December 14, 2021 — Meeting Transcript

December 14th, Board of Aldermen meeting, and we can start with calling the roll.

Okay. Alderman Lentz?

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Alderwoman McAndrew?

Here.

Aldermwoman Buse? Here. Alderawoman Patel? Here. Aldeman Gary Feder? Here.

Aldermwoman Buse? Here. Alderawoman Patel? Here. Aldeman Fader? Here.

Gary, we know you're here, but you have to say here.

Here. I said it.

Nobody heard me.

Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe?

Here.

Thank you.

Okay. Now I'd like to call for the approval of the November 9th minutes, if I could have a motion.

I will move to approve the November 9th minutes. I was also going to move to approve the november 19th minutes, but I don't know. Yes, but I'll move to approve both of those.

Okay, very good.

Second and second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, now's the time in our agenda for public requests and petitions. If there's anyone in our listening audience or viewing audience that has a topic for us that is not on our agenda tonight, now's a great opportunity for you to talk to us. I'm looking at the attendee list for hands raised and I do not see any. So that being said, Let's go ahead and start with the city manager's report.

All right, thank you, Mayor. So the first three items on the agenda are actually the same applicants. So for brevity's sake, I'm going to give one report on these three, but you will need to have three separate motions and votes, one for each of these applications. So we have One Tablespoon Salt LLC doing business as Billie Jean. They're requesting a liquor license to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink, except Sundays at 7610 Wydown Boulevard. We also have Six Tablespoons Butter, LLC doing business as Bar La Frere. They are requesting a liquor license to sell all types of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink except Sundays. This is at 7637 Wydown Boulevard. And finally, we have Four Large Eggs, LLC doing business They are requesting the same license, which is a license for all types of intoxicating liquor retailed by the drink, except Sundays, and they are located at 7624 Widown Boulevard. Police Department has completed their review of the applications and they support issuance of the requested licenses. The Planning and Development Department has also approved the applications with no objections. The applicant has chosen not to submit a petition from surrounding property owners and first floor tenants. As a result, they are aware that these applications must have a supermajority vote of five board members in order to be approved. Staff has requested that a representative attend the meeting. Staff does recommend passing a motion to approve the liquor licenses to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink at the three locations except Sundays.

Okay, I think the applicant is in the attendee list, Susan Barrett. Do we want to pull her

over? Yes. There she is. Hello, Susan.

Welcome to our meeting. I think I can say for everyone that we're all really thrilled that these restaurants will be opening again. And so we're glad that you joined forces with Zoe to get it done. Is there anything you'd like to tell us about the restaurants? Or perhaps the board may have some questions for you. Sure. Well,

I'm thrilled to reopen them and we are going to reopen them in much the same way that they were so that we can continue sort of the journey of the restaurants.

Wonderful. And do you have a timeframe that you're thinking of opening?

The timeframe keeps sort of getting extended a little bit because of a lot of legal and accounting issues, but we're hoping to do so in January.

Good. Okay. That's exciting. You know, I texted with Zoe earlier today about the rationale behind your LLC names. I knew it was a recipe for something and she informed me that it's a recipe for Gougere and I'm probably saying that wrong. No, that's right. Oh, good. So that's for the board's edification. Tell me if I've got it right, but it's a little puff pastry that's usually hollow in the middle, sort of a French thing. That's right, with cheese. You know, I looked up the recipe, Susan, and I thought it really included a little bit of flour, but your recipe is just butter, salt, and what was the other thing? Sugar. Sugar.

There's flower too, but I only have the three names. You only have the

three. You should open something else. You can add the flower. Okay. All right. So enough fun. Anyway, we thank you and we've all read about your plans. And so we're looking forward not only to the reopening, but to the creative flair that you're going to provide to the projects. So does the board have any questions for Susan?

I have one non-intoxicating liquor question. That is, with Starbucks gone, can you serve coffee now at Bar Le Frere?

It's a good question and it is something I will be very much looking into.

Good.

Great,

okay.

I've got a few questions. Okay. Susan, so first of all, I understand that you're not gonna follow in the Billie Jean tradition. Do you have an idea of what you're going to do with that space?

Yes, the space will be mostly for private events. So one of the things that we've been looking for are venues that people wanted to have private parties. And because the restaurants are so small, it's hard to close down a Saturday night. And so we will keep Billie Jean as sort of a private event space.

Okay, it's interesting. I didn't know that. That's good to know. I don't really care if you go with flour. I'm actually gluten-free, so it's okay with me if you don't. And then my last question though really is, so I guess you're not allowed to just inherit the liquor license from Zoe's restaurants. Is that the case that you need to have a new one? Is that the deal?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Are they identical in terms of nature, conditions, et cetera?

Yes, they are.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Welcome. Seriously. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, questions from the board? Okay. And I don't see any hands in the audience. So I will take a motion.

I'd like to move to approve a liquor license for One Tablespoon of Salt, doing business as Billie Jean, located at 7610 Y-Down Boulevard.

Second.

Any further questions or comments? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And

I'll move now to approve the liquor license for two large eggs doing business as Steve Fratellini located at 7624 Wydown Boulevard.

Second.

Just a quick correction,

that's four large eggs. I think you had said two. Oh.

Does

it say?

My script is

wrong. Yes, but you're right. Good catch, David.

I'm sorry.

Four large eggs. Thank

you. I'm sure that makes a better gouger too. Okay, so anyway, you made the motion. Was there a second?

Second.

Okay, any further discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, two down.

I'll move approve liquor license for six tablespoons butter doing business as Barley Frere located at 7637 White Anne Boulevard. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Susan, there you go. And Zoe, there you go, I know she must be, I thought she might be listening. I don't see her, but please give her our best. Thank you.

She's on the list.

She is?

Mm-hmm.

There she is. Okay, very bottom and I didn't see it. Hey, Zoe. Congratulations. Okay, moving on to, I guess, the Community Equity Commission recommendation. David.

Yes, so the Community Equity Commission has made some recommendations as it relates to the municipal judge selection process. There are two groups of recommendations. One has to do with the process that we actually use. And so that's not prescribed by charter. But there are some items in here that they would like the city to review at some point if the city goes through the process of putting together another task force for a charter commission for potential charter changes. I'm going to share my screen real quick so that everyone can see the recommendations that were made. There were a total of eight recommendations. The first five on the screen when I put it up, those are the more procedural recommendations. Mark Benthien, ECA- procedure related recommendations that they had made the bottom three recommendations here shown a six, seven and eight. Mark Benthien , ECA- Those would all be for future charter discussion so really the focus in the short term is on one through five and, as you can see here a three member panel appointed by the boa. and mayor to interview and make recommendations to the BOA, comprised of an elected official and two others have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest and a demonstrated interest in equity issues. This is very similar to what the board had discussed when we went through this last judge selection process. So there's not any, I would say, any significant change there. The next one would be a little bit of a change where on number two, the recommendation is that the interviews that are conducted as a part of this process, that those interviews would be open to the public. Those interviews have been closed traditionally. So again, this would be a change and their goal was to be more transparent with it. The third item, consistent with the recommendations should be reduced to a written policy. So if the board is good with everything going forward, or if you revise some things and you want to put a policy in place, we could easily draft that and take it back to the board for approval. It's probably something we would do through a resolution. The fourth item here should be acceptable that the panel recommend more than one person to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen for the selection. And then finally, it's just a statement that the RFQ that the city had utilized, that was back in June when we advertised it to fill the judge position, that the RFQ we have put together is acceptable. So they're not recommending any change to that particular document. Jumping down to six through eight, again, these are charter suggestions that they have. The first one relates to the residency requirement that we currently have. They feel that that would potentially limit the number of candidates that we would have. So they're asking the city to reconsider that residency requirement. Um, they're also, uh, they also have a recommendation here as it relates to the term. So our judge serves a two year term per the charter and they would, they believe that's too short and would like to extend it. Uh, you can see here seven, that's the recommendations for six above is that the residency requirement be deleted, the term be extended from two years to three years. Uh, and then finally, again, that this be taken up, um, if a charter work ends up happening, uh, and also, um, One of the things that they had talked about, and I don't know that anybody from the Equity Commission is on the call, Alderwoman Buse had been in discussions with them. But I think there was some concern among that particular subcommittee that was looking at this. They think it's important that we know whether or not they're actually the candidates for judge are conducting that same type of business in another city. So whether or not they're serving as municipal judge and other municipalities, and that that should be a factor in the selection process. So these are the recommendations that were made. This is a time for the board to discuss those. Again, Alderwoman Buse is definitely familiar with those conversations and had been in those subcommittee meetings. I'm just checking the attendee list. It doesn't look like we have anybody else from the Equity Commission here. But let's go ahead and have a little bit of a discussion on this, and the board would like a policy to come back. We can certainly do that in the future for adoption.

