April 25, 2023 — Meeting Transcript

well welcome to our april 25th board meeting everyone and we have a really i think a interesting and fun i'm looking forward to discussion session here uh with the with the some input from our sustainability committee chair and we're looking forward to hearing from you so without further ado why don't deb grossman why don't you take it away yep

Thank you. We have a lot to cover, so I'm going to try and go pretty quickly. I'm going to divide my time up this evening between kind of two sections. The first 20 minutes or so, we're going to talk about our sustainability slides. And so we're going to go back to slide number one because that's the second presentation. Can you pop me back to slide one? Terrific. So first, we're going advisory committee and then we're going to talk about soul smart sort for the last 10 minutes, because I believe you all had a letter in your package so you're aware of that. But we don't have a lot of time and we do have a lot to talk about so i'll try to be brief so let's flip to the first slide the first text slide. Basically, the advisory committee has been working on a sustainability strategic plan since February. So we had a meeting in this room Saturday morning with a lot of our committee members and both Becky and Rich were there. A couple of our interns, our two interns, Jonathan Graham and Hannah Hirsch from WashU were there. And Matt and David, I'm not sure who I'm forgetting, but we spent a number of hours just kind of trying to wrestle with what do we think is the most important things going forward for the sustainability committees? I'm very much a believer in a strategic plan, having a plan and working the plan and making some things happen. So tonight, I'm here representing the whole committee. So I'm going to just click off a couple names so that you know who else behind me. Even though they're not behind me, they're really behind me. Bill Chamberlain, Susanna Fuchs, Carol Klein, Jeff Leonard, Cindy Mentz, and Tina Murtha are all the committee members that we have. So once we finished that section, that meeting in February, then we did some drafting. We did a lot of discovery and development. And I will tell you that is still underway. I'm still finding things. that Clayton did years ago that I was unaware of. And it's great because it says that we have had an active interest in this area for decades. A lot of the things we're presenting are not new, but they are coming back up to the surface, bubbling back up to the surplus. We reviewed the plan with the whole committee in April, and we have a little bit of wordsmithing to go before it's a final, final document, but you're going to get a chance to see what we're interested in and what we're up to. The primary thing that came out of our meeting back in February is that everyone felt we needed to choose the most impactful projects for the most critical issues, but also be attuned to the projects that we can get achieved quickly and easily. So we'd have some quick, easy wins that make us feel pretty good about what we're doing and how we're tracking, but not losing sight of the bigger things that really need to be done. Let's flip slides. So the main areas of focus for our plan are up on the screen right now. It's looking at our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gas emissions. That is the number one driver for climate change. So that's where we want to put our stake in the ground. looking at projects that involve water, looking at projects that protect our green spaces and enhance them for the use of all the community members, looking at how our purchasing decisions are made, where our strategic partnerships are, looking at communications and then volunteering. There are a couple of things to know as I mentioned This interest in greenhouse gases has been around for a long time. Then you should tell back in 2006 when he was the mayor, signed on to the US Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. And he really kind of kicked that off right away. Then Mayor Goldstein and the Board of Aldermen also looked at creating what was called the Vision 2013. Hey, Ira. building a bright future and adopted a set of objectives for the city of Clayton back in 2013. They had also conducted a greenhouse gas inventory in 2009. A lot of these things, all of us that met in February, we didn't know those were already out there. So we're still kind of just uncovering some of it. And I think part of it is COVID. Part of it is changes in leadership, both in the mayor's seat and the alderman's seat and the staff seats So there's nothing we should feel bad about. It's just that we need to figure out where all that stuff is. So if we flip to the next one, what I'm going to do now is blow up those individual categories that I just quickly highlighted so that you can see what we are thinking about in terms of some strategies. For reducing our carbon footprint and our greenhouse gas emissions, we separated that out by existing buildings. and looking at and considering working on the energy benchmarking presentation, policies and practices. All of you heard that presentation by Emily Andrews from the US Green Building Council back in December. She did another presentation for the committee. I think that was in January or February. That is something we very much want to do, but we wanted to have this plan in place and make sure everyone on the committee was on board. My expectation if we roll forward with this plan, which I see no reason why we wouldn't, is that we would use an intern that we have coming on board this summer to help us with that. But there'll be a lot of work to develop what those benchmarks look like. Are we going to just adopt a policy? Are we going to put something in place with some teeth in it? And if we do that, how do we staff for it? Everything that we do carries a little bit of liability, a little bit of cost. So how do we manage all those things? A lot of thinking has to go into that before we're ready to bring that to you as here's the recommendation, but the recommendation will be that we look at that. So a place to start for new buildings looking at and encouraging green building considerations. We have some special development districts and planned unit development districts where we're asking them to meet LEED standards and but not necessarily have to require them to certify because that's very expensive. We just want them to do the work. We don't care if they get the merit badge. And then the last thing is looking at the use of renewables and considering what the best practices are. This is what I'm going to talk about in the last 10 minutes of this evening around participating in SolSmart. And SolSmart is a U.S. government organization program that's free to us to utilize will help make us smarter. So more on that in just a minute. The one thing I want to emphasize before we go on from this slide is that Clayton already has, which I didn't realize, adopted a goal to accept the greenhouse gas emissions reduction. And I'm not exactly sure when that happened, but from what I can see from One St. Louis, which is the East-West Gateway Partnership, Clayton is one of the signers that said we would achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 50%, 50 to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030. That

was me. Was it you? Yeah, I went over to WashU and signed it with a bunch of other-

Terrific. Well, we're doing that. Thanks, Michelle. So we have a goal. And then achieve net zero emissions by 2050. So that is now going to be our target since we said we would do that. Now we'll do that. The only thing I could find though, in terms of a baseline for us in terms of greenhouse gas emissions was the 2009 study. So if you're aware of one from 2005, I'd love to know about it. 64%, the reason why we're focusing on the greenhouse gas emissions is for buildings is because 64% of all the emissions in the region are coming from stationary put in parentheses buildings and that's something that we can impact, and we could make a difference here in Clayton. There's a lot of other things we can't make a huge difference about, but we can make a difference for that, so that is going to be our priority, sort of what we target as our, it was that movie that said you have to find the one thing, that's going to be our one thing,

same,

like a true north. Can I ask a question now? Sure. We had talked at some point, and maybe that's here and just it's worded differently, or we talked about trying to sort of replicate what they're doing in downtown St. Louis with their big buildings, buildings over 50,000 square feet.

Is that part of what you're- That's the adopting energy benchmarking policies and practices. First button on the top. That's it.

Okay. Thank you. One of my

former lives, we called those bullets, but I've moved on. No,

that's wonderful. Thanks.

Yeah. Let's flip to the next one. So looking at transportation, which uses 12% of the energy that gets consumed in our area, looking at what we might do for fleet, for our own fleet and our infrastructure. looking at electrification plans, looking at charging station deployments. All of those things are important, but it is very much a secondary priority for us. So yes, Michelle, exactly right. Looking at that benchmarking, that's number one. Okay. We got to go a little quicker. So let's flip over to the next one. Protecting green spaces, contributing to the livable communities master plan. I'm very much aware of the fact that there is a strategic plan going on for parks and rec and for bikes and ped. And there's also a strategic planning for the city. Ours is not going to look like yours. Ours is a homegrown version. I mean, this is just work that we did. And I know that you all are going to come up with great things. And we're hoping to contribute some knowledge about sustainability in connection with that. We did, I did a presentation to Parks and Rec, thanks to Tony's invitation at the beginning of April. That's another, I don't know, 10 or 15 slides if you all want to have some fun, but not tonight because we don't have the time. Let's flip to the next one. Purchasing is an... Good, good, good, good. So yeah, presentations don't matter much. It's what we do with it, you know? Yeah, okay. So we gotta we gotta get our teeth into it. Purchasing is another thing that's really important and the city has done a lot of work already. I went looking for it as a resolution or an ordinance but yay verily it is a policy. And it's even up on our website. And we have a whole section that talks about green procurement. So we're in good shape on that, but we want to do a little audit and see how are we doing? We got the words that say we're going to do this, but are we walking the walk? So that's one of the things that we're after, looking at how do we reduce or eliminate single-use plastics, looking at what's recycled content, regional purchase preference so we don't have as many miles traveled when we want to buy things and bring them in. Okay, let's flip over to the next one. waste collection and recycling. We spent a great deal of time on that because Matt and David and others were looking at renewing our waste contract, which you are all fully aware of. So one of the things that we hope to do is baseline and quarterly monitor how we are doing on some of the recycling. We also included, I believe in our contract or will believe in our contracts, a statement that when electric, vehicles, trucks are available that they'll help us have them here first. I don't know if we've actually signed that, but we at least asked for it. We talked about optimizing routes. We talked about oops tickets, kind of a fun name. It's just like when your neighbor take, because I know none of you do this, put all their recycling in a plastic bag and sets it out. That's a big oops, right? So we're just trying to educate our community members on how they might do better and Promoting Green Dining Alliance. We have several restaurants that are already using green practices, includes Crushed Red, Pastoria, Calde's, Cacao Coffee, Avenue. They're already on board. What can we do to promote them, either in our communications or encouraging other people to do the same thing because there's a whole great set of practices that are already out there for restaurants. Same thing for green chill certification. That's basically looking at how refrigerants are used. Refrigerant leaks are really, really damaging to our environment, probably even more than CO2, but it's a small community that can control that. But we do have some folks in our community such as Straub's, DGX, the Wine and Cheese Place, South 40 for Wash U, and maybe the county jail that we should look at that for. But again, that's further down the list. It's not number one or two. Let's flip to the next slide. Water is another one we're going to be working on, really engaging with MSD on what kind of programs are available, what things need to happen. We've already implemented the rain garden, which is part of Parks and Rec, thanks to that team. But there's more to be done. And they have a lot of programs that they have actively out there that other communities, including the mid-county sustainability committee are looking at. And to my knowledge, we're not yet, but we'll get there. Strategic partnerships is the next one. If you flip to that next slide. Looking at how do we engage with the county with their new head of sustainability, They've got somebody who's working on this full time. They're in the process of getting their own strategic plan for which they're going to pay millions, and it's going to take them over an extended period of time. I don't see any reason we should pay for that when we can just draft off of whatever it is they're doing. So we're going to steal from them, knowingly borrow from them. Um, but then also working with other business nonprofits that are in the Clayton area, looking at the school district, there's lots and lots we can do with the school district. You all are probably well aware that we have solar panels on the top of Y down middle school, but there aren't very many. It's probably about as big as this section of the room and we could do more. Um, so, and engaging of course, with, uh, the other folks like East West gateway and one St. Louis, the, um, Midwest Climate Collaborative, which we joined last fall, and we've done some work in there. And the, what else am I forgetting? Midwest Climate Collaborative. No, I think those are it. And then a bunch of regional groups like Gateway, Green, The Viking, Audubon, Sierra Club, all of those kinds of things. Let's flip to the next one. Communications we think is really, really an important way that we can help educate the community about things they can do differently and helping just have people see through the lens of sustainability. What is it you're doing? What are you buying? How are you acting? Just every bit as much as how you look at things from a financial standpoint. So I was a financial guy for a long time in my career. And so I looked at everything through a financial lens. How much does it cost over what period of time? Am I going to get a payback? What's the, you know, blah, blah, blah. But looking at that also through a sustainability lens? What's it do for our community? What's it due for the environmental impact? Can we do it better? Can we do smarter? Those kinds of things. There's some things you can read on that. Some of them are pretty simple, like linking to alternative recycle websites. There's a whole lot of things you can recycle that you cannot put in your blue bin, whatever color your bin is, mine's blue. And there are people who are doing that work. So let's just connect our residential neighborhood, all of our neighbors to those sites so they know where to take things when they wanna recycle responsibly. Volunteers is the next one. I'm gonna get to my 10 minutes. Yeah. Nobody can do this work on their own. They just can't. It's too much time. So we got to have a bunch of people who are really interested in this. So we're going to have to build a pipeline of other folks who value this, who find some passion in it and care about it and build a strong influence network or influence for corporations, for the school district. I'm trying to figure out who cares the most about what. and then put them in that direction. So maybe we can find somebody from the school board, I know you used to be on the school board, who really cares about sustainability and we can wrap them in and engage them. So that's what that is and look at trying to build a strong committee and maybe some subcommittees and who comes after me? Okay, so now it's 6.50. We have 10 minutes left. And I'm going to talk to you about soul smart unless y'all have questions about what I just shared. Put you all to sleep. My husband says I am not very funny and I need to be funny when I make presentations but it's just not who I am. Yeah, so sorry about that. Okay, let's do Soul Smart.

