October 11, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, welcome to our board meeting, our discussion session for tonight. And we are just going to turn it over for our discussion on the survey and trash.

All right.

We're going to talk trash.

Let me go ahead and pull this up. So what I'm pulling up is the, or trying to, somebody, okay.

This mouse isn't working. Do you have your hand on it? No, it's working. It's just not controllable. I can't even hit share. There we

go. Okay. It's open. It's working. Here we go. All right, so what I have here is a draft survey. This information was shared with the board. The red edits on there, those were received, those are actually submitted by the mayor earlier today. I was in a strategic planning meeting over at East Central Dispatch all afternoon, so I didn't have a chance to really incorporate anything. So I'm just gonna use that as a starting point for tonight's discussion. I did want to say before we jump into this, we've had some discussions internally trying to figure out exactly what all this looks like. And really there's a four prong approach to this communication. The first one, of course, is using city views to communicate what's going on. So there would be an article that would really contain a lot of the information that's at the top of this survey explaining what's happening. Also a letter from the mayor. So that's something we've done a couple of times throughout the year, giving updates on finances. So there would be a letter that goes out to all residents that explains the changes. And then at the bottom of the letter, it would basically say there will be two surveys. There will be a randomized survey that will yield statistically valid results that would be considered by the Board of Aldermen. So be on the lookout for that in the mailbox. And then the second survey that will be available is that online tool. So we'll have that set up and ready to go when that letter goes out. So we'll reach out to people both ways because not everyone will receive that mailed survey. Another thing that we've talked about with the mailed survey is the fact that we can target single family residential properties only, single and two family. So if that's something that the board would like to do rather than sending it to all residents, because the survey questions, as you can see, there aren't many. There's really just two beyond what type of dwelling unit you have. you know, we're really looking for that input from single family residential. So while somebody in a condo may certainly be interested in what's happening here, as far as what that residential, single family residential service looks like, really doesn't impact them. It doesn't impact the rate they'll pay. It doesn't how their waste is collected. The only thing it really impacts, I guess, is maybe the aesthetic if they drive through a neighborhood on trash day and see containers out. So I just wanted to point that out, that that's what this whole effort would look like. City views, a targeted letter from the mayor that would go to everyone, a statistically valid survey that would go to single family residents only, and it would be a randomized sample. And then the online tool that we could ask for the address. We would have the question on there about what type of unit you're in. It would basically be the same survey, just not statistically valid. So any questions

about that part of it? David, the changes you have

in red are those from comments you've received

today? Yes, those are the comments that have been received. You'll see a couple in blue that are a little bit further down that I received from Alderman Lentz that had a good catch on something. So we'll go through and I can edit this on the fly and we can all look at it together and make changes to it and just see if we're on the right track here. And then ultimately, the board needs to determine whether or not we do a survey at all. And if so, is this the one? And do we go about it with the electronic? And again, that's statistically valid surveys. But as a starting point, I think it's really important, again, as important as the information that it yields on the survey portion is this background area at the top that really gets into the situation. So it starts out with that paragraph that talks about our current finances, the $2.2 million deficit that we're projecting for the current fiscal year. And then the second paragraph is talking about the fact that that trend will continue. The first comment in here down below from the mayors is the Board of Aldermen has considered and implemented multiple ways to reduce expenditures and actually has a strikethrough on the revenue portion of that statement. So that's the first thing on there. Is there any feedback, comments?

Just because we already said the tax increase was rejected, so. Right.

Yeah.

If asked by a resident, what measures we have implemented to reduce expenditures, how would you respond?

I can respond a few things. We can

put together a list of talking points and that sort of thing if that would be helpful.

Yeah, I mean, I literally just, nothing's coming to mind right now. It's not that I disbelieve this statement.

Okay, good. Because we've cut all our events except for two or now we added back the opening days, but we held back on salary increases. We've done a ton of things over the past few years.

Yeah. I just want to make sure we can.

Yeah, we can talk about some of the measures that were put in place mostly during COVID that have stuck. So as the mayor said, the salary increases while COVID was here We're still down a couple of positions that have just been held open or frozen. So there are a few things we can identify on the expenditure side.

In the first paragraph, I had a few edits and some are more significant than others, but I think in the first paragraph, it would be better if it said utilize funds from its reserves as opposed to the reserves.

Okay.

That's it on that paragraph.

That's key, Gary. I'm just kidding. I'm teasing

you. Second paragraph. Were there any comments there I should have asked? I would probably in the first sentence instead of without put instead the word absent. Okay.

Is it necessary because again when people hear you've got a 25, 40, 50% reserve it sounds like a lot if you don't understand the reasons why. Later on, you say it affects bond ratings, et cetera, but is there, should there be a couple words in there saying good city governance requires da-da-da or to give some context?

Well, we've actually established by ordinance a policy or something, haven't we? Right, we have. We have the right language about that. We probably want to share that information.

And then when we talk with people, just the fact that we're, to get through the year, we need that kind of a reserve.

We could say which is significantly below our target of 40% or something.

Right, and the reason we have that target.

Last line of the second paragraph, the word on has been omitted. Should say negative impact

on the city's credit rating. Well,

yeah.

On, then there was a comment here. That was the. Yeah, it's looks like it's going to work now. There we go. OK. On balance. I'll see. We can add

that. I mean, I guess I would try to keep it. I mean, this is good. Like all this, it's a lot of words. It is. I appreciate and I understand why we're adding all of it. I just think we still need to remember we need to be as succinct as possible. So because I keep this people will get lost in this. And we will start really ultimately just want to hear at the bottom. How do you want your trash? Yeah. So

And we will have to strategically pull some things when we start to put it together and format it. If it goes over a page by a few sentences, then we'll have to go in and back out. We'll figure all that out. Okay. So let's get down to this third sentence here. Considered and implemented multiple ways to reduce expenditures. So is that a change we wanted to make? Everybody okay with that? Leaving the revenue portion out. The next one is to switch the word solid waste to trash on the bullets below. So this gets into really those items that we talked about last Friday, kind of just laying out basically the pros and cons, not the pros and cons but this is the background, how the service that we provide is different than what you see typically in municipalities, how much it costs, where we are in the contractual cycle. So that's something the mayor has suggested we remove. So I did want to talk about that a little bit just because I think it's important that they understand the timing, why we're doing that now, that it's coming up next year and that's the timeline we're on. That's why these decisions have to be made quickly because it has to be bid the first part of 2023. Yeah,

I don't know if we need stuff about the bid documents, but I mean, I think people want to know why this is coming up now. I mean, of course we have a revenue and expenditure problem, but I think it's important for people to know like this is impending because we won't have a contract with Republic anymore.

Our opportunity to

change

the contract. Right. Okay.

So

maybe the one

sentence and not the other. We'll keep

that

one. Okay. Yeah.

Because I was wondering if to tie it back in the beginning paragraphs, referencing operating and general fund. And then down here, it says, we say several times, this is provided at no charge. And to tie it, to keep it kind of parallel, would you say yard waste collection through its operational budget at no additional charge or something tying it back to that we are paying it with tax dollars? Absolutely. But when we say in the three bullets, at no free collections or, you know, free collection services. I'm wondering if we should say provides it from the operational, but in the city's budget or some, I don't know.

It seemed to tie it

back to the, yeah, it kind of tied it back to when we're saying the budget has a deficit of 2.2 and that's because from that operating budget, we're paying trash services.

You're talking about this fourth bullet

here. Well, it's actually in like three of the bullets.

We do say at no charge. And then the only place that we talk

about. I just wondered if that language. In the third bullet, it says provides free collection services. Well,

you know, maybe instead of repeating it, the last sentence of paragraph three could be, you know, waste collection has. as an expense of operating funds has become. That would work too, yeah. And that would avoid repeating it again and again down the line.

I think you're getting at trying to like, because of the people who would say, well, we do pay for this, right? Like we do pay for it in our, through our taxes or whatever. So being, but like, and at the same time, trying to like keep it really simple. Right.

So no extra charge is really what we're saying. Or from the operating funds or something like that, because we're not providing free. I mean, people are paying their taxes. Okay.

The only other thing like this is, I mean, like structurally, like bullets two and three are sort of like highlights or highlights like subsets of the service that we provide in bullet one. Right. So like, the thing is we do this, we provide all of this stuff and we don't pay for it. And then we're the only city that does X. And we're the only, cause I shared this with some people and somebody I know who's a council woman in another city was like, well, we do this too. And then like, as I went through each part, she was like, Oh no, we don't do the multifamily. That's what we don't do. So yeah. um and just maybe just if we i don't know if those bullets could each be like you know half as long i haven't

figured

on how to do that i don't but you know just that to be just like really brief

i think to go back to what you just said about the um people saying we'll already pay for it i think if we rather than what we thought of before i think if we said we provide this at no extra charge no additional charge right And additional and again no additional charge, but.