And if I can just add one thing, really emphasizing what David said, the first one through five are probably, again, I actually pulled what we discussed when we looked at it, and it's very, very similar to what the board approved. And the main concern there was making sure that it's captured to carry forward. The other ones, the six through eight are, again, if and when we get to a charter change, this is what the Equity Commission is recommending. So they're pretty distinct in what we would do with them tonight.

And I ask with reference to number two, it seems to me that this is not consistent with the process that was just followed, because if I recall the discussion of the the judge that the selection was recently made, there were no interviews. So number two, first of all, I seems to me would require sort of as a part of the process that in the future, there would be interviews. I don't know, you know, the mayor was just involved with this. I don't Alderman Berkowitz and I expressed at the last meeting a belief that an interview for these candidates would be a good idea in the future. So I wouldn't have a problem with that. It seems odd to me that these be open to the public. I mean, this still seems to me to be at some level a personnel matter. And I don't really know that interviewing for a position like this is something that should be public. This is not interviewing for the Supreme Court of the United States.

I would agree on that. I don't think the interviews should be open, not be, I mean, I send out transcripts, do whatever afterwards, but the interviews process should be something that's between the, I mean, it's a small group, it shouldn't be a big, huge thing. So I agree with Gary on that one.

Susan, was there a reason that, or if you remember, was there something really particular? I mean, because I'm inclined to kind of agree with Gary and Rich too. That was what surprised me. I'm, of course, in agreement that we should interview, but.

Well, right, because I raised that same question thinking that if someone's doing this, it might be more effective and comfortable for everyone for it not to be public. And I think the response that I got was that this is how it's done elsewhere when you're interviewing for different courts. and whatever, but it did have the same reaction that you all did at the interview. I think is a, is something that should happen panel. And then, you know, whether it be public, it was something that the commission felt which what, what, what they requested. But I think the main focus would be on making sure that there's an interview that's done with every candidate and probably their concerns would be addressed if, if there was, there were some type of reporting out afterwards. I don't know.

Well, I had just a question in terms of what they were thinking when they said the interviews should be open to the public. I wonder, were they thinking of the panel discussion regarding the candidates where the candidates essentially aren't there, where the panel is discussing qualifications and comparing and making their recommendation or discussing their recommendation? Would they have meant they want that to be public

I feel like I'm doing a hearsay in court or something. The discussion that I recall was about the interviews themselves. So I don't know that. I would think deliberations would not, yeah, that would be something in addition. I would interpret the conversations that we had. It was focused on making sure happen and then the interview be public. Yes. That was my understanding as

well.

Okay. My guess is that probably stems from the fact the associate circuit judges and the circuit judges chosen in St. Louis County and St. Louis City, they go through that transparent interview process. interviewing is open to the public. So my guess is people on your subcommittee may be thinking, well, why wouldn't we do it the same way here if we're choosing a judge? And I tend to agree with Gary. I don't know that that necessarily transfers to this situation where a city is hiring a judge for itself. So I don't think that's necessary. And so I'm with Gary on that for sure, but we do need to do interviewing. So I think that has to be part of the requirement. I'd have a different, another question though. And that is, you know, we talk about an elected official being a part of that committee and how does that get chosen? How does that happen, you know? There are there are seven of us. And which one of us ends up being the one is it is, you know, right now, right now the mayor is and so does that rotate is that would we would we establish that as a rotation or do you have any idea Susan if anyone had any remarks about that.

The focus was making sure that someone from the board of Alderman or the mayor was feeling that that was an important part of it. As far as the selection of that, I don't have much to share on that. I don't know.

Correct. I don't recall that being a part of the discussion at all. They were going to really leave that up to the mayor and board of Alderman to make that decision.

And David, I don't think, I don't know, I don't remember. Is there anything in the charter that addresses who... appoints the municipal judge. There's some verbiage there, I guess.

Yeah, I can pull it up and take a look. It needs to be approved by the Board of Aldermen. I can't remember if it says the mayor recommends and the board approves or not.

Article 6 Section 2 of the city charter provides that the municipal judge will be appointed by the Board of aldermen.

I'll just add too that In doing this, I think most of the commission members are quite aware and try very consciously to stay within their role and not say, you know, get within the board of Alderman in our discussions and say who should do what.

I think

they're quite aware that they are a commission recommendation to us.

So I support the first one as written. The second, I've believe we should not adopt as a practice. I think we should clarify in our policy or procedure that interviews should be conducted by this panel, but not that they should be open to the public. And then I'm curious about number four and what it would mean for the panel to recommend multiple people to the board for consideration. I don't know. Um, like I'm, I don't know what that would look like. And I don't feel like, um, I don't, I want the panel to be empowered, to make a recommendation. And if we don't like it, then we would send it back to them or like reject it and they'd have to try again. Right. We'd have to reissue the RFQ or whatever. but not that they send us multiple candidates and then we all have to rehash what happened or conduct additional interviews. That doesn't feel like a value added process to me.

And I agree with you. And I will just say, I can think of past cases of candidates that could become politicized because as long as we, especially when we have the residency requirement in place, every candidate is gonna live in somebody's ward and the way that these candidate discussions and panel discussions should be conducted. And maybe there's, I don't know if there's any thing we wanna put in our policy about it, but really, The only reason I can see for an elected official to be in the process is to just kind of keep it on track and just kind of, you know, basically have the city's needs in mind. But in terms of qualifications of the person and the recommendation, it really needs to come from those other two. In this case, we have two panel subject matter experts. And I wouldn't want the board to be in a position to have to choose between you know, somebody that's influential, that wants to be the judge and somebody that's actually qualified. Um, so I would not want, I would, I would steer away from putting forth more than one. Sometimes maybe there's, it's just like, they can't decide because they're both so great or something, or, you know, maybe that's a possibility, but, um, I would think that it would be a rare circumstance where the panel can't decide, having done two of them now.

If I may, I'd just like to make an observation that as I just read, the charter provides that the Board of Aldermen will select a judge. That the input, the advice of a panel such as this, I'm sure would be valuable to the board But that panel cannot tie the hands of the Board of Aldermen because the Charter says the decision-making is rest with the Board of Alderman. So, for instance, you are not bound to only appoint someone recommended by an advisory panel. You cannot limit the power of future Boards of Aldermen under the Charter. by adopting a procedure or even an ordinance now, which undercuts the powers the charter says each board of aldermen is to exercise. Does that make sense to you? And so the recommendation they make may be valuable and you may choose to limit your consideration to those, but adopting a policy that says, if we don't like who you select, we want you to go back and select more or think that you can only appoint someone who has come through this process would be not consistent with the charter that the people have approved.

I think what we did before in providing the resumes to everybody probably goes through that transparency. And Kevin, maybe it addresses a concern you have here. And maybe if you think we add to the selection is It says in here, it's a recommendation. If there's additional language to state that the board of Alderman makes the all, then we can add that. But again, in the past, our past practice was to provide the resumes and the applications of each person. Yeah.

I would like to see that continue, particularly in light of what Kevin is sharing regarding our responsibility.

What about adding to it that the Board of Aldermen are all invited to any of the interviews that are being conducted?

I guess, you know, I just

feel like the subject matter experts should be able to have their discussion. I don't mean that it should be... withheld from the Board of Aldermen, but I just would feel like I would want them to have it and not feel

pressured or intimidated.

So I understand what you're saying, Mayor, and understanding our responsibility in the charter, as Kevin just reminded us, does make me think not that we all should be in the interviews um but that those who are interested should be able to join the interviews in order to exercise their responsibility as an elected official on the board potentially i

might take a different slightly different slant to that i think i would if we're going to have the committee we should let the committee do their work unencumbered by the rest of us.

And then

if there are those who want to go deeper into an interview, let the board, whoever that is can go ahead and interview. I mean, when we hire people at the office, if someone wants, we'll put them through 15 different people. because if we want to, because all those people wanna have a say in it. And so I think we need to have the panel do their work. And then if there are board members who would like also to enhance their knowledge and do their own interview, I think that's perfectly fine. I just wouldn't do it. I wouldn't put everybody in the same room at the same time, that's all.

