November 8, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Okay. Okay, everybody welcome to our 630 discussion session for tonight and we're going to talk about historic districts and preserving some of the. Well, one particular areas is what we're kind of focused on, which is the Williams workshops on Maryland have. And you know we've talked about a little bit before, but I just thought that we should consider. trying to find a way to protect and preserve that area's ambiance and charm. And so I will turn it over to David for an update.

Great. Thank you, Mayor. So this is a continuation of a discussion that we actually started back in August of this year. So if you recall, we went through historic districts. We talked about the legislation that we have on the books and the fact that we do have historic districts pull this over here. We do have multiple areas in the city that are listed on the National Register And we do have some enabling legislation that's already been passed that would allow us to establish local historic districts. And also, we have a regulatory framework already in place for those districts with the architectural review board essentially acting as a landmarks board that could approve demolition certificates of appropriateness in review, really setting forth the design criteria. The information was requested at that last meeting was the ordinance I sent a link of. For that ordinance to everyone, along with a link to the state historic preservation office that has all of the specific historic districts that are located in clayton. listed so that you can see which neighborhoods are currently listed individual structures that are listed and where those are located in the city so. Just as a quick recap again, we have regulations in place already that deal with residential. We do have areas on the National Register and the way it's currently set up. In order to have the local designation, you also have to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Again, we have procedures for the establishment and also for the regulation within those districts. So we sent that information out. I don't know if there are any questions on historic districts, anything that you saw in the ordinance that you have questions about or the things in place. But what we wanted to move to tonight was a conversation to kind of go over our options. So if the goal is really to preserve the ambiance, preserve the character, especially of that particular block, then one of the questions I would is there another way to go about this that's a little bit easier than going the historic preservation route? If you're doing that, you have to, again, get those properties listed on the National Register. It requires that a survey be done. Typically, you bring a consultant in that's familiar with that process. So there's some expense in order for that individual to put that together. I know that the mayor had previously worked with an individual and had a conversation, if you want to talk about that briefly,

So there's a person in the area, Karen Bodie Baxter, who does a lot of these things. And she finished up the application for the register for our neighborhood, but she also did it from head to start or start to finish the application and obtained the designation for part of the Morelands. She did that herself. She's done it for lots of historic properties all over the region, not just in Clayton. And so I contacted her to ask her to drive by and take a walk around the Williamsburg shops and just see if she thought there was any potential there, because sometimes even though we know it's at least 50 years old or whatever, it may not be significant enough in a number of different ways to make it on the list. And she thought there was definitely some good potential. And then she proceeded to let me know that the first thing is we would do is pull certain documents like the The plats and the building permits and so on, just to see kind of more learn more about the buildings and who built them and what businesses were there to begin with, which can become part of the story behind an area. She herself said to complete this whole process if she were to do it all herself would would probably be in the neighborhood of 15,000 or 1212 to 15 but. we can pull a lot of those documents ourselves. So we could probably save, you know, a few thousand dollars that way, but still, you know, we'd have to pay her that kind of money, but her advantages, she's gone to the state committee or whatever they call themselves register committee dozens of times. And so she gets it approved, you know? So and she knows exactly how to fill out all the forms, which is actually really arduous. So That's what I learned from her, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to do that, but that's what I know.

So that's the historic, the process to get a designation. And again, that was some good insight there that the mayor was able to gain. So that's one path certainly to preserving the character of that area and certainly preserving the buildings because the architectural review board would end up having authority if a demolition permit was to be received. Another way that we've, traditionally here in Clayton tried to regulate the character of specific areas is through overlays and urban design districts. So we do have five overlay districts. We also have six or seven urban design districts that have been established in the city. So just as an example, I have here five of those listed. The one I want to talk about for a few minutes is the Maryland Gateway Overlay District. And so you can see the purpose statement here is intended to maintain a walkable. And this, I should say that those particular shops are located within this district that already exists, is intended to maintain walkable pedestrian scale human focused corridor with changes to the streetscape to reflect the urban character downtown. And then it goes on about small retail establishments and some of the regulatory things that are in place already. Maximum height of three stories or 35 feet. You have to build at the setback line. Buildings shall occupy the building frontage from property line to property line, so you have to use the entire space. Street level elevation of the street should be storefront architecture with large show windows. Building renovations and improvements should incorporate green space, pedestrian connections, pedestrian gathering spaces, street furniture, the things that you see there already. Building design should integrate components that offer protection to pedestrians, overhangs, awnings, canopies. So you can see this was written really with the character of that section in particular in mind. So we already have something in place for that particular area. So really our options at this point, if that's the area we're really focused in on is we could go that historic date, district route and try to get some type of, get them on the register but then get a local designation in place. And that would allow us to, again, preserve the existing structures and really scrutinize any kind of demolition permit that we might get. It also allows us on redevelopment or new development within that corridor to dictate or regulate through these types of standards what those new buildings would look like. So that is an option, historic district route. The second one is to utilize the overlay district that's already in place. And if we need to make some amendments or modifications to it, maybe for that particular block, that particular stretch, we feel that three stories is too high and maybe John Pimentel, One or two stories is is more in keeping with the current character than than perhaps we just look at maybe some minor amendments or some specialty. John Pimentel , requirements for that particular block or that particular section of this district, you could also exempt that particular overlay from the PD, so the PD. As you know, through overlays throughout the downtown area and throughout the city, really override overlays in the base zoning that are in place. And if there was concern that, hey, this is going to get swallowed up by a PUD and we're going to get some tall building there that doesn't fit with the character, we could always say that within that overlay district, you could not have a PUD. So you could put that protection in place. And then the third option, if we didn't want to do either of those or there wasn't a sense of urgency, if we didn'T want to do them right now, We could always wait until that comprehensive planning process is complete and then address the issue at that point, because we will talk about the character of neighborhoods. We'll talk about, and I would think in great detail, those points where residential and commercial properties meet. That's a conversation this community has wanted to have for a long time. If you go to the Planning Commission public hearings and even the hearings we hear in this conference, particular setting, that's something that's brought up over and over and over again. So I do think that's going to be a big part of that overall planning process. But those are kind of the options in front of us. One is definitely the most intense. As the mayor said, there's some expense, definitely some time. There's some some some pretty high standards you got to meet in order to put those districts in place. Number two, that's a tool we already have. Those are some pretty simple amendments. If we just want to dial in the character or again, we wait until the planning process is done. So that's how we envision this moving forward. And that's where we'll leave the discussion today, or at least open it up for the board. If you could give us some feedback there or some direction of what you might want to see from us next,

then we can prepare those next steps. Well, since nobody's jumping up and down,

I'll make a comment or two because I've thought about this a fair amount. It all depends on what our goal is. So is our goal to actually preserve those buildings or is our goal to preserve the character of that area? I give the example of Simons who... sort of on a rushed basis, tore down his building one weekend. But then rebuilt, built something exactly like pretty much what was there, but better. And I think that's a pretty good way to go, honestly. Because I mean, from my perspective, what we want to preserve is the character the human scale, the architectural style, the architectural materials that make it quaint and sort of preserving old Clayton. But I think Simon's shop is a perfect example of if we have, and he did it on his own, but if we have tight enough restrictions, it may not really be so much that we don't want the buildings torn down. It may be that just we want what's built to really, you know, sort of with mimic what was there before. I don't know what you all think. I'm throwing that out.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Historic districts come with a lot more burden and hoops to jump through. And I don't know that developers really like getting into areas with historic districts. And I agree with you. Something like Simon's where the character is really what we want and the flexibility to move forward and keeping the character and improving it. It seems like a good route to go. The other question I would have, it does seem like all this should be within the comprehensive planning, but I know that there's some concern that we get it done before things happen in that area. So if we did the overlay districts, I imagine any of them as you do comprehensive planning, we can go back and revisit the different criteria we put places. So to me, it just gives us more flexibility to develop it and keep that character with an overlay district and understanding it will be part of looking at all the neighborhoods at a later date.

Yeah. I mean, I think the one thing that I forgot to mention is if there is a historic district, actually there are historic tax credits that developers can get. And that's what happened in the Morelands. So, you know, the developer actually hired Karen to do the application and get that area on the register so that he could renovate to, I think there were four plexes and get the tax credits. And so, you know, yeah, Gary.

Well, generally I would, I would think it'd be advisable to wait until a comprehensive planning process and take it up there. But if there is a sense of urgency and, John Potter, You know I could see us taking a look at it now, I do think in in option number two the exemption from the pod is really something that needs serious consideration because. John Potter, I think we've had projects that are both in conventional zoning have an overlay district and essentially as we've seen the pod overrides them and. I talked to David about ownership on that block, and although I don't think we came to a definite answer, I think the majority of those properties are under sole ownership. I don't know what the lease terms are, but you would have to think the Williamsburg properties would certainly be at the right time, right for some developer to come in, buy the entire strip or most of the strip, and then certainly propose a PUD unless it's exempted And the minute the PUD comes into play, although I think both the Plan Commission and the Board would certainly consider issues of the historic nature, the colonial look, we've seen too many projects where the PUD tends to ultimately control and... So I would think if we're serious about trying to preserve that area, we'd really have to take a hard look at just saying that a PUD is not applicable in this particular area. Other than that, I think we're going to, at least in the next five years or so, we're going to see a major effort to take that strip down and replace it with a five-story apartment project or something like that.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. I'm going to go in order of seniority for a minute. Rich, do you have any comments here?