I won't, I'm afraid to ask questions because I think you really need to go to Soul Smart. So, but I'm just grateful for the, there were things that popped up that I would have asked questions about, but yeah, no, keep going. Call

me up, I'm available. Okay, Soul Smart. Let's flip to the first slide. I think you already realize what the benefits are for solar because we have solar on a couple of our buildings. We have solar on the middle school, clean renewable energy, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which you've already signed on for. I love that. Increasing property values, cost savings for people who implemented all those good things. Part of the challenges for getting solar in place, oftentimes for a lot of folks, it's the soft dollar costs of going through the process of permitting, planning, zoning, making multiple trips. And you all did a great thing in January when you changed up our ordinances in terms of how that happens. But SolSmart, the organization, is really trying to reduce that potentially 64% of the cost of putting in a solar system, which is all wrapped around those permitting processes and get passed on to the customer. So that's what is really at the heart of this. It's also at the heart of trying to have some standards that are pretty much across the country without them being federally imposed, but having community by community adopting some of those. So what is SolSmart? Let's go to the next slide. It's a program funded by the US Department of Energy through their solar energy technologies office to promote solar markets. And it's hopefully gonna speed up the process of people adopting solar as an energy source. And they have people who are willing to work with individual communities. Let's go to the next slide. And there's gonna be a whole bunch of designations. We'll just talk about those in a minute. So why do we want to do Soul Smart? We would love to do Soul Smart, not because we need another merit badge, but because we need to learn what are the best practices. And one of the things that the Soul Smart representatives will do for us is they're going to analyze all of our ordinances, resolutions, everything else that's out there and tell us where we're doing great and where we have an opportunity for improvement. So that's really what we're after by going through this program. The designation, if we get it, also indicates that Clayton is a little more solar friendly than anybody else. Let's flip to the next slide. This is where the SolSmart communities are located. You'll see that for Missouri, we've got 10 over in Kansas City area. Three of them have the bronze designation. One of them has silver and six of them have gold. There's nobody over in the St. Louis area. We could be first. I don't know about you guys, but I love to win. I love to be first. Even if I really want more than the merit badge, I still do love to win. Click to the next slide. So if we sign on for this, they have technical providers that will work with us. All of the cost is federally handled. There's no matching grant that comes with this. This is free to us. So it's going to take our time. I'm not going to say that won't happen. It will take some of our staff time. to make it happen. It'll probably take some of my time to do it. We've already had our first meeting with them April 4th, I think, Matt? Matt and I were on that call together with our interns who've also been helping us with some of this work. But one of the things we have to do is demonstrate that we are committed to achieving this designation. That's where that letter in your package comes in. So more about that in a minute. But you can kind of see they will give us all kinds of information and help on procurement, on planning and zoning and policy development, all kinds of things like that. Next slide. So, um, to get a designation and again, it's bronze, silver, gold, platinum. It's even more than the Olympics. You get the fourth one. Uh, we would be looking at just trying to go through and see whether we could get a bronze, um, the first level, because we already tick almost all of the boxes to get bronze. And I think if we went for this, we could get it done in six months or so. Um, maybe a year, all depends on what slows me down, but, um, we have already done so much of the good work that needs to be done. And part of my thinking along that is because this is something that the students in the reset class at WashU looked at last December and presented to us. So we already have a bit of a roadmap for how this goes through. So, The areas that you have to do, boxes you have to check are some foundational categories permitting inspection, planning and zoning, those two. Then some special focus things, government operations, community engagement and market development. Next slide. I could tell you about the points, but let's move to just assessing our current state. The draft letter is what you have in your materials. We have completed already to date permitting an inspection. We've got five points we need for only needing one permit application for photovoltaic solar panels on people's roofs. And we have residential solar PV fees less than $500. So we get five points for that. We have new construction to be solar ready with the current code we have. We'll see what the state of Missouri does to that. but that gets us 10 points. And then we have some other commitments. We've already got solar on our parking garage, new government buildings being solar ready and some financing options. So we are already just about there. If you go to the next slide, what we need to do, the additional actions are actually sign the letter. That's where you come in. So we're going to ask for that in just a minute and the other things we had to do on the letter, as you saw we committed to doing some training. Some of that is like training for your fire department for what to do with houses on fire and you've got solar panels, what does that look like and what's special about that. Also, some staff training on planning zoning permitting inspections. developing streamlined process. They have templates for all this stuff, so we don't have to make it up. I mean, this is just about as easy a project as you could get. Communicating finance options, we do that.

Next slide. That's the last slide. I just love it when a program comes together. So now our request for you is that you sign our letter. Questions, concerns? I don't have any,

you guys questions. I mean, just a great presentation. I want to commend you and all the work that you have put in you yourself, but also your, your group, the committee. I think you've been a real motivator and that's what we needed. And so really, really appreciate it. And all of this is really great thinking and it's, it's exciting to contemplate it. It's great. It

is very, very, don't make any mistake. It's very much a team effort. And I, I, darn, I was hoping my interns were here, but it's finals and they're writing papers. And they both said, dear Deb, can we not come tonight? And I said, your choice, but it's an educational opportunity. Please come. But I think they want to get the A. So there you go. They've worked really, really hard and frankly have done a lot of deep digging on going through June, put them on to a source where they could research what ordinances had been passed. They helped with writing up. This is like the, I don't know, second or third attempt at this at the strategic plan and helped with the soul smart. They've just been really terrific to work with.

How long will you have their

services? I think about another week or so. But then we have a new intern that we just interviewed and extended an offer to. It's also, I'll just, I think you guys know this. Maybe you don't. Our WashU interns are free to us so far, right? So the two that have been working for us since February, the first day they came was the day in here. They were free to us through WashU. And our summer intern is free to us through a different department of WashU. So we interviewed three or four different people. We had one selected that fell through, started all over again. And so Erica J will be joining us at the beginning of June. She'll be with us through August 15th. A great resource. It's a wonderful resource. Thank you very much. Will you sign my letter? Can I ask one thing?

Of course we will. Yes. First of all, thank you. And yeah, work we've always done in the past and then follow through and getting it in has always been an issue. So it's great that you're going back and looking at all that too. So it was a wonderful presentation. Question, when you talked about silver lead certification and all that, how does that compare with the National Builders Association certifications that has bronze and everything else? If someone, if a PUD were coming to us proposing to do bronze, Is that equivalent to what you're saying the lowest should be like silver with the other? We have

to research that. Okay. As with almost everything else here. I haven't had that come up, so I really don't know. And I would be misleading you if I said I did know. Sorry. That sounds good. Thank you.

Great. Thank you guys so much. Okay. Okay.

It is now time for our 7 p.m. meeting. So if we're all ready, I'll let the city clerk call the roll.

Alderman Lentz.

Here.

Alderman Berkowitz.

Here.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Here. Alderaan Buse. Here. Alderna Patel.

Here.

Aldermen Gary Feder.

Aldermen Fader.

Here.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you. All right. Now's the time for public requests and petitions. So if there's anyone in the audience here or online that has a topic for us that's not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. And I don't see anybody online. So I think we can move on from that. And we're ready for a consent agenda, Mr. City Manager.

We just need a motion and a

vote to pass it.

Right.

A move to approve the consent agenda with the items listed.

Second.

Second. Yeah. Any discussion? All right. Alderman Lentz. I'll do a roll call. Oh, you'll do a roll Call. Well, okay. Yeah.

Alderman Lintz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderman Lintz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Aldewoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay. Now we'll move on to the city manager report with the rezoning for Sterling, the Sterling project.

Thank you. A public hearing and a first reading were conducted at the April 14th, 2023 board meeting for review and consideration of the rezoning and related plan unit development for proposed mixed use development. The rezoning plan unit development and subdivision plat have been discussed together though the plat and land use elements entail separate ordinances on the board's agenda. The project received architectural review board approval and the plan commission recommended approval of the site plan, lot consolidation rezoning and development plan on April 3rd, 2023. The 39,921 square foot site includes three parcels located at the northeast corner of the intersection between South Bemiston Avenue and Carondelet Avenue. The properties have a zoning designation of High Density Commercial District or HTC. The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing buildings, widening of the existing east-west alley, construction of a 24 story mixed use building with office, retail, apartment and parking uses. The development includes construction of 254 apartments, 11,300 square feet of office space, approximately 1,100 square feet of retail, 4,000 square feet of first floor financial institution and 341 parking spaces. The off street parking is provided for the uses in an attached parking garage. The building will total 460,000 square feet. The total height of the new structure is measured from existing grade to the top of the flat roof is 280 feet. The detailed PUD points table begins on page 16 of the meeting packet. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the rezoning and plan unit development per the required development commitments set forth in the Ordinance Exhibit C, Sterling Tower PUD document. Staff also recommends the Board of Alderman approve the subdivision plan with the conditions set forth in the ordinance for adoption.

All right. I see the developers here. And I think we had quite a discussion about this at our last meeting. And so at this time, I'd just like to see if there's anyone that has a comment or a question about any of the points that have been awarded at this time. And I'll kind of go in order of seniority that make it easier. Yes,

Rich. OK, I've got just a couple of questions, clarifying questions that we talked about last time. on the public parking. I know it says that it would be available in the evening after sterling bank goes home, will it be free to the public at that time.

Is this on if it's green? Green. That's correct, yes. And those hours that would be free to the public.

Okay. We also talked about the dog run and there was some question whether that was going to be locked and available to anyone or just to the residents.

The access to it for residents will be from inside the parking garage and then there'll be an external gate that is accessible to the pocket park. Okay.

um well

like i said last time i'm not crazy about the architecture um when i add up all the points i mean even if i were could give them a couple more points for a few things um you know the public parking i think i you know you added point there you could do a point some of the sustainability stuff um I'm a little bit short of the 30, but I don't know if, as I said, whether that's if I want to quibble about a point or two. So if I'm sticking to the process and going by the letter of our process, I'm still short, but I'll hear what other people have to say about it.

All right, we'll possibly come back to you. Ira, you have any comments?

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I come out to about 24 points. So I need someone to help me. If you want to get higher points, I'm going to go through some of these if it's okay with you guys and see if we can come to some arrangement about where I might be low or you might be high. But let's see if we can talk a little more about these points because I really think it's a bit low in terms of the 30 that you need. Who's going to volunteer to talk to me about that?

Josh was

with our design team at HDA, so we can attempt to do that. Bear with us. We're doing it in real time, and obviously a lot has gone into kind of where we're at, so bear with us. We'll do our best to do

that. When you come up, if you want to state your name and your employer or whatever for the record here, so we have it.

This is Josh Goodman with HDA Architects. Gosh,

hi. Keep in mind, this is a point system that we have developed for GUD and I know you're familiar with it because your team has, I think, participated in recommending the points that it wants for these various items. And the idea is for us as a city to receive public benefits for both the public and for the city on these items over and above, in my mind, over and above what you would do as a developer anyway, kind of thing. All right. So we would have a situation here on the design, let's say. And I'm not suggesting that you would have to go back and redesign anything. But this is a point system based on public benefit. And if you're short, then you'd have to come up with some other public benefit that might get you to the points. You understand? So I'm not asking anyone to go back and redo this design and redo the plans and specifications. That's not where I'm going. I'm just going at the points. Okay? Yep. So we're looking at the design, which I think got three points recommended to us. And the design itself, as I see it, it's a box. It's got glass. But there's nothing interesting about it. Why do you think your design somehow is over and above something or other that we already have in Clayton?