And I wasn't suggesting that we would, the seven more of us, would be in a position to be asking questions. But I was thinking that given our technology today, maybe we would be able to at least be present for the interviews and be able to just observe the interviews. So not necessarily be interrogating or asking questions, but that we would be present for the interview and we could Robert B. Learn what we need to know because, as you say, the panel is hopefully would be sophisticated enough to do ask the right questions, but at least we're we're able to observe and we're able to get information that we wouldn't have if we're making a decision as a board. Robert B. After this. particular panel has gone through their process, we're missing a lot of information if we're making decisions just based on a recommendation. And I think it comes out of what Kevin is saying, you know?

I would just add, looking back on the meeting at which the decision was made, and I don't question at all the decision that was made. It seemed like the candidate was the most qualified according to the panel. But what didn't happen at that session was, I think, the ability to say, well, I understand why you're recommending candidate X. but I'm still not sure why candidate Y might not be equally qualified. That kind of discussion wasn't, I think, elicited and maybe it needs to be to a greater degree because we did all get the resumes, but as a group, we never really sat down and said, well, you know, I like what I see about candidate A or candidate B. And I think it's because The procedure was to essentially defer to the panel, and if the panel said this candidate is the best, then unless we had some strong reason to think otherwise, we didn't talk about any of the other candidates. So it seemed to me that night that seemed like a fine process, but I think Kevin's pointed out that a more full-throated discussion is what the charter requires.

Do you think... Oh, go ahead, Mary. Go ahead, Bridget. You go ahead. No, I was... I mean, but do you think that... Do you think actually stating that we would be coming to the... I mean, I don't think that that disallows our participation in observing the interviews. So I think if this... You know, we have a panel. There's a reason to have a panel to provide a recommendation, but I don't think that that disallows any board members ability to observe an interview if they so choose. And I think also if we want to have a transcript or the interviews. would need to be recorded for any reason so that a board member can really delve deeper if necessary. I think that that's of course, like any board members choice and it sounds like clearly our duty to do so, but I don't think that that, I think the panel should stand, provide the recommendation, but I'm not sure that we have to add in all kinds of stuff about us being there and participating and asking more questions. And that just doesn't seem necessary to me. I don't know. In the end, then what's the point of a panel? So

I'm wondering, listening to this, I think that the point of the panel that I think we all see is some objectivity and bring in some expertise, expertise, the selection process. And maybe we put on here, we may take out some things, but we can expressly state that something about all this is consistent with the board's responsibilities under the charter to blah, blah, blah. And then we just decide how detailed we want to be in the board's ability to attend interviews or whatever. But that's probably a lot what they were getting to with asking for it to be public, to make sure that people could participate. Then again, the board responsibility is over and above that. So that probably could be specifically stated in here.

Well, I have no problem. I think I have no problem just in terms of people that want to either listen in on the interviews. Maybe if they are thinking of questions could be put in the chat box or something for the panelists. But the idea of having a back and forth about which candidate is better in one of our public sessions I don't know it feels it doesn't feel good to me because you know, obviously, everybody who would apply normally would would be qualified in some way, and you know some. And sometimes it's it's really comes down to a close call i'm sure i'm sure it would I think it did this last time for the provisional so I think. trying to cover why someone is not as qualified as another person, it might be offensive to that candidate. And I just don't know if I was a candidate, if I would like that discussion to be carried out in the public realm and whether or not that would keep me from applying, I don't know. I don't know, it just doesn't feel good to me.

Does this fit within our executive session in regards to personnel?

I don't know the answer to that. I

do not believe so. There is some suggestion in the case lawyer, I believe, that a public office such as this is not subject to the employee personnel exception in the Sunshine

Law. I would note, and I don't know if the Commission discussed this, but there was sometime in the last few years an item of note in Webster Groves as it came to their hiring or appointing of someone. And I'm going to forget whether it was a prosecutor or judge or precisely the role city. It might have been city attorney. I don't know. But the point being that it was It did, it was in the news. It was something I read about and it was something where there were concerns specifically as it relates to equity in regards to that selection or appointment. And I do think it's less at that point a consideration of equity qualifications, like certainly the RFQ I think does and if it isn't clear enough needs to clearly lay out what the qualifications need to be for the position. And then beyond that, and I suspect what the Equity Commission is most interested in is that we are choosing someone who represents our mission in this public facing role. And so just to speak to the point of that there could be aspects of the decision that it seems to me would be appropriate for us to consider that are not actually specifically related to their qualifications, right? So I'm not qualified to evaluate the legal qualifications of a candidate. But I can consider whether their public actions or performance represent the values and the mission that we want. I

don't

have the

RFQ up, but I do believe that in the qualification section of the RFQ, it does get to your point there. It

does. David, I can't remember, do we have some written policy about the panel itself? We did not. It was

discussed with the Board of Aldermen, and then the Equity Commission had made the recommendation to actually memorialize that. So that's where this is really stemming from, is that the board had discussed a process. We went through a process that somewhat followed it, but they'd like to see a policy in place, and they kind of took the first crack at it. So to

answer your question,

no, we don't have one currently.

Yeah, I pulled our board discussion when they were talking about this and said, this is what the board essentially approved. And they went from there. Yeah. And I don't think that we can abdicate, as Kevin said, abdicate our responsibilities to look at the different candidates. So- That's not even a question. If it comes down to something at one of our meetings, that's very, very uncomfortable, but I don't know how we avoid that if board members wanted to talk about it because that is our responsibility. So the panel makes a recommendation and then we have to meet our obligations to make a decision.

So, you know, just back to Becky's point for one second, which is this, and maybe we should have more of a concrete guideline spelled out as to the makeup of that panel. You know, we have one elected official and two other people that, you know, kind of vaguely described here, but the reason that the panel is so important and the makeup of it is so important is because even in matters of equity, unless I'm a lawyer practicing in civil rights court or something, I might not really understand when a person is more or less qualified on that particular criteria, just as me as an elected official here, because I've lived a completely different life. You know, I haven't been exposed to everything that probably needs be in order to make a good evaluation there, but someone like our last panel had Peter Joy from WashU and he was, he's very well educated he's steeped in the issues of equitable treatment of, what do we wanna call it? Social justice, that's the word I'm looking for. And he's really an expert in social justice and what's been going on in that world for decades. And so to me, that's a place where that sort of decision-making that sort of evaluation can really add so much value to our choices and i i can say i don't want to abdicate my responsibility but i think our job is to make sure the right questions are asked and then to really sort of respect the the opinions of that that panel and if we I feel like if we move too far in the other direction, it can become a very political exercise. And that is what I do not want. Um, so that's what I personally do not think would be good. So I just, I say that I think we've got a decent process now, except for the fact that we have not had the practice of interviewing these candidates. And I think that's an excellent addition to what we ought to be doing. Um, I do think we want to have that equity lens and we have that with our panel. And of course, we have a lot of other watchful eyes helping us. I also feel like this whole residency thing, I realize that's a discussion for down the road, but I really feel like there are a lot of advantages to having a resident as a municipal judge or provisional. And the reason I feel that way is because It's just that much more likely that they will really care about our community and really show up ready to be present. I've heard a lot of stories from different people having kind of tried to sort through this whole issue over the past year for myself. of municipal judges that just show up and they're basically just trying to get out of there as fast as they can. And they don't care about that community. So I just think to think about someone who's actually done some community service or been involved in your community, or at least lives in your community, it's more likely that they will really come to the table with a real, really invested in the community itself and really be present for the proceedings um and not just going through the motions so um you know i i think that what the these guys the equity commission has recommended is all is all pretty good um i wonder if we should be more specific at some point about our qualifications to be on that panel that's one thing especially with the equity lens on that and um I just, I think that maybe what we can do is, everyone is supplied with the resumes and they provide, usually these candidates have provided lengthy resumes and letters about their qualifications. And the interviews, could be recorded and then previewing before a decision is made, that would be an idea. Or aldermen that so choose could listen in via or somehow in person or via Zoom. I think that's fine too. But I just wouldn't want to make that whole experience a public one for the sake of the interviewees. And I do think we wanna make sure we really rely on the expertise of those panel members that are really experienced in these matters and not kind of bring this into the realm of the political world because we don't wanna make our decisions based on that. David, can you put everybody back on the screen again?

