June 25, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

well good evening everybody welcome to uh our july 20 or june i'm fast forwarding june 25th meeting of the clayton board of aldermen um we will um have a discussion session first from 6 30 to 7 and i believe we have msd here to talk about prop s and what that means for our cities um Do you have anything else to add to that?

No. All right. Brian Holscher and Bess McCoy here this evening.

My name is Brian Holstrand, the executive director and CEO at MSD. I'm going to do two things and I'm going to work off of one piece of paper, one chart that'll be up on your screens. I want to talk about just give some background as to how we got to where we are right now and then really dive into the thing that I believe staff wants you to understand so that you can make a decision about how you may want to move forward. So Some background. Prior to the April elections, MSD funded stormwater work for creek erosion and flooding through little sub-districts, little taxing districts that were formed in the 1960s. They are only located in general between the city of St. Louis city limits and 270. And there's seven of them that are currently being billed. That was the only places we collect taxes. It's the only place we provided a service. Prop S changed that. So the commitment was Proposition S is a district-wide revenue source, which is a city of St. Louis and about 90% of St. Louis County. If that goes in place, our commitment, our starting point was then to turn off all the OMCIs or set them at zero. That's what the change was. Both of those programs... I mean, the big difference, I guess, is obviously the district-wide one now provides services to everybody instead of just a small group of folks. But the point we really want to get down to both of the past program that was the OMCI, which is Operation Maintenance Construction Improvement. That's just a name in the ordinances for these taxing sub-districts. Both of them had a local municipal stormwater grant program. And it looks different between the two programs. I'm really going to zone in on that because that's what we have been asked by some municipalities to consider something more than just the passage of Prop S. I'm going to describe to you tonight what that is. So if you look at the chart that's in front of you, the second municipality from the top is Clayton. That first entry you see under fiscal year 2025, which for us is tax year 2024, Clayton would have available to it, and they will for this last year, about $400,000 worth of stormwater grant funds available to do whatever you felt was the highest priority stormwater problem in your city. Every municipality had the option for different dollar values to use this. Some used it. Some decided we really want you to spend it just within the area on your higher, more regional type projects. We actually have some taxing sub-districts that said we don't even want the option of having municipal grants. You just spend it all. So everybody did something different. And that's what you see on this sheet here. What happens is if you go to Proposition S, you'll see Clayton will now have available to it $125,000 per year for municipal grants for the city of Clayton. If you wish to say we have a stormwater problem, this is our priority. We would like MSD to provide a grant to us to do this work on our own. The change in the number is due to the methodology. So under that first column under OMCI, the amount of monies that went to the city of Clayton was based on property values. These are both property taxes. It was higher under proposition. And the reason we were able to do that, we had just small sub-districts by watersheds with communities that looked pretty much the same. financially and everything else. Now we've got a revenue source that's our entire 525 square miles. The distribution is now by population. And that's why you see the difference where Proposition S, the amount changes. With that, the results were there are 60 municipalities who are in some of the OMCI's multiple ones or in half the cities in one. 44 of those folks are having available to them larger municipal grants than they have in the past. Seven are getting about the same amount of money. There are nine who are getting less, Clayton being one of them, as to what would be available to you. Those nine have asked if MSD would consider if the municipalities felt it was important enough to keep some of the OMCI tax in place in order to raise the amount that's available on an annual basis for a stormwater grant program. This isn't MSD's initiative. We're here talking to you about this. Municipalities have asked us, is there a way we can express our opinion for your board of trustees to consider something? And so what we've set up, so right now, before I move forward, another explanation, you're in a big OMCI called Deer Creek. You're in a very small part of the city of Clayton is when something called the University City branch of River to Pear. very small part of the city. For instance, in Deer Creek, you see on the chart, you get about a 401,000 available per year. That other sub-district's about 17,000. Like I said, there's just barely a part of Clayton that's in it. So I'm just going to concentrate on Deer Creek right now for an explanation purposes. So what they asked us to do after talking with them was to consider leaving one quarter of the property tax in place of what it currently is. Right now, it's 6.4 cents per $100 valuation. The request is to consider, have staff consider, ask the trustees to consider leaving one quarter of that or 1.6 cents for $100 valuation, assessed valuation of the OMSA, leave it