Well, I think really that kind of comes to what you just talked about. It's not just a glass box. Centene is just a glass box, we took in feedback from the ARB, went through, made some design changes that impacted the facade and came up with some elements that didn't make it a straight flat box for 24 floors.

So

we've integrated that in, which is a design element that...

With balconies in.

Oh no, the balconies were always in. We added the eyebrow. We made some modifications. We changed the materials on the building. Actually, way back when we were told that it needed to have more glass on it. So we went that route and we- Not

objecting to glass. I get that.

Right. But what I'm saying is it's not a full glass box. You're kind of, we're simplifying it in some terms. We have a metal brow element that goes around an area of the building. We have different textures with the glass material. So it's not just all the same glass. We have detailing with the brick. It would be easy for us just to do a standard laid brick wall and call it a day, but we've added some details and features that are down at the pedestrian level because we realize this is such a massive building that your most impact is going to be walking down the streetscape. So that's how we feel like we've engaged people with our design more so than just having a building that maybe has a large fin or something on the top of it that know so that's how we've and i agree

with you about the streetscape in the down below for the pedestrian i do agree that that it's a little nicer maybe than some of the other buildings that we have in town it's after you get past i guess a few floors and then straight up it's kind of the same as mostly what i see in the clayton area so

well we also try to be considerate of the fabric that's already here we didn't want to come in with something radically different. So you wanna blend our style of architecture with what's existing and what's current and what the future holds. And I think we've done a nice job of trying to blend all of that together and work with the restraints of the project, the restraints of site. So I think there was a lot that went into it.

The issue of the...

Oh, and then there's the pocket park. Okay. I wanna address that. On here, what I'm reading here is incorporation of open spaces provided and available to the public in the form of a pedestrian-friendly pocket park with art, landscaping, and various seating arrangements. Okay. And I had asked the last time about what is the actual width of the pocket park. And it's not all that wide. I mean, let's face it, we're not going to have a bunch of people wanting to hang out there. It's sort of alley-sized. And I'm glad you're doing it. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy that's there, but they've given you five points for it, okay? For that amount of space or the amount of use that the public will make over that area, a very small area. I'm willing to give you five, but only if we include in it the things that are mentioned here. Okay, which is that you have pedestrian friendly pocket part with art, landscaping and various seating arrangements. So I'm good with the five there. What I want to know is later on when they're talking about public

art in another place, which is it's

B12. And there we're talking about public Art again, correct?

Is that not the same art? We talked about that during the last presentation. We put the cutaway along Carondelet, which allowed for an area of some other form of art. So it may not be a sculpture item. It may not be a painting.

But you will have an additional piece. A light

element. We had brought up a particular... Tom, if I speak

better to it. Yeah, sorry. This is Tom representing Green Street and HDA and design architect on the project. So the idea with the pocket park, and for those that weren't here at the last meeting, you know, we ran through an animation that actually walked all along the pedestrian experience through the pocket park. We illustrated the different seating areas, the mural that's going to be painted within that pocket park. And then the idea was that the little recessed bench area with like an illumination piece that was like inspired by the artist dan flavin like that would be a secondary art piece so we're providing two two pieces some mural the park experience that is narrow but there's certainly urban parks like this all through denver all through chicago and that's kind of what we're using as precedent it's in a lot of our precedent imagery and packets that we supplied so um So there are two kind of art components. One's tied to the park, one's tied to Carondelet facade.

So what can you describe for me then what artwork you're talking about on Carondelet?

I don't know if you remember from the animation, but we're basically doing a very sculptural bench that kind of raises and it's curvilinear and comes about. So it's not necessarily... there's two ways of thinking about public art, right? Like there's like a sculpture you put on the corner of a building and there's art that you actually incorporate into the architecture. And to me, like the art that's incorporated into the architecture is better than just kind of stamping a sculpture on the side of a corner, you know? Like, so that's the way we're thinking of it is that sculptural park or pocket recess bench with like the light piece behind it, the whole thing is the art, right? Tucked to the base of the building.

You're considering that? Yeah. that functional piece of bench as

and there's precedent for Kansas City is an example allows for 1% access or allowance for public art that actually is incorporated in the building. So again, it's not just a sculpture that you put on the corner in front of a building like you like you would have you know, 10, 15, 20 years ago. It becomes part of the building. And that's the idea with that little recessed bench area is it's just a break in the standard streetscape. And then the idea was we could incorporate some illuminated piece again in the spirit of Dan Flavin that you could see at night as you drive by that would activate the streetscape.

So then my right then the points here is for that.

I'd say, yeah, there's that public art component and then for the bench area. And then we also have the pocket park space where we're going to have a muralist come in and paint some.

Well, we got five points for the pocket park because that included the artwork in the pocket park.

Correct. And then the work on the south side, or yeah, the south facade along Coronelette was that little benched area along with the light was kind of considered part of the building, right? Not just a sculpture that we're kind of anchoring to the concrete or something.

Okay.

yeah they will again work with our Commission and make sure they're on board with everything I think we assume three points or were approved for three out of five from that piece right with the idea being it's it's difficult to go and hire and commission artists to design all this only to find out that project's not approved

i agree with you that's it's kind of a horse and cart issue and i understand i mean there's a yeah

designing the building and engineering it and all everything we've done for the last eight

months i understand that it's my problem too though how do i assign points to a piece of work i've never seen i don't know what you're talking about

you know

so

um

Reduction of the curb cuts. So it's a, in other words, was there a reduction or do you only need one curb cut for the parking?

We only need one because we combined access points. So in theory would the bank prefer their own private garage entry that doesn't communicate with the residents maybe. And we could have maybe put that at the Northwest corner. Instead we combine them both and then we have internal gates to navigate circulation. So yeah, In theory, did we combine them two uses into one location? Yes. But we thought that was better than having an access point off the northwest corner.

And just personally, I think four is way too much for that. So I'd give you down to two on that one.

I think once you experience the building and you experience it now and actually circulate past there, there is a lot of solid wall, a lot of curb cuts into parking areas. And there now will be one on the low end of the site. So we're hoping to activate most of Bema soon.

Explain to me why you all think you get two points for having a residential or multifamily when I think that's what your project is. I mean, you're not doing office. We all know that. So, yeah. So why do you get points for having a development with what you already decided to do from the very beginning anyway?

I mean, we've talked about this. I think Phil discussed it previously. It's just the idea of bringing... a different user into the city of Clayton that maybe can't afford the standard housing stock, but it's still kind of a premium apartment complex. So folks that'll visit restaurants and bars and actually populate them beyond nine 30, 10 o'clock at night. That was the thought is

I'm with you there. I definitely would rather have residential than anything else. I've always been there. I'm just wondering why you deserve points for that when that's what you're looking to do anyway. And I appreciate the fact that, yeah, Clayton would, yeah, I mean, Clayton likes having office buildings. We also like having residential buildings, but where's the public benefit over and above your project that you're providing to us to enable you to get extra points for public benefit?

Sure, I'm Joel Oliver, Green Street. I think this is the reverse of the cart and the horse. I think when we approach any community, part of the objective is to say, what has this community says that it wants? And part of what Clayton has said they wanted was more dense housing, activation at night, bringing maybe a younger population in. So we could have done anything. We could have done an office building. We could have a hotel. There's lots of things we could have done. So we're reactive to your point system knowing that you all set that out as a goal. So we could have done anything. We're responding to what you've put out, which is why you award points to incentivize people to achieve what you all are trying to get the private sector to achieve.

And I want to dig in just a little bit. So the population that you're looking to have in your building would be younger people?

I think in general and multifamily housing, what we see a lot is what we call bookends. You know, it's young professionals. It's also people who don't want to be in, you know, a big 4000 square foot house. There's definitely people in the middle, you know, and Clayton's a good example of, you know, you'll have people that are in the middle there who, you know, maybe this is a second location for them or they just want a smaller place. But in general, the trend that we see, especially in this product would be young professionals and people who may not want to be in their single family home anymore.

I appreciate that. I have just one more question. There's one that says the building sitting, the project is situated on an urban site with connections to public transportation and many services within walking distance. So how is that a public benefit? If that's your building, that's where you have

your property. Why do you get a point for that? If you're looking for it, this is one of the sustainability items. So it would be on

the

first page of

the points table.

Building sidings. It's with B3, under B3. Yeah, building sidings, the second item

there. We looked at that similar to what Joel had just talked about. That was one of the credits that you guys had listed as an opportunity for these developments. And if our project fit within those standards... we would apply for it knowing that the location that we have is in the heart of the business district. It's in the heart of downtown where you have a lot of these amenities readily available. You don't have to walk blocks away. So it was a site selection on our part that we felt fit this

criteria. I agree with that. Okay. Thanks.

Mayor, I still come up. There's a couple more points I'm willing to give based on our discussion. I'm at about 26 points.

Okay. I don't have any comments or questions. Okay. Okay. I

just have a couple. And actually, the building site, I kind of liked reading that being aware of the heat island effect and you know, reading things about wanting to be able to cut down parking spaces required for building and everything else and being close to the public transportation. And it all depends on how all that plays out. My question, you know, the pocket park, which I love, when I look at it, it's five points plus a point for the permeable surface plus a point for dog run. That's a lot of points for pocket park. So even though I really like that design and that use of space, it'll be great for your clients as well as the landscape, I probably would question a couple points on that. The other part that I, especially we just had a sustainability presentation right before you all came in. And when you're looking on the sustainability and you have a bronze level that you're seeking for this, which is the fourth level or the lowest level of the National Builders or National Green Building. have you considered trying to go one level up on that, doing a little more than that minimum building standard?

Yeah, so it's something we evaluate on every project. Bronze is generally the target that we shoot for, especially in this style of construction, meeting the NGBS bronze standard is something that's above and beyond what most municipalities still require, so that you are going above what most people require The threshold to go from bronze to silver in most instances isn't really achievable, especially in this style of construction. It just becomes really cost prohibitive. So it is something we always look at and evaluate. You know, we have a special consultant that that's all they do is run that exercise and, you know, are the outside consultant on that. So it is saying we evaluate it is not feasible.

So what were the challenges on this one to get it up to set one more level? It's a very

complicated, very long spreadsheet that scores it. And it's really its cost. So the things that you can do to go up to that next level would just make this not feasible. We do evaluate it on every project. And bronze is generally in this current market where we end up with construction costs just being astronomically high.

Okay. And again, on the recycling too, the other items under here talked about the materials being recycled as much as possible. Is that something that, again, that's a benefit to all of us and so I understand why it's awarded points. Is it something that is out of the ordinary? Because it seems if you've got bricks and you've got things that have a market value, it may be something that would be happening and

yeah so i'd say the differences in one scenario you have we'll do our best if we can recycle stuff that's great versus a scenario where it's tracked there's logs there's additional costs that goes along making sure you're actually doing and holding the contractor and the subcontractors accountable to hit those standards so that that's really the difference between those two is making sure it's quantifiably achieved

okay

that makes sense um I think that's all I've got right

now. I would like to see, you know, as much sustainability efforts put into this as work. Pocket park, the points when you add in the permeability and the dog run, it still is going to feel private, even if you've got a gate on the outside or whatever. I would probably bring that down a couple of points. So I'm close, but that's where I am. And that's all I got.

Okay, great. Thanks. Go ahead,

Becky.