What I was going to suggest really quickly based on this discussion, and I wanted to do this with the screen up if that's okay for just a moment, is I think what would be best is to go ahead and put together a policy based on the conversation that we've had today, attach that RFQ to it so we can look at all of it at the same time. But when the policy comes back based on this discussion, it sounds like number two, we would strike the way it's written there and replace it with basically the Board of Aldermen, members of the Board of Alderman may be present to observe the interview process and a transcript shall be provided to all Board of Alderman members. So whether that transcript is video or in written form, you know, we can work that part out. But I think adjusting number two based on the conversation, that's what it would look like And then number four on there, based on the comments from the city attorney, it looks like number four. I don't know if we necessarily need that in the policy, that we could have multiple recommendations. In the end, it is the board's decision. My recommendation, based on all of that, would be to just strike number four completely John Pimentel, And then I don't six through eight will just put in a file that the CC recommendation was there and at the Charter task force comes up and then we'll pull that out and say hey. John Pimentel , The equity Commission has discussed municipal judge and take a look at these these provisions that would be my recommendation on how to proceed here is there any feedback. from the board on that approach?

I think that would capture. The main thing is to have enough leeway in there, respect the value of the panel. And I kind of had the same notes, David, with number two, replacing it and also ensuring that board members get copies of the applications. I think you said watch the interviews and things. replacing with that probably gets to the transparency and the board's responsibilities. And then, yeah, number four could probably just not even be addressed. I agree.

Yeah. And one last question. This is all regarding the municipal judge. Does that, I mean, do we, I assume we wanted to include the provisional municipal judge as well.

It is the same process for both. That's correct.

Okay. All right, so we have had our discussion. Do we need a motion and a vote?

I don't believe we do. I think the next step would be for us to put that policy together based on this conversation and the recommendations. And then ultimately, I think we should probably adopt it by resolution. So we'll put it in that form and then bring it forward. If there's more discussion needed, then we can take it up at that point in time.

Okay.

No vote needed tonight. I think we've got good direction here. Okay.

Very good. All right. Mr. City Manager, bill number 6871.

Okay, great thing here. All right, so the attached bill amends Clayton parking regulations by adding the following, a definition of designated bicycle lane to chapter 300 traffic code general provisions. It would amend chapter 350 parking regulations to prohibit stopping, standing or parking vehicles within a designated bike lane. And then finally it adds penalty provisions in section 350.240. related to the violations that were just stated. Essentially, what we're trying to do here is put an enforcement mechanism in place for parking in bike lanes. We now have the bike lanes on Maryland Avenue. We realized pretty quickly as cars would park in the bike lane that we didn't have a specific ordinance to address it. This would address that gap and we recommend approval of the ordinance.

Any discussion?

I have one comment, something I've sort of known for a while. And I reconfirmed just the other day when I walked down Y-Down. The cars that are parked on the north side of Whiteown, and there's about two long blocks worth of cars that are generally where you generally have cars parked on there. About one out of every three cars had their tires that were actually in the bike lane. And I'm not sure that there's enough room for those cars in general sense to avoid having a tire that might be in the bike lane. And so I'm wondering if what we do about that, if we pass this. I'm in favor of passing this. I'm just thinking that that could be a little bit of a problem for those folks on White Island.

My thought would be that we'll take a look at those lanes to make sure that we have enough width on those parking spaces so that they can park fully within them. But at the same time, we do have discretion with our parking ambassadors and our police officers. So if somebody's encroaching by a couple of inches, I can't imagine, or even six inches, that we're going to make a... you know, a big deal out of it. But as somebody that we're what we're really trying to address are the cars that are actually impeding any kind of flow on that bike lane. So we can look at that specific case. But as with everything else, you know, there is some discretion here.

Right. I just wanted to point out that Whiteown has a particular problem. So

we appreciate that. Thanks for letting us

know. I actually went down Wyandown myself, Ira, because I was concerned about how this affects all the people picking up kids at Wyandown Middle School, all the people parking for the church and all this stuff. And I realized that all those cars were parked completely in the pedestrian lane So while they get tickets for parking in bike lane there, they can park in the pedestrian lane all they want, apparently. I mean, that's just the way it is, all the way down Wydown. So I did not, I assume, I see Matt's on, I assume that the pedestrian lane is the same width all the way down, Wydown. And I didn't see that there was a problem with all those cars. I mean, there's a problem there.

Yeah, I mean, there's one spot on Y down that's west of Big Bend, kind of where the curve is, kind of opposite where Brentmore Park is on the other side of the street. And the lane does get really narrow and you can't park a car. And you really, I mean, I go up and down on my bike and you literally can't park a there. It's just too narrow. It's just right where it curves. So, I mean, that to me would be the only place where there'd be an issue, but yeah, so-

HAB-Jacques Juilland- And we can check out some of those select areas, I was looking just right now in front of why down middle school and i'm getting a measurement anywhere from eight to nine foot, which is. HAB-Jacqe Juilland- wider than we've got most of our parking lanes in the downtown area so while we might encroach over those lines, sometimes I think David's right discretion, but we can certainly look at those specific areas, maybe make some adjustments.

HAB-Michael Leccese Jr.: These would be west of glenridge on the north side of why down is what i'm referring to okay.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce bill number 6871 to approve an amendment to chapter 350 parking regulations to prohibit parking of motor vehicles and designated bicycle lanes to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 6871, first reading an ordinance prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles in designated bicycle lanes.

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

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6871 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in Aye. Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce Bill 6871 to approve an amendment to Chapter 350, Parking Regulations, to prohibit parking of motor vehicles in designated bicycle lanes to be read for the second time by title.

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

Bill number 6871, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles in designated bicycle lanes. Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay, Mr. City Manager.

Okay, the next item is a repeal of our ordinance related to begging. So while reviewing our ordinances in light of a recent ruling and a St. Louis County panhandling case, staff came across a provision in the city code that prohibits begging. In line with the district court's judgment in the St. Louis County case and general first amendment jurisprudence, staff believes that the anti-begging provision, which to the best of anyone's knowledge has never been enforced, is vague, antiquated, and potentially an infringement of the free speech rights. We recommend that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance repealing section 215.770 of the Clayton City Code. And this matter does somewhat relate to the next item on the agenda, which really prompted us to take a hard look at our ordinances and reveal that we had this begging provision that's never really used.

Okay, got it. I'll open the discussion. Any, first, let me just look at our attendees. Any questions from our attendee list? I don't think so. I think everybody in our attendees is pretty much staff. So, okay. Any discussion? Nope. Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce bill number 6872 to repeal section 215 0.770 of Article 17 of Chapter 2.5, entitled Begging to be Read for the First Time by Title Only.

Second.

Quick Roman numeral translation there.

That was

good. Nicely

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

Bill number 6872, first reading and ordinance repealing section 215.770 of the Clayton City Code. Could I just point out, by the way, that this ordinance is, I'm proud of this, carefully written so as to not interfere with our anti-whining ordinances. Oh, good.

All right. Darn. Okay. All right, let's see, you read it. So all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, Mr. Lentz.

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6872 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

And I'll introduce Bill 6872 to repeal Section 215.770 of Article 17 of Chapter 215, entitled Begging to be Read for the Second Time by Title I. Second.

Any further discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6872, second reading and consideration for adoption and ordinance repealing section 215.770 of the Clayton City Code.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse.

Aye.

Aldern woman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Aldern woman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

And Mayor Harris. Aye.

Thank you. Okay, bill number 6873, Mr. City Manager.

All right, this involves an amendment to chapter 345, which is pedestrian rights and duties. On May 11th, 2021, the United States District Court and the Eastern District of Missouri entered a judgment against St. Louis County and invalidated county ordinances that regulated pedestrians who stand in a roadway and solicit contributions or business from motorists. The county's ordinance was invalidated on First Amendment grounds. COB, Dan Burke.: : While the Court didn't find fault with the idea that the county had valid safety and traffic considerations about pedestrians in the roadway. COB, Dan Burke:" The county's regulations only focused on people who were panhandling for motorists and thus discriminating against them, based on what they were soliciting from the motors. COB, Dan Brooke:" The city of clayton has provision in the city code that is similar to the invalidated county regulation. The attached ordinance would repeal the city's existing regulations on roadway soliciting and replace them with straightforward prohibitions against any pedestrian being in a roadway and impeding traffic or conducting any transaction with a stopped vehicle occupant. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance repealing section 345.020 and the enactment of a new section 345.220 and the addition of a new section designated as 345.030. You are muted, Mayor.

Sorry about that. Thank you. Opening the discussion, anybody have questions or

So this means that old newsboys need to stand on the sidewalk. That is correct. Out of

the

roadway.

What about the dancing Santas?

Everyone will need to be out of the roadway, this is about impeding the flow of traffic. So yes, they'll need to dance on the sidewalk.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Oh okay um all right. PB, Harmon

Zuckerman, Can I can I just just to clarify, then. PB, HarmonZuckerman, If if you have an old newsboy deal and he's on the sidewalk in a pedestrian calls that mean a driver calls him over he's he's still not allowed to come into the street.