in place. And the sole purpose of that revenue is to give it back to the municipalities as additional municipal grant funds. None of it would be used by MSD. So if you take a look at the chart, that 1.6 cents, you look at the last column under Clayton, you see it's about $200,000. So if as we move forward that were in place, Clayton would then have available to it on an annual basis either for saving for another project or for using immediately 125,000 plus 200,000 which would be $325,000 in municipal grants potentially available to you to spend on any stormwater issue you felt was your highest priority. Just like the OMCIs, and I'm saying because I understand from staff that the city of Clayton made a decision in the past to just let those go ahead and forfeit into the larger region and just do projects. That's what the past decision by the city was. Like you said, like a lot of others. The same thing applies here. If these aren't used right now, they will go into the bigger pot and solve the bigger regional issues. That's where they'll be turned over into. So the impact on your customers, on your residents, moving from the existing OMCI to Proposition S is about break even. The real estate tax for Prop S is slightly higher, but it does not include personal property tax. So your residents, as far as property tax, your residential customers will not see any change. this option on the far right to leave part of the OMCI tax in place, the impact of that is about $25 per year on their property tax bill for every $750,000 appraised value, not assessed, appraised value. Appraiser comes out and says you have a $750,000 home, it's 25 bucks or whatever multiple or less of that that you want. That's the impact on the customers. The commitment we made and most of this, well, all of this initial request is coming from some of the municipalities you see under this watershed. These are the folks who said, hey, we want you to consider that. What we told them we would do is if we can get elected officials in that OMCI district who represents 75% of the population to say, we will write you a letter and we will tell you, we are asking you to go to your board of trustees and see if they will put this in place. We've committed once we get support that represents 75% of population, we're willing to do that, that far right column to add that. We made no guarantee that we would move forward Guarantee was that staff would present it to the board of trustees that the folks there were supporting this. Remember, our goal with Proposition S was to not have small taxing districts and just have a district-wide program, kind of similar to what we do with wastewater. So we're in that process now. We've described that to, we've gotten a little bit of response from folks. We know they're thinking this through right now. Different municipalities are doing it a different time. So what Clayton has the option of doing is for both of the OMCIs, but I'll concentrate on Deer Creek here right now, is if you want to proactively send us a letter indicating that the city of Clayton would like MSD to recommend to its board of trustees to put this additional 1.6 cents on instead of just leaving the tax at zero, send us that information. Or you can do nothing, which we will count as no support. You are against it. You can also let us know. We've had one municipality that's done that so far. There's no guarantee that if we get 75% of the population represented that they want this turned on, that our board will. If we have 75% that want it turned on or representatives who... elected officials represent 75% of the population that want it turned on. That's mean there's another set of elected officials who represent 25% of the population in the district who haven't said they want it turned on, but that's kind of the bar we've set for our board to even start having the consideration and started getting public comment on this type of issue. So hopefully, and thanks to staff, I think I've hopefully done this a way that I've explained it enough for you to understand what you're looking at here. Again, MSD is not asking for this. We put the program in place to be sustainable through Proposition S to go forward and start trying to solve our stormwater problems. But there is an option for Clayton to decide if they would like to let us know if they have an opinion on this or if you have no opinion, you don't have to submit any information to us. The due date is we would have asked that any kind of correspondence come by the end of September. That'll give us time then to prepare our own budget and also to plan for leaving part of this tax in place for tax year 2025. So we ask that we do that. The other thing is, this is not a one-time shot. This has the potential of coming up every year. And we suspect it might. We've heard from folks who said, well, if it goes once, we may decide it's a bad idea and shut it off. Will you do that? And the answer is yes. Our board's going to listen to any public comment. There are a couple of folks who want to charge more. then one quarter of that tax. And they said they will be notifying us of that. They want to go up to instead of 1.6 cents, 3.2 cents. That's what they want to recommend to our board. So we'll see what all that looks like. It is something that could come up every year, however it works. Hopefully, I've given a good enough explanation of what the options are that the city council can consider from this proposal. Again, we haven't heard from a whole lot of folks yet. It was generated from the municipalities who are in the Deer Creek watershed. They're the ones who really asked us to set up a process together, public comment for our board.