Yes. I'm not sure I always want to go first.

You didn't have to go first.

That's right. I guess I'm in agreement that it'd be nice to have the ability to update without losing the character. I'm a little nervous about waiting for the comprehensive planning process to get through all of that. But my bigger concern is what it what the process does entail given the ownership. I mean, I would think our counselor there would tell us that if we just throw in this thing and don't engage the owners, current owners, in a way we're putting restrictions on them that they weren't anticipating and we're gonna be hearing a lot of

that.

But I don't know.

You know, when we did the... the last overlay, the last downtown overlay that H3 helped us with. That's exactly what we did. We didn't consult with all the property owners that that affects at all.

Right, but

So that's true, but I didn't know actually you were referring just to the idea about PUDs. I didn't know. I thought you meant for the whole- I'm just saying in

general, if in some way we restrict what value they can get from their property, that we might hear from them. But I mean, it's done all the time, I think. So I guess the PUD exemption would be the most expedient way to do it. So that's my general feeling.

Kevin, do you want to make a

comment? I understand the concern, but any of these would substantially be an amendment to the zoning code. So we would go through the public hearing and notice procedures for any zoning code amendment. Generally, that's going to entail no direct notice to the owners of property that are subject to those changes. So I think there will be a notice and opportunity to be heard.

um ira do you have any comment about any of this

well i think my i'm going to echo richard's comment because i it was the first thing i thought of which is you know if you're going to restrict the owner's ability to sell to a developer the developer of course is going to be uh in a position where he cannot develop the way you want the certainly the value of the of the of the owner's property is significantly significantly affected um by us doing something like this and you know, opportunity be heard. Yeah. I mean, he's, he's a voice that's for sure. But, um, I, I, I was thinking in terms of how he must, he would likely feel the owner would feel, uh, suddenly being told, Oh yeah, no, your property. Yeah. Nothing can happen on your property, so you're going to have to just sell it as is. That's a lot to handle for an owner. But other than that, obviously, we don't represent the owner. We represent the city. And as the city, I think we have a vested interest in maintaining that neighborhood, that look, and it's great. If I was going to pick an option, I would pick number two. to go forward on and hope to keep the general nature of that long block. So that would be my input.

Okay, great. How about you, Bridget?

Yeah, I mean, I would agree. I think probably two is the best route. I think we'd still be, I mean, even if we waited to the comprehensive planning process, I think we'd be hard pressed to get a majority of people we engage with who say, yeah, let's to get rid of that area, build seven stories. So I think I would guess most people that we talked to through the planning process would say, we would like to see that area continue to have shops and restaurants. I guess I had a question, if we amend that area, I mean, the Maryland overlay district is a pretty big area that extends from the Western edges all the way. So I guess we would just be amending a portion of it. Like, are we just talking about just that block would be exempted from the PUD?

could we could craft it that way within the maryland overlay district it's kind of broken down into segments based on the character of those so for instance as you get closer to ladue and 170 you can have a seven-story building along that particular part of the corridor and then once you get towards the north side of the street really in the area we're talking about then you're limited to three stories some of that's based on underlying zoning but i think within that overlay we could certainly craft it and call out this particular segment of it and put in whatever specific restrictions we'd want to.

Yeah, I mean, you know, I think doing it that way is probably the best way to go at this point. You know, I think it does preserve the area and I'm sure the neighborhood behind it would be pleased.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Becky, you've been wanting to say something.

No, I would just say I'd be willing to consider and discuss like adding a PUD exemption to the um overlay um I guess I would want to be clear that I don't without understanding more about the um about whether they're about what history like of historical significance there actually is in that block that my interest would be in preserving what is called out in the existing overlay district which is the interest of maintaining the area as pedestrian friendly and human in scale, not like any particular architectural style or anything like that. So that's

just, that's my... Okay. Well, I

guess I am very interested in the architectural style because I think it's something that's been largely lost in Clayton And that's one of the things that is, I think worth preserving about this block. And also one of the things I think makes it warm and welcoming. And so I think the, you know, I don't know if everybody would agree with that, but to me, that should be one of the major goals is the architecture itself. And then, so I think we would have to, from my perspective, we would have to beef up that section of the overlay that talks about that block in terms of more detail on architecture. Maybe we would want to restrict the height to one story, or maybe we want to say two stories, but I mean, we should talk through all that, but I think three stories just, you know, that doesn't fit what's there now at all. So just, I think the next step might be for us to move to a, a potential amendment with some kind of language that would help us sort through what aspects we wanna have in, what kind of detail we wanna have in the overlay for that block and just kinda keep moving toward an ordinance.

Would you like to do that at the board level or would you like to refer the matter to the planning commission and have them work on the technical aspects?

I guess,

well, I don't know. That's a great question. I guess I would like to work on a little bit at the board level first so that we can set some priorities at least. And then they can, you know, maybe it's definitely going to go to them at some point, right? Maybe we could even meet jointly at some point. I do think there's some urgency around it. So I don't want to slow it down by waiting for the comprehensive plan. Okay. And I don't know, I think that kind of sums it up. Everybody okay with it? Yes, Gary.

I just want to say just a comment. If hypothetically we got rid of the PUD in this area, that of course leaves a developer, the owner with whatever is permitted in the overlay district. And so, for example, I think as was pointed out in the slide, it looks like three stories would be permitted even if you got rid of the PUD. So first of all, it's not that the property owner is completely being denied the ability to tear the buildings down and put something else there. They certainly would still have the ability to do something. Now, if the sense of the board is we really think three stories is not appropriate because that's not what it's been there. We'd also have to look, I think at the overlay district itself and say, maybe that needs to be amended to make that less expansive. So I think you, it really is a question of looking at both aspects of the overlay district as the overlay district, as it currently stands, if that's all that's left over. Is that acceptable? Cause if it isn't, then we need to modify a couple of other things.

Yeah. So I think the next step will be to sit down with Ana and the planning staff, planning staff, take a look at the ordinance as it's written. Um, and, and we'll come up with a draft, um, that we can kind of play with. So you have something in front of you that, that, uh, you could comment on and we can revise kind of on the fly and then refer to the plan commission after that. So we can look at how we might carve out this particular section and, and how, um, how some of that language might work. If that's all right with everybody?

Yeah, I think that's where we are.

That works procedurally. Okay.

Great. Thanks, everybody. We have a couple minutes before seven, so we could take a quick break. Unless there's anything else you want to do in the discussion session? No. I don't have anything else. Let's take a quick break and

we'll start right up at seven o'clock. Okay, the recording is in

progress. All right, so we'll start our seven o'clock meeting. If the city clerk will call the roll, please. Alderman Lentz.

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz. I'll come back. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderwoman Buse. Here. Aldermen Gary Feder. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Thank you. Okay.

Alderman Berkowitz. I'll come back. Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderwoman Buse. Here. Aldermen Fader. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson. Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Alderman Berkowitz? Here. Thank you. Okay.

Yes, can you turn? Yes, there you are.

All right. Next, we need to approve the minutes from October 25, if we could have a motion.

I will move to approve the minutes for October 25th.

Second. All those in

favor?

Aye. Okay.

And that's great. And then now we will have public requests and petitions. Anybody in the audience here tonight or online that wants to talk to us about something that's not on our agenda tonight, please make yourself known. Okay. I don't see that. I don't for Box Hill Group?

Yes, Mayor. Box Hill Group, Wydown LLC is requesting a liquor license to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquor at retail by the drink, including Sundays at 7624 Wydown Avenue. The police department and planning departments have completed their review of the application and support the issuance of the requested license. The applicant has chosen not to submit a petition from surrounding property owners and first floor tenants. As a result, they're aware that the application must have super majority vote of five board members 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.

Okay, great. Thank you. I'll open the discussion and I'll ask is, is the applicant here?

No.

Okay. This is Wright's Tavern. This is Wrights Tavern. Correct. Which is Matt McGuire. Yeah. Does anybody have any comments or questions?

I have one question. It seems to me that every time we have a liquor license for approval, the applicant does not ever go around and ask any of their neighbors. So I'm wondering if that's something that our planning department has advised them because it seems pretty consistent now over the last five years that that's pretty much how it goes. So...

Anna, would you like to address that at all? No, we do not. The liquor license are actually

also handled by the finance department. So we typically don't have any interaction with restaurants other than referring them there for the application.

Okay.

So then does the finance department advise them?

I believe it's, I don't know that they're actually advised, but I believe it's on the form that if they don't have the petition, then they have to get the super majority and nobody's taken the initiative to actually do it. So, but it's not something that comes up in conversation and there's typically not one that's had a winter liquor license application comes in. They just, they fill it out. The information's on there that they have to have the super majority and none of them seem to pay it much mind. So.

I think in an area where there are lots of restaurants right around that serve liquor, it's kind of, I would, if I was applying, kind of just assume that everybody be okay with it since they're doing it. But it's a question.

And I can't remember a time when we've had a close vote.

That would be my point that somebody might say to them, there's never been a close vote, right?