Hi, I'm sorry I couldn't be here at the last meeting. I want you to know I reviewed everything ahead of that and gave feedback in advance and have done the same since then in order to give the project a thorough review. And I have to say, I generally like the project. I think it looks like a good use and a good fit. I think it's an attractive building. And I think what I remind myself um what I think my responsibility under this um zoning designation is that um you know if if you were um proposing this building and it did not need to be a planned unit development because it didn't deviate from the zoning we wouldn't be talking about this stuff right but it is and so we are And so there are one question I want to ask first, when Ira brought up the topic of the nature of the building as a residential building, which is excellent, something came up about the pricing and someone used the term more affordable. And I'd like to know how precisely you can define that for me.

Yeah, so I think when Tom said that, it was really more of an academic than quantitative thought to buy a single-family home within Clayton is not attainable to most people. So if you want to be here, if you want your kids to be in Clayton schools or if you work in Clayton and your option is to buy a single family home or a condo, that just... really precludes a lot of people especially in the current world that we're living in so having a new modern building like this um just as a price point that may be more achievable to some people quantifying that's obviously very difficult um compared to like single family home prices so i think um i'm speaking for you i assume that's what you were saying

yeah like just entry level entering the market as a young professional as if you want to be in clayton maybe long term so this might be a good

starter option as an apartment um but again reasonable price for an apartment but it's not it's not the same as buying a house in clayton i'd say

yeah

raising the market

so i mean are we talking like two thousand dollars a month rent five thousand of

have all that i can pull it up for me uh or we may know okay i'd have to pull that up but yeah

that'd be great thanks um I just know, I mean, I know it's challenging. Yeah, I couldn't afford to live in Clayton today if I hadn't bought one. So here we are. In terms of while you look that up, I'll just say, Mayor, there's just two areas where I would deviate from the points recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. And the first is the first one where our code standard calls for architecture, a building that exhibits architectural distinction and significance that would make the development unique. And so again, I think it's an attractive building. I think we'll look good in downtown Clayton, but I don't think it meets that standard. And so I would not award points for that item. And then the other one is in the general area related to the curb cuts. The fact that the curb cuts are decreased because we are like, creating a parking i mean the reason we're eliminating curb cuts i think is because it's a parking garage um and i know that's like very functional and necessary

can i address that one point yeah i didn't say anything earlier um the average rents about two thousand dollars a month it looks like that having the whole table in front of me but

that's

okay

some would even be below that

i'm sorry it says if studios the average is i'm sorry the average is 2400

2400. What's the cheapest?

It's not a true studio. It's a junior one bedroom. So it's kind of like a buried bedroom. It's 2000. That's what I'm talking about. Okay.

But I would tell you from my side of things, not being an architect, my preference is to always have more than one entrance. Because I can tell you we've had properties in the past with one entrance like that. If you have a gate malfunction, you have a real problem. So designing to one gate is partially to accommodate this. And being in an urban infill setting, it's a better experience for people. the pedestrians on the street. So it is better from a functional ongoing operation. I would much rather have two.

Okay.

So it wasn't, it was designing to get rid of some of those. I think that is an important piece just here. No, I

appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you.

And Becky, I will say at the plan commission, when I was looking at points like that, I do find that having just that one entrance. Cause when I'm walking around there, that the Sterling bank, you, I mean, you really can't see cars. So for me, that was a big benefit from a pedestrian safety point. So just having that one entrance I thought was really, it just made for a better walking experience in that area.

Thanks. Was that it? So I'd remove the three points on the first one and leave and remove two to keep two points still for the curves.

So total removal is three? Five. Okay, I'm sorry. Where did you remove the other two?

from the, so the curbs, like they were, it was suggested to give them four points for the curb cut reduction. I think that's, unless I'm misunderstanding that.

So that's my suggestion. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks.

Alderman Gary Feder.

Alderman Fader.

Well, my perspective is a lot different than some of my colleagues, um, The way I look at the PUD, you start with the planning staff. We have a professional staff who are trained in this area. They take the first cut of this to make recommendations. They then go to the plan commission and the ARB. The ARB, I just had to look it up, has in its membership Steve Lichtenfeld, licensed architect, Helen DiFate, licensed architect, Carolyn Gatiss, licensed landscape architect who's on the staff of Washington University Architectural School, Cammie Waldman, who's a project manager at an architectural firm, includes as a voting member David Gipson, who obviously is an expert in architecture. in land use and zoning. All of those people, and I said at the last meeting, I think I went to every single presentation of this project. Almost every meeting I went to took at least two hours with tremendous back and forth between the ARB and the developer. The project, in my opinion, got much better as time went on. My view of our role as the Board of Aldermen in this process is, I think, if we respect the work of our planning staff and our ARB, who, by the way, as I would indicate, have many people who are experts in architecture, as opposed to our board, which has zero architects, right? The whole point is we should be giving deference to those hardworking staff members and ARB who spend hours using exactly the same standards we're debating tonight. And they came up with 32 points. One of the reasons the project needed 32 points, by the way, is they start off with certain negative numbers. They get charged with certain things like if the FRA is not right. One of the reasons they lost five points that they had to make up for is because they decided to have a 750 square foot unit, which actually is too small under our zoning. admittedly it doesn't create an affordable situation but i think it shows a real diversity in multi-family that in many ways is a plus and yet they lost five points for that but the way i look at it so they had to make up 32 points so we have our professional staff our arb i would remind the board that our role as the board of aldermen in architecture generally is zero Almost every decision that's made by the ARB ends at the ARB. The only time the Board of Aldermen even get involved in an architectural decision is if someone files a protest and gets by the standing requirements and has a chance for a rehearing. There's a reason for that. We ought to let the architects... give our opinions about architecture. They looked at these recommendations. They came up with 32 points. If we want to interrogate people like Alderman Berkowitz, we ought to interrogate our planning director. We ought to interrogate Steve Lichtenfeld. They're the people who awarded the points. So if that's what we want to do here, let's reference, if you want to change the points, what I think you're doing, in my opinion, is you're saying that the decision that was made by the ARB, the plan commission and our planning staff is egregiously wrong. I think that's the standard in the PUD. And so I believe, yeah, I could also nitpick some of these things. I don't think that's our job. I think our job is to give deference to our professional staff, to the ARB, including our aldermanic representative on the ARB, all of whom unanimously agreed to give these points. And I think we should move on. I think it's an excellent project. It's a much better project than it was a year ago. And as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to try to just drop them under 30 points, we can also potentially say goodbye to the project. And if that's the result people want, if you think they'll go back and redo this project and try to add points here and there again, i don't think it's going to happen so if that's the result you want fine but i think it's an excellent project and we ought to stand behind our staff and our plan commission and our arb who awarded the 32 points

Well, my perspective is a lot different than some of my colleagues, um, The way I look at the PUD, you start with the planning staff. We have a professional staff who are trained in this area. They take the first cut of this to make recommendations. They then go to the plan commission and the ARB. The ARB, I just had to look it up, has in its membership Steve Lichtenfeld, licensed architect, Helen DeFate, licensed architect, Carolyn Gatiss, licensed landscape architect who's on the staff of Washington University Architectural School, Cammie Waldman, who's a project manager at an architectural firm, includes as a voting member David Gibson, who obviously is an expert in architecture. in land use and zoning. All of those people, and I said at the last meeting, I think I went to every single presentation of this project. Almost every meeting I went to took at least two hours with tremendous back and forth between the ARB and the developer. The project, in my opinion, got much better as time went on. My view of our role as the Board of Aldermen in this process is, I think, if we respect the work of our planning staff and our ARB, who, by the way, as I would indicate, have many people who are experts in architecture, as opposed to our board, which has zero architects, right? The whole point is we should be giving deference to those hardworking staff members and ARB who spend hours using exactly the same standards we're debating tonight. And they came up with 32 points. One of the reasons the project needed 32 points, by the way, is they start off with certain negative numbers. They get charged with certain things like if the FRA is not right. One of the reasons they lost five points that they had to make up for is because they decided to have a 750 square foot unit, which actually is too small under our zoning. admittedly it doesn't create an affordable situation but i think it shows a real diversity in multi-family that in many ways is a plus and yet they lost five points for that but the way i look at it so they had to make up 32 points so we have our professional staff our arb i would remind the board that our role as the board of aldermen in architecture generally is zero Almost every decision that's made by the ARB ends at the ARB. The only time the Board of Aldermen even get involved in an architectural decision is if someone files a protest and gets by the standing requirements and has a chance for a rehearing. There's a reason for that. We ought to let the architects... give our opinions about architecture. They looked at these recommendations. They came up with 32 points. If we want to interrogate people like Alderman Berkowitz, we ought to interrogate our planning director. We ought to interrogate Steve Lichtenfeld. They're the people who awarded the points. So if that's what we want to do here, let's reference, if you want to change the points, what I think you're doing, in my opinion, is you're saying that the decision that was made by the ARB, the plan commission and our planning staff is egregiously wrong. I think that's the standard in the PUD. And so I believe, yeah, I could also nitpick some of these things. I don't think that's our job. I think our job is to give deference to our professional staff, to the ARB, including our aldermanic representative on the ARB, all of whom unanimously agreed to give these points. And I think we should move on. I think it's an excellent project. It's a much better project than it was a year ago. And as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to try to just drop them under 30 points, we can also potentially say goodbye to the project. And if that's the result people want, if you think they'll go back and redo this project and try to add points here and there again, i don't think it's going to happen so if that's the result you want fine but i think it's an excellent project and we ought to stand behind our staff and our plan commission and our arb who awarded the 32 points

i'd like to respond

yes but you know briefly yeah i

will um Our job is not to defer and deflect and abdicate our responsibilities to any commission or any committees. In fact, that's the very thing you had to say when we talked about the Equity Commission. You know, this is a situation here where it is our job to look at these points and determine policy because that's what we are. We're the policy board. They are an architecture board. You've listed their credentials and you are correct with their credentials, but they are architects. They're not policymakers. And you were elected and I was elected for the purpose of determining the policies for determining these points. They're making a recommendation about these points. They're not telling us this is an absolute. In fact, I spoke with the chair of the ARB just last night and I said, when you go through this, are you solid about this? He said it's very subjective. We often don't know what to do. And in the end, we count on the Board of Aldermen to take a look at it themselves and determine what should be done on the points. I agree with you architecturally, they're in charge of dealing with the designs and passing judgment on their architectural expertise. We are a board for the policy and we're the board to determine what the appropriate points are for the public welfare, for the public benefit. They weren't elected and they weren't appointed to determine what is a public benefit and the extent of a public benefit for each of these categories. I object to you also telling me I interrogated anyone. If they felt interrogated, I apologize to you guys. But I thought I was asking questions and trying very hard to understand how these points were concluded. How did we get to this point? How did they end up thinking these were appropriate points? And I want to advocate. Go for it. 30 seconds.

ARB is also the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those are also the people who make major decisions about planning and zoning. So I was simply referring to the extent that the board here now feels we should criticize the architecture. I wanted to address that. But it's not just the ARB, you know. It's exactly the same people who make our planning and zoning decisions. And so those people who make recommendations that I think we should take seriously, and instead of when they spend six hours on it, we're going to spend 20 minutes and reverse it. That's not the standard. That shouldn't be the standard.

I don't think we're criticizing the work of the commission or the ARB. and I don't think we're reversing the work that was done. We are ensuring that we understand what's being presented, and we are offering our perspective based on how we were elected to represent this community on the direction we want to encourage development to go. We can disagree, and it doesn't mean that we're being disrespectful to anyone involved in the process.

Okay. Before I say anything, I just want to make sure Bridget, you have any other comments because you are the liaison to the ARB. You sat through all those meetings that Gary described and you voted for these points. So what can you, do you have any comments at all?