I would rather say that the only city in St Louis metro area that covers the cost of collection services from operating reserves operating expenses or something to that effect

okay I like perfect. Right. There

was this in here rather than that provides, has traditionally provided. Any

concerns with that language?

Yeah,

I don't know what.

Because as I talk to people that have lived in Clayton a long, long time, this is what they keep saying. Oh, we've had this since I can remember. In fact, I was talking to one of our former mayors today and I said, when did this start? Because I was wondering and he said, I can't even remember. It's been since I've known about trash. So, so it's lived in Clayton in 30 years or something. So I just wanted to sort of recognize to those who may not be aware that it's a tradition that we've had for all these years.

Okay. So

it'd be, it'll be a For those who may not live in single family, they may not know that it's- It's a little

bit like combining two points into one then, because it's like one that you want to emphasize that this is something that we have done for as long as anyone who's alive can remember. And the other is the thing that's actually like, we're the only place that covers the cost of it today. Like we are the only city that does that.

The only city that's been

doing it for this long and we're the only city that doesn't do it today.

I don't love the implication that like tradition is a reason to do something. But I'm trying to think about that, but I understand the point also, like, but yeah. It's,

statements are not, well, nevermind. Just, yeah, if you don't like it, I'm okay with that.

I I'll vote in favor of traditional. I think it is more than just, I've been here for 50 years. It's always been that way. And frankly, I think that's one of the things, if you ask people, one of the things they love about Clayton, they will tell you that it's rear end trash collection, which seems sort of trivial, but nonetheless, I think that what a lot of people believe. So I think tradition is actually part of this. I don't have a problem

with it. I think the question really is we provide it now. Do you want to provide it? It's okay. For brevity, I wouldn't include it. But I also wonder, I don't really care. And I wonder if we know that that's accurate. We know that for recent history, we're the only ones who have done this. Do we know that we're the only one who have traditionally provided it?

Yeah, I mean, I think going back, we've looked at this before. I think one by one, I mean, Pre-Corps provided it for a while. but they stopped that a while back. So if you're comfortable that it's accurate. We can research that if you want to make sure we know exactly.

I guess my point would be like, if they are two different ideas, they should be two different statements. Like, I mean, and so, and then the, so, and you have to stand by that it's important enough to use up a line for it and which is fine. But like, you know, I just, it's like, yeah. In a database, you never make one field mean two different things. This bullet means two, is trying to communicate two different messages to people. And I don't think that's a great idea for clarity's sake. And I think we're like, obviously really nitpicking these paragraphs.

Yeah. I mean, I understand what you're saying too. I just, I do think it, I mean, I think it almost detracts from the strong message of just saying Clayton is the only city in the metro area that provides re-yard collection. I think it just detracts from. The strength of that statement, but

well, I do feel, I really would like to keep that sort of idea in there. I

moved here not knowing my trash was going to get picked up in my backyard. And it took actually a couple of weeks to figure out when the trash was getting collected because nobody told me, even when I asked. So it wasn't like, welcome to Clayton, your trash will get picked up in your rear backyard. Just a nice surprise.

I think if it's two ideas and need to be separated, separate them. But I think the idea that Clayton has traditionally provided the service is an important concept. I understand if we're trying to, we don't know historically, we can prove we're the only city then maybe we need to tweak that. But I think this idea of tradition is important.

I'm happy to make it into two bullet points, but it makes it longer. I

mean, you could use the same bullet point and just say traditionally that St. Louis area that provides rear yard collection services and no charge single family residents and has done so as long as anyone can remember.

what if we just added here on the top bullet, the city of Clayton has traditionally provided a trash recycling yard waste at no charge. And then below two

things that were the only that do today. Okay. That's good. Good. Yes.

Right. All right. We're getting somewhere.

Okay. Thank you. Oh,

that's, that's, it's good. I'll fix the spelling later. Get the mouse on this. Let's see. Okay. All

right, down below, again, talking about $2.25 million and that represents 7% of our annual operating expenses. The contract date expires on September 30th, 2023. And then a bullet saying it is anticipated the cost of next waste collection contract will significantly increase due to inflation, increased cost of labor, fuel and capital items. So any questions, concerns with those bullets?

Would it shorten it if we just said due to inflation or do we need to explain why inflation is going up?

We just wanted to add the specific components rather than just saying inflation and having them try to figure it out. These are things that have been specifically cited by the Haller, our present Haller. Next paragraph, after careful consideration, the Board of Aldermen has determined that the city can no longer provide waste collection services at no charge to residents after September 30th, 2023.

And I have the same comment on the no charge. It just strikes me. It's from the operating. I've made that note about

it, so we'll change

that.

Okay.

I mean, I would consider and I don't feel really strongly about this, but I would consider like bolding or italicizing that statement because I think that's the one that's going to stick with people the most. They might be scanning this and then I mean, but again, it's, I'm not, I just think that it's a strong statement and that's ultimately what we're telling people. So that we will not pay for trashing. Is

everybody okay with this revised wording here as written?

Just no extra charge is the only difference. I think you're right. Maybe just, you don't want to hit them over the head with it, but maybe just a little bit italicized or something.

the point it might be the title you know seriously

yeah it's the too long don't read tldr right at the top

the uh the sentence that reads this will be a difficult difficult decision but it will allow the city to balance future budgets and i'm just wondering whether will is a little bit strong whether we'd say it should i mean it sounds like we're sort of making a guarantee here if we're comfortable that it will but I think it's a little bit going out there.

Well, if you, when you finish the sentence in its entirety, though, it will allow the city to balance future budgets and maintain its high level of service without that. And then getting into the fact that the tax increase avoidance, but your concerns about the will statement. It's with the change. There's

another pandemic and there's not government aid. We won't have balanced budgets again. I guess, probably, right? Is that kind of what you're getting at? Like there could be something unforeseen. It

sounds like it's pretty much- You could always end up with that situation.

It sounds like an ironclad guarantee at this point. You do this and we won't, we won't. It won't, it's not going to happen. Should is sort of, yeah, from all things considered, shouldn't need one,

but I don't think will is a little strong. if that S pops up here in a minute or not. There it is, okay.

What's that?

Oh,

okay. No, it's just taken

forever.

All right. Okay, this was a difficult decision, but it should... You

have to cross out will.

I got the wrong word, yeah.

It's hard to edit on the fly like this.

I'm just trying to maneuver this thing. Allow the city to balance future budgets. I can take this one out and I can switch that one

back.

I like near term. Why'd you pick that

out?

Because here's the thing.

I'm switching it back.

Okay. Yeah. Immediate's like tomorrow. Like, okay, this year you won't have to do one, but what about next year? And that's the whole point.

Yeah. All right. Okay. Yep. and I'm gonna

get rid of immediate, but that's okay.

Right, I'll take care of that. The right click at some point. All right, the next sentence here, the city will bid single family and multifamily waste collection for the next contract and negotiate competitive rates for trash recycling and yard waste removal. Rates will be specific to the service provided to that property type.

And I put that, I don't know if that's the right way to phrase it, but I just wanted to make sure that people know that whatever, they're going to be charged whatever trash service they get. So multifamily wouldn't be charged for somebody's rear yard trash, you know, because that's been sort of, you know, one of the things that's come up when we talk to multifamily folks.

I'm wondering too, and I can't remember if I saw this later on, but is in like, should we make it clear that this is, we can't do this piecemeal? Unless you think there's still a possibility that we could, but it sounds like if we do rear yard, it's rear yard everywhere. You know, we can't do a piecemeal by neighborhood.

We could, I don't know. We could put that in as a bid alternate. I don't know if that.

Then maybe we don't include any here. I just think that might come up. I don't, I don't, what that

does as far as the bidding goes. I think that makes it a less desirable contract.

I just think it might come up in questions. People would say, well, what if, this neighborhood wants to do it and this neighborhood does that. So I'm just, again, cause this is informational. I'm just wondering whether we should. Yeah. And

I think that neighborhood level decision-making I think we can explain that one by explaining that we don't have organized neighborhoods citywide.

Well, I think, I think what you're looking for is clarity that, that this is the way we're, I mean, I, I think you, you said we really can't have to do it citywide. I think we're all supporting that direction. So, you know, the city will bid single and multifamily, you know, for the city as a whole with this next contract. I mean, you say

it's a citywide, somehow say it's citywide.

Something like that, Bridgette?

Yeah, I just, I mean, and maybe people don't feel like it has to. I just think it might be a natural question from people that, you know. Especially because other areas do that. Right. Yeah, exactly. Other cities are very piecemeal. Okay.

