a school zone. And that phrase is inaccurately carried over into the ordinance. So if it is the board's pleasure, a motion to reconsider the vote on passage of Bill 7018 can be made by anyone who voted with the prevailing side. And if passed by a majority vote, the bill could then be amended and reconsidered for passage.

Want to make the motion, Ira, or should we? Yeah, I'd be

happy to.

Yeah, okay. No rush. I just thought I'd ask.

We've got

to

figure out how to say it,

though. I understand.

Motion to reconsider Bill 7018 would be sufficiency.

Oh, is that right? I didn't have to say what we want to amend it to? It has to be on the floor before it can be amended. Okay. Then I move to reconsider Bill number 7018.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay.

The bill is now on the floor and can be amended. If I may suggest a motion to amend Bill 7018, proposed section 130.190B1F by striking some section, a subpart F.

So moved.

Second. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, very good.

The bill now stands amended and a motion to adopt the bill as amended would be in

order. Okay.

I move to adopt the bill.

As

amended.

Second. All those in favour? Aye. Very good. Thank you, sir.

Bill number 7018, second reading and consideration for adoption as amended. An ordinance amending section 130.190, failure to appear in municipal court.

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

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

Aldernan Rick Hummell.

Aldernan Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aye, thank you very

much. Thank you, Alderman Gary Feder. Nice

much. Thank you, Alderman Fader. Nice

job, Gary. Yeah. Good job, Gary. Good catch. Okay, I think that's it for us, and so we want to have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, there you go.