Well, I would, I mean, I think I appreciated Alderman Gary Feder's comments. I think that the building has gotten significantly better. There were some architectural changes made based on the glass box comments that everybody made. you know, has made, which I appreciated that the architects made. You know, I think the pocket park is an excellent addition. You know, people have been kind of, but we don't have anything like that in Clayton. So I think they deserve every point that we have given them for that. It's thinking outside of the box. We could have just had a grassy area or like an area that just has rocks in it, but they worked with centene so that they could get the entire area which will have seating. It will have a dog run. It will connect to, you know, the alley behind it, which will maybe eventually connect to other parts like four sites. So, and when we, I think when ARB was critical of the fact that there's just, that there was just garage wall on Crandallette, they came up with an interesting element, which will make it very attractive when you walk along there. So, you know, again, I think I think we can kind of nitpick with the points. Would I have gone down maybe a point or two on the architecture? Perhaps. But in the end, I like this building. And I think it's deciding whether or not as a board, we want to see this building go forward. And I think Alderman Patel and I spoke over the weekend and I would love, it'd be great to have a restaurant over there, but the partner on this project is a bank. So there will be a bank there, but we will also have a tremendous apartment building. So I think on a whole, like I said, we can continue to nitpick on the points, but I think it really just comes down to deciding as a board, do we want to see this building there? And I agreed I or I agreed to have the project come before us because I think it's a good project on the whole, so I would support it whether or not we're at 29 points 30 points 33 points and I think that's all ultimately the decision we have to make tonight so.

Well, I would, I mean, I think I appreciated Alderman Fader's comments. I think that the building has gotten significantly better. There were some architectural changes made based on the glass box comments that everybody made. you know, has made, which I appreciated that the architects made. You know, I think the pocket park is an excellent addition. You know, people have been kind of, but we don't have anything like that in Clayton. So I think they deserve every point that we have given them for that. It's thinking outside of the box. We could have just had a grassy area or like an area that just has rocks in it, but they worked with centene so that they could get the entire area which will have seating. It will have a dog run. It will connect to, you know, the alley behind it, which will maybe eventually connect to other parts like four sites. So, and when we, I think when ARB was critical of the fact that there's just, that there was just garage wall on Crandallette, they came up with an interesting element, which will make it very attractive when you walk along there. So, you know, again, I think I think we can kind of nitpick with the points. Would I have gone down maybe a point or two on the architecture? Perhaps. But in the end, I like this building. And I think it's deciding whether or not as a board, we want to see this building go forward. And I think Alderman Patel and I spoke over the weekend and I would love, it'd be great to have a restaurant over there, but the partner on this project is a bank. So there will be a bank there, but we will also have a tremendous apartment building. So I think on a whole, like I said, we can continue to nitpick on the points, but I think it really just comes down to deciding as a board, do we want to see this building there? And I agreed I or I agreed to have the project come before us because I think it's a good project on the whole, so I would support it whether or not we're at 29 points 30 points 33 points and I think that's all ultimately the decision we have to make tonight so.

Okay. I think, you know, a lot of good questions, a lot of points have been made, you know, ultimately I think everybody has kind of said they want this project to go forward. And so honestly, I think that while some, some, there's some, there needs to be some give and take on some of these point subtractions and additions and whatever. And I do want to underscore that i think sure we get to we we do have a role in the end here to say you know is this the kind of building we want going forward and and and try to work with that but we also i think do need to take seriously the the decisions of our architectural review board and plan commission because uh if if we undercut every single decision they make or most of them, what's the point of having them around? We can just do this work ourselves and not have them involved. So there's just gotta be some compromise here is all I'm saying. And that's often what gets things done is a little bit of compromising. I like the project. I don't have an issue really with the architecture. I'm kind of in Bridget's camp there. I understand that some people do, and so maybe we can agree to take a point or two off of that. Fine. I do want to say that as far as the curb cuts and the streetscape issue, we went through a big, hairy analysis with a company called H3 about a year and a half or two ago And one of the main points they made was no garage entrances on pedestrian walkways, get rid of those as much as humanly possible. And at the same time, they said that's tough to do for the reasons you suggested. And so I would give them full points for doing that because they do think it can be problematic in the end, especially with that bank there not to have more than one entrance. the idea that the residential doesn't provide the public benefit. I mean, the whole reason we put that in our livable communities plan and the reason we want all that residential in our downtown is because our public has for, since I have been on this board come to said every time, why can't we have more retail? Why can't we have restaurants? Why can't have more little shops? Because we don't have the market to support it, that's why. This is providing that market. Every time we put in more residential, it's providing that market and building that up. And that is in my mind, a great public benefit for us. Just like having a market built in now with more young people, we have more of a market to support entertainment venues, which we have said strategically want to have. But you can't have those businesses if you have no one to go there. And so to me, that's a really big deal. And like I said, they could have done any other kind of building. It could have been another hotel. Seems like we get a lot of hotels these days and that doesn't really do the job. So I would be my view as just one member of this board If you want to take a couple points off for architecture, fine. But I personally wouldn't take this below the 30 points. Ira, you did have an idea that you talked to me about that you would like to propose. You could still propose it. And I still think it's of value whether it brings this project up to 30 or brings it over 30.

Yeah, I know there's always, you know, I've heard several people here talking about it's whether we want the project or not. And that is really not what's on the table here. What's on the table is, is there enough public benefit for us to give the PUD? And if not, is there some other public benefit that would satisfy us that would enable us to then be okay with the project altogether and the PUD points. So my thinking is, and the word affordable was brought up already, is if you would be willing to take one or two of your studios and actually make it compatible with HUD's definitions of affordable housing, that to me would be worth the rest of the points, whatever you need from me, because I would be very happy to see that happen. And I think this city would love to see that happen as well. So is that a possibility from you guys? It's a good question.

One thing I'm proud of is Green Street's actually pretty proactive in that space. We see a lot of developers are very reactive. They would come up here and kind of yammer around you know it's something we try to do it's very very hard to do in a building like this what i would tell you macro level is we appreciate how difficult this process is clayton's better than a lot of places at least you have a scoring system where we can try to work with you to understand it so we don't take it lightheartedly what you're doing is hard but don't take it personally it's very difficult you're elected officials um i would tell you anywhere we go any project we try to do certainty of execution is really important Right? Real estate development's kind of a game. Like, tell me the rules, tell me how it works, and we'll propose a project that is beneficial to a community. So just for some context, since not everybody is at the ARB, and kind of the view of execution, in the last version of the ARB, to get to the design you guys see today, that was $1,020,000 worth of changes from the previous version. to get to the point recommendation that the ARB suggested to you. So on that topic, I think it's important to understand the context of your us. We've spent 18 months working with staff and with ARB and P&Z to get to a point where we scored ourselves at 43 points. I believe it was 43. So that's where we were. We conceded another million dollars worth of costs to then, you know, that million dollars isn't worth anything, right? If we get haircut points. So that surety of execution is really important for us to understand. We're making really big compromises at that ARB level to get to this. We go, well, maybe you didn't need to do that. Maybe I don't need a $250,000 extruded aluminum brow that's really pretty from the street. So for us, understanding that's really important. but working together is what we do. That's why we're here, that's why we've persevered for 18 months. I think conceptually, we are open to that idea. It's a much more complicated question to answer in open dialogue, So that is absolutely something that we can agree to figuring out. I don't have the ability to run the math to tell you exactly what that works out to be. Affordability is a very hard definition. Affordability as a spectrum, as defined by HUD. At this end, Section 8 housing is affordable for people who live on public assistance. At the other end of it, in Manhattan, 120% of the area median income is affordable housing. So there's a range there. That range really matters. So if you can approve this in a way and give latitude to the mayor or the city manager somehow to define exactly what that means for a... studio unit to meet that affordability standard? That is something we would agree to do.

Part of my thinking on that is, and we're not looking at fair housing type of thing, which could be a lot lower, right? So it's like workforce housing, but Clayton workforce housing.

It's probably 100% to 120% of area median income.

So I think what I'd like to see is people who work in Clayton, I'd like to Because that's a big benefit to everybody. Because then they eat here, they spend their money here. And of course, they don't use a car here. So we're not likely driving much, you know, commuting and all that is done away with was very sustainable. So it's kind of that's kind of the first, first way of looking at it. I

agree.

That makes sense.

Fun and dead. creates an example for people to understand how to do that. So I don't know exactly how you want to address this as far as approvals go. I mean, what we're excited about is you have a great corporate citizen at Sterling Bank that wants to stay in Clayton and wants a beautiful new building, but they're also a business and they want some certainty and they want us to get moving. So we would like to get to a point where we can understand our path forward tonight. How exactly do you want me to answer that question in a way that we could?

I think you've kind of answered it that you you know, would work out, you're willing to do it, but you want to work out the exact numbers with the assistance of our city manager. And you can work it out with IRA for all I care, you know, and then so that you, and then if we want to, like I said, if we want to take off a couple points for architecture, for those of you who really felt strongly about that, that's fine. That still leaves 30 points. If you want to add a point for affordable housing, great. Um, but I think basically we've got a project then is where it comes out. And I really think that Ira, your, that, that idea, which you, I mean, really thinking a little, and it's not that we've never talked about trying to get what I like to call attainable housing, um, but it's always been such a conundrum on how to make it happen because of land values here. And so I think it's a really great suggestion and I really support this, you know, kind of the first olive out of the jar, I think we said? Pickle, the pickle.

Pickle out of the

jars. To kind of get this rolling for

us. Can I add a second pickle? Just to give some background on that. Yeah. Is that the attainable or affordable housing issue first came up, I did a lot of work with the school district and. That was something that our Community it all you know whenever he had a meeting on something that came up the fact that we've worked on at the equity Commission has done a lot of research on that as well, and so when when you're working with with our city manager. and staff in how you might do that for a unit at this particular project, I think you've got the expertise and the interest and people who will work with you to get that done. And I appreciate very much Ira that you brought it up. It's a topic that people shy away from because it is a cost and no one really knows what it means and to actually take it on and try it, I appreciate that. That would be very, very powerful for us. I

appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, I spent five years in the low-income housing tax credit space, both on the investor side and the developer side, and it's a sticky wicket, and it meets a need, but it also misses some needs. I will tell you as a policy matter that talked to the staff before this in more of an academic sense, not tied to a project, the one thing to consider is every community we have this conversation, there's a significant subsidy that goes along with to offset that. When we're talking about one or two units, you can sustain that in a project. We've never had a conversation with municipality anywhere in the country where there wasn't a significant offsetting piece. So we did a large project in Wisconsin. It was the largest TIF in the county's history was given to that project to support it. And projects in the city of St. Louis have it. Other municipal areas in St. Louis County have it because it's a problem everywhere. So I think it's great to ask for it. I think providing tools for developers to be able to fill that gap is significant. You know, I mean... having, it sounds simple, right? By reducing rent, you reduce the net operating income, which can take millions of dollars of value out of a project. So then when you go to finance a project, you have a huge gap, right? That's why tax credit projects work. There's a tool to fill a gap. So as long as there's a tool to the gap, I think as policy, it's a great way to think about it. Absolutely.

If I can add, I think I mentioned in my earlier remarks that I think we are actually you were a step in the right direction and actually were penalized for the fact that you wanted to build a smaller type of unit, a 750 square foot unit, which would normally be prohibited. So you were actually a long way down that road. And my point was, but for that, you wouldn't need, you'd need five less points. So that's an unfortunate part, but if this can be, if this fact that you have a 750 square foot can be even used more productively to actually be in some sense affordable well then i think we're getting to the right objective and the right result as opposed to simply trying to get this under 30 points god only knows why but if the point now is that we're going to get a good project and it's somehow going to address this particular issue it's a better project

okay i would like to close the debate down if at all possible And I think we're at a point where I'm just going to call this at 30 points. We've got a project, we've made some compromises, we had a great idea, you guys are going to fulfill it. We're only asking for one unit, so that doesn't seem like it will cost millions of dollars. I think we need to amend our ordinance here a little bit so that, and David's going to tell us how to do that. A

couple of things we'll need to do. The ordinance is very specific about how many points are being issued for each item. So are you suggesting we remove?