And this is just with clarity, similar to the other question. When we say in here that rates will be specific to the service provider, that property type, I think that's accurate. But sometimes when you're bidding a city contract with different types of residents there is going to be some cost benefit back and forth because you're grouping it together so um

I just want to make sure people know they're not paying.

Yeah, and that's great. I just think we have to be careful that we're accurate because if we're getting a better deal for something because we're bidding it all as a whole. And this language may be general enough. But

the rate an individual pays will be based on their property type. And is there, we have that last statement about how bills for multifamily buildings will go to property owners, blah, blah, blah. Are. In a situation where a resident of a single family may not be the homeowner of record like does the bill go to like the person who pays the property tax or does the bill go, to the resident. In do we know, or is it up to the waste collector the holler we

need to address. that last line in this particular document. I

think it would be to the property. Can

we

just delete

it? Delete the last sentence then because it's more confusing.

Delete that one here?

Delete the waste collection bills. For

multifamily buildings?

Yeah. Just see

them asking the question, how are we going to get our... How are we going to our bill in the end. I think we'll get that question from a lot of them.

Who's the

bill going to go to if the city isn't taking care of this in my building? Especially if a resident receives this letter that isn't the landlord

or

property owner.

Right, so I guess then if we, so I guess my point is if we're going to get to this level of detail, what's the answer to the question for single family? Or do we just delete it and not get to it? I

think it would be like another utility that the whatever i mean i guess it would have to be established in the lease and yeah i mean i guess and well but the lease is already established i understand you know i guess that the lease is already the property owner will have to but a lot of times

you'll have both on there

right

um because if the resident fails to pay you can collect it from the property owner because you want the trash to be picked up

and if it's vacant for a period of time they're still Like they're still obligated to pay the bill. That's so, I don't know. My vote would be to remove it and answer the question if it gets asked. It doesn't seem to change like people's opinions about it, right? Or it's not going to be negotiable.

So we're going to stress here that this is one citywide contract.

I think it'd be good if we could just put that. And we know for sure that's what we're doing. We're not quite alternate. Unless the board wants to do something differently.

Well, so the question there, so you mentioned it as something we could do as a bid alternate, right? So if we find out, for example, that Hillcrest doesn't care about rear yard pickup, but Clayton Gardens does, and like it's a very different result, then do we at least want to ask for a bid alternate to provide that option? And if we don't get the option, then of course we don't offer it. But if we do, and people wanted it, then maybe we can provide it. So that's the thing is like, is that still an unknown that we could theoretically request bids for? And if it is, it's kind of information we should be gathering.

I would say that if you're gonna do that, it's gonna be at the individual property level, not neighborhood by neighborhood because we don't have well-formed neighborhoods outside of, we have some, but we have large areas like Clayton Gardens that has no organization to it whatsoever. There's nobody to make that decision for that large area.

I think what we will find, I've negotiated so many trash contracts just so, you know, no, I'm just kidding. I was like, really? No, I mean, it's like I really know this, but I'm guessing, I think it's a good educated guess maybe, that if we negotiate something that's property by property, individualized the cost overall will really go up. That sounds

like a nightmare. Yeah. Right.

So the billing, everything. So I just think we're wise to just do it citywide and we're going to use the survey to inform which way would go. But I think. I just think of the

indentures. It's going to be old town Clayton gardens, Clay Shire. I

think that the

Morelands won't have that level of organization. High point won't have that. Level of organization. So to make a name

for us if we don't include that specific statement in here, the response from the survey may show us if. If there's uniformity across the city or a real contrast contrasts. I mean, I don't know how people bid these things. I have no experience. I'm like you, Michelle. But do we want to right now say we're doing a citywide contract or just not address it right now until we see responses?

Right. Like if it could still be open, then we just don't need to specify that it will be. Like I don't know. Let's get the information and see what it's all about. Rich

has turned his mic on. I'm watching that live.

You know, the other way to look at it, and I'm not sure this is where we wanna get into the details of how we're gonna do all this. I mean, that is getting kind of into the weeds, but there could be two bids, a trashcan bid and a dumpster bid. The dumpster bid is what we keep referring to as multifamily. But if Hillcrest wanted to put dumpsters they could get, they might pay the dumpster bill and they all use just like the city does. They could, I mean, I'm saying that would be another way to look at it as opposed to single family and multifamily, it could be trashcan versus dumpsters. But

I

don't think we need to get into that in this survey. Do

you have an idea of where these dumpsters would be placed? Yeah, in the alleys.

More than half of my neighborhood has alley service.

That's what St.

Louis City has in the city end of the Hillcrest.

And city residents complain about how messy the Clayton Alley is because it doesn't have

dumpsters. How many residents does each of those dumpsters serve?

Oh, I don't know. It's in the city.

Five or six or something like that.

Oh, I know what kind of dumpster you're talking about. I remember seeing those. Maybe we don't. Maybe the simplest thing here to do is to not specify.

That's what I think. And we ask more questions if we need to. But I just think

we'll end up there. Okay. Okay.

And then we'll look into the dumpster thing on alleys and if you can specify in a bid alternate where you would have, that's the only situation where you would want it, where it's alley loaded. And yeah, we'll need to research that a little bit. Okay, next we get into the choices here. So the next decision to be made relates to scope services for the next waste collection contract for single family and two family units. And the city will utilize the following survey data when determining next scope of services for waste collection. And that replaces the sentence that's down below. If

I can scroll. Something's moving. That's good.

All right. So the first question on here, and again, if this is the statistically valid survey that goes to single family and two family units as a targeted survey, we wouldn't have this question on there. But it will be on the online version. It gets into building type. but the real meat of it is down below. So should Clayton contract for curbside collection of trash and recycling? We added that just to be clear that that's what we're talking about, and that recycling is included in the service instead of rear yard collection. Things to consider when making this decision, and then we get into the bullets. David,

could I interrupt just to ask? So we're asking people to identify what kind of residence they're in, And I thought the question to some extent was we're not going to ask people in multifamily to address this issue of rear yard versus curb. So how does that point get across that if we start with number two, that this is not a question for them to

answer? So they wouldn't get the survey. So we can target single family homes only. on the written survey in the mail. On the electronic survey, anybody can go in and answer it. And that's why we would ask the question, are you multifamily, single family or two family? So that we can kind of sort those answers out and just target the one and two family units because they're the ones that are impacted by this portion of the contract.

I have a comment on that very beginning too. Sure. Two says, ask the resident to make a decision. Should this happen? And then we say things to consider in, I would say, in sharing your opinion because it kind of softens. We're taking your input, but you're not making the decision. I don't know. Things to consider in sharing your opinion.

I just want to, I agree with all of our views. One of my concerns about the survey generally is does it come across ultimately looking as a referendum or a vote? And no matter how much you say, this is just for consideration by the board that the population feels like ultimately we're asking them to decide this. And I clearly think we're not asking them to decide. And so I think wherever we can make that point, we should.

I won't like my very last edit then, but I agree with you.

Well, I mean that, so that makes me think a little bit about kind of what I, another approach that we could take, and this is something where I would ask someone who's like a professional in surveys to provide input on but instead of saying instead of asking a yes or no question to ask like how important is rear yard service to you one to five or whatever right um and then you know so you get like maybe like a scale and it also doesn't create an impression that like you get to pick it's just what we want to know is how important it is to you

I actually wrote down a question that's very similar to what the older woman just suggested, which is, I thought the first question she would say, are you satisfied with your current rear yard collection? Because I think the majority of people I know Dollar Woman and I disagreed about this. I think the vast majority would answer the question, yes. And I realize cost is a factor, but it seems to me the first thing you want to know is, are people satisfied with the way it is right now? Because I ultimately think this is a prime example. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But I don't know the answer. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems As a single family or duplex owner with your rear yard collection, yes or no? Whatever that answer is, then you go on to say, okay, we're also considering some alternatives. And at the end, you say, having thought about that, what do you think about for the future? But the place to start is in the beginning. Are you happy with what you got right now or aren't you? That seems to be a very obvious, that should be the first question. That should appear before number two. I can go back and look, but I think we have that

from the last citizen survey. We have that

data from the last survey that tells us that people are satisfied with their current service. It doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to ask it again and say, even if people are satisfied, they don't necessarily want it to continue. I don't know. I

mean,

but...

I don't think we're asking them if they're satisfied. I think we know they're satisfied.

Yeah, they've told us that.

I don't think that's the issue here. Or it's not the way we want to ask it because they're going to be satisfied. But we're saying we need to make, you know, some things have changed. So we need to talk about how it's going to change.