But that is kind of the issue because I assume it's there so we would know of any concerns there. by neighbors, yet I've never, I don't recall it ever being used. So if we want to know if neighbors are concerned, we should revisit it. If we're comfortable the way it is, then that's fine. But no, I don't remember it ever being used in the short time I've been here.

David, can you remind us the notification process that's required?

Not one for this.

And we don't send anything out to neighbors? Does a sign go on the door of the property?

No, we do that for zoning applications, but not for the liquor license. But if somebody, I guess, did happen to show up and voice some concern and the board had concerns with it, it would take a super majority to approve the license absent the petition.

Right, but they wouldn't know to come, right? Correct. Because there's no

notice. I'm not sure how they would know that it's on the application, but that's just how it's structured at the moment. It would be on our agenda. Right.

Which is public.

Everybody reads it.

I'm sure everyone does.

I'm not concerned about the issue that our residents are worried

about. You're not, you said. I'm not. OK, good. OK.

I would add that this is an administrative decision, not a legislative decision,

granting these licenses. Pardon me? Widely voted. Well, it's

still a decision. But it's an administrative decision with regard to The breadth of discretion. There

are different categories of decisions. Okay. In that case, shall we have a motion?

I'll move to approve the liquor license for Box Hill Group, White Island LLC, located at 7624 White Island Boulevard.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, very good. That is approved by the International Building Code. And Matt's here. You're going to read it all to us tonight, right?

Oh, that would be Anna. Oh, Anna.

I think of buildings and I think of Matt. You're right. I should. Well, she was going to have Matt read it for her.

Exactly.

Okay. No. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. City Manager.

All right. The attached ordinance would adopt the following building codes with minor modifications outlined in the legislation. The 2021 International Building Code The International Residential Code, International Existing Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Energy Conservation Code, and the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code. Staff conducted two public information meetings, the first on July 13th and the second on September 27th, 2022. At these meetings, the fire department staff and building staff gave a presentation regarding the proposed changes and answered questions. This item was first read at the meeting on October 25th, 2022. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance adopting the 2021 International Building Mechanical Plumbing Residential Energy Conservation Fuel Gas Swimming Pool and Spa and the existing building code pursuant to the attached ordinance with an effective date of January 1st, 2023.

Okay, any discussion? Yeah, just to reiterate that this is our second reading so we had the first reading last time and allowed as much time as possible for any public comment. So Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6919, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance provided for- Wait a minute, wait a minute.

I jumped the gun. I'm sorry. Alderman Lentz, Alderman LentZ. I forgot about Alderman Lentzz. Sorry, sorry. It's not

even April yet.

I know. Oh, oh.

I'll

introduce Bill 6919 to approve the adoption of 2021 International Building Mechanical, Plumbing, Residential Energy Conservation, Fuel Gas Code and Swimming Pool and Spa Codes with amendments to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any further discussion? Now, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6919, second reading in consideration for adoption, an ordinance providing for the repeal of sections 500.010 and 500.020 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clayton, Missouri, relating to buildings and structures, and enacting in lieu thereof new sections 500.0100 and 500.0200 on the same subject, with certain modifications as hereinafter set forth, and establishing penalties for the violation thereof.

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

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

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay, the adoption of the International Fire Code, Mr. City Manager.

The attached ordinance would adopt the 2021 International Fire Code with minor modifications that are outlined in the legislation. Staff conducted two public information meetings, the first on July 13th and second on September 27th, 2022. At these meetings, the fire department staff and building staff gave a presentation regarding the proposed changes and answered questions. This item was first read at the meeting on October 25th, 2022. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance adopting the 2021 International Fire code. All right.

Any

discussion? Questions from the audience online? Okay.

Alderman Lentz.

We'll introduce Bill 6920 to approve the adoption of the 2021 International Fire Code to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6920, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending sections 205.070 and 205.080 of the Municipal Code of the City of Clayton, Missouri regarding fire protection and prevention. Adopting the 2021 International Fire Code.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldernan Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Aldernan Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Danielle, Board of Directors.

Yes, on February 12, 2013, the City of Clayton created the Danielle Community Improvement District, or CID, for the property located at 216 North Merrimack Avenue, now operating as the Hampton Inn and Suites. The CID imposes an additional 1% sales tax on the hotel. The CID uses the revenues from the sales tax to reimburse the developer for certain eligible redevelopment costs. The CID is governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the mayor with consent of the Board of Aldermen. Only authorized representatives of property owners within the CID may be appointed to the board of directors. In this case, the developer is the sole property owner within the CID. The CID's requesting the appointment of Tracy Rucker and Christina Phillips both to serve three-year terms that expire February 12th, 2025. Directors Rucker and Phillips will replace directors Tameka Jefferson and Judith McCray. In addition, the CID requests that the board correct the terms for directors Motz, Kashif, and Hooper to reflect terms expiring February 12th, 2024. The 2025 expiring term for all three was a clerical mistake. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached ordinance.

Any discussion? Questions? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6923 to approve the appointments to the Danielle Community Improvement District Board of Directors to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6923, first reading and ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri, approving the reappointment of members of the Board of Directors for the Danielle Community Improvements District.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, Alderman Lin.

I'll move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6923 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, let the minutes reflect the Board has given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6923 to approve the appointments to the Danielle Community Improvement District Board of Directors to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Discussion. Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6923, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri approving the reappointment of members to the Board of Directors for the Danielle Community Improvements District.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Okay, amending the Clayton discriminatory housing restrictions.

Yes, the city of Clayton state and federal governments have prohibited discriminatory housing practices for many years. MISSOURI LAW SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT NO DECLARATION OR OTHER GOVERNING DOCUMENT OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL INCLUDE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND VIOLATION OF FAIR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS. THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY EQUITY COMMISSION LED AN EFFORT TO INFORM NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE COMMUNITY OF EXISTING RACIALLY RESTRICTED COVENANTS AND ASSISTED IN THEIR EFFORTS TO REMOVE ANY SUCH LANGUAGE. This proposed ordinance declares invalid and void any declaration, indenture or other governing document applicable to any dwelling or area in the city of Clayton that includes discriminatory racially restrictive covenants or provision in violation of the city's housing discrimination regulations. Community Equity Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed ordinance at its meeting on October 13th, 2022. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance And we do have two members of the CEC joining us this evening. That would be Ben Uchitel and Chris Schmies.

Are they? I guess there aren't attendees. Oh, yeah, they're there. I see their faces now.

Hello, everybody.

Yeah. Would either of you like to say anything about this before we move on?

I would just say that what the aldermen are proposing and are about to do, I hope, is good for the city, good for the region. and good long run for everybody.

Chris, any comment from you?

No, other than to thank Ben for his dogged determination to get this done and appreciate that it was the entire community. effort. And if you haven't read it already, there is an article about this on our portion of the website as part of our opportunities to educate the community. There was a link in the Friday Clayton connection that will take you to that article.

Excellent. Okay. Uh, I, I just want to recognize all the hard work that this commission did or this committee. Um, it was tedious and took about a year, but, uh, Again, it was very important work. Some neighborhoods had already done this, but many had not. And so again, I think it's just terrific that we, A, created the Equity Commission in the first place and B, that they have really rallied behind all of their, a number of different recommendations to bring forth to our community, which I think is really, really important. And I just want to recognize one thing, which is that For years before this happened, before we had an equity commission, one of our aldermen mentioned and requested this effort over and over again. That is Alderman Berkowitz. So Ira, you must be feeling good that this is finally complete.

It's awesome, right? It's just fantastic. And the commission has been amazing following through all the work that they've done. And I'm so glad to know that our neighborhoods now do not have an indenture or a declaration that lets people think that they're not welcome. I think this is fantastic. So thank you so much.

All right, very good. Any other comments or discussions?

Yeah, I just want to thanks Ira and Ben. I think it's been more than a couple of years. Ben's been working on this for a long time as well and Chris. And it was tedious work. It was also important work. Some of the documents were antiquated, obviously, and hard to find. And the city was very helpful as well. Administration David and Andrea. And there's also that they're not enforceable. Why worry about it? And Sticking with it really shows that everyone appreciates that words matter. You don't want to buy into a neighborhood, even if, oh, it's not enforceable, you don't want it in there. So this is really a final step. Most of the neighborhoods have the language gone and it's a couple that really just couldn't get their hands on it. But the work of the committee and the committee members was really admirable and the city. So thank you. And it's a great step forward. Alderman Gary Feder, as the liaison you

Yeah, I just want to thanks Ira and Ben. I think it's been more than a couple of years. Ben's been working on this for a long time as well and Chris. And it was tedious work. It was also important work. Some of the documents were antiquated, obviously, and hard to find. And the city was very helpful as well. Administration David and Andrea. And there's also that they're not enforceable. Why worry about it? And Sticking with it really shows that everyone appreciates that words matter. You don't want to buy into a neighborhood, even if, oh, it's not enforceable, you don't want it in there. So this is really a final step. Most of the neighborhoods have the language gone and it's a couple that really just couldn't get their hands on it. But the work of the committee and the committee members was really admirable and the city. So thank you. And it's a great step forward. Alderman Fader, as the liaison you

have. I just wanted to add, since I was the latest person to join the commission, all the people have been mentioned, all have done a terrific job. And actually part of the reason behind the request for this ordinance was that the ideal way to address these ordinances indentures was to get an amendment signed by the trustees essentially voiding the prior language and then being able to record it. But since in some cases there were no trustees and there was really no one with the authority to sign them, this is an effort to sort of clean that up. And at least from the city's perspective indicated whether there's an amendment or not that the city's position is that these are totally unenforceable. So this was just an added enhancement, but really a big achievement on everybody's part, I think.