PB, Harmonzuckerman, that's correct. Okay. Okay.

um that's going to put damper on that activity but i have to find other ways uh all right any other questions comments okay alderman linds

uh i'll introduce bill 6873 to approve an amendment to chapter 345 pedestrians rights and duties repealing section 345.020 and the enactment of a new section 345.020 and to include an addition of Section 345.030 to be read for the first time by Title I.

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

Bill number 6873, first reading. An ordinance pertaining to the safe conduct of pedestrians.

All those in favor.

Yeah,

really? That was too easy. I was sitting here waiting for more.

Yeah, see, I write the titles, but June writes the summaries.

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

I'll move to the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6873 on the day of its introduction.

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

Then I'm gonna introduce bill 6873 to approve an amendment chapter 345, pedestrians rights and duties repealing section 345.020 and the enactment of a new section 345.02. and to include an addition of section 345.030 to read for the second time by title only.

I second all of those things.

Any further discussion? Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6873, second reading in consideration for adoption, an ordinance pertaining to the safe conduct of pedestrians.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz

Aye

Alderwoman McAndrew Aye Alderwoman Buse

Aye

Alderwoman Patel Aye Alderman Gary Feder

Alderwoman Patel Aye Alderman Fader

Aye

And Mayor Harris Aye Thank you.

All right, the sale of general obligation bonds. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, this is a resolution for a bond refunding. The city will be issuing bonds for the purpose of refunding similar to refinancing an outstanding bond issue where the city can experience savings over the lifetime of the bonds. The total estimated funds needed from the sale of the bonds to be issued as approximately $10,785,000. Periodically staff along with the city's financial advisor review outstanding bonds for refunding to save interest costs. Most bonds are not available to refund until specific call dates have passed. And since the city will also experience issuance costs related to the bonds, the savings must substantially outweigh the issuance costs for a viable refunding. The city currently has one outstanding bond issuance, which is the 2014 general obligation bonds, which are viable for refunding. This issuance was used to pay the cost of resurfacing and improving neighborhood streets, sidewalks, alleys, street lighting, and related infrastructure improvements. The refunding is projected to generate savings of approximately $1,139,585 over the remaining life of these bonds net of bond issuance costs. The current interest rate averages 3.14%, and we expect it to be lowered to around 1.5% through the refunding. Refunded bonds will mature in 2034. The debt service is funded through a tax levy specific for these general obligation bonds. The city's bond rating for general obligation bonds has been AAA, but we are required to participate in a new ratings process each time we issue bonds, and that process has been scheduled. The attached resolution authorizes $10,785,000 in bonds for sale. In addition, the resolution authorizes the preparation of the required documents, such as the notice of sale, preliminary official statement, and final official statement by bond counsel, financial advisor, and director of finance. This document further expresses that the Board of Aldermen intends to consider a subsequent ordinance approving issuance of the bonds when conditions warrant. The current schedule for issuance is included in the packet. January 11th, we will have the first reading of an ordinance approving the sale of the bonds. On January 25th, there will be the competitive sale of those bonds, and then on the evening of January 25th, the Board of Aldermen will approve by ordinance the final sale of those bonds. Staff recommends the Board of Alderman approve a resolution authorizing the sale of $10,785,000 in bonds to refund the Series 2014 bonds. And I believe we have Mark Graham from Gilmore Bell, and I think Todd from Piper Sandler. Oh, June has moved him over, is here as well. So they can answer any specific questions you have. This is similar to the refunding we did a few months ago related to some special obligation bonds. This is a general obligation bond, so it's a little bit different. Again, that tax levy is specific to paying these off. So once these bonds are matured and they're paid, then that tax for that specific purpose would cease at that point in time. But these are some significant savings for our residents here. So with that, I'll open it up for any questions you may have.

Okay. Any questions? Anyone?

What are we going to do with the million that we save?

We save it, it pays off quicker and we just get the tax levy away sooner. So it's not like a special obligation bond where you're pledging other revenue to go towards it. This is specific revenue. What we will do is let our residents know that we've taken this action to save the city a significant amount.

So the thing, the consequence of it is of the savings is that the tax will end sooner.

I'm not sure the maturity date. Let me see here. It's 2034. That's the current maturity date. It's just a lower amount. Lower amount.

Okay. All right. Any other questions? Okay.

Alderman Lentz? I'll move to approve resolution 2021-21, the sale of the general obligation refunding bonds. Seconded.

Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Onward to the opioid settlement.

Mark, thanks for all your help in this.

Yes, thank you. As

always. Thank you, Todd. And thank you, Karen Delbers on the call as well, our new director of finance. Yes.

Thank you, Karen. Welcome, Karen, by the way.

All right, let's see that. There she is. All right, so the next item on here is the resolution for participation in the opioid settlement. So this resolution authorizes the city to participate in a nationwide settlement with Johnson & Johnson and three pharmaceutical distributors to compensate states and cities for the harm caused by fraudulent marketing, illicit and illicit opioid use and distribution. Missouri will receive between $243 million and $457 million in total compensation, with 15% being allocated towards local governments. Annual payments from Johnson & Johnson will commence in July of 2022 and continue for 10 years. The annual payment from the distributors will begin in April of 22 and continue for 17 years. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached resolution approving an authorized execution of the National Opioid Settlement Agreements.

Any discussion?

Could we hear any downsides?

I can't think of any. Most cities, I would say, are signing on to this within the state. This is something where we're just going to join that class action that's already been taken care of rather than taking this up on our own.

So there are no downsides?

I personally don't see any downside to it. I don't know from a legal standpoint if it presents any challenge, but I do not believe so.

We will be largely at the state's mercy in terms of how they distribute and what they distribute and that sort of thing. But I'm not aware of any downside to the city. We're not in a position to pursue relief against these defendants on our own. So we really are either we're in the class or we don't participate.

I guess we can't really estimate what might come to us, but I'm hoping they'll do it at least on a per capita basis like they've done other things. That's

their typical distribution model, although with something like this, they've pledged their money to go towards resources and services that help in these particular areas. So I wouldn't be surprised at all to see maybe a larger amount than what you would typically see going towards county health departments and places like that that can really help. But if we get anything out of it, that's great. And I don't see any downside to signing on.

This also has a unique distribution formula or a per capita calculation formula in that it is the entire settlement to the state. And then our participation is based on a statistical model as to the number of people impacted in a jurisdiction by opioid abuse. So it is not strictly a per capita distribution.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, That's actually probably best. So, Alderman, any other discussion or questions? Alderman Lentz.

You're muted, Rich.

All right. I'll approve resolution 2021-2022. authorizing participation in the opioid settlement.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, there we go. Now all we have left is the appointment to our Public Art Advisory Committee.

HAB-Jacques Juilland.: : is correct clayton Ward one resident Jeff finds as express interest in being appointed to the public art advisory committee. HAB-Jacque Juilland.: : There Harris has reviewed the recommendation for appointment and submits the nomination for the board's consideration, this would be a three year appointment for Jeff vines the public art advisory Committee and we run through June 30 2024. HAB-Michael

Leccese he's there if you want to move over.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts:" Oh, is he okay yeah he joined us oh good. Hello, Jeff.

Hi, how are you guys? We

are good.

Can you see me or am I just on audio? Just audio. Oh, here, I can do this. Still getting the hang of all this. Well, okay. Audio. Well, I can't figure this out. I don't want to hold you guys up, but thank you. It's good to be here.

Well, we're excited to have you join the pack. Believe it or not, they really do play an important role here in Clayton on a few different fronts. So I'm really glad to have good qualified members among us. There he is.

Just for the benefit of the other aldermen, Jeff is the one behind the DeMunn mural. and has been tenacious in helping us try to get this thing approved he's been working with Robert Fishbone he's the artist and in fact I think already fronted some money for design work so we appreciate that very much

thank you

maybe you have some other you want to talk about other things you've you've done in the art world and

Sure, yeah. So my brother and I, I'm a co-owner of STL Style. We have a shop on Cherokee Street. We've been there for 12 years. Been really active in city affairs for most of my adult life so far. I've been a resident of Clayton since 2015. I love the DeMond neighborhood. I live on Alamo. So I've been really active in a number of arts initiatives on Cherokee Street. I'm a board member of Landmarks Association of St. Louis, big advocate for urban design and I just love St. Louis in general. I consider Clayton an extension of the urban core and I see a lot of potential to enhance the streetscapes and cityscapes of this neighborhood.

Wonderful.

I will also attest to Mr. Vines, who I don't know if you remember, but I met you some years ago. I went to your shop and I bought a t-shirt there and the t-shirt happened to be, it said, Clayton, the Manhattan of the Midwest.