Just remove two from architecture. That makes it simple.

Well, that brings us to 30. But as far as the affordability requirement, do we want to add that as a,

add

one point for that? All right. So there is a section in the code, a specific. Right. category for affordability. The other thing I would want to tie that to, just so we're not sitting down trying to figure out what affordability means, I would like to tie that to the HUD published schedule for this particular area or for St. So they have a published schedule. I'm looking at it right now. I know you're familiar with it. It's the number of members of each family unit determines what that low income number is. So I prefer to use that HUD schedule to come up with

I agree. Let's use

a widely accepted standard for that would be my preference.

So we use Novigradic's online tools, kind of the industry standard that references that data set from HUD.

If the board is okay with that, I would like to use the published HUD schedule. That's fine.

The amended points, however, on that particular point, I think if I understood what the developer has said is that he's willing to work with you on it and see where it goes. We don't have a firm commitment on it, but he's willing to look at it and look at it. Is that correct?

I

think

for

the approval, we are willing to do one of the studio units. The question is, it'll be in the

hundreds.

Okay, good, good. Absolutely. That's great.

Okay. All right, so again, we're taking two off of architecture. We're adding one for attainable workforce, affordable housing, and therefore there will be 31 total points as I calculate it. And what do we need to say in order to do the motion?

Right now, the city attorney is finding that particular point section so we can make the amendment. There's one other thing real quick while we figure out this points thing that I want to bring up and just make sure everybody understands with this. One other component not related to points. So with streetscape, we've pushed the tree wells to the curb on these particular plans. It's something we talked about at the plan commission. I know it was in that presentation as well. The wider sidewalk is great. The one thing I want everybody to understand is when you move that tree closer to the curb line like that, its survivability rate goes down. If the tree does get big, there's a greater probability that those branches overhang the street and trucks get into them. So for tree health, it's... we're replacing those more often. The other thing is when you bring a tree and everything closer to the curb, you're getting sometimes within a door swing area. So if we're in that situation, I just want everybody to understand that we may need to modify parking a little bit to make sure the door swings are outside of the area where those trees or street posts might be. So I just wanted to be... clear of that potential condition here.

The arrangement of street parking spots? That's

correct. So if we need to shift them around, we may lose a parking space or something to accommodate that. But I just wanted to make sure that the board understood that and the... exchange for a wider sidewalk, we're going to have more trees dying potentially more claims with trucks and other things getting into tree branches. And we may have to modify that parking to account for door swing. We do have that one section that was brought up on Bemis and where those tree wells are up against the curb line. but we run into some of those issues there occasionally. So that was something as Public Works was taking one last look at this, we were looking at how it's applied right now in that stretch. Just one thing I wanted to throw out there. So we don't need to modify it or do a condition, but just letting everybody know and also buying Kevin a minute here.

Oh, okay. We might want to consider the selection of the type of tree so it doesn't overhang the street. We could put a protected bike lane in between. Are we doing an

amendment?

We

have to do an amendment? That's correct. Kevin's working on it. While he's working on that, since you're buying time. You mentioned the benches on the input as being part of, you know, could be part of an art installation. I suggest you look at the benches outside the Art Museum in Aspen, Colorado. They are

beautiful.

They are beautiful benches and they are actually a piece of art. So take a look at them.

Are they comfortable to sit on too? I

don't know.

Oh, you guys have that.

I have a picture of myself sitting on one though if you want to see it.

Well, also in the meantime, I can actually close the public hearing because it was left open from last time. So we got that done.

If I may, I'm trying to address the issues just discussed. Section 405.1380B4 makes reference to a public benefit of greater housing density where appropriate, excuse me, greater housing density which results in more affordable housing and ensures the community character is maintained. Pursuant to Section 405.1380 , that can be award zero to five points. So, As I understand it, there is a proposal to amend bill, whatever the hell its number

is. 6966.1.

To add in the points in table one, a reference to section 405.1380B4, describing the public benefit as a commitment to assure at least one unit of housing is permanently available for residents meeting HUD low income standards. And the idea would be to award

one point for that. Is that correct?

Let's give them two. That's a big deal.

First time it's happening in Clayton.

Noting the AMI level is very important. So if we're up in the 100 to 120% range, that would need to be added because that's a wide definition.

I believe the reference is to a tabular report from HUD that is spoken, that is expressed in dollars, not

percentage

of income.

Yeah, the dollar amounts are cross-referenced to the percentage of area median income you'll see on the

table. This last

table we're looking at doesn't have that. Let me pull up another one. It doesn't have the cross-reference on it.

This is

on a Missouri chart, so I went to the St. Louis County section.

This is the double in the detail. This had a 30%, a 60%. 30% of somebody that's living in Section

8 housing.

Right, and

the low income is the highest category on that chart. If you're using

low income housing tax credits, it is. If you go to other income sources, it would show you that. I don't know how you want to kind of codify this.

That will be the city manager's responsibility, and what

we're telling you is that's what he will be expecting when he deals with you. And the 100% to 120% of AMI range. The low-income classification from the HUD publication, which I'm sure changes from time to time. Yeah, we can't agree to

that. So that's 60% of the area median income is somebody that lives in a low-income... No, it's higher than that.

It's higher than that, but it doesn't have the exact number here. Let me see if I can pull this up for you.

Here, welcome to take a look. Can we just adapt what he's... Oh, do you need some? Yeah, I got some too. Yeah, you got glasses everywhere. I would think let's spread around it. Available this water. Okay. Punch yourselves. rather than establishing that range. And then that's updated with the US census data. I've figured out.

Yeah.

So the standard that they're requesting is the area median income calculator. And what we were looking at was HUD's published low income figure, which is 80% of area median income I don't know how the board feels about that spread there. It's for a two-person household, it's a difference of about $10,000. Making 100% of the AMI, that's an income limit of about $78,000. It's about $68,000 or so for that same scenario at the low-income level.

Like that's the actual... income we'd be talking about like qualifying

income for a family of two would be under their scenario $77,800. I'm

comfortable with

that. Absolutely. As

long as everybody works. Okay. Absolutely. We'll use 100% of area

median income. Great. Thank you.

Okay that's the number I had come up with

am I going to have to come up with that

Kevin will read it.

So I believe the motion would be to amend table one of bill. to add another entry for under code section 405.1380, parents uppercase B, parents numeral four. The public benefit being a commitment to assure at least one unit of housing is permanently available for residents meeting a maximum income of 100% of area median income and awarding two points for that.

And also reducing the two points. Well, I was going

to do them one at a time.

Oh, okay. Good. So move. Second.

Okay. And we'll vote on it. Vote on this separately. Yes. All those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed. Okay. Part two.

I believe the motion is to amend table one. The first entry pertaining to code section 405.1380B1, architectural distinction, to reduce the points awarded from three points to one point. So moved.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, very good.

I would just note then that the total number of points awarded as amended continues to be 32 points.

Right.

Okay. And is that all we have to do on this particular item?

And we can still do a second reading with an amended...

Second reading.

Correct. Okay. Are we ready?

Yes.

I'll introduce Bill 6966.1 as amended, approving the rezoning of 48 South Beamston Avenue, 4745 and 7751 Carondela Avenue from high-density commercial district to a planned unit development district to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right. I can

introduce Bill 6967, approving a plat and lot consolidation for 48 South Beemiston Avenue, 7745 and 7751 Grandolet Avenue to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderawoman Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay,

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Alderawoman Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay,

very good. Hold on. Did he need to read it for the second time? I think the

record will show that the title has been read for each of these

bills.

I expect that Alderman Lentz is going to learn the knack of how to do this.

I've almost

got it down. I've almost 10

more minutes. This is last night on our board. That's why we're joking with him. Okay, you guys are free at last. If you'd like to go. Thank you very much for your patience and good luck with the whole

project. Somebody left their backpack. He's got it. Okay, so

now we have the second quarter or the first quarter financial report.

Yes, Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance is here this evening to present the first quarter financial and then we will follow that up with an ordinance for the first

quarter budget amendment. Good evening.

If it's okay with you, I'll address the budget amendment and the first quarter financial . Okay. So I'm starting with the first quarter financial , I would like to point out that there is an error On one of the pages, it's the first quarter sales tax collection by type. The parks and stormwater sales tax was applied incorrectly to one of our accounts. When it's correctly applied, we're actually up by 12%, which puts it in line with the other sales tax collections in that term. Now the air is out of the way. Property tax receipts are lower due to the timing of collections. We did make up for it in January. It's just how people pay their taxes. Utility taxes are lower. We had a decreased consumption of natural gas. So, you know, it was a mild winter. And then the cold snap happened at the end of December, so we wouldn't have gotten those funds until January. If you'll notice, the drastic increase in sales tax collections from the pandemic era is decreasing with overall sales taxes up only 2.1%, so the gap is narrowing. Commodities are up by 51.61% over last year in the general fund, with the majority of that being in fuel, snow and ice removal, and then we had some budgeted technology projects that are coming in. Let's see. And then I want to address the sales taxes by category. If you'll notice all the categories are up from the same period in December of 2019 with restaurants seeing the most significant increase at 925.1%. That's the first quarter sales tax or first quarter financial report in a nutshell. Any questions on that? Move on to the budget amendment.

Yes,

please go ahead. I'm

sorry. The property taxes you said were made up in the following quarter. I guess the question I have is, aren't they always coming in in January? Go ahead. I guess I'm wondering why there was a big discrepancy when...

It just depends on when people pay them. Honestly, some people get their bills in November and pay them early. And then county has implemented a new system where they can remit them to us more quickly. That's been in the last few years. And then some people just don't pay until December 31st. And so then we get the bulk of them in January. But again, sometimes people pay early.

There are quite a few late payments that end up hitting that second quarter and some on-time payments as well. at the six, we were just looking at preliminary like six month numbers and we're at 73%. So you're still going to have the protested amounts that are withheld. So yeah, this is really on track with what you would typically see for a first quarter. Okay. Even though it looks like it's really, really low.

It

just looks like it was down.

So I was like, well, right. Anyway. Okay.

And really that's due to timing and the remainder of the differences across the funds. In the next quarter, like David said, I had done some preliminary numbers for the second quarter, and we're right on track. We're right around in most categories, anywhere between 48% and 52%, with the exception of the property taxes where we're at like 73%. So we are on track. It's just the first quarter, there's a bunch of timing differences. So as far as any more questions about the financial report before I move on? Okay, sorry. So the budget amendment, the net effect on the changes to the general fund is a decrease in fund balance of about $74,000. Planning is seeing a higher volume of permits issued than they anticipated. And then the major decrease is due to staff reimbursements at the police academy. We used to have a police officer teaching, I guess, a class over there and we would receive reimbursement for that. And that's no longer happening. We found that out after we passed the budget. So that's what that major decrease in revenue is there. As far as the expenses go, the fire department has begun to outsource some of their equipment maintenance. So expenses in those line items for them are increasing, but you'll see corresponding decreases in the public works department because they're not going to be handling that anymore. We've seen an increase in the need to repair traffic signals. I'm not really sure what that's about, except that I did talk to the public works director who said that people are running into them and things like that. It's on

Brentwood. So

we've increased the budget to account for those expenses. We do anticipate submitting as many as we can to the insurance to get reimbursement, but there will be upfront costs. The IRF, the Capital Improvement Fund and the Bond Construction Fund, those are, you know, we've talked all along about projects that were delayed because of the pandemic or supply chain issues or labor issues. So now we're starting to see those come around. And that's what the increases in line item expenses are in that particular area of the budget amendment. And then we also increased the fire department's contribution to the equipment replacement fund because of the two new pieces of equipment that we had previously discussed. And the overall net effect on the fund balance of the budget amendment is to decrease the fund balance by $1,092,813. Any questions on any of them? I don't think so. Okay. Great job. Thank you.