Thank you. All right. Unless there's further discussion, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6924 to approve an amendment to the Clayton Code declaring discriminatory housing restrictions invalid and void to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6924, first reading of the Clayton City Code and declaring discriminatory housing restrictions invalid and void.

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 6924 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Where's that coming from? Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Let's see. Where was I? Oh, unanimous consent. You read that, right? Was there a second?

Not second.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Let the minutes reflect the board's given unanimous consent. Then I'll

introduce Bill 6924 to approve an amendment to the Clayton Code declaring discriminatory housing restrictions invalid and void to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

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

Bill number 6924, second reading and consideration for adoption. an ordinance amending the Clayton City Code and declaring discriminatory housing restrictions invalid and void. Alderman Lentz.

Aye. Alderman Brinkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Aye. Alderman Brinkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right, the auditing services.

The city recently issued a request for proposals for audit services for the annual audit of the city and CRSWC for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. Staff has found that bidding for both entities simultaneously reduces costs and is more efficient. Our previous contract was for five years with a two-year extension with Reuben Brown, who declined to bid at this time. Ten firms were invited by the city to submit proposals for audit services, including a single audit for the city and CRSWC for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. Two responses were received, with both firms meeting the basic criteria established in the RFP. Staff is recommending Sickich LLP for the five-year audit engagement. Sickich LLP has prepared numerous annual comprehensive financial reports and can meet the audit schedule of the city and CRSWC. The fiscal year 2022 adopted budget for the city, or 2023, I guess that should be, adopted budget for the City portion of audit services includes $40,000 compared to the fee proposal from Sickich for 45,000. This is greater than the amount budgeted. However, they offer a GASB 87 lease implementation tool as part of their audit package. As a part of this fiscal year's budget, the city did include $2,500 for lease software specific to this requirement. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution to select Sickich as the auditing firm for the City of Clayton and the CRSWC for fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

Okay, thank you. Any discussion, questions?

I'm just curious why Ruben Brown declined the bid. They had a particular reason or they were just tired of it?

Here comes our finance director, Karen Dilbert. When I spoke with Ruben Brown

about their declining to bid, they said that because we have to have our ACFER delivered in March, it doesn't fit with tax season. We have a lot of other commitments going on at that time.

Okay.

And we have seen, I have at least seen on the city manager listserv, other cities are having the same issue. It's not unusual to have... Again, we sent invitations to 10 and we had two responses. A lot of these firms are just having trouble getting accountants at this point in time. Plus the standards for local governments from an auditing standpoint continue to change and get more difficult. So the number of firms that actually perform that service has decreased over time. So this isn't at all unusual to get just a couple of responses back. And we're thankful to have some good firms actually respond. Yeah.

That was actually the reason I was asking is because I thought Ruben Brown made a big deal about how many, how much municipal audit they did do. And so I was just surprised that they would decide Clayton wasn't in their strategic direction anymore.

Another thing they mentioned is that because of the difficulty getting staff and the wages that they have to pay now, it would be cost prohibitive for them to bid on

our engagement. Thanks. happy with what we got. Okay.

Any other questions or comments? All righty. Alderman Lentz.

We'll move to approve Resolution 2022-23, a contract with Sickich LLP for auditing services for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. Second. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, that's done. All right, now we have something more fun to think about, the Heartland Lights Out campaign.

Yes, Lights Out Heartland is a collaboration of organizations from the Heartland area of the United States that are partnering to reduce light pollution during bird migration periods. This program is spearheaded by the Missouri chapter of the International Dark Sky Association and is one example of numerous national partnerships between the International Dark Sky association and the National Audubon Society. Most birds migrate at night navigating by using the stars and moon and can become disoriented by bright artificial light and sky glow resulting in exhaustion or deadly collisions with buildings in glass, which are one of the top causes of mortality of birds in the United States. The St. Louis ranking is the fifth most dangerous city during spring migration and the sixth most dangerous city during fall migration. With the approval of this resolution, the city will encourage Clayton businesses, organizations, city-owned or managed buildings, and the residents to turn off any exterior lighting during the high migration months of May and September, and will share educational information such as the Audubon's ready-to-use brochures through its website and social media platforms. the City of Clayton Sustainability Advisory Committee, discussed this topic at their October meeting and voted to forward this recommendation to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. And I know that we do have a, it looks like we have our chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee here this evening for this item and the next item on the

agenda. Deb, do you want to come up and address this at all? I'm not sure if anyone's going to have questions for you, but This is our brand new

chair of sustainability. If she's speaking, can she turn the mic on? Because I can't hear her.

Oh, I thought it was on for some reason.

Now I have a green glow. Hi, Ira.

Hi, Deb. How are you?

I believe everything has been described and is also container whereas I have with me this evening, Stephanie Todd who's with the Dark Skies program and is an expert in this area and has been doing good work. I would add one other thing and that's that the county had adopted a similar type of resolution in 2021. So we're covered by that being in the county but I think this is important to move forward with this one.

Thank you.

So if you have any questions on this. Anybody have questions for Deb?

I just have a question. I'd be curious, since the county did it a year ago, do we have any information on how successful they've been in convincing businesses to turn lights off? Do we know?

Can you step to the microphone so they can hear you? They'll have a better answer for that than I. Yeah. That have been society

collects bird strike data but they've only been doing it in downtown St Louis and i've been trying to convince them to do it in clayton because you guys have so many high rise buildings and lights. But they haven't done it yet, but when the county passed the resolution. The county government buildings, they do turn off their lights during May and September. I think they leave them on if you need lights for safety or something. I mean, there are exceptions. You don't have to turn off all your lights. So the county is turning off their lights. But we don't have data that says it's reduced bird mortality. We don't specifically. But there is data from the Cornell lab that does bird data. And they say that if you turn off the lights on one building, the bird deaths at that one building were reduced by 80%. So it does make a difference. You know, you think, well, there's lights everywhere, but every little bit helps. And so it'd be great if you guys passed this. It would help.

Thank you very much. Well, one of the things that I was asking David about earlier today was the idea that how we can really do a good job of communicating this to our businesses at the next migration period. And I think we need to really work on that really hard and maybe we can make some progress there because we do have a lot of lights on tall buildings. Any other comments?

Yeah, I think it's like 50 to 75% of songbirds have declined over the last 50 years, and part of it is because of this. And I thought that both the city and the county had adopted this. Is that right? I thought the city of St. Louis had done it as well. But in any event, I was wondering why here it's a recommendation to our city buildings versus that our city buildings will turn off the lights during these times, if I read that right. I understand that we have to talk with our businesses and give them information, but I think it says city will encourage Clayton businesses. And we commit to do it as a city. Is that what I'm looking for? We will

do that.

Okay. All right. Any further discussion? All right. Alderman Lentz.

I move to approve resolution 2022-24 in support of the Lights Out Heartland campaign.

Any discussion?

I'll second it. Oh, wait, got to have a second.

Is that a second? Yeah, I

seconded it,

right. Any discussion? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good, that's great. Next would be the Midwest Climate Collaborative Program.

Yes, the Midwest Climate Collaborate or MCC is a program centered at Washington University and MCC's mission is develop a coherent Midwestern response to climate change through an acceleration of action, knowledge and leadership development led by a cross sector collaboration of key organizations. Members include corporations, universities, NGOs, and Midwestern state and local governments. As a member of the MCC, the Clayton would gain access to MCC's climate asset map, best practices, benchmarking data resources, and sharing opportunities of leading in comparable communities. learn and share through MCC-wide events, webinars, newsletters, workshops, and other networking opportunities, participate in topical and regional interest working groups and projects, and gain access to the MCC database plans and other resources, as well as attend a private forum where members collaborate and share resources. The recently appointed Sustainability Advisory Committee Chair, Deborah Grossman, would serve as the primary point of contact and would coordinate with the city staff liaison. The City of Clayton Sustainability Advisory Committee discussed the topic at their September meeting and voted to forward this recommendation to the Board of Aldermen for consideration.

Very good. I think this is awesome as well. In the city, we did sign up for the OneSTL program a couple of years ago, and also I did sign the Mayor's Climate Agreement. But those things aren't... They're so... I don't know, they seem so far away from what we're doing. And I think it's nice to have a Midwest focus. And I think that will help us a lot more to get that information, that data and be able to implement some changes ourselves. So I think it's great. Any comments or questions from you all? Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve Resolution 2022-25 for the City of Clayton to join the Midwest Climate Collaborative Program.

Second.

Further discussion? Okay, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All righty. All right, that's great. You guys, thank you so much for your work on that. And thank you, Ms. Dark Skies, for all your work that you do outside of what you're doing tonight. Yeah. You guys feel free to escape. Yeah. All right. Mobile and portable radios.