Oh, Manhattan of the suburbs, yeah.

Manhattan of the suburbs. There you go. That's a bestseller. um so no i appreciated that it was in your shop in cherokee and i thought why was that happening and you explained to me because you have roots in clayton and it's

yeah yeah yeah so my parents my parents live in clayton and my brother just uh moved to davis place so yeah we are deeply rooted here very good

that's terrific

yeah we're gonna have to

get you together with charlie brennan who's oh yeah decorate the underpasses everywhere oh

i love that idea yeah great

so all right um Any other? Thank you, Jeff, for joining us tonight and talking about your expertise and activities. Thank you. Anybody else have questions for Jeff or comments on this? OK.

All right. I'll move to approve the appointment of Jeff Fiennes to the Public Art Advisory Commission. Second.

Any further discussion? OK. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

i and double i

yay

all right thanks congrats

appreciate it okay thank you very much welcome have a great one you guys thanks everyone bye you too bye-bye

okay i think that concludes our business and um i don't know if uh We can just kind of go around. I don't know, David, I think you might, did you have something you wanted to bring up to

us? I have one quick item. So they're doing work in the chambers right now that AV component that we've been waiting for is finally here. So they're being installed this week. And then we'll be testing the system and getting it ready for hybrid meetings so we can meet in person in the chambers. We can broadcast out through Zoom. The public can participate over Zoom and we can interact with them, a true hybrid setup. We're excited to get that in place. We've been waiting. about five months now for this part to come in, been backordered. So anyhow, that's underway. We think we'll be completely up and running and ready for that second meeting in January, which is scheduled for January 25th. And I just wanted to see the board's comfort level of going back in person and starting with January 25th as our first hybrid meeting. Any apprehension about back in person? Any concerns or? Just to clarify,

if we need to, we'd be able to like, or if any person needed to, they'd be able as a member of the board still to join remotely also,

right? That's correct. It is a complete phase. So if you're remote, that is perfectly fine. You can still participate, see everybody. It'll kind of be a wide angle shot, but yes, it should work seamlessly.

And... I believe that we have a policy in place in the building to wear masks in the building. Is that

accurate? The policy, we've been following the county all along with county policies. Of course, the county mask mandate is gone. So our policy is basically sped up to where it will be on January 4th through that vaccination and testing policy. So we follow the county guidelines. But what we've done is we've taken a step further where if you are vaccinated, you are not required to wear a mask, but it's strongly recommended. If you are unvaccinated, you are required to be masked at all times. So that's where we are today. If we want a mask requirement for board meetings, we can certainly put that in place. You know, during the day, we're still just, we're not holding many meetings. If we're in meetings, people are masking up. But if you're unvaccinated, you know, you're free to walk to the coffee pot or if you're vaccinated, you're free walk to a coffee pot without one on at this point. So as far as meetings though, I'm here to hear where you wanna go with that particular requirement and that's something we can put in place. Any thoughts about January 25th or a mask requirement for BOA meetings?

Well, I think I'll just bring up one thing that came up in our ZMD meeting because we're talking about the same exact thing. We do need to kind of figure out what we want to do about the masks because when people can participate in person or virtually, Once we have people participating virtually and we're wearing masks and talking, it's going to become difficult for them to understand us and also kind of recognize us, if you will. So that's kind of a little bit of an impediment to the transparency or the openness of our meeting. And then in person, we just, we kind of need to think about if we want. So, David, I forgot if you said, are we going to require people to either be vaccinated show proof of vaccination or a test before they come to our meetings.

You know that's. That's something we could administer, but that's a little more difficult. I mean, we've got the metal detector down there that we have for security purposes. So, you know, we could turn that into a check-in station as well where you, you know, if we wanted to require a card or proof of a recent, you know, negative test, then we could certainly do that. The one reason I asked the question about the masking requirement for meetings is, you know, with staff, you know, we have an idea because we have the cards who's vaccinated, who's unvaccinated and that sort of thing. So it's easier to enforce with the public coming in. We have no idea what their vaccination status is. And so an extra level of protection would be to require everyone to mask up. But I do understand your concerns as well with this wide angle shot. We're all going to be in the shot at the same time. And that's what the public's going to be seeing as we're meeting. We're not going to be in separate tiles because we don't want, you know, all these different zoom setups at every workstation. So it's going to be a wide angle shot. And so it may be difficult at times if you're not familiar with the board of aldermen and the mayor and staff and everybody's voice, it may be a little bit tough to tell who's talking at any particular time for maps. It is a consideration. There's a lot of different ways to play this.

I agree with the mayor's comment about when we're up on the dais. I think that when we, at least certainly when we speak, we should take the mask off. I think I would certainly be comfortable with that. I'm fine wearing a mask in City Hall, going up the stairs, meeting with people. But I think when we're on the dais conducting business, the masks don't need to stay on. I think that's an impediment to what we're trying to do.

I think we wear the mask in and once we're at our desk, we can take the mask off. We're almost six feet apart anyway.

So then the only question is, are we going to require participants, you know, visitors to wear it?

I mean, I think, I mean, that just goes along. You can't spread out six feet in our audience. I just don't see... Right. I mean, I don't know, unless there's only, I mean, I guess it depends on how many people are there, but if a lot of people come, then I think people should probably have a mask on in the audience, but I don't.

So you're absolutely right. We can space the seats out six feet apart, but it will diminish our capacity just to let everybody know first part of the year, we're going to have Sterling bank plan unit development. There's some other public hearings that could draw quite a crowd. So yeah. if we start spacing everything out six feet to avoid, you know, masking, it's a situation where we may limit capacity. Go

ahead.

I was

going to say, if you have the ability to participate via Zoom, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't require a vaccination card to come into the building. And I totally

agree with that. I agree with what Rich just said. I do too. I agree.

I find it odd. I agree with that. The other part is, especially if we're not going to be wearing masks. And I wonder how it'll go over for requiring people in the audience to be masked and we're not being masked.

But we're far away from them, though. We're far away from each other. There's such a distance.

Right. It's more of a perception thing. That's all. Because I understand that. But I do think, especially if we're not being masked, that we should require everyone to be vaccinated.

I just think it also sets a good example. I think it's a reasonable requirement at this point in time. And I think we should be requiring it.

Well, and if people do not want to show, if they don't want to A, be vaccinated or B, show proof of vaccination, they can participate on Zoom.

Right.

I like requiring it unless we're violating something. What

about a negative test in lieu of a

No, I would not agree with that. I just think a negative test Thursday or a negative test Monday doesn't necessarily mean you're not carrying on Tuesday.

Except what if we have employees that want to come to our meeting? You know what I mean? Then we're not going to allow one of our employees into a meeting who may have gotten a negative test 24 hours earlier. I'm just thinking logistically. I don't, you know, I don't, right? I mean-

We have employees showing up on Zoom all the time.

But it might be nice to be consistent with throughout the building, what we're doing with employees with negative tests and or into the same thing for our buildings. There's some sense to that.

I like that idea. Simple. You know, I feel like, yeah, I just feel like we need to have that option for people. You know, you can be vaccinated and still be carrying it.

Well, that's why I probably will. I probably I made up for remote just because of that.

And you have. Yes, I understand that. And that's cool. But I'm just saying, I think a negative test within a certain amount of time, whatever, David, whatever you're requiring for, you know, inside for offices, I think it should work for us.

Yeah, I would probably go a little bit tighter than what we have. We go seven days with ours. Most places that have a vaccination requirement, thinking of venues and that sort of thing for larger events, they're typically a vaccination card or a negative test, not more than 72 hours old.

I think I would actually prefer if we stayed masked as a board, but I'll defer to what you all are saying, but

that's where

I'd come out on that.

I'm wondering if we can do that as comfort, as people are comfortable doing.

I think yeah I mean can't some people wear a mask and something, I mean just depending on your comfort level, right, I mean I don't. If for some of these big meetings, if 40 people come into chambers, I may put a mask on but if there's only two people in the audience, I may take my mask off so.

Well, I think David what David said is right, though. I mean, I think whenever we speak, we're going to have to take the mask down because we will be on that. It won't be like we're looking at each other now. It'll be us sitting far away on a big panel.