Okay, any discussion at all? Questions now? So Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6970 to approve the fiscal year 23 first quarter budget amendment to be read for the first time by title only.

Again, any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6970, first report in submitting the fiscal year 2023 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

I'm sorry, I lost my place. All those

in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6970 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6970 to approve the fiscal year 23 first quarter budget amendment to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Discussion. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6970, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending the fiscal year 2023 budget and appropriating funds pursuant thereto.

Alderman Lentz.

Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse. Aye. Alderon Patel.

Aye.

Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aldeman Fader. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay. Next on our agenda is a resolution for the naming of Maryland Park.

Yes, in 2018, the city of Clayton acquired land at 7811 Maryland Avenue with the intent to create an urban pocket park in downtown Clayton. Earlier this year, the city issued a request for bids for the pocket park at 7811 and Burns & Jones Construction Company was selected as the low bidder. As the construction phase of the project is set to begin shortly, consideration should be given to selecting a permanent name for the park. At its March 7, 2022 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed naming suggestions for the park at 7811 Maryland Avenue. The Commission unanimously voted in favor of suggesting to the Board of Aldermen the following three naming recommendations for the park. First was Remembrance Park, second Crispus Attucks Park, and finally Reverend Lewis Rhodes Park, and those aren't ranked in any particular order. The Commission also recommended that along with the park title, there should be a plaque explaining the name. All Parks and Recreation Commission members were in favor of the recommendations. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve a permanent name for the park. And one thing I would point out from a procedural standpoint is we talk about the Parks and Recreation Commission in here, If you recall, and this was a long time ago, so we're going more than a year back in time, we went to various commissions. So the Equity Commission, for example, came up with I think four or five names that they ended up sending over to Parks and Rec to consider. The Plan Commission, and I know that Alderman Gary Feder had asked the question earlier today, what happened to the name Maryland Park? That was a recommendation that was made by the Plan Commission. Parks compiled all of those, and these are the final three names that they had come up with. So I just wanted to let everybody know that there was a process before that recommendation that took impact or input from a number of boards and commissions, and it looks like Alderwoman Buse may have some

Yes, in 2018, the city of Clayton acquired land at 7811 Maryland Avenue with the intent to create an urban pocket park in downtown Clayton. Earlier this year, the city issued a request for bids for the pocket park at 7811 and Burns & Jones Construction Company was selected as the low bidder. As the construction phase of the project is set to begin shortly, consideration should be given to selecting a permanent name for the park. At its March 7, 2022 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed naming suggestions for the park at 7811 Maryland Avenue. The Commission unanimously voted in favor of suggesting to the Board of Aldermen the following three naming recommendations for the park. First was Remembrance Park, second Crispus Attucks Park, and finally Reverend Lewis Rhodes Park, and those aren't ranked in any particular order. The Commission also recommended that along with the park title, there should be a plaque explaining the name. All Parks and Recreation Commission members were in favor of the recommendations. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve a permanent name for the park. And one thing I would point out from a procedural standpoint is we talk about the Parks and Recreation Commission in here, If you recall, and this was a long time ago, so we're going more than a year back in time, we went to various commissions. So the Equity Commission, for example, came up with I think four or five names that they ended up sending over to Parks and Rec to consider. The Plan Commission, and I know that Alderman Fader had asked the question earlier today, what happened to the name Maryland Park? That was a recommendation that was made by the Plan Commission. Parks compiled all of those, and these are the final three names that they had come up with. So I just wanted to let everybody know that there was a process before that recommendation that took impact or input from a number of boards and commissions, and it looks like Alderwoman Buse may have some

more context there. Ben, you should tell from the Equity Commission as what they consider the names, and then Eric Snyder from Parks and Rec sent me a little blurb to read as well. So from then, the CEC unanimously recommended the Remembrance Park name for the new park between the library and place of worship. Our original thought was to remember the contributions of the African-American community that once thrived in Clayton. But the park is more than that. It is also to remember the Native Americans who live in the community we have named Clayton. And finally, importantly, the park and the years and years ahead will serve residents and visitors with its beauty, as Remembrance Park reflects the memories of good people who have passed on. I hope this is helpful to you and the board. And similarly, Eric sent this over, Eric Snyder from Parks and Rec. While Atticus Park, in the name of the pastor of Clayton Missionary Baptist Church, were specific locations and people to the downtown neighborhood, Remembrance Park gives the park more flexibility and signage. For instance, there could be posted signs acknowledging other hidden groups that were once in Clayton like the Osage Indians or even hidden events from Clayton's past that needed to be memorialized. These signs can be rotated out each year with a special ceremony honoring these groups. I like Remembrance Park because it ties the library and the idea of living history. Sincerely, Eric Snyder. And other names were tossed out at the time and this seems to be where things settled over the last year on the Remembrance Park recommendation. And I think both of those groups that I was a part of, oh, Eric's here. So you can correct me if I mistake something, but talked about, okay, great. Yeah, it's right here. He talks about rotating, having plaques there that can rotate with exhibits or things that anyone wants to commemorate over time and having that flexibility and really using it as part of the community. So they were all great discussions. So thank you.

And if I could just add that one of the groups that was asked for input was the Commemorative Landscape Task Force, and they unanimously supported Remembrance Park as well. I checked. So it's pretty unanimous. Becky, you had some questions about this though, so I want to see if you have those. Yeah, I just was

curious about that. I wanted to verify that that process, that that had taken place and what the recommendations were, and also the context around kind of the the background of the meaning of Remembrance Park. And so my questions have been satisfied and I support, I would support Remembrance Park based on that.

Yes.

Thank you. I read that we're talking also about this, the commemoration would be part of a plaque. Is that right? So would the plaque just name it, would just be the name or would there be substance on the plaque that somehow we would find some way of putting some substance on it?

I recollection of our discussions. Again, this was just at the commission and the committee. And they, I think they both talked about, you obviously need something naming the park, but there were discussions with having rotating exhibits or signs during different, giving the flexibility for the city and our citizens to recognize certain things at different times. So I don't know what the answer to that is or where they're going to come from. The

recommendation, I think, specifically stated that they wanted a plaque that explained what the name was. So I think adding that context as a part of that recommendation. Now, what exactly that language says, that will be our next thing to figure out.

And I can just build on that a little bit because we've talked about this a lot with our Landscape Task Force Committee and A lot of the solution here lies in having sort of a general description, but in having a reference, that square that you can put your phone onto and it leads you to a website and it it can tell you everything you want to know. I thought that was right, but I was afraid I might be wrong. It can tell you everything. You want to know about what remembrance park is about and it, and you know, electronically, it could feature different stories at different times and it's a cost-effective way of using it.

But who will be authorized to do all of that? Is that the parks and rec commission commission or where is that? I don't think

that's been determined, honestly.

That would be for the board to determine.

Okay.

Whether or not the board wants to approve it after Parks Commission comes up with that language, that's up there. Are

we going to need some kind of resolution about all that at some point?

I think the main idea is let's approve the name and then let's let our staff work out a recommendation to us on how the language will be written and how we will go about approving that or not. Yeah, I think probably we want all those same groups to be able to weigh in on that language as well.

Mayor, can I add, when the Community Equity Commission was talking about this three years ago, I think the concept was on the eastern wall of the garage. There would be an eastern wall, and there was actually going to be room for four or five plaques. That was when there was some talk about it would be dedicated potentially to famous authors who were from St. Louis, but same concept. It certainly seems to me that there's room for four or five plaques commemorating things. But to Ira's point, if you're going to have four or five plaiques, then you begin to get questions about it's a lot harder to figure out what you put on four or five plaates than it is when you put on one. So that's really going to have to be thought about. You have to make a decision if you're going really do that kind of thing. What are you going to feature? And so that it certainly takes some thought.

Well, it also costs a lot more money

to have four or Yeah, the other part of that conversation as well was the good neighbors with the library and taking advantage of the library. And if the library has a, I don't know, some commemoration of bell hooks or something that they could do that. So there was nothing concrete, just a lot of great ideas on how to use the space.

Are we all set? All right, Alderman Lentz.

I will move to approve the naming of the park at 7811 Maryland Avenue as Remembrance Park.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, very good. All right.

I'll now move to adjourn.

Oh my goodness. Well, we're not quite done and I'm gonna say something and then you can make that motion. So in keeping with your desires, we will not do a round table just expounding upon your great virtues attributes and wonderful contributions which you have been many but I am just gonna say for the record, if you don't mind that we've really gotten a lot from your participation over these nine years. This board has relied on you for a steady, although not frequent, voice in affairs. I can say without any argument, I'm sure that when Rich speaks, people listen. But your thoughtful leadership has really been crucial to many of the decisions we have made. And we really appreciate that because, I mean, you've contributed by sitting on the ARB, a lot of time spent there. I dragged you over many coals with me to develop that overlay in downtown that we worked with H3 consultants on. You know, just a lot of decisions over the years that you really had a critical role and really appreciate your time and effort spent to be knowledgeable, be informed. have fair opinions and all that good stuff. I'm gonna miss you. I'm gonna your insight very much, but mostly I'm gonna miss your humor. That's gonna be something, Ira, you got big shoes to fill, okay? Big shoes. So anyway, I just wanted to say those few words for the record and I know everybody agrees with me and just wishing you the warmest wishes and happy times for your next phase.

Thank you very much. It has been a terrific pleasure being with everybody. And, you know, it's been nine years. The entire staff, except for maybe Matt, has turned over. Um, and, uh, it's everybody has been just as, as good as the last. And it's been, uh, been, been fun for all nine years. I've really, I've really enjoyed it. And June, of course, June has always been here. Sorry.

And I hope she always will be. But thank

you very much to everybody for all your patience with, um, putting up with me and, my humor at times. So thank you. I've enjoyed it. I'll miss y'all.

Very good.

I think we can have applause. Okay, I'll now take a motion

to adjourn. I'll

move to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Very good. don't look so happy all right so so now we will do the swearing in of our new altar do we do the um when do we do this oh that was on consent pardon me i forgot that okay what did you say we already we already had the uh election results in the consent agenda for anybody who else who's wondering um so now we'll have the swearing in

Once it gets going in, we're going to have to move.

Sure. Should I do that now? Okay. I'm going to do

it. Yeah, I was going to say I'm going to sit on the short chair. Oh, go shoot it this way. We're going to do the whole group. I'm confused. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Susan over here and Allie and Susan over here. Woo! So if you wanted to sit in the audience.

You have a wrong nameplate. Don't want to be misguided.

I hope the chair meets your needs. I just was excited. I was getting out of wood chairs. Oh, all right. Thank you. Pretty comfortable this chair. Raise that up probably. Oh yeah, thank you. Quite a different perspective from here, isn't it? No joke. I can see the arch from here. No one was earlier.

Because I never turned it on. That's not important to

you. I was like it up here, you know.

My stepdaughter.

Oh, sweet.

I invited my family to participate in this civics experiment.

Well, mine was on Zoom and I had family watch because we were all

still remote

then.

Press the button. Click on sign in. As soon as one sits down, another one gets up. I don't understand what's happening. Okay, we're ready to begin. We're ready.

Ah, okay. Okay, we're ready to begin our second meeting of the night. Will you please call the

roll?

Sorry. Alderman Berkowitz.

Here.

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

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

Here.

Aldernan Rick Hummell. Here. City Manager David Gipson.

Aldernan Hummel. Here. City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

All right. Another opportunity for public requests and petitions. If anybody in our office, in our audience here or online has a comment that is not for something not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. Okay, seeing none, we can go ahead with our consent agenda item.

We'll just need a motion and a vote. One would like to remove them.

So if there is no discussion about the consent agenda, okay, we'll take a motion from Alderman Berkowitz.