In November 2008, Proposition H was passed in St. Louis County. This proposition provided funding for public safety entities to replace their existing mobile and portable radios in order to communicate between agencies. This project was completed in 2012. This proposition did not, however, account for the replacement of these units, which is recommended every 10 years. 10 years have passed and these initial units do not have the capability to be updated with new technology or replacement parts. In anticipation of the fiscal year 23 purchase, staff has been working with Motorola in cooperation with the St. Louis County Emergency Communications Commission, or ECC, over several months to make sure all equipment and service meets our needs and is delivered and installed in a timely manner. The Equipment Replacement Fund, or IRF, funding for the fiscal year 23 radio project will not exceed the budgeted amount of $252,000. Staff recommends that the resolution be approved. So again, this isn't IRF items. We've been saving for this over the past 10 years, knowing that this moment would come, and it's time to replace the radios.

I see the chief is here in case any of you have questions or comments about this. Anybody? Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz.

I move to approve resolution 2022-26 for the purchase of mobile and portable radios with associated equipment for the fire department.

Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? All right, very good. Onward to the CEC recommendation on housing. Yes, the

Clayton Community Equity Commissioner CEC has held numerous discussions on affordable housing. Much of this conversation is centered on the preservation of existing two family dwellings and predominantly single family neighborhoods and potential changes to land use policy that would allow a wider range of housing opportunities in single family zone neighborhoods. On October 13th, 2022, the CEC voted unanimously to forward the following recommendations to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. Number one, the Community Equity Commission recommends that duplexes that are grandfathered in neighborhoods that have since been zoned as single family be afforded the same rights to change or modify their building as single family dwellings. This would include the right to replace a duplex with a duplex in the event of catastrophic damage to an existing structure. Specifically, They recommend that the Board of Aldermen consider amending sections 405.440 and 405.450 of the City Zoning Code related to non-conforming uses so that currently existing two-family duplexes are specifically excluded from restrictions contained in those sections of the code. Number two. CEC recommends that the term granny flat be replaced with accessory dwelling unit or ADU and all zoning documents. And finally, the CEC requests a place at the table when it comes to planning future residential zoning codes. The full recommendation from CEC was included in the packet for review. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen consider the CEC recommendations. And again, we do have Chris Ramez and Ben Uchitel with us this evening. I would mention that on recommendation number three, I was At the CEC meeting, I mentioned again that we're going to have the comprehensive planning effort that's going to take place during 2023. It's really under the purview of the plan commission to run that particular process, but we are going to make it known to the plan commission that as they put their subcommittee groups together, and I'm sure that there will be a committee that's established in the area of housing that someone from the equity commission serve in that capacity and on that particular group. So that's something we're going to pass along to the Planning Commission as well. So just wanted to mention that.

Very good. I'll open discussion. Anybody? Well, I don't see any others in the listening audience at the moment other than who's on the screen. Chris or Ben, would you like to make any comments before we have our discussion?

No, other than that we did quite a bit of research to see what was the feasibility of having affordable housing in Clayton. And while the housing snapshot that was done for the metro area indicates that we do have some rental housing that right now there are... A few, Clayton currently has 21 subsidized housing units according to the scorecard, one housing choice voucher and 20 project based section eight. When you do the math, it's really right now not feasible that there would be affordable housing to own, but there are some rental options. And the idea ultimately at this stage is to preserve what we have. So that was the rationale behind it. Anything to add, Ben?

No, you sum it up just fine. Thank you.

All right. Any discussion from the board? Okay, very good. I just

want to again thank Chris and Ben. Again, the hours of walking the streets, the months that went into this too. come up with this recommendation, exploring all kinds of possibilities, talking with neighbors. It's true dedication on behalf of our whole community and it does pay off and it's very much appreciated.

Thank you. Good. Thank you,

Susan. Okay. Alderman Lentz. I do have a question. Oh. So I support all of these recommendations with, I just wanted to ask staff because we don't actually have like a staff recommendation endorsing them or supporting them. about like, is there any concern about making the zoning update that specified an item number two? Like it seems straightforward, but.

Yes. Again, this is something that I could work with planning staff on. We could come up with some language. I would recommend actually that this be referred to the plan commission since there is some specificity that is what they'd like to look at. And we can get with that particular group and go through the technical aspects of the nonconforming use codes. If that's something that the board wants to pursue, we can put that together there and then bring that matter back to the board.

So what we would be potentially voting on tonight is passing this recommendation on as our direction and a request to plan commission and ARB to take these up and work out the details.

That's correct. Simply to refer the matter to the plan commission, I think would probably be the best course of action at this point.

I do have to add, I did have to chuckle as I looked at where grandfathering in the granny flat and change the name to an ACA, but seeing them back-to-back with each other, I just had to chuckle.

Yeah, so I'm glad that was clarified. I forgot to mention that the next step would be for the plan commission to take this up and our zoning experts to come up with the proper language for us. So thank you for that. And if there are no other questions, Alderman Lentz.

I move to accept the CEC recommendations for the housing indentures.

Second.

Housing.

Housing recommendations.

Recommendations.

For housing, yeah.

The recommendations for the

housing. For housing.

For housing,

right. Do we have a second?

I'll second it again. I'll second it for the second

time. Okay, any other discussion? All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, very good. We're going to move forward with that and the specifics will get handled at the plan commission level. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for all your hard work. Really, really appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is the idea of the commemorative plaques for this in particular for the commemorative landscape task force recommendation on the Black Neighborhood.

Yes, the Mayor's Commemorative Landscape Task Force has been working to commemorate important parts of Clayton history that have been overlooked, including the Black Neighborhood that once called Clayton home. It has requested that the Board of Aldermen approve the proposed marker verbiage to commemorate the Black Neighborhood as stated in the packet and authorized $6,000 to be spent on the purchase of commemorative markers during fiscal year 2023. The markers will follow the Clayton Community Foundation or CCF plaque design as pictured in the packet. It is estimated that each marker will cost $3,000 to design, construct and install. The fiscal year 23 budget includes $6,000 for board and commission expenditures. And again, the language was in the packet. I'm not sure if we can pull it up or not. We don't have it handy, but Uh, that would be the next place for the discussion and I'll turn it over to the mayor to talk about the task force. I

can, I can certainly read it aloud if we want to do it that way. But, um, uh, yeah, so the task force, you know, we approved the recommendation, uh, some months ago about this neighborhood being commemorated. And I don't know, honestly, I don't know if, uh, this wasn't included here, but we do have some teams agreement that, um, Andrea and Matt had the idea that we would put this marker near the Centene Park, if you will, on that corner at Bonham and Hanlon. And they have agreed that that is fine with them, even if we have to encroach on their property to do it. We don't know what's underground there, so we would have to explore that. But they're thrilled to have it there, actually. And so that's the location and then um the the the other update to this that i have is that the clayton century foundation or clayton community foundation has uh has agreed to split the cost of our commemorative markers not just this one but future ones with us and so we are our cost city's cost will be half of the total which would be like fifteen hundred dollars each um so i think um Again, one other update is that we had some questions. We had a question from Alderman Gary Feder, which was a good one about, you know, hey, where is old Clayton? In the language, if you don't have it in front of you, it refers to the Black community was established in an integrated old Clayton. Well, that statement is all true, but old Clayton in caps just really wasn't an actual place. So we went back. I talked to a couple of our task force members and looked at the map myself, and determined that really what this is trying to describe is historical Clayton before development happened. So I think our task force members at least are in agreement that replacing the word old with historical would would really be more accurate. And that's what they would like to see us do. But again, I'm open to other thoughts. Is Donna Rogers Beard on the attendee list? OK. Oh, OK. I don't know if she had the link. All right. So yeah, so I'll just open up for a little discussion. I don't if you guys really have a lot of questions or anything, but we can take it from there. Rich? Ira, any questions or comments?

can, I can certainly read it aloud if we want to do it that way. But, um, uh, yeah, so the task force, you know, we approved the recommendation, uh, some months ago about this neighborhood being commemorated. And I don't know, honestly, I don't know if, uh, this wasn't included here, but we do have some teams agreement that, um, Andrea and Matt had the idea that we would put this marker near the Centene Park, if you will, on that corner at Bonham and Hanlon. And they have agreed that that is fine with them, even if we have to encroach on their property to do it. We don't know what's underground there, so we would have to explore that. But they're thrilled to have it there, actually. And so that's the location and then um the the the other update to this that i have is that the clayton century foundation or clayton community foundation has uh has agreed to split the cost of our commemorative markers not just this one but future ones with us and so we are our cost city's cost will be half of the total which would be like fifteen hundred dollars each um so i think um Again, one other update is that we had some questions. We had a question from Alderman Fader, which was a good one about, you know, hey, where is old Clayton? In the language, if you don't have it in front of you, it refers to the Black community was established in an integrated old Clayton. Well, that statement is all true, but old Clayton in caps just really wasn't an actual place. So we went back. I talked to a couple of our task force members and looked at the map myself, and determined that really what this is trying to describe is historical Clayton before development happened. So I think our task force members at least are in agreement that replacing the word old with historical would would really be more accurate. And that's what they would like to see us do. But again, I'm open to other thoughts. Is Donna Rogers Beard on the attendee list? OK. Oh, OK. I don't know if she had the link. All right. So yeah, so I'll just open up for a little discussion. I don't if you guys really have a lot of questions or anything, but we can take it from there. Rich? Ira, any questions or comments?