But Rich, the thing that's changed is not satisfaction. It's that we can't pay for it anymore. That's the big change. And I think that goes back to the mayor's point at the last meeting. That's the big issue. After 50 years of the city paying for it, we're not going to pay for it anymore. That's a big deal. Part number two is, okay, now let's talk about the service. And I think you go back to, especially after you've hit them with the fact that you're not going to play for it anymore. Of course, it's relevant to again ask, are you satisfied with what you got?

Well, so I think you can get at, I think we don't need to ask if you're satisfied. I think we know it, I do. But instead of asking should we continue rear yard or not, we could ask how important rear yard is to you. So that's fine but then this whole next section has to take on sort of a different approach because it's so things to consider when you're saying how important it is to you. It just doesn't kind of jive like this does now, the way it works together. So we just have to rethink how we point out these factors.

And I guess like, I mean, I haven't worked with a survey consultant before, but like a different way to approach this instead of like giving them questions and asking for their review of it is to say, what kind of information are we trying to get? And let them tell us like, what kinds of questions? I mean, I don't know if the person we're contracting with can do that. But that's kind of what I would think would be ideal would be to say, what we want to know is how much people really care about this. And maybe like just how important it is to them or like, or what are the assumptions that we have that we would like to either validate or refute? and then ask someone who can actually take a scientific method to that and tell us what kind of questions to ask to get that information. What is the information we need?

We are going to have someone knowledgeable. We'll

have somebody look at it before it goes out, but I think if this isn't what we want, a simplified question that's Do you want rear yard or curbside? Then yes, we need to figure out what information is it then that the board is looking for and in what format, because that will change the way these questions are asked.

I think that Rebecca was talking about having a more open-ended response, because one of the things is when we ask this question about potential costs, we have no idea what that is. At what point is it attractive, attractive, or not so attractive anymore? And if you had kind of the how important is it to you, that might give us that information, especially then if we look at some type of alternate bidding. How much more is it to do rear yard and is that still something we want to do or is it well within everybody's comfort level to go ahead and do it?

Well, I think there's like two ways of going at this. One is what we've got here and the other one is to go with which is traditionally what we do in our surveys. We say, rate on a scale how important this is to you. And then we could say, we could have another sort of a question to say, would you be willing to pay more to keep it? If it's important, are you willing to pay more? And that would be the two questions. And then you would say, based on like, let's say many people said it was very, very important and they're willing to pay more. Well, there's the answer. It might be inconclusive, but this might be inconcusive too. We want

to keep it brief. There's a lot to be said. So

that would mean though, you wouldn't be pointing out all this other stuff. I just, I think, which is fine, but I think they need to know this stuff. Well, I think we want to share the questions. I mean, I don't know how you would put

that

in. So

I'm not, I'm not disagreeing. I think it would be great to hear people's strengths of opinion on you know, depending on how the cost was whether or not you wanted one or the other i'm not disputing that, but I think that then that takes away like this. The simplicity of the survey and I understand that maybe we would have a professional look at it, I just. When we were actually asking direct questions on that last survey that was ended up I think kind of being a little bit of a disaster, it became so much more like oh is between a three and a four this way and a four and a five that way I just. Yeah, I don't know. Again, I think it's just too much. I understand the point we're trying to get it I just think it gets to be too much and I actually agree with that I think it's like one or the other. think you know i think can i say something

guys um yeah i've got two two uh two comments one is i think under number two um i don't know that we've made it clear to everybody that this is a either or situation for the city um so i'm just not sure that that's that was clearly provided

I think it is down at the bottom of where they actually decide. It just says, do you want A, rear yard or B, curbside? And above it, those are just the factors to consider when-

I know, but they may be thinking, okay, well, we now know that there are gonna be X number of households that are gonna want rear yard and some that'll want curbside. I don't know that they understand from what we have set forth here that they understand it's one or the other that the city will be contracting for. And if we don't do rear yard, it'll just be curbside for everybody.

Well, that was the discussion earlier where we thought about putting it in some language saying this is a citywide approach. Right. I understand. But it was decided not to.

Well, I think it needs to be made more clear that that's why we're asking is that because we're now going to make a decision as to citywide how it goes either one way or the other.

That would mean we'd be deciding ahead of time now that we are going to approach this citywide. not allowing for individualized service. And that is what I believe Alderman Buess and Alderman Patel were arguing for. They want to have the option open for individualized service, I guess.

No, and I appreciate that. I think the suggestion of the dumpsters was an excellent one. So I think that still could be an option. But I think for everyone else, it's going to still be one or the other. I don't think we're going to end up with individual homeowners wanting curbside and then another one wanting rear yard. That's going to be a nightmare. We already decided that. I thought that was talked about

too. I kind of thought that too.

Yeah. So... I really think if we're going to send the survey out to people, I think they have to understand why are we asking? Because ultimately this was going to be used to decide whether we go citywide with curbside or citywide with rear yard. That's one thing. The second thing is you're talking about the cost of I've talked to a lot of people over the last week about this situation. Every one of them says, well, yeah, I'll pay more, but how much more? I'll pay two times. Yeah, if it's $50 and I got to pay $100, sure, I'll pay the $100. But without some sense about what this means, I mean, it might not mean that much for some and it may be a lot for others. I'm not sure we're really going to get an idea here just by saying it's going to cost more.

If I can just say something on the first point, whether we want to say we're adopting one plan for the whole city. I wasn't arguing for position. I was just saying, we don't know yet. We don't, we've never been in this. Every time we ask the question, it's like, well, I have no idea what that cost is going to come. I don't know what they can do. And we can easily answer probably somebody by saying we anticipate entering into one contract for whole city versus again, then when we get out there and start dealing with the trash, with the bidding, we've got flexibility. You still have what you all want, which is, um, saying that we anticipate that everyone, we're either going to have rear yard or we're not. And that with multifamily, you're going to have this. This is what we anticipate doing and we're getting your input. I

was going to say to Ira's point, I think the few people I've talked to on the cost issue, I think the problem for most people is they have a sense of what they pay for gas, electric, MSD. They may not know exactly what they paid last month unless they pay the same amount every month because they have that billing system. I don't think people have any sense of the order of magnitude. And the people I've talked to, I've said based on what I've heard here, I said, well, I think the range is X to Y. But I think without having some kind of cost of magnitude included in this survey, I think the survey in many ways is meaningless because that's going to be the first question that people will ask is, so what are you talking about? Is it going to cost me $200 a month for rear yard service? I don't think people have any concept because for 50 years they never paid it and they can't analogize it to utility bills, which vary according to the seasons. So I think unless we provide some sense of, you know, the like even with a lot of caveats that, you know, these are old numbers we don't really know exactly don't hold it to us etc. Unless we say that the range is x to y. I think people's response to this is really meaningless because that's a, that's a critical question if we can't answer it. I think it only points out to me why the survey in many ways is a waste of time, because we're not going to get anything meaningful unless we're willing to take a shot at projecting the costs.

And Gary, I totally agree with what you just said, 100%. I think this becomes very unuseful because people will say, oh yeah, I'd like to do this or I'd like to have that. Oh, I didn't know it was only gonna cost that or yeah, gee, I didn't it was gonna cause that, holy cow. So without that, this is meaningless.

Question, some cities are providing, some people are getting rear yard and paying for it themselves now, like in Ladue or some other place, right?

Yes,

and we know what they're being charged.

Yes, but those aren't citywide contracts, which is a little bit different. So they might be choosing by neighborhood, potentially, but some of other haulers will undercut haulers on rates it's just, we don't have, we don't the Metro that's providing this particular service. So we can try to guess where it may be. We have a pretty good feel about where curbside may end up, but to figure out what the premium is for rear yard and do that. The other thing that I again would caution everybody on is if we include the range, whatever that high number in the range is, the haulers will be aware that that's the acceptable range to the city. And I'm just worried about going into a competitive bidding process with a published range that could be viewed that

way. I think it's dangerous to put a number out there. And then what if it's $5 more a month? It would be totally wrong. Can you imagine the pushback we get from people and say, you told us the highest range was $75 a month and it's now 80. So I, you know, I've, I totally agree with Gary, though. I mean, it is really hard to not put any sort of... Because I think there are many people who would say, and I have talked to people, I don't care what the cost is. I will pay it. But I know that there's also a vast, big group of people that would say, well, it kind of depends on the cost. So I just think it depends on... I mean, it's hard.

When we think about this, so we're getting initial feedback on the strength of the like interest in this service, right. Or whatever. And then we're going to put out RFP and RFP, and we're going to get that data. And so then the question that I would have would be how much time do we have to evaluate the responses to our RFP? And like, And if we are at the point where we feel like the price might really be a deciding factor based on the feedback that we got in this survey and what we've continued to hear, would we even have time to do another survey?