Right. I mean, it is possible to speak with masks on. I'm not saying we all wear masks, but like lots of people are doing it and have been doing it for over a year. And I've personally participated in stuff where I spoken with a mask on and listened to people with a mask on. And it's not, it often is actually not a problem. So, I mean, I don't know what I think about this. It's like a

hot mess. We can also do this. I mean, we've got a little bit of time before that meeting. We also have a meeting in between. We could go ahead and plan on January 25th, you know, going back to this hybrid model And then I'd like to have a little bit of a conversation with the city attorney about this item as well. And perhaps on January 11th, our first regular meeting in January, we discuss it at some point during that agenda, maybe at the end of the meeting, what the mask or vaccination requirements will be on the 25th. I don't want you all to feel pressure to make some decision with it tonight. We've got a little time to have everybody think about it some

and

we can research it a little bit further.

Good, I like that.

Everyone's agreeable to that approach.

Yes. Okay, so let's go around and David is that everything from you?

That is.

Thank you. Let's go around in order of seniority.

Hey, I'm going to defer the conversation about the Sustainability Committee to my partner in crime, Becky. But I will just mention that we did have a Ward 1 coffee this past weekend, which we do probably, well, we'll try and do it quarterly. It's been haphazard with COVID and whatnot. But we had a pretty good turnout. Concordia was very nice to let us use one of their rooms. We had a very nice conversation and presentation by Jeff Fiennes and Robert Fishbone, the artists about the mural. We then had a conversation about finances. There was a lot of interest in what the impact of not getting the tax passed would be. So people are aware and understand that things have to change. We had some brief conversation about trash, but not to any conclusion. We talked a little bit about speeding, and they were very pleased to hear that we have the new process for requesting traffic calming measures. Um, and, uh, let's see, was there anything else Becky that they, um, really touched on? That was about it. There wasn't, there's not a lot of, there's a couple little thing, little development things in the ward. So that, uh, took up some discussion, but that was one guy that wanted us to intercede and get his, uh, get the postal service to deliver his mail more frequently, but we declined on that request.

Great. Okay, thank you. All right, next up will be Ira.

All right. And I don't know, I don't have any ideas how to get your mail delivered quicker, but apparently it's an issue for a lot of people. So we had an ARB meeting last Monday. Probably the only couple of things of significance. One was they passed the county's request for three screens to be placed on the administration building which faces Central Avenue right before you get to the courthouse. They will be three giant screens now placed on that wall, which will give information about various meetings and the hours of operation for the building and other things. So you'll notice it. I'm sure you won't miss it once you drive down that area. So just letting you know the ARB approved of that. Part of what went into that was that the consideration was whether or not maybe a hotel or maybe some private buildings would perhaps be able to then do that and maybe make even larger screens and do all sorts of things that might be in some derogation of our sign ordinances. And our lawyers convinced us that this would not be a precedent uh this was government speech and it was part it was not part and parcel of private speech uh for private buildings so um so i mean that's i think i've spoken that i think i've said that right with that david is that is that correct so

that is

Okay, so the other item that we talked about was Maryland Park. Maryland Park, you know, they came to us with the drawings and all that. I actually was on Parks and Rec back when we started talking about it and designing that. And it's taken us a while to get the money. So that explains the time lag. But it looks like a very beautiful park. It'll be very, very nice. Some of the comments from the ARB. was to try to incorporate even more of the bike path elements into the park. In other words, there's a curve that goes along the park and along your bike path. And that makes it not easy for a biker to maybe get up into the park. There's a station there for bikes for maintenance The comment was made that there really isn't any reason to have a maintenance station. If you have a flat tire, you'll probably fix it before you get there. And there's really no reason to have a flat tire fixing station. I suggested, if possible, we could have air. I think most people know where air is. And if they know that there's an air station there, it might draw them over to the park. to then see the park and maybe want to hang out for a while. So there was a lot of discussion lively about how to do things. The naming of the park has not been established yet. Apparently that's going to be an exercise for Parks and Rec and other commissions, but the suggestion was made that The signage could be etched into the stone that's in the front, that serves as the front barrier to the park. And I think Patty thought that was a good idea. And so they're going to take a bunch of the ideas that came and I guess go back and maybe incorporate some of them. But it really looks like a really nice park and I think we'll all be proud of. So that's about it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Bridget. Well, I'll just, we talked, we had a parks and rec meeting. So we did, we talked about the naming process for Maryland park and Patty did mention the etching and how she thought that was a great idea. We also talked about, I think we'll discuss like names and I think it'll probably not happen. I mean, it'll be a couple months before we get, name suggestions from the different commissions. So it'll likely be February or March probably before. A suggestion comes to us, but then there was also an aquatic presentation from Karen Herbig and the tennis center. The swim and tennis centers did unbelievable this past summer. Aquatic had like an 89% cost recovery, which is actually up from 2019 numbers. So they did, they had an awesome year and the tennis center like had the most unbelievable year they've ever had. So Patrick McGee did a great job presenting. So they're both doing great. So it was a good, really good parks and rec meeting. I also had an all in coalition meeting and or actually it was like a subcommittee meeting, because we're talking about the social host ordinance and just kind of making sure that Clayton's social host ordinance is up to date. And it actually looks pretty good. There's a few things we're going to go back and check, but Jenny Schwartz and Al Thewitt did a great job of kind of looking at ours and comparing it to other ordinances around the county. um but yeah they're just they're both such wonderful officers we're lucky to have them so um but that's that's all i have so

okay thank you susan

Yeah, the only thing I'll add to the Parks and Rec report is there is, which I just think is interesting, is that they mentioned there's interest in pickleball. And this was part of the conversation that tennis had a most amazing season it's ever had. And people have asked about using that upper court for pickleball, but it's used all the time and people like it for the wall it has to hit the ball on. but I suspect pickleball may come back to us at some point, which is why I added that to Bridget's very thorough report. Aside from that, there was not an equity commission meeting, but we should all be contacting our neighborhoods about the racially restrictive covenants. I know Bridget you've done that and Ira and probably more of you and the people we've heard back from it's been pretty positive responses. So, so far so good. I think there's more work to do and we all have to be on that. The only other thing with the equity commission is that as you recall at our last meeting, we accepted the commission's recommendation that we contact the county about the sign, the county sign. And I know Michelle has reached out to Lisa Clancy and I sent a message to the liaison from the county to the committee. So that's where that is. And hopefully that will move forward as well. Very good. All right,

Gary, last but not least. Becky. Oh, Becky, sorry. I'm like ready. Please go

ahead, Becky. Sorry,

and I even asked you to do more tonight, so. I know. Okay, I'm starting to fade, sorry.

I'll just talk about sustainability. So we are working to organize the committee into like focused subcommittees and identify people actions and recommendations the committee can take and make um and the chair of that uh commission bill Chamberlain has been doing a lot of outreach, like to neighboring municipalities and things like that. So that's been really great. Um, and the main things we're talking about at this point are EV readiness and like building code related updates potentially, as well as, um, increasing, um, providing some, uh, content for communications as it relates to sustainability. So I think that's the main thing.

So in terms of EV readiness, are we, I'm sure we are, but I know Matt is still with us if he's staying awake for this. Are we investigating possible federal funds from the infrastructure bill or do we have, and if we're saying EV ready, are we talking just about commercial readiness or in developments? Are we talking about public facilities having?

Yeah. So I can talk about that a little bit. So when we talk about EV readiness, when I use that term and I think what we talk about is actually putting that into our building code that any new development or there might be something where it's like based on the amount of redevelopment or the size of, you know, the scope of a development that that it would be required to be to have that capacity built into it. So some of our neighboring municipalities have already passed um, EV readiness ordinances or, or built that into their code. So, um, Susan has, is aware that we're interested in this and, um, and considering it in alignment with like the next plan to update the building code. Um, and then when it comes to actually like, uh, building or installing charging stations. We've talked about some of the options for that. And one of the things that, you know, that we've talked about is that so many private developers or businesses are doing it that, you know we really need to consider whether it's something that the public needs to do also, right? Or whether it's being cared for by it. So it's definitely something we're looking at, but.

Okay, great. Consider. Yep. Thank you.

We did have two meetings ago, a representative from Ameren came and spoke about the funds they have available for EV charging stations and the ability to tap into some of those. So that's out there. Definitely. We had someplace to put it.

So I mean, I can ask David or are we actively working on that as a city getting funds?

So Ameren has some programs. I don't know the details on those. I've had a brief call with Marco Tipton, who was the Ameren rep that spoke with sustainability. At this point in time, we're kind of running everything through the sustainability committee that's looking at this. We're not doing any work aside from what's going on there, knowing that they're gonna take up this issue. I know in public works, you know, Matt has been researching this and he'll work with that committee on it to establish some sort of process. And at some point we'll need to look at the feasibility of putting in public stations. You'll see some throughout the Metro. It's typically in a larger parking field, like in a community center parking lot is where you commonly see them. Not only do you have cars that are parked for a considerable amount of time, but you also have the electric infrastructure that's really easy to run to those locations. So We are keeping an eye on what everybody's doing, but I think we're going to route everything through sustainability for this particular effort.