What are those municipalities? I think it's a subset of these municipalities.

Yeah, it is a subset of those.

But which ones?

It's a subset of those we told them we would make sure we made it public at the time we presented to our trustees. So

want to know, we don't want to know. We committed,

we committed that we wouldn't necessarily indicate which ones have done it. So I will tell you it's been we've received information from two. Okay. To have been in support in the Deer Creek watershed.

excuse me for a second clarity so all of these are part of the deer creek watershed

all of those municipalities or at least part of the municipality is in the deer creek watershed correct

and then the so the omci funds so the extra 200 000 that could potentially come back to clayton Just so I understand OMCI funds, my understanding is you guys, I mean, our public works director might take a project to you, but you ultimately approve the funds, right? It's not like our public works director is saying we have a stormwater problem, so therefore come in and fix it. MSD, you guys approve all of those and approve the expenditure of all those funds.

The way the program is set up is, and I would tell you it's very flexible. The whole idea of having the municipal grant program is give the cities the ability to do things they think is a higher priority than MSD sitting back and having more of a regional priority system. So it does require a board approval, but the standards are pretty low. It has to be a stormwater related issue And you need to send it to staff. Staff will look at it, agree that, yeah, that's a stormwater issue. And our board then needs to approve the agreement. And that would then simply put in place that we will reimburse you once the project is done.

And then depending on the cost of that project, if it's in excess of, I don't know, you know, $325,000 or whatever the case may be in a fiscal year, can the funds roll over?

And since you have $325, is a good number. If you've got a $1 million stormwater project, you can tell us we want you to save the money for us. We'll be back in three years once there's sufficient funding to do that project. You have the ability to do that.

So if we, you know, because you're saying if we don't use the $200,000, our staff can say, you know, put it into the regional fund, right? But can't we also bank it? So how do you decide when to bank it? I think it's the other

way around. Think of it as if we don't hear from you, and we'll ask a couple times, and there are some who say we just don't want to be part of this. That's when we put it in the regional fund. If you tell us we have a project, there's no decision on our spot. We will just simply hold the money for you until that project comes.

Potentially on an annual basis, we would need to touch base and say we're interested in a project and you keep holding onto the money.

So staff will probably ask on an annual basis. But understand if we talk to somebody and say we're holding the money for four years, I'm sure staff on an annual basis will come out and say, is that still the case? Yeah, it is. Fine. And we're off and running. So.

And I'm kind of curious, you know, it seems like a lot of the sewer problems are very regional. You know, I mean, you've obviously undertaken a lot of big projects around us. You know, you recently dug a giant hole in our dog park and built a huge, you know, subterranean tunnel that goes to Riverdale. I think it's

our ballpark, our dog park, but okay.

Yes.

I was here when we did that. So

yeah, yeah. Semantics right so. But, so I know that you're doing a lot of big region, I'm just curious how important it is for us to hold on to our money for our residents like I'm just curious, how many smaller projects you see that are even feasible for municipalities to do.

And if I could, historically, I think this would be helpful to kind of give you the historical background. So I had some conversations with Matt about this as well and decisions that have been made in the past. So most of our flooding issues that are apparent when we have major rain aren't localized issues. For instance, the area around Morelands or Clabrack on Clayton Road, those are because of downstream conditions. So the city's viewpoint was always take care of the downstream issues and that will help us because we do have very few localized issues. Topton is one that has popped up and that we've identified as a project. There's a previous OMCI that was Central Clayton or Central County OMCI or something. There's a balance there, and that's what's going to be applied towards that project on Topton. But aside from that, The city hasn't actually identified any small projects within Clayton that could be remedied with the OMCI. The mindset in the past has always put it towards the larger regional issues because that's actually what is causing any kind of issues that, that actually manifest here within Clayton. We're actually very fortunate that a lot of the communities on this list, when there's big rain, you know, our fire EMS are going out and performing swift water rescues and Rock Hill and Brentwood and these other communities are And so that's where the focus has been is trying to relieve those particular issues around us because we really don't have, we're really fortunate within our city limits, substantial stormwater problems like that.