Probably not. From a timing standpoint, even to say go right now on the mailed survey, what was the last estimate we had from ETC on that

was about. anywhere between eight and 12 weeks because of the delays

we're looking at, I mean we would get the survey results right in that bid scope window

where

we're going to have to make a pretty quick decision on it,

so

thank you.

I guess you know I don't I don't know what to say, I think that I think that this approach is pretty good. There's nothing perfect. I would like an expert to look at it and try to poke holes in it and see what we could do better, what we could do to be more clear. I think it is very hard when you say curbside would cost less. Okay. Well, that's sort of a no-brainer. And we can't tell how much less because we're bidding all this out. But very hard could cost significantly more. We could say maybe be a little more vague because I just think it just begs the question, two times what? And so if you feel comfortable with just saying it could cost significantly more and then people will ask and we can try to answer their questions but still they're gonna have it in their mind that they're gonna be paying more if they're gonna have rear yard. And that's the basic point here. If it turns out that the bid comes in like astronomically high and we think it's unreasonable then we'll have to deal with that then in some way. So we'll have to figure that out. And that's just the way it'll have to be. So I think we need to, we can move through the rest of the survey if everybody's okay with that.

So the next bullet on here is curbside collection results and reduce idling. What was stricken here was more environmentally friendly and replaced with therefore reduced emissions.

I was... I was looking at the longer version before it was started. I was just thinking curbside collection has less environmental impact, you know, because it's not reduced idling to what has less environmental impact and then continue. I was, yeah. There are over 2,300 single family homes.

Reduced environmental impact.

I was just looking for something more factual than it's friendly.

Yeah. Any other questions on that one or comments?

Yeah. Um, Not necessarily on that one, but I'm wondering if we should put something in there about what curbside means for the individual. They're going to have to bring their, I guess, garbage pails out at a certain time night before perhaps.

Yeah, I apologize. I skipped over that one, which is the first one. With curbside service, residents would roll provided trash and recycling containers to the curb on collection days. Special arrangements would be made for those with accessibility needs.

And that they'd have to bring them back to their homes as well at the end of that day? Correct.

To the curb

and back.

mhm to the curve in

bed. Is there a reason we're specifying trash and recycling here and not yard

waste? Because we asked yard waste is a separate question down below.

Oh,

as an is that do you want it standard or option? And it's very

common to see what you see it both ways. So

So that was the question about rolling the container, the curb. We talked about the cost difference. We just did the environment down below. This is the capital outlay. So it changed the curbside collection. We require a capital outlay by the hauler, which is different trucks and more importantly, the compatible waste containers. This will offset some of the operational savings in the initial contract period.

And I'd comment on that too, because if we change providers, it's going to cause that too. You know, a change in provider and or the curbside collection require an initial capital outlay that the hauler could pass on to consumers, right?

Well, if we change providers and keep the exact same service, we would have to replace everybody's cans, you think? Don't they have the- No.

So we do have compatible recycle containers in the city already. I know I have one at home, but most of my neighbors do. The blue roll-off that everybody has or I think people have in some areas, recycled containers.

Some people have them, some people don't,

but some of those would be reused for that particular service because they would be compatible. The solid waste containers would need to be replaced.

So I don't know if we need to have that regardless of provider because we just, again, we're adding words. Is this

whole bullet really relevant?

One-time charge as you're changing the service, it seems.

I can pull it.

I don't know.

I mean, it's a cost driver. That's why I have it in there, but I can pull it, but

it doesn't seem really that. Well, I don't know

if it's likely to be a, like a one year thing that after that,

it is a

question of the order, you know, the length of time. I mean, I think it's, we don't want to mislead people at G they're going to be saving all this money. And then we go to curbside and the first year out, They got a lot of extra charges. I mean, I think we sort of have to tell people that if the thought is if it's only for one year, well, maybe it doesn't make any difference. They get their cost savings in year two. But so it's sort of a period of time. You know, how long is it

going to take to? I think it'd be smoothed out over that entire initial contract period. So they wouldn't hit you all. I think that's

that's significant. We don't want to mislead people. Leave it in. I'd leave it in.

OK, it's a little silly. It's a one time charge for trash cans. but that's fine if you feel strongly about

it. The next one that was added was a change to curbside collection will require disposal of all current single family trash and recycling container in landfills. Again, I think there's going to

be- Is that factual? Like are they not recyclable and I could use them for something else? I

would probably use mine for yard waste. And again, the recycling- Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to get- My recycling container is compatible.

It would render them not usable for pickups, I guess. I don't know. I was actually remembering Bridget's comment when I put

that in. Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of people's trash containers, I mean, people have a lot of trash containers. There will be many trash containers that will go into landfills, for sure. You could use all like five or six containers.

I don't know. Or you could say could result. I mean, I don't know, like I just... That's fine. It's a very charged statement. When I read it, I'm like, somebody's trying to scare me about what's going to go in the landfill. It will result in

disposal of some current single family.

And we can take, I just said that because I was trying to understand that also just the full impact of all the sustainability. I thought it was a good

point.

Yeah.

I mean, so I think we can soften it. And if we need

to eliminate stuff, that can be an elimination point. It becomes

my composter. The next one was curbside containers. Yeah,

I mean, there's a lot. We can have a whole like thing about what people could do with them. We could find somebody who might want them. There's Nancy Projects. Yeah.

So the next one is curbside containers will instead of can create visual and physical clutter. On collection day. On collection day, uh-huh.

Yeah, I mean, this one's just a little loaded also, right? As long as they're out. I mean, like, I mean, it's again, like this is one that I

read. How do you address the aesthetic?

Yeah, so it just also reads as like a real like value, like for people who realize that it's keeping cars from idling, it might make them happy when they see it. And for people who, you know, like it's just very values laden, you know.

So then the next one that was added is elimination of rear yard service will be much less convenient for residents.

I think that should be deleted. That's ridiculous. Sorry, ridiculous is an overstatement. I

just brought it up.

And I think this one is fair that park vehicles, leaf piles, snow at the curb will present challenges because it will.

That's fair.

And then the word vote is in here.

Yeah, you can take that out. I wasn't thinking that way. I was trying to organize the different places, different groups of statements so that it made some kind of sense, you know, background places.

And then the final question. David, could I just ask a question? If we have curbside, would you anticipate that every collection day will be the same citywide? That would that's something we'll have to work out through the bid process. I mean, my point is, I think if we add on collection day, it's a little misleading because it suggests that citywide on Mondays, you'll have to put up with this. In fact, I think we're going to have the parade of garbage cans throughout the city on various days during the week.

Yeah, but only in the neighborhood that you're in. I'd say days. If

you drive around, you get to see the trash can somewhere else.

The third question, final question, should yard waste collection continue to be included as a standard service? The bullet, a monthly rate for optional services would be determined through the competitive bidding process. And then I would prefer standard yard waste collection, so built into the bill, or optional yard waste collection.

You may have to explain that. Are we asking people to? Yeah. And what is standard services?

We're suggesting this is a service that individual residences could opt in or out of.

Correct.

And we believe the hauler would handle that. delineation on a address by address basis

right because they send they do they send that truck out totally separate um and a lot of people have a yard service that comes and calls all their stuff off and they may not want to pay for it we also provide the curbside leaf collection which is the bulk of the yard waste that people would otherwise set out so

One more explanation of what we're asking. I think if you

said, by the way, no yard waste collection as opposed to optional, it would be a lot. I think that's the point. You either have yard waste or you opt out. Optional sounds like there's a so-called

opt-in.

Yeah, you either get it or you don't get it. But I think standard versus optional suggests there might be two levels of yard waste service and you could pick a lesser one. So I think the point is, B is I'm not going to get yard waste collection. I'll deal with it some other

way. Yeah, understanding that if you don't have yard waste, then somebody else or you're hauling it away or you're putting it in the back of your car. I don't know.

Are we assuming that our request for yard waste collection will be the same as our yard waste collection today, meaning that it includes compostable materials? Or is that something we need to, like, is that standard enough and are we all assuming that we're going to keep that or are we considering that not being the case?

I'm hoping we keep it. I think we should start there anyway.

Okay, I mean, I feel like the fact that we're not asking about it means we're going to keep it, but I don't want to make assumptions without verifying them. So I'm hearing that everyone believes that's the same. Thank you. All

right, so our next step with this, we're going to clean this up. We're going to share this with the consultant that we have and then the Friday session that we have scheduled for the 21st to have this discussion again, because again, uh, the timing is going to be really critical here as, as the scope comes up. And we know we've got an eight to 12 week window, uh, for a written survey period as it is. So we'll need to move rather quickly on it. So we'll go ahead and clean up this draft again, have it reviewed, get it out to the board. So you'd have a chance to look it over before the 21st. And then on the 21st, we can, uh, hopefully wrap this up and have a go no go on the, uh, the written survey portion.

And thanks for the draft. I think it really did capture the points that we need to get.