I move to approve the consent agenda with the items listed.

Second.

Any discussion? Alderman Berkowicz.

Aye.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldernan Gary Feder.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldernan Fader.

Aye.

Aldemann Rick Hummell.

Aldemann Hummel.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye. Thank you. All right, ready for the city manager report? First item.

Yes, on March 28th, 2023, the Board of Aldermen approved Resolution 2023-12, adopting a selection process for the municipal judge. Recruitment for applications to serve on the municipal judge interview panel was advertised on the city's website. and also in Clayton Connection on April 7th, 2023 with the deadline of April 20th, 2023 to apply. The city received 12 applications to which copies were sent to the Board of Aldermen for review. Tonight we will hear the board's recommendations for appointments.

All right. You want me to read those then, huh? I will. Okay. I can say that this was a very thoughtful process with a lot of discussion and a huge amount of thought. The recommendation for tonight is to appoint two more expert panelists, and all of these were arrived at via tally among the whole board. So people voted, we tallied it up, and this is how it turned out. So the two experts would be Michael Jamison and William Waller. The community or at large position, which would either be coming from the Equity Commission or some member of the community is a Community Equity Commission member, Shante Bolton. And the elected official is recommended to be Alderman

Ira Berkowitz. Any discussion? I just

had a comment, Mayor, not relating to the choices, which I'm fine with, but I do think it turned out to be a very good process that we had. I know there was a little bit of unhappiness about the revisions to the resolution, but I think it turned out have a larger panel and I just wanna just mention a couple of people who, Karen Schuette and Karen Fairbank, who are citizens who even though they were not selected, I think they're people who I hope we would consider in the future I think it was great to have those people come out and express interest, and other than that, I'm fine with the selections.

Any other comments from anybody? Okay, great. I do want to just say one thing, and just as a general comment about the way the panel will operate, I believe we've discussed this, but our city attorney will help us by issuing some guidelines about the kinds of questions and sort of some rules of the road for questions for the panel to be using during the interview process of judge candidates. And also, I think it's part of the role of the elected official to kind of guide the process itself and to try to make sure that people are staying within those guidelines that we all will accept. So that being said, Do we just have a voice vote?

Motion. Motion,

okay. Would you like to make it?

I move to approve the appointments as provided by Mayor Harris.

Second. Any

discussion? Voice vote? Voice vote?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, very good. Great job, everybody. Thank you. Mr. City Manager, next item.

Yes, the Public Works Department is requesting approval of a construction contract for the fiscal year 2023 microsurfacing project with Microsurfacing Contractors LLC. This project includes the application of microsurfacing on the streets in Clayton Gardens, Parkside, Polo Country Club, Clayshire and neighborhoods and on Carondelet Plaza. Additional pay items include pavement markings, concrete base repair and traffic control. Work is expected to take place in early summer of 2023 and last approximately two to three weeks, weather permitting. Bids were opened on March 10th, 2023, and the city received two bids as shown on the bid tabulation. Microsurfacing Contractors LLC submitted the lowest responsive responsible total bid in the amount of $550,659.14. This includes add alternates for base repair and fiber reinforcement additive that minimizes reflective cracking and protects the underlying base from water intrusion. The bid of the next lowest bidder was 10% higher. This project also includes base repairs and paving to Westmoreland Avenue, which was originally scheduled for fiscal year 2022. It is expected that this will bring the total to $620,916 plus a contingency of $10,000 for a total of $930,916. The fiscal year 23 budget has $564,411 budgeted and the first quarter budget amendment contains proposed changes to cover the additional funds required. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing a contract with Microsurfacing Contractors LLC in the amount of $550,659.14 plus authorization to approve change orders and an amount not to exceed $81,257.82 for a total of $631,916.82. Thank you, Mr. Malik, for all of those. This is for the fiscal year 2023 microsurfacing project. Couldn't you just round it up to the... Oh, he's back there smiling. I know.

Okay, I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments Matt is here if you want to ask him questions.

I have. Did you really just ask an engineer to round.

I was just poking them a little. Yeah, you're right.

Yes, go ahead. Man, I've got a question for you. And I got a visit from American Water recently, and they were talking to me about lead pipes and all and how they're going to make all these changes and do all this stuff out in the street. And I'm like, so is there some coordinating going on with American Water that you guys are working with them? I hope, because it sounds like they could really mess up whatever we're doing.

No comment. Yeah, they came in about... I

missed it. He had a big pipe and showed it to us.

A

short version. They have been coordinating with us. We're trying to clear up some discrepancies between their lead service line replacement program and their service line replacement program, which they're taking advantage of doing both kind of at the same time throughout the city right now. They are prioritizing the areas where we're going to be paving this summer and trying to get those done first so they're not coming in after the fact. But we are coordinating with them. We have a meeting with them tomorrow to further clarify this, to be able to address some resident concerns as they're starting work. All right. Great.

Thank

you.

Other discussion or questions? All right. Alderman Berkowitz, would you give us the motion?

I'd like to move to introduce or I'd like to introduce bill number 6971 to approve a contract with micro surfacing contractors LLC for the fiscal year 23 micro surfacing construction project to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion. The attorney.

If we could note that the board this evening received at your places a revised draft of Bill 6971, correcting a typo. And the bill as introduced is not the one in the digital packet, but is introduced with the text that is distributed physically to the board this evening. With that notation, bill number 6971, first reading an ordinance approving a contract with microsurfacing contractors LLC for the fiscal year 2023 microsurfacing project.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

I'd like to move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 6972 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

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

I'd like to introduce bill number 6971 to approve a contract with Microsurfacing Contractors LLC for the fiscal year 2023 Microsurfacing Construction Project to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6971, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Microsurfacing Contractors LLC for the fiscal year 2023 microsurfacing project.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Alderman Rick Hummell. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Alderman Berkowitz? Aye. Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Fader. Aye. Alderman Hummel. Aye. Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay, you may think that we're done, but we're really not. A couple of things. One, we've had a recent vacancy on the non-uniform employee pension or retirement fund board. And so I'd like to see if we can go ahead and appoint someone that has applied to fill in Rick's spot. How long have you been on that?

20 years.

20 years, and you've been the chair, correct? Yeah. So he's vacating, and we need someone to fill his seat. When is the next meeting? May 8th. And so that's why we thought we would do it tonight, and I think you have at your desk Oh, you didn't do it? Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you would have it. But the person who has applied is Frederick O'Neill. He lives on Y Down. And... Perhaps, Rick, I think you know him. Maybe you'd like to give a little background.

Sure. So I've known Fred since 1984. He was a neighbor in Ward 3 for a long time, and now he's a resident in Ward 1. Fred is the Chief Operating Officer of Computer Sales International. He's got a finance and account background. He manages their pension fund and just a terrific guy. And so he has the acumen and experience to fulfill the requirements of this position.

If I could, Mayor, this is absolutely no bearing on the applicant. But my general perception is that we have been doing a very good job of posting open positions publicly and soliciting for applicants and providing time for people to like indicate their interest before considering who fills a vacancy. And so I would ask that we consider if this is not urgent and time sensitive, that we go through that public process and ensure that we are continuing to publicly invite anyone in the community who might be interested to fill these positions.

I think that's a fair comment. I know that there was some concern about not being able to have a quorum for the next meeting, and so I'm not sure what the critical nature of that agenda was personally. I don't know. I'd be

happy to weigh in and respond to that.

Yeah, sure. So

historically this position goes wanting for long periods of time for citizen members to be part of the panel. There are two employee members participants in the plan, um, uh, generally two aldermanic appointments and then three citizens, one representing each of the wards, um, is the goal. And that has been what's typically there keeping the citizen members apart of this has been a real challenge. And the dilemma is to make sure that we have an adequate quorum in order to do the business of the, um, the committee, the committee generally only meets four times a year. And so, um, And there's different things we need to approve in a timely fashion. Sometimes there are actuarial ports, the annual audit or other timely factors. The next meeting is in May and then the following meeting won't happen for another three months after that. The risk of course is that there's not a quorum that could meet because a lot of the people that are citizen members travel. And so I'm trying to reduce the mitigation or mitigate the risk of not having a quorum for that particular meeting.

Yeah, others,

what are we thinking? Unfortunately, I just closed my minutes. But isn't this person already an alternate? Or wouldn't they step into the...

No, Fred has had no involvement with the city at all, no.

You're thinking of the appointment that we made in the first consent agenda. Oh, thank you. Which was an

alternate. Yeah, I think that if we can follow our process, keeping it open and accessible, that would be great. I don't know if that meeting can be... rescheduled or how to handle it we verify we can

have a quorum as long as everyone shows up so we're right on that edge so whether or not Rita who is the staff person for that particular group if she can come up with some kind of time that may work for everyone we might have to potentially deviate from our regular meeting time but I think a quorum is possible looking at the numbers here as long as we have everyone

and you know i mean our next meeting when we would want to give at least two weeks of notice for public a lot of times we give 30 days So I don't know how everybody feels about the time period, but we could then, you know, we could possibly, if you can't find a quorum, you could move the meeting to later in May and maybe we would have a little bit of a shorter application phase so that we could make our final meeting in May or something like that. I'm just suggesting. Meanwhile, we can post it. And I think that's good. We can post it and then... what see what how maybe other people will sign up but you you can let him let us know or figure out if there's not going to be a quorum then we'll have to take some action whatever it is i'll have

rita smith get in touch with the members to see if that date and time works if not then we'll see if we can find one that works uh just as far as the meeting schedule as alderman Rick Hummell pointed out we don't have another meeting before they're going to to get together in early may there um so uh If we want to appoint somebody, this is really the opportunity unless we push that meeting back. But again, we may be able to work it out as far as the date and time.

rita smith get in touch with the members to see if that date and time works if not then we'll see if we can find one that works uh just as far as the meeting schedule as alderman hummel pointed out we don't have another meeting before they're going to to get together in early may there um so uh If we want to appoint somebody, this is really the opportunity unless we push that meeting back. But again, we may be able to work it out as far as the date and time.

The other thing I would ask, too, is that Alderman Lentz has been one of the representatives. And so I think it would be important, again, for the goal of having a quorum to appoint a new member to an aldermatic member. And so if any of you would like to do that, I won't step in your way. But we do need to have somebody appointed. I've already been there and it's very exciting. I really highly recommend

it. I suspect all of us have done that.

Rich said he'd volunteered to stay with it.

So that's something I hadn't planned, but should have. We can do that tonight. Just a

point of clarification, David, do we need the aldermanic representative to have a quorum?

The aldermanic representative counts towards a quorum. We do have one right now, which would be Alderman Gary Feder, and then Alderman Lentz's spot would be vacated.

The aldermanic representative counts towards a quorum. We do have one right now, which would be Alderman Fader, and then Alderman Lentz's spot would be vacated.

So we're all here. Is there any objection to appointing another aldermanic liaison tonight?

Rick, are you volunteering? I'd be more than happy to do it, yes. I had a feeling.

Seeing no objection. I think you're the perfect person. We appreciate that. Yes, exactly. Perhaps we could have a motion to appoint Rick as the automatic

liaison. I move to appoint Rick Hummell as the automatic liaison to the pension

liaison. I move to appoint Rick Hummel as the automatic liaison to the pension

uniform. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, you're it. Thank you very much for your service. I should

be able to make that work. I think I can make that.

Thank you. Very good. Thank you for bringing that up. Okay, so one last thing. would be that we now have a new mayor pro tempore. And so I need a motion from someone other than him to appoint Ira as the new mayor pro temp.

I will move to approve Alderman Berkowitz as the mayor pro tempore, I will second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, any opposed? I didn't allow for discussion. I'm a little

upset I don't have my plaque yet.

It's coming.

Okay,

I think that is the last thing here. And like I said, no roundtable. And so I would take a motion to adjourn finally.

Move to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you, guys.