No, I think it's great. I'm glad we're doing that. And thank you to CCF for volunteering to participate with this in the future. I would rather I'd like to see it called historic. That's fine. I think that works as well.

But otherwise, I'm in favor. So thank you. I was just going to ask, so

we have $6,000 in the budget. So it will be this one. Will there be another one that's in the works?

There's another one in the works now celebrating the Philippine village. And after that, there's something that's coming up now that's been started, which is the Osage, recognizing the Osage territory. And so there is a list that we could keep going with. But for this fiscal year, I think it's reasonable to expect that we would at least see the Philippine village and possibly the Osage come through. Okay, Susan, any

comments? Yeah, I have a couple of comments. First off, again, thanks for this great work and you've got some great voices in there as with Donna Rogers Beard and I know Jeff Boyd and the rest of your committee. As I read it, I just think we have to be so intentional in making sure that if the descendants of our prior neighbors were reading this, they would find it respectful and catching exactly what they would want commemorated. And realizing that I'm bringing my white lens here, the one thing that did strike me and just to throw it out there about halfway down when it talks about the Black News established, it was uprooted with other residents. Could we say the community or they or something else or some other words there that remind us again, keeps the humanity in there versus referring to that particular committee as it? And then you

have word limitation on the plaque, just as a reminder.

Right. And then at the bottom, it's enduring contributions. They're enduring contributions. I think it gives a little more recognition of that they were integral to.

Could we say they were uprooted? The community

was

uprooted by urban development, maybe not renewal, because we certainly aren't renewing to any former developed states.

I think the term urban renewal is a specific term relating to the type of development that was done at that time. So it's some sort of magic language, urban renewal.

And we may not need with other residents. That seems to not give it the same. So these are just comments on the overall impact if you want to play with the words. I think the community

was uprooted. We can go there. We have to

be so careful that looking at it You know, I'm a white woman from Iowa.

And

if somebody else reads it, we just want to make sure that this stands the test of time and really does commemorate a part of our community.

Oxford Language Dictionary definition of urban renewal is the redevelopment of areas within a large city typically involving the clearance of slums. And I don't know that that is respectful of the neighborhood that was removed. So...

Not to differ with all the women that tell what I think the whole history was that the consultants to the city at the time, which was Harlan Bartholomew and associates basically claimed that the area was a slum, which of course is part of the horrible history. But so it's not that it was a slum. It was in fact that the consultant to the city suggested that it was, which was the justification for getting rid of it. So it is an important part of the history.

Right. And I think, so I guess the point of clarification, which I was going to bring up during

my talk is, are we being asked right now to authorize funding to go towards CCF

commemorative plaques? It's not a CCF. It's a city and CCF joint commemorative plaque. Yes, so going into the project that CCF started a few years ago. Well, it's a completely different project, Becky, and I don't mean to interrupt you, but it is because what their black project is about is just older buildings, like older homes and older neighborhoods, and it's been, it has, it does not have, at least as a goal, an equity aspect to it at all. I mean, I'm not saying it wouldn't ever include something like that, but

Yeah, that surprises me. Cause I remember on CCF, one of the first markers we talked about was the attic school when certainly, so.

That's

what we should

do, but there, there. That

wasn't the point of my comment. Okay. What I am trying to understand is whether we are authorizing funding to go towards commemorative plaques that will mark certain places or events in our history and and whether we are actually going to approve the verbiage for each one. So like right now, we're nitpicking the verbiage, which implies that the Board of Aldermen is going to approve the verbage for each plaque that goes up. And I don't know whether that is the intent and whether we want to do that or not.

And that is my question. Okay, very good. So the intent, my intent, I'll put it that way, is that... you know, these plaques are going to hopefully be installed and they'll be there for 50 years or something. I don't know that approval is the exact word I was looking for, but I did want to get the input of everyone here. I think sometimes more eyes, just like Gary's catch on the old Clayton. I think that that's very helpful. I would like to say that I do feel that our task force members, who one is employed at the History Museum, one is a WashU professor of sociology and African-American studies. And we have other people. I mean, I really think, and then of course in this case, Donna Rogers Beard, I really think these are the experts about the information. And so really what I wanna do is just have you all be able to see it. notice any issues that you think might be there. And in the end, I would really prefer that that task force has the final say on the actual wording, but I wanna get your input for sure. So does that help? But you

will- So I am generally very comfortable with not approving the specific language and allowing these folks who are as you noted experts in their fields to do that, at the same time I think we've identified a couple good improvements tonight so i'm torn about that. And it is going to you're saying it's not even a CCF project it's our project so it's like we're putting our name on it and to that point, then I would I very much support this and anything we can do to get. more of this information out into our community and more prominently displayed um and i would want to be clear about authorizing the budgeting like when we know what it's going for and so um like it sounds like right now we've identified cost of three thousand dollars potentially for this fiscal year So I would suggest that we say at a minimum, like at a maximum that we're authorizing $3,000. And it doesn't mean if the plaques go really quickly and we're able to do more this year, we can authorize more. But if we have a budget for boards and commission expenditures, it's not only CEC expenditures, or it's not only commemorative landscape task force expenditures, And it's only, I mean, it's November now, not October still, but to not like off, like allocate our whole budget on in a particular line item in the first month and a half.

I think the whole budget is 10,000. Am I right?

So there was $10,000 that was put into this particular account for boards and commissions. We arrived at that number knowing that we would have plaques this year. And the estimated amount was $6,000. I think we were We're thinking to at $3,000 a piece. So that's how that we came to that amount. The other $4,000 would include the Ralph Clayton exhibit, the permanent Ralph Clayton exhibit that eventually ends up here in City Hall. So that's, that's how we got to that number. Now, just because the money's put into account and we use those particular projects to come up with $10,000. That doesn't mean in any way that the money is reserved for those specific projects. It can really be used for anything, but that's what we had used to come up with it. And so that's, again, it's not reserved, but it is a placeholder amount for those specific items. We can

spend the money how we want, but we intended it.

Correct. That is correct.

Yeah. And I mean, just to say if we whenever we decide to move the Ralph Clayton exhibit, if we don't have the money to put it into its permanent home, well, then we won't be able to. So I'm not worried about that. You know, well. It's not gonna stay at the

center for- Yeah, no, I understand. But I mean, that's not my concern. My concern is just, we don't know yet. And like, let's authorize funding for what we know we are going to do and not what may, like, I heard from you in your introduction that we don't need $6,000 for this project right now. That's why I suggested we lower it, the scope that's provided here. Like, not because I'm opposed to the project,

We can, I just, you know, it's just, it's fine. I don't really care. It's easier to just put an amount out there to do the plaque program and be done with it and bring the verbiage back to you. You know, you all do get two shots at this. I mean, we bring the recommendation from the commission to you for approval. So presumably if you approve the recommendation for a plaque commemoration and you approved and you say that you've given your input to the verbiage whether it's quote approval or not you know you've given it it's been incorporated i mean then you want to separately also approve the additional 1500 for that particular plaque down the road um it's okay it just it just seems like you do have a lot of approval opportunities so i don't know it's not that big a deal Anybody have any comments?

I mean, I'm just like confused now because I feel like we have, we're, I mean, we're authorizing, I mean, We're just going to approve the marker and the service. Right. And that's kind of what we're doing. Right. So it doesn't seem to be a lot of question here. I

think Becky is saying my question is whether we were going to be

reviewing or authorizing future markers. That was not clear to me. And I think what the mayor just said is that, in fact, she does intend to bring those future ones back to us

before they

proceed.

Oh, absolutely. That's in our process that you approve each recommendation. So when Andrea's wonderful process chart, which is on our website. Yes, I remember. Yeah. And so you guys approve the recommendation to do the commemoration. And then once we... develop the language for a particular plaque you have you have input there, and so do you want to also. I think I was confused by

what I interpreted as your statement that you didn't want to have to come back each time. for authorization. Oh, just for the money. And so in my mind, it's $6,000. All right.

That's what I did because it says $6,000 and the plaque is $3,000. So I didn't know if you wanted to basically ask for... $2,000, $3,000 plaques right now. I think it would be best. Which is fine with me, frankly, because we budgeted it for it. We budgeted it. And that's important to do. So I'm happy to authorize the $6,000. That's what I prefer.

And if we don't spend it, okay, great. But the task force is churning out these recommendations based on the idea that they will be commemorated. Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's important. I fully

support, I've supported strongly everything the task force has brought us, I believe.

So it sounds like we're in for the 6,000. I just think we have

a fiduciary responsibility. We approve every little budget item. I want to be clear about what it is and what it's for.

Yeah, that's totally cool. I kind of misunderstood what you were saying too, I think so. I think that

we are ready for a motion. of commemorative plaques, put the S

on it.

I was just thinking about how I was gonna say that. I will move to approve the purchase of commemorative plaque.

Is there a second? Second. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, very good. Thank you guys. The task force will be very excited. Next, we have aldermanic appointments.

Yes, so this would be a change that would be in effect until the new aldermanic assignments come out. Typically, we do that in June. That would be June of 2023. This change would move Ira Berkowitz from the Plan Commission to the Parks and Recreation Commission and then move Alderwoman Bridget McAndrew from the Parks and Reccreation Commission to the Plan Commission ARB.

Any discussion of this?

I would just like to be an older woman.