Absolutely. All right. Okay, terrific. Okay, so we're running a little behind. Sorry, everyone. But now we can start our regular business meeting. If the city clerk will go ahead and call the roll.

Alderman Lentz.

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Here.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Aldermen Buse. Here. Aldewomen Patel. Here. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Aldermen Buse. Here. Aldewomen Patel. Here. Aldeman Fader.

Here.

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

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

Okay, now we can approve the minutes of September 13th, if I could have a motion.

I will move to approve the minutes of

Yes, it is the 27th. Sorry. I have 13th written on my page, but you're right. So we'll move to approve those minutes and we need a second.

Second.

Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good. Now's the time for public requests and petitions. So if there's anybody in our audience in person or online that would like to talk to us about something not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. And we're looking for raised hands in the audience or online. And I don't see any. So we will move on to the public hearing. Public hearing for the CUP at 8131 Westmoreland. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing in the subsequent resolution to consider granting a conditional use permit to Anthony and Sherry Webb. owners of 8131 Westmoreland Avenue, to allow for the construction of a 400-square-foot detached second living unit. The property has a zoning designation of R2, single-family dwelling district, and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. A second unit, also written in our code as a carriage house or granny unit, is a type of accessory structure, either attached or detached, which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, and is located on the same site as the principal residence. Second units are permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. And the following criteria in section 405.330, the city's zoning regulations. I pulled out the items that seem to come up the most. First, if a second unit is to be occupied permanently, then the occupants must be related to the residents of the principal residence. The second unit occupants must be related by blood, marriage or adoption or be employed by the principal residents and do work on the grounds. Secondly, the second unit cannot be rented, sold or transferred or assigned separately from the principal residents. The owner shall record a deed restriction to this effect as part of the conditional use permit process required for such a second unit. And then third, each second unit shall be provided with one additional parking space in addition to the parking required for the principal residence. The Plan Commission Architectural Review Board considered the applications and associated architectural plans for the project on September 19th, 2022 and recommended approval of the CUP and approved architectural plans with the following conditions. One, all conditions of Chapter 405, Article 2, Section 405.330 shall be adhered to. Secondly, the applicant shall record a deed restriction pursuant to item three above and submit proof of the required deed restriction to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommends the Board of Aldermen conduct a public hearing, consider approving the resolution granting a conditional use permit for a 400 square foot detached second living unit for 8131 Westmoreland Avenue.

Okay, very good. I'll open the discussion. Any discussion from the audience or online audience? Okay, board, do we have any questions or comments on this? Our ward three folks. Is the applicant here? Yes, oh good. I wasn't thinking about that. Do you have questions for the applicant?

Would you mind coming up to the podium?

Hi,

you might want to push the button just to make other ways people on Zoom can hear. I think June will want your name.

Tony Webb.

Sorry.

Tony Webb.

Thank you. Mr. Webb, I was just wondering, was there a reason? Are the people that are going to live in the attached unit, is it family members? Family. Okay. Just family. Just want some extra space.

Everything the city manager said, I concur with.

Okay. Thank you.

And will this, from what I saw of your presentation, place. You've got a detached garage now. Will this be above the detached garage? Are you rebuilding the whole thing or just redoing the... Thanks. Same brick, same material.

I was going to just comment. I noticed I was at the PNZ meeting that was discussed, and this particular unit was actually built with space above the traditional garage. So in many ways, it was actually built to anticipate this type of use. So I think it clearly meets all the various requirements. So I'd certainly be supportive of it.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank

you.

Okay, so if there's no further discussion, I will close the public hearing. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve resolution number 2022-21, a conditional use permit for 8131 Westmoreland for a second unit.

Second. Any discussion? All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. All right. Next, we will move into the city manager report. And the first item is a liquor license for Midas Hospitality.

All right. Well, thank you. Midas Hospitality LLC is requesting a liquor license to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink, including Sundays at 8125 Foresight Boulevard. The police department has completed its review of the application and supports issuance of the license. The same goes for the planning and development department who also reviewed the application. The applicant has chosen not to submit a petition from surrounding property owners and first floor tenants. As a result, they are aware that this application must have a super majority vote of five board members in order to be approved. Staff recommends passing a motion to approve the liquor license to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink, including Sundays.

All right, so I will open it up. I know that the applicant is here, but we may not have any questions. So might as well relax for a minute. Any questions from the online group? Any questions online? No, okay. And none in the audience. So board, do you have any comments or questions? Anything you'd like to discuss? Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve liquor license for Midas Hospitality located at 8125 Forsyth Boulevard.

Second.

Okay, any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Very good. All right. Next will be the special development sub-district plan for Forsyth Boulevard. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, the 0.52 acre site is located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevad between Brentwood Boulevard and Maryland Avenue. as a zoning designation of Special Development District or SDD. On October 13th, 2020, the Board of Aldermen approved the Sub-District Development Plan for the subject property to allow for the hotel development currently under construction. This is a request to amend the final development plan to revise the streetscape plan. The approved plan calls for nine trees to be planted as a part of the city's standard streetscape. The applicant is proposing to plant five street trees. Staff previously recommended that the Board of Aldermen approve this item with the condition that the applicant pays a tree replacement deficiency fee of $3,000 into the city's forestry fund. The Board of Aldermen held a public hearing and had a first reading of the ordinance on September 27th, 2022. During the meeting, the board requested that staff investigate the possibility of adding hanging planter baskets to the streetlight poles along the front of the development. Staff has reviewed the type and strength of the existing streetlight poles for this section of Foresight Boulevard and determined that each pole could support a maximum of one hanging basket. Staff also notes that the addition of hanging baskets may limit the ability to also install banners on the poles. The streetscape for the subject property calls for six streetlights. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen consider the requested modification and approve the request with conditions.

All right. We'll open the discussion. Anybody in our audience or online? Okay. Any questions or comments here from the board? I'll go in. Rich, do you have something? I'll go and order.

No. No.

No, okay, Bridget. Thank you. I wanna admit that I'm not sure that it was clear to me what as a specific thing being requests being proposed, like is the developer actually suggesting that they want to or will do these baskets or what your position is?

First, thanks for approving our liquor license. It's going to be named after Gary. It's called the sidebar, okay? Because all the attorneys in town. So yes, we've talked to them. We're fine with putting the baskets up, okay? So we just needed to know if they could really, if it would support, because the poles are already there. The light poles were saved and are going back in. So we can put one on each one and we'll put them up.

Thank you.

So my confusion about just the document is that It looked to me like everybody's agreeing we should have baskets, but when we get down to the actual recommendation, it doesn't mention the baskets. All it says is

the applicant's going to pay a

tree replacement deficiency fee, which is exactly what we had last time.

I don't think she updated that. It was just the top portion where it says update, where it talks about what transpired at the last meeting.

As long as I think the record's clear that David's agreed and we all agree that there are going to be baskets, then it's fine, but it just doesn't say that.

Well, I asked her about it because I saw that too. And she said it needed you guys to kind of say that that was going to happen before she could add it. So I think it was the carpet for the horse thing here, but we're going to put baskets up. All right. And so I promise. Are you

also paying $3,000 or is it in? Right. So it's an addition. In addition to. Okay.

Gary wants more, but that's all he's getting.

Okay? Okay. Thank you very

much. Thank you. So, Counselor, do I need to amend the first reading first?

Yes, sir.

Quickly,

Andrea, oh, she took it down. I was going to say Anna Krane was online there and had her hand up. Oh. Possibly

Andrea, oh, she took it down. I was going to say Anna Crane was online there and had her hand up. Oh. Possibly

addressed what she wanted to say. Sorry to interrupt. Yeah, I was

just going to answer the question about why it wasn't in the ordinance.

Okay. Thank you. All

right. Baskets.

And do I want to stipulate the number of hanging baskets? It says six streetlights, but are we seeing

six? Right. So Matt and I discussed this. So we have six streetlights. They could hold one basket per street light. Right now, we only have baskets on corners. So you'd have to decide if you want baskets in between street trees or only on the ends where there are no street trees. And then also, are they just paying the cost of the baskets themselves? Or is it the same as the fee that is currently part of the program where somebody donates for the corners?

I think that we can, what I would like to do is just approve this as it's stated and allow a little bit of flexibility for the developer. I feel like, I feel confident that they will do the best job possible. I mean, you know, I think this is kind of saying that they'll put baskets on the streetlights where they can't put street trees, so. I don't think we have to come back at this another time, for sure. So,

Ana, the amount that you gave me for the baskets, was that just two? Is that what you're saying?

You mean 2,000 or two baskets? What are you asking?