Yeah, of course. And I'm pretty sure that it's not like they end up being totally free. There would still be a cost to the city if the city chose to install it. So it's not like a totally free amenity or capability that we're not taking advantage of.

Well, one thing I would encourage is, you know, obviously to look into it and make a recommendation to the board. But also, you know, if it's not completely free, I know that the Clayton Community Foundation is looking for ways to make good on their sustainability pillar. And so maybe that's an area where we could collaborate.

Definitely. Yeah. Question. Again, surrounding communities have enacted the... the building codes requiring that the buildings be ready for this. And you said Susan's looking at this part of when we redo the codes, when we update them. What kind of a time period is

that? That'll be this coming year.

Okay.

So we're going to update to the 21. It's the 21 code. We'll do it. 22. So anyhow, yeah, we are going through it. I do believe that this next version of the code also has some of these types of requirements built in. So that's something we're researching to see exactly how far that goes. Really the code hasn't changed much over time. The two things that really change are life safety as it relates to fire and the energy efficiency stuff is just, I mean, that section of the code has just grown immensely. So that's something we're taking a look at. And that's where we'll likely insert this. A lot of cities that have done this already, they haven't done it through the building code. They've actually made it some sort of zoning requirement in a lot of cases that people install these EV stations. We'll probably do it through the building taking, you know, plan commission and those types of boards that, you know, at times will give waivers or change things around a little bit. If it's building code, it's black and white. So that's where, you know, you're going to get the ultimate results. So,

you know, are these all generic so that you're not having to make one for each car maker? Is that...

They are. I mean, it's such a rapidly evolving technology. That's one of the toughest things about it is there are adapters that you'll see that will fit different types of vehicles. I've seen some that look like an octopus is on top of it because it's got different adapters for different vehicles and not all in one. cord. So that's a concern. There are maintenance concerns. If the cord gets ripped out, then you got to replace it. There are electrical load concerns in order to run these things. So there's a lot that goes into having these. And that's all the things that sustainability and public works staff are looking at. And then community development on the building side. But to answer your question, yes, we would want this to have the capability of charging any type of vehicle.

Thank you. It would

be great if they would standardize that somehow.

Yes. That, phone chargers, computer chargers and everything else. Okay, Gary. Now it's your turn.

Okay. So indeed restrictions, I might just mention the folks at Davis Place were having a hard time figuring out where their restrictions were and David was nice enough to make a contact over the recorder deeds office and hopefully that having a designated person will help not only Davis Place but others. Brett KenCairn, We don't know where their deed restrictions are and how to deal with them. Brett KenCairN, We had a we had a bridge and I had a had a had a nice coffee. Brett KenCain, At Starbucks. We have another one coming up this Saturday, both of us attended the sterling bank. the community hearing, which was I think uneventful, relatively small crowd, most of them consultants, a few people who were going to be displaced if that project goes forward from their commercial space. And then a couple of people who are working on other apartment projects either that are in the works. And so I think they wanted to see what the competition looked like. And we've begun to hear a little bit of just noise about the the Forsyth, the corner of the curve, which is coming up for a conceptual hearing at PNZ on Monday. So some people who live nearby are beginning to express some interest or concerns about it. And so I think that's it, except for the fact that probably this Hanukkah, I ate a record number of potato latkes. And I think that was probably my principal accomplishment in the last month.

Thank you. Okay. Well, just a couple of things from me. One. We we did swear in our new provisional municipal judge. I guess it was like a week ago or a couple of weeks ago now, and she seems very excited about it. So we're lucky. I think we're always lucky in Clayton because they have so many great experience and and smart people to pull from for various roles. I met at the request of the city of St. Louis and met with their new treasurer. If you remember, Mayor Jones used to be the treasurer. Now they've got a new treasurer and he came to Clayton and he wanted to know all about how we do everything. And he wanted to meet with our treasurer. And I hated to tell him we don't have one. But we do have a great director of finance. And so he's gonna be following up on that, I'm sure. Because Karen, he's very interested in Clayton because I mean, I think he looks at Clayton as somebody who's doing it right. So, but they have a lot of interesting programs out of that treasurer's office that we don't have. So down the road, I know we have a great line of communication there and hopefully we can collaborate together and help each other out um we did uh David and Gary and I Gary Carter met with a big group of property owners in Clayton this would be like Gershman and Apex and some others. I'm missing them all, but Midas we met with, you know, the Dave Belsky was in there. Commerce was in there, some others, and just trying to hear from them what, what, hear any concerns that they have about trying to do business in Clayton, taking their suggestions. And David did a great job of trying, you know, explaining our process and how it, how it works and how they could, work with it better. And they had some good ideas for us. I think by and large, some of the problems they were experiencing maybe in past years are seemingly, you know, been solved. And so I think everybody seemed actually pretty happy at the moment. So I hope we're going to try to continue to have those meetings quarterly just to get their input and hopefully really get their input more on how to move Clayton forward financially so that we are strong and sustainable. David, do you have any other thing to add to that particular

comment? That's good. That's

I went down to the finale of Toys for Tots. It was at City Coffee and our chief, I don't know if he, yeah, he's still here. They conducted a fantastic Toys for TOTS drive, tons of toys for TOTS. And maybe that's what you should call it next year because I think they just got a huge input of donations and The fun part was that the Dancing Santas were there and they are so fun and incredible. It's just, you cannot help but be happy when you watch those guys. It's so great. And a few of them are Clayton residents, believe it or not. I was surprised when I got up close, could see the faces. I recognized several people. So that was fun. I wanted to congratulate Matt Malik for... helping us achieve and his team for helping us achieve the, the green cities challenge award, or if we can call it the green business challenge from, from the Missouri botanical gardens and the green building council. So that's really an achievement. We did get that last year and we got it again this year, thanks to the hard work and reporting and, sort of due diligence of Matt and his team. So thank you, Matt. Matt, do you want to say anything about that?

No, I just, well, I guess I should have said yes, I do. No, most of the effort was put forth by John Wolf in Public Works, as well as Patty DeForest in Parks and Rec. The projects that both the departments do on kind of just a daily basis, we will highlight some of those. So thanks for their help.

And Patty, I'm remiss in not mentioning your group too, because I know you worked very hard on it both years. So thank you as well. And then I want to mention, I learned from David today that our fire chief is helping out down in Kentucky where the tornado disaster struck. And I think that's just commendable that we as a city can help other cities when they're in need. Hopefully if wherever need the same, it'll be paid back. But I think that's really commendable of our chief and I'll be looking forward to hearing all about it when he's back and can tell us how it all went. So that's wonderful. Other than that, I don't have anything else to report.

I do have one more quick item. June, can you move Patty DeForest over real quick? I was just looking at the date and I realized that, you know, this is because we canceled the meeting on the 28th. This is Patty DeForest's last meeting. So let's get her on screen one

last time.

Oh,

Patty. Don.

Get home. Oh my gosh. All right.

Well, hey, like I said, we'll work

with you. Chief. Hey, Chief, I just want to let you know you're, there you go. He's muted now. All

right.

Teddy, I don't know if your camera's on or not. I just want to say publicly, and I know we'll have other opportunities, that it's been a pleasure working with you over the last year and a half, almost two years now. And we're certainly going to miss you. So I just wanted to thank you and give some public acknowledgement here before your retirement on the 31st and give everybody else a quick opportunity to do the same. Glad I realized it was the 14th and this is our last meeting of the

month. Yeah, me too. I don't

even know

if you can hear me. Well, I'm not ready for this because I'm going to be there Friday.

Oh, yeah. So we have our meeting Friday and we have, you know, our get together after. This

is the last public meeting,

David. Last regular meeting

here. But the Friday session is public.

It is. And I think if you start talking about me now, well, we just should just go to mugs and forget about the public part of this. Let's go somewhere else. Otherwise, we can do this later. Well, we will

definitely, now we will all have time to prepare some really choice remarks for you for Friday.

Yeah, let's save it till Friday then.

Thank you.

You're welcome. You're welcome I know you want to prepare too, but yeah, it's your last regular meeting. I think

I still have some sick days left though,

David. Okay. All right. Well, great. David, thank you so much for bringing that up. Oh my gosh. Okay, I think we've covered everything. Anybody else got anything at all? All right, then I would take a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn. Second.

Aye. All

those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, all right. See you guys. Thank you so much. Have a great night. Okay, bye.