You want to be an older man? I

can still be an older person. I'm happy to be that. I didn't notice that before. That

is funny. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move to approve the Aldermanic appointments, both women and men.

Yes, I'll second.

All right. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Well, congratulations on your role switcheroo.

Well, thank you all for that. Appreciate it.

course um last thing on our agenda is to just uh talk about the fielding of the the survey regarding waste and you want to

yes so we've had a few discussions on this and we went through the the survey language and have refined that a few times we have everything proofed and basically ready to go so the survey company has the final language for the survey and sent that out through an email to the Board of Aldermen so that you could all see that final draft that's in their possession. So they're ready to print and send everything upon our authorization. We also have the mayor's letter, as we had talked about, again, proofed, ready to be printed and sent. And then also the City Views article informing the public of this change in the upcoming survey. Also, just about complete. We're on our final review of that, so that's pretty much ready to print and be sent as well. So we are ready to go on everything, and this item on the agenda is just that final authorization or vote from the Board of Aldermen to print and mail the surveys. So we had talked about it again, refine the surveys. I didn't include the survey in the packet If the board would like to discuss that, we certainly could. But this evening, what we're really looking for is that authorization to move forward with it. And this was something that was requested by Alderman Berkowitz. And we had a conversation with the mayor about it, added this to the agenda. So I will turn it over to Alderman Berkowicz. If you wanted to talk a little bit about the authorization or seeking to vote on it. But again, that's what we're looking for this evening to move forward with the project.

yeah thanks David so my intent in bringing it up is because each time we talked about it David would start city manager would start our conversations by saying we're going to discuss and talk about what we're going to put in this and then discuss whether or not we still want to do it having attended those meetings I don't remember us ever actually all deciding okay now that we have a completed or at least a survey that's been refined and talked about and discussed Okay. Now, is this something we all are in agreement that we want to go ahead and send out? And I thought it would be an opportunity for everyone to speak to some of it. There was some Wildermen were maybe not present at some of the meetings. And it would be an for all of us to have our say and to indicate what it is, you know, what comments we might have in regards to the actual survey and actually delivering this survey to the residents. I don't see, I do not want any, I don't think there's room anymore for any discussion, obviously, for the content of the survey. But just in terms of the big picture, what are we doing here? And is this something we all agree that this is a survey that we'd like to send out? So that was the intent in my bringing it up and an opportunity for people to say what they think about actually sending this survey as was developed and drafted. out to the public.

And since you made the request, why don't you go ahead and share your thoughts with us first?

That's fine. Yeah, I mean, some of my thoughts, because I go around and around on it, but what I come back to each time I think about sending this survey is that the general population of Clayton being as very intelligent people will have a, it's sort of a head scratcher. You know, two things come to mind. One is We're going to have a survey that goes out that asks them to make a choice between two things, neither of which we have any way of determining how much they'll cost. I can envision this going out and me having some 70 or 80 emails sent to me with, you know, can you tell us what's going to cost for curbside, what it's going to cost Even though we're letting them know we can't tell them, they're still going to want to get some idea. Can you tell us something about it? Is it going to be twice the amount? I'm going to get the email. We're all going to get them. I mean, there's no way around it. I think that's probably what we're anticipating is going to happen. And I think that there's going to be some frustration on the part of the residents as to the fact that they're making a decision based on a very important piece of information missing for them to actually decide. So I'm a little reticent about sending it out in its present form, not that we can change it, not that we could do anything about it, not that that we can fill the gap because we can't. And I'm okay with that, but I just think since we're left with this, is this something we still think is a good idea to send out? So, so the second thing that comes to mind is the idea that we, gosh, we told we told the public that we were going to include them in our decision making in regards to what we're going to cut. And so we are sending the survey so that they get they get a sense of involvement. when in fact it really isn't the case because we're not really asking them for what we're going to cut. We were already telling them what we're going cut. And then we're giving them a choice, which is kind of a false choice because they don't have all the information to make that choice. We don't have all of the information to make the choice either. And so we, of course, would look at bids and then we would decide because we'd have a good bid and we'd know what we were deciding upon. But, but in the end, you know, we're not really giving them a choice about what it is we're cutting in our budget. And some residents might figure that out as well. So I'm just, I'm a little, I'm just hesitant about sending it out as, as it goes in terms of It's real usefulness for us. It's usefulness for them. I think what is useful to them is if we have decided, which we have apparently and I don't disagree and I'm fully supportive that at this point, what we can do for our budget is to take this off the hands of the city and put it in the hands of the individual residents. And that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do, which I agree with. So that's kind of my position on the survey is, is this something we want to put in their hands and say, hey, tell us what you think, but we're not going to really give you the most important piece of information in terms of deciding it. So that's how I feel about it.

Okay, we'll just go kind of go around the room and see if anyone else has comments, okay? Rich, any comment from you?

I agree with everything you said, Ira, that we don't have enough information. They don't have enough but at the same time, I think we're asking, we are trying to be as upfront as possible and at least get some sense for whether people are going to be up in arms about the idea of backyard versus curbside. And while yes, there will be a segment of the population where that decision will be based on what it costs, I think that there's going to be a lot of people who also are just going to have a gut feel one way or the other. So in that sense, I'm happy to send it out. I don't know if it's going to give us a mandate one way or the other, but I think I'd rather go with that possibility of getting a bunch of emails asking for information that we don't have than not giving them any information and not asking them. and just being quiet and moving forward with our own direction. So I think we are including them to the extent we can. So that's where I am.

Very good. Yeah, Bridget. Yeah, I mean, I would agree. I mean, I hear what you're saying, Ira. I mean, it's not perfect. Obviously, the big reason being that we can't give any sort of price point on what the differences are But I feel like I told people for a long time that we were going to ask them about what we were going to need to do. And as a board, I think we've made the right decision and said it's going to be about trash. But I would like to at least, I think there's as much a part of this that's education. So a year from now when people have to start paying for trash or whatever the exact date would be, I think we've done everything we can to educate them about the process. And, um, you know, I think it will generate emails, but it will generate certainly emails from people saying, yes, I really want this or I want that, or even questions, you know? So I think again, yes, the survey is imperfect, but I like the education component and I like the fact that we can say to people, Hey, we've asked, we, you know, we want to hear what you have to say about this. So, um, I would be in still in favor of sending the survey out. So

yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. I agree with what everyone has said because it's, it's not perfect and the cost is a critical piece of information. I'm also somewhat concerned that while maybe a, a large percentage of our community doesn't really care about costs, there's a percentage of our community that it will impact. So not to have that information is truly a problem. Um, If this is the only public information, public input that we're going to have, then we have to go ahead and send it. If there's some other way, which we haven't come up with, I would certainly go with that once we know the cost, but I know that time is, there's their time pressures and things like that. But even putting in there, as you know, I've said this before, even saying, is your answer dependent on cost or something to try to measure how sensitive we are to the market prices. The educational part of it, I think it is important. Some people have read all our e-news and all that and know that it's coming, but when you're actually called on a survey, you've got to reach that many more people. But I mean, it's a huge problem not having that critical piece of information in there. So we've come this far. I'd probably support going forward. I certainly am still hopeful that we can alternate bid it also because If we're solely doing what we currently have, I don't think it's going to be very competitive bidding because a lot of the providers can't do that. But at this point, if we get that information and go forward, I'm OK with that.

Thank you. Yeah, I support moving forward with the survey. We don't have all the information that we want or need right now to make this decision. And the good news is we don't have to make this decision right now. what we are doing is gathering more information. So we're putting out the survey. We will at least get some data and information from the survey itself that will inform us. We will, I do hope, get emails and calls and stops on the street and higher attendance at our ward coffees because people will be talking about this and we'll be getting that information and that context to supplement it. And then I hope that we will get pricing for both options, unless the survey is maybe so overwhelming that we feel clear that we only need to price one option. And then we will have all of the data we need to make what is ultimately our decision. And that's how I envision this process and what makes me feel comfortable about the level of engagement and involvement and information that we're getting and how we might be staying curious about what our options are gonna be. The only thing I would add or maybe ask of the staff, we talked about, I think like the letter and survey that go out having a link and a QR code to that link that, um, to like a website where there'd be more information. And that if we can, um, ensure that that has, you know, maybe all of the presentations that we've gone through. Right. And, and we can, you can, we can think about, you can think about how to put the information out there, but So people who really do want to dig into it and see, like, what are the comparable costs in other communities? I mean, just to get some sort of rough idea or imagine. Like, that is data that we have. I don't think we want to put it into the letter or into the survey. It's too much. But for those folks who want to go down that rabbit hole, that we make that information available. Yeah.

And so our communication staff and Andrea have been working on balancing act and bang the table and these various engagement tools that we have. There is a QR code that was added to the mayor's letter that will bring you over to that. If you remember on balancing act, one of the examples that we gave, I believe it was from St. Paul, Minnesota. Before you took the survey, there was a video that would pop up explaining everything. And I think there's an opportunity there perhaps to put together maybe a five to 10 minute presentation sort of thing that walks through the exact information you were looking at and put that on there as well. So we are working on

that. Alderman Gary Feder.

that. Alderman Fader.