Is it two baskets? I mean, she gave me an amount for the baskets. I didn't really ask how many it was. I assumed it was six, but Maybe it's really

not. The cost I shared with you is the cost that was used to determine what donation was needed for a basket for the current program that's run through CCF. That was what Matt shared for public work.

What was the cost that was

given? It's $150 per arm and $150 per basket then, Ana. Is that right?

Right. So the cost breakdown currently there's for the actual donation The pieces, the basket arm and the basket is $150 each. Currently, the program also includes costs for the soil, plants, water, labor installation over a period of years. So if we're just doing the cost for the bracket and the basket itself, then that is only $150 per piece.

How

many do you want?

Well, six.

Okay. All right. Can we... I'm assuming we can do six. I haven't... I don't know why we can't. So we'll do six. Okay.

If there's some huge problem that we encounter, we will talk about it. Okay. All Right. So this is not a replacement. I'm comfortable

with you negotiating that or working what's going to work. I actually want to make sure that if there is a program that exists to do this, let's use that program and let's not create another like separate process where we have a different cost or something that we're saying. So if that means like the amount that you've like authorized to budget for this means you can get two baskets under the actual program, I would rather see that than six baskets at a reduced cost and the city then bearing future costs.

I think what she gave me is a price per basket. I didn't realize what this was until just now, but so I understand it's, it looks like it's correct me if I'm wrong. It's 300 for the arm and 150 for the arm, 150 for the basket. Right.

And then there's, if we were going to

labor water, soil plants on top of that. Right. So it's, it's, The arm of the basket's a one-time cost and then the plants and the labor are replenished every year. So we're fine with six, okay?

With replenishment?

Yeah, you guys are, she

gave me that. That would be the century, the Clayton Community, that would be like the Clayton Community Foundation program that exists where it's a donation, actually charitable donation So if you can, you can do it that way. So is it

just so is it annually that I would pay for this? Is that the way it works? Okay, that's

fine. It's a program like our bench and tree program. So but like for hanging baskets, and so it isn't like an annual cost, is it?

Well, It's based on

that. A one-time donation.

I mean, I think there's a fee. It looks like $555 per basket per season is what it looks

like. I could explain a little bit. This is Matt. I'm online.

Sorry.

The number provided was an estimation for the initial installation of the basket and the replanting and the labor associated with the basket for the next 10 years.

Oh, 10 years.

That was a per basket price. That's what it costs the city to operate that basket for that time period. The donation through CCF is a different cost than that.

So in this case, what we are doing is asking the developer in lieu of the planting street trees to do the baskets. I'm not sure if we ought to be... saying that they have to do it through the Clayton Community Foundation. I

agree with that. The one question I have though, is that the original part of this was when you were reducing the number of trees because of impossibility of planting, it was to keep the canopy of the city, which is why there's a $3,000 donation to the forestry fund.

Well, I think

that should stay in place. They've agreed to that as well. Okay. So

I think the, the, fee that the Clayton Community Foundation charges for a basket is a one-time donation that includes recognition. And the price per basket for that is much higher than what we're talking about here because they're giving recognition to the donor and it's a program developed for that. So I think you've got the pricing, Matt just confirmed this is the pricing And what we would, you know, and includes replenishment. And so I

think we're

square. Anybody have questions? Anybody have any other comments? Rich, you look like you wanted to say something.

No, but I'm going to amend the first reading.

Okay. That's great. Okay. Everybody else? Okay, all right, Rich, thank

you. If it pleases the maker of the motion, the motion would be to amend section 1B to add an additional condition number nine, reading approximately as follows, applicants shall install and annually plant city standard hanging flower baskets at locations as determined by the city manager.

Okay, I didn't see it before. Go ahead, keep going for a minute. There's someone that has their hand up in the audience.

Okay, the proposed text would be that applicants shall install and annually plant city standard hanging flower baskets

on streetlights at locations as determined by the city manager. Great. Can

I, Kevin, so does that run with the land? So if this gets sold, I mean, I don't, you know what I mean? Like, so will this, because right now this is between Midas. What happens if Midas sells the hotel?

These are zoning conditions for the approval of the development of the site that will run unless amended or modified by the city.

Good question. Okay, so that was a motion that was made?

Not yet.

Okay. Okay. Let me, there's a question in the audience so I might as well get it and then we'll come back and do it. All right. Hank Winkleman, do you have a comment for us?

I hope that a beautiful vision for this section of the street that connects between the focal point of embracing Shaw Park and going down to Maryland. A beautiful curve, development on either side, and it seems like a piecemeal loss of an incredible opportunity for clear planning and streetscape to create continuity and incredible place and definition for Clayton. And I think you've lost,

you've lost too much. Thank you.

Thank you, Hank. I'll just repeat just for anybody else that was listening to that but you know we the reason the trees can't be planted there is because there is so much underground that it just prevents it so there's nothing that anyone could have done about that short of relocating a lot of utilities etc okay so now we have a motion

okay i'd like to move to amend the bill 6914 section 1b to add an additional uh that the applicant will plant and install annually city standard hanging baskets on streetlights as determined by the city staff.

And we need a second. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? All right. All right, I guess. Oh, Mr. City Attorney. Sorry, lost my place.

Bill number. Oh, right.

Oh, it's just the amendment? Yes, that's right. Okay, sorry, guys. All right, so.

Right. So I'll introduce Bill 6914 as amended to approve an ordinance amending the Special Development District Sub-District Plan at 8126 Foresight Boulevard And repealing ordinance number 6667 and any other conflicting ordinances to be read for the second time by title.

Second.

Any further discussion? All right. Now, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6914 is amended second reading in consideration for adoption. an ordinance approving an amended sub-district development plan for sub-district phase five of the Forsyth Center Special Development District, repealing conflicting ordinances and other actions related thereto.

Alderman Lentz?

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderaan Hughes? Aye. Aldermen Patel? Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderaan Hughes? Aye. Aldermen Patel? Aye. Aldeman Fader? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda, the compensation study for fiscal 23.

Yes, every four to five years the city of Clayton contracts with a qualified consultant to assist the organization in evaluating its overall employee compensation benefits and pay structure as compared to the market. Perform a job audit and analysis for each full-time position to determine appropriate classification and update job descriptions. The last compensation review and update was conducted in 2019 and the last comprehensive study was conducted in 2015. In July 2022, the city issued a request for proposals for compensation and classification consulting services to be conducted during fiscal year 23 with anticipated implementation in fiscal year 24. The city received five proposals with costs ranging from $42,650 to $117,500. After a thorough review, McGrath Consulting Group Incorporated was selected as a successful proposer. The estimated cost of the project is $42,650. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen adopt the ordinance approving the contract with McGrath Consulting Incorporated to perform an employee compensation classification study for the city of Clayton. And again, this was a budgeted item in the budget that went live about a week and a half ago. We had budgeted $45,000. So this is under that amount.

Very good. All right. Any discussion? Any

questions from the audience online? Okay,

and I don't see anybody here. So any discussion from the board? I'll go around in order. Anything, Rich?

I just want to, so this is a comprehensive study, the last of which was done in 2015, and that's what we're doing. That

is correct. Not

what we did in 2018. This is a comprehensive study.

Right, that was more of an update just to look at the salaries using the positions as we had them. This is a full-blown analysis of each position, job description, and then matching them to the markets.

And just so I'm clear, this is everybody, police and fire as well?

Please fire. Everybody. All the non-uniformed employees, everyone.

I just want to make sure non-uniform.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Ira, did you have any questions or comments?

No, I did not.

Thank you.

Okay. Similar question was the scope of the study. And to do this every four or five years, is it? with no context for how often that should be done. It sounds like that's pretty frequent for a city to be doing the total compensation package. Is that standard or why is it done so

often? What we'll typically do, and I think the way this will probably continue is, again, the comprehensive study was in 2015, then they did an update in 19 using that information. I would envision us probably doing the same thing. So the study in 23, and then an update to that study four to five years after that, and then another update comprehensive study. So those intermediate studies, where you're just looking at those jobs and how they are in the market, those cost less, they're not as intensive, but we do need to update those things from time to time.

So what you see going forward is the comprehensive study every?

Every eight to 10.

Right. Interim maybe. But

we need to know where the market's at every four to five years, and especially here lately and coming out of the pandemic, The market has changed rapidly and we really need to get this going.

Thank you. Yeah, I would just add the company that I work for does it like every three years. Like I think it's a best practice and I'm glad that we're doing it. Very good. Gary, anything?

No

questions. Thank you. Okay,

very good. All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6918 to approve a contract for fiscal year 2023 compensation and benefit study to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6918, which my computer just shut down. First reading, an ordinance approving a contract for employee compensation and classification consulting services.

All right, 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 6918 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

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

Then I'll introduce Bill 6918 to approve a contract for the fiscal year 2023 compensation and benefit study to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6918, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract for employee compensation and classification consulting services.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye.

Aye.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Okay,

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Okay,

thank you. That concludes our business, I think. Yes. And so we can go around now if you would like and share anything from meetings you've been to or discussions you've had this past two weeks. I'll go first to Alderman Lentz.

uh yes the uh i'm just looking to make sure i didn't miss anything on my calendar um uh the only thing uh the only news i guess i think i have is about sustainability committee we're going to have some changes uh angela flotkin has resigned um deb grossman has agreed to um come on the committee. Also Bill Chamberlain, the current chair has resigned his chairmanship and has actually recommended that Deb Grossman who we support take over the chair role. And she has agreed to do that. We're doing that in the context that None of the current members had really wanted to take on that role. So we actually recruited Deb, who was very anxious to do it. So that should take place. We didn't get the resignation in time to get Deb on today's agenda for approval. So it'll be next time. But it's in the works.

Wonderful. I think that'll be great. Can I say something? Yes, Alderman

Berkowitz. Deb Grossman, I've actually known Deb for quite some time. She's very, very competent. She served on our charter committee in case people don't remember or don't know that she did that. And that committee came across with some pretty excellent and pretty well thought out recommendations. So I think she's very qualified to do the role on the sustainability committee. So Rich, thanks very much for that. I think she'll be an excellent addition.

Thanks, Ira.

Okay. Yes, Alderman McAndrew.

Ira, do you have anything to add?

I do. Yeah. Okay, sorry. I thought maybe that was your comment. That's all right. I wanted to make a comment on this SB 775. I know that this is the statute that was passed by our very, very intelligent legislature in order to see about how they can maybe get involved in keeping books out of our libraries and our schools. And the only thing I want to say is, I think there's a topic for us to discuss in terms of enforcement of that statute. I think other municipalities have actually made some very strong statements in regards to their willingness or unwillingness to engage in enforcing any violations of that statute. The statute calls for the municipalities to do that, and I'm thinking it would be maybe probably an important discussion for the board to have at some future time. So I'm just bringing that up as an idea.

So the statute calls for cities to enforce it, not the county or some other?

I think the statute would certainly call for the city police to go ahead and enforce that in some way or another. So we'd have to look a little more closely. We could look

at it. Yeah, I certainly think we should be aware of that.

My point is that it's worthy of a discussion of the board.

Okay, very good. All right, now

Bridget. Yeah, I wanted to first thank Anna Krane and Matt Malik and David. We have a developer who's constructing something in our city that's created a bit of a nightmare for our staff. So I just want to say I appreciate how much time they have spent dealing with this in the last few weeks. I think it's pretty egregious, given how much time our staff and the situation it's created for the surrounding neighbors. So I just want to say thank you to Anna and Matt and David for trying to help facilitate some sort of solution for that for the next year and a half. um and then I Susan and I had a person rec meeting last week, and we really spent the whole meeting talking about. The shop our commons project Chris shavetta and Ted spade gave us a really nice presentation and kind of really went in depth and talk to the parks and rec committee about what. the next 10 to 12 weeks will entail. And I think they really appreciated that, and there was some great discussion. But that's all I have.

Bridget. Yeah, I wanted to first thank Anna Crane and Matt Malik and David. We have a developer who's constructing something in our city that's created a bit of a nightmare for our staff. So I just want to say I appreciate how much time they have spent dealing with this in the last few weeks. I think it's pretty egregious, given how much time our staff and the situation it's created for the surrounding neighbors. So I just want to say thank you to Anna and Matt and David for trying to help facilitate some sort of solution for that for the next year and a half. um and then I Susan and I had a person rec meeting last week, and we really spent the whole meeting talking about. The shop our commons project Chris shavetta and Ted spade gave us a really nice presentation and kind of really went in depth and talk to the parks and rec committee about what. the next 10 to 12 weeks will entail. And I think they really appreciated that, and there was some great discussion. But that's all I have.

Alderman

Buse? Just building on what Bridget said, the presentation for the comments was very well done, and they were poised to begin the vetting for the comments, and you probably have more information on that if they've been able to start that yet, or... I will find out tomorrow.

It

was very informative and they did a nice job on it. That's why. Wait, I did one more comment though. I'll start with that. I think that one of the things in our agenda today with that carriage house with the granny quarters kind of brings home that some of our ordinances do need some updating and a look again. And I think that one may be coming to us with the equity commission. fairly soon, but you read some of that language and you realize that we need to think about where our ordinance do actually match what we're trying to accomplish today. So that was all.

Becky. Thanks. I attended a couple events in the last couple weeks that I'll highlight. One was an art salon hosted by doctors Debbie Zimmerman and Jonathan Root, along with the Clayton Community Foundation. The primary purpose was to start people learning about the process that will be unfolding probably over like years maybe based on the process, but to commission and install a piece of art on White Elm Boulevard as a gateway art piece. at the around the border with saint louis city so that was like super exciting um and is that in in conjunction with the clayton community foundation you said

yes yes

absolutely so um so they've got a process they're undertaking there and uh um and then the other event i attended was outside of clayton but it was the 20th annual mary meachum freedom crossing celebration so we have this site That's on one of the trails. Great Rivers Greenway, a Great Rivers Greenway trail up north along the river. That's a former state underground railroad. And that was a cool celebration that's been happening for 20 years now that I was excited about. Wonderful. Great. Alderman Gary Feder.

absolutely so um so they've got a process they're undertaking there and uh um and then the other event i attended was outside of clayton but it was the 20th annual mary meachum freedom crossing celebration so we have this site That's on one of the trails. Great Rivers Greenway, a Great Rivers Greenway trail up north along the river. That's a former state underground railroad. And that was a cool celebration that's been happening for 20 years now that I was excited about. Wonderful. Great. Alderman Fader.

I thought I might just mention because I don't think I have previously that I think for 2025 years or more, the chamber of commerce has had its legislative committee meet once a month, pretty much every month, except for the summer months to help update people on the Chamber board understand legislative issues. And I just think it's worth noting that the city of Clayton has always been a major contributor those meetings uh the mayors have always come to the meetings the city managers and and this week the mayor was there david was there gary carter always comes to these meetings and they're really very informative and we have great guests this week we had senator brian williams who's our state senator and a very neat guy and excellent speaker and uh certainly encourage any of my fellow aldermen if we we now meet at upstairs at strobs in their sort of conference room that was created there and uh but it's it's just a it's a nice opportunity i think for the city to be part of the clayton business community and and continually show its commitment to the business community by attending so just thought i was worth mentioning

that's that's good i'm glad you did um And just to note that a representative from St. Louis County always attends that as well. So we get updates on what's going on with the county. So, all right. Well, all I have is that we've attended, some of us have attended three, I think it's three neighborhood meetings. One was at Susie Forsythe's house on, what street is that on? Central, where neighbors came and we talked chief, chief, I don't know if he ever gets a night off, but he was great there. And the neighbors really, he's the person they want to talk to. But we were there and we answered some questions too. And there was a meeting at the Park Tower, which we went to and answered a lot of questions, talked about, you know, gave an update on the budget and so on. So I think, you know, to your point about neighborhood meetings or open forums or whatever earlier, maybe it was last week or something. But the idea is that this is going on and I encourage every alderman to try to find those opportunities or even create them in your wards because it really is beneficial and everybody really appreciates it. We also went to the Crescent and had one there. So that was all good. There was a groundbreaking at Bemiston Place And it was, I was sort of amazed. It wasn't just a simple groundbreaking. They had media there. They had representatives of every union, you know, plumbers, electricians, you name it. Everybody was there. They had all their financers there. I mean, it was, it was, you could tell it's just a really big deal to bulky Brown that they're doing this development and they really are excited about it. So that was fun to see. And I wanted to also, I don't know if we talked about this before, but chief Rhodes is in Florida. Am I right? Is he still there?

He'll be back in the office tomorrow. He's been in Fort Myers for the last week and

a half.

I'll find out more tomorrow that the messages I've gotten have been, pretty short, but he was initially deployed to South Carolina because they were anticipating that second hit. So his employment came around on October 1st. So Fort Myers had already been hit, but he was deployed down to South Carolina and staged there. And then South Carolina didn't have it as bad. So he was then deployed back over to Fort Myers in Sanibel Island and dealing with all the logistical issues of an island that's been hit by a hurricane that no longer has a bridge. So they were doing all the typical urban search and rescue and he's safe and coming home so that's that's

great i just continue to be really proud we should all be really proud of our our public safety folks that go out and do these things um voluntarily it's wonderful. I mean, they get some good experience from it, but also it's just, it's good to help others in need. Okay. Do you have anything else, David?

I do not.

Okay. I think we are ready to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

Second. Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Thank you all.