So my initial thought, the first time we talked about it was pretty much exactly what Ira said at the beginning of his comments tonight, which is that we do the survey and we don't have numbers. It's a pretty meaningless survey. I still think it's generally a meaningless survey and If it's a standalone document as it is right now, I don't think it will serve the community well. I think it will confuse the community. I don't think in its current form and I know we're not going to change it. I don't even think it's particularly evenly balanced in its discussion of the two alternatives. But that being noted, I think it is important for most of all, I think the train has left the station. We've told people we're going to do this. it's all teed up. So I don't think it's the time to withdraw it. I think now it's the time make the best of this survey. And that is, if people have questions about cost, we'll do the best we can. If they have questions about 4,000 hours of idling, we should explain to them where that number comes from. Because if it's a standalone document, if I were a citizen, I would wonder where in the hell did that come from? but now i suppose we'll have the opportunity to try to answer those questions so i think the follow-up is now the key at the end of the day i will still be skeptical about the results of the survey but we're going to do it and so i think we need to make the best of it so i would vote to move forward and as i said try to make the best

very good um yeah i think you know It's hard. These decisions are very hard, and I think we all have some sort of mixed feelings about something to do with all this. But I think we have spent, I don't know, several months talking about it. We've spent many hours talking about the survey itself, and there's really no new news there that we've discovered to make us change course now. And so I do, I hear everybody's comments and I agree with everybody's comments as well. And so I just think we're at the point where we'll vote on it right now, but I think we're at a point where we just have to move ahead.

So do we need, we need a motion. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I didn't hear the motion.

I'm sorry. Do it again.

Okay.

I'll move to approve the printing and sending of a trash survey.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor.

Aye. Any

opposed. Okay. All right. Send it out. All right. So, um, this is the time unless there's anything else from our staff for this agenda nothing right um this is the time when we can go around and share what we've been doing for the past couple weeks that might be of interest to others and so Want me to not start with you?

Well, other than the fact that I missed the sustainability committee meeting or through with no excuse of my own. I did get to the coffee with a cop on demand though. That was a lot of fun. So I appreciate the troops showing up and talking to the residents. That was very nice. Thanks chief for coming out.

That's it. Very good.

Alderman McAndrew. Oh, Ira, I'm sorry. Ira, you know, I look at that empty chair. I'm so sorry. I need to put the screen right there. Yes, please go ahead.

No problem. No problem. I don't have a whole lot to say anyway, though. All the older person abuse and I had a coffee, I guess it was coffee at Manhattan Cafe. We had all of two people show, both of which basically hammered at the same thing I just brought up, which is the issue of, you know, cost in terms of deciding on a survey. um but otherwise uh it was a lively discussion they stayed the whole hour it's pretty much and uh um but i'm i'm assuming that on our next uh coffee we'll have we'll see a whole lot more people but uh but nothing else to report thanks

okay all right very good thanks all the women can do

Um, yeah. So, um, I guess it was a busier couple of weeks for me. I, we had a CRSWC finance meeting and, um, The good news is we thought we were going to be in the whole 324,000 but it's going to be closer to 259 so that's good membership levels continue to go up at the Center of Clayton which is great. rentals continue to lag and I would just mention, we are brainstorming the idea of considering alcohol. to be brought in because we miss about 10 trivia nights a year at the center because we don't let, you know, we had a big fundraiser for the soccer team, the women, men and women's soccer team at Clayton. And we had to have it at Richmond Heights because people like to bring food and alcohol to those. So we are brainstorming that. So not selling work, but you would just bring it in. So to improve on our rentals. And then one of the things I wanted to mention, which also came up in the Parks and Rec meeting that Susan and I had last night is there is a gigantic lifeguard shortage in this country, which will start really impacting us because the company Midwest Midwest School. They're the company that, you know, basically we contract with for all of our lifeguards is doing really all they can to recruit. I mean, they go to high schools. I mean, I've already signed my daughter up, so that's good. But they're going to have to start paying their lifeguard more money. So it's going to be a lot more expensive, our contract with them. So that will be a um, a real hit. Um, so that, you know, that, that was, that was a big part of our CSWC finance discussion. Um, Susan, as I mentioned, Susan and I also had a parks and rec meeting last night that was two hours long. It was a long meeting, but the first hour was, um, a presentation from, um, the group doing the comments, like the common study. So that was really great. They really, um, asked the whole commission a lot of great questions, and they proposed four different styles of potential routes just to kind of get everybody's thoughts. So it was a really great discussion, so that was great. We also got updates from about those swim and tennis seasons, which both did fantastic. The Shaw Park Aquatic Center had a great year. Tennis season had an awesome year. So that was great to hear. The ice rink demolition starts tomorrow at 7 a.m., in case you're wondering. And we did, hopefully everybody saw that the grant money came in for Maryland Park. So Tony is going to get with contractors to make sure, you know, get the bids out. So hopefully prices haven't gone up more. Partying the patch was fantastic. They had like 400 and some kids or something like that. It was great. and um and then we also talked about the lifeguard shortage again at the end so um and then i also wanted to mention that we had a polo meeting that Gary and I attended about a week ago. David was kind enough to come again and kind of talk budget and stuff. And we, you know, I was, we were actually pleasantly surprised when, you know, we talked all about trash and the budget and they were certainly, nobody kind of stood up and got, you know, everybody listened and seemed very accepting and understanding, I thought. So that was great. I also wanted to put a plug in. I know the mayor has been there, but I had a client meeting at Ivy Cafe yesterday last week, and it was great. So I encourage all of you to go there if you haven't been there yet. It's kind of right next to Avenue. It's one of our newer restaurants in Clayton.

Good. Busy two weeks for you. All the

warm reviews. Bridget pretty much hit everything on that two-hour meeting. I said, okay, what hasn't she said yet? That was very good. Thank you. So I can be short. The only thing I will add, and this is, I know our mayor will appreciate this, when we had our Two people at our Ward 2 coffee, our neighbor who had sent all the information on the leaf blowers was there. Oh, okay. Wondering if we were working on that and what was going on with that. All right. And appreciative that we had all looked at that information. That's

kind of gone to the side for a little bit, but we'll bring it back around. I haven't forgotten. That's for sure.

Yeah. And then they were very interested in the trash, not realizing everything that was coming up on that. So that's it. Thanks, Bridget.

Okay, Alderwoman

Patel. Sorry. Thanks. At the sustainability meeting, most of the items that we discussed came before us tonight. So the other thing I would just mention again is gratitude to Bill Chamberlain, who stepped down as the chair, as well as to Deb Grossman, who's stepping in. So appreciate both of their work. And I spent the last two Saturdays removing invasive species from our neighbor in parks. So two weekends ago, a group from White Island Middle School worked in Okinawa Park. So that was really cool. I've never actually done that before. I have paid other people to do it in my own backyard, but I got my hands dirty and did it. at Oak Knoll and then at Forest Park last weekend, Forest Park Forever. So that was really cool. Great programs. And before the meeting tonight, I grabbed a couple of tacos at Taco Circus to catch in Clayton on Forsyth. So another new business that's open and operating. So thanks. Very

good. Alderman Gary Feder, any

good. Alderman Fader, any

comments? Polo meeting was successful, as Alderwoman McAndrew said. We have upcoming at the commission at the CEC meeting on Thursday a much delayed presentation by the American Jewish Committee about anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the more it got delayed, the more relevant it became. So we're going to have a presentation on, as I said, Thursday afternoon by the AJC. One final thing, maybe on a little lighter note, when I first was an alderman my first month or two, David set up a meeting with some key staff people, including Chief Rhodes and Assistant Chief Mercurio. And we were talking about how long I had been in St. Louis and that I was a student at Washington University and lived on Fraternity Row. Anyway, I'd totally forgotten that conversation. And this week got an email from Chief Mercurio who told me that he had been doing drills at Washington University to assist with fire protection. And on one of the fraternity houses, there was a rack of photographs, the kind you used to have in high school, those little pictures of all the members of the fraternity. And lo and behold, 1967, the Tau Kappa Epsilon had its chart up there, And so he sent me a picture which confirmed my daughter's belief that I was the biggest dork in the fraternity. And for a small price, it's still on my phone. So if you'd like to see what I looked like in 1967, it's frightening. But in any event, it was a curious turn of events. So thank you to the chief for including me in his review.

Good. All right. I don't have a lot that I can really talk about, but... I do want to mention that I have, as part of Metro Mayors and Mimi League, gotten a lot more involved in our regional discussions about crime. I was on CAMOX last week interviewed about crime in our region, and particularly by minors, particularly the problem with minors and guns and gun safety laws. And so on Monday, I'm gonna be going to, with a small group, I think Chief is going to Jeff City. I'm not sure what we will be able to accomplish, but we will go there and talk to people about these issues. And that's it i think that's all i have for you guys anyway thank you all for all your hard work uh during the week appreciate it so much i think that we can take a motion to adjourn and move into our closed session

be my time uh i

move the um The Board of Aldermen hold a closed meeting with a closed vote and record as authorized by section 610.021 subsections one and two and three revised statutes of Missouri relating to legal issues, real estate and or personnel negotiation of a contract pursuant to section 610.01 subsection 12 and or proprietary information pursuant to 610.01, subsection 15 and or information related to public safety and security measures pursuant to section 610.021 subsections 18 and 19.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldemann Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay, very good.