Yeah, and I mean, I guess for the benefit of the board, there's a pretty serious drainage issue on Topton Way. So we were actually really lucky and happy to hear that OMCI funds will be used for the project. They can't start construction for like two or three years, but at least it's going to be an approved project. So I think it was helpful for me to kind of understand how those funds worked. um and David thank you I know that we've but that is helpful also to hear that historical information but just understanding that if we were to ask our residents to pay more money to actually see if it's beneficial for our community so and in this instance like on Topton like the residents are very relieved that they will get some relief it's going to take a while but you know And I have no idea how much that project is going to cost or where the money is coming from. I mean, I know OMCI funds, but I don't know if we've been banking our OMCI funds for a while. I think we've been letting them go.

Matt may be able to give us more information on that. Go ahead.

I may get the name on this wrong, so sorry. But since 1968, I believe, the Clayton Central OMCI had been collecting tax and it was shut off in 2008, but still continued to carry a balance. It is basically the core of downtown, a little bit up Merrimack, a little bit down Maryland. This project just happened to be right on that border and was able to utilize those funds.

So those funds have just been sitting there collecting interest. How much money is there in there?

um i think last check it was a little near two million dollars since that time frame so this will you know that'll use a significant portion of that i anticipate um i think um some other projects that msd may have identified it's been a few months now but it was lining up some sewers in that um that region so those funds can't be used city-wide it's it's dedicated to that that area but um that's my understanding of where that how it was structured more came from

thank you man

And I think the fact that those funds have been sitting there since 2008 just kind of illustrates that as far as widespread flooding issues, we don't have many that would warrant large projects.

Well, the problem is the projects are so expensive that our OMCI money wouldn't really cover it usually. I didn't realize it was. could accumulate. So I didn't know there was that much there.

Oh, so we're clear. That has been accumulating, if not used, since the 1960s. And what happened is we get to a point, like you said, it collects just a little bit of money because it's not a very large area. And it takes a long time to build, which is one of the reasons we don't want to use the OMCIs. Matter of fact, we stopped collecting, like you said, in 2008. There used to be 23 of them. We only collect money from seven of them right now. We've spent most of them down, except for the areas where it's very hard to spend out the monies. Since you brought up, I think one Thing to consider, and you guys are in a better position, the Prop S money can be spent in your city or in cooperation with other cities for any project. So Prop S is more flexible. The OMCIs are very, especially in the case of Clayton, not only can you just use them in Clayton, but only in a certain part of Clayton with the OMCI. The Prop S, those dollars, and some municipalities are already doing this planning projects. Sometimes a solution doesn't recognize municipal boundaries. And the solution, you know, is to take care of the problem. So there is that flexibility in the proposition S grant. Some municipalities are in a position to do something like some or not.

Any other, we'll just kind of go around. Any questions

right now? No, I remember the conversation before when we when we deferred to giving it regionally because it was a responsibility. We had a lot of money and we didn't have the need, and it was a regional need. We need to fix things coming into and out of Clayton. And I was surprised to hear we had money sitting in one fund for this. So if something needs to be done under Proposition S, then what you're saying is that we still have some municipal control over that smaller amount, but we could be working with Richmond Heights or Mayport or something else to pool that and come and address it. And in the same type of approval, I assume from you all.

It would just be a demonstration to us that it is a stormwater project that the municipalities say we want to build this. This is what we wanna do. Our board invariably will approve that. It's that simple.

But it just comes down to when?

Yeah, and I won't pretend to understand how the authority is there to, you know, whether or not we want to add an additional or continue a tax, but that's okay. I'm sure smarter people. So

well, no, since you asked, there aren't a whole lot of taxes are sitting around that are grandfathered in prior to the Hancock amendment. These happen to be these are one of them. Yes, we have. We're trying to get rid of all of our old stuff. This is the oldest stuff that's still sitting around. So yeah that's one word for it but

yeah so that's that's what i was gonna ask because i was i am maybe still missing kind of the crux of the matter which is are we is the the proposal to like continue or extend some portion of the omci Would that result in a tax increase for our residents?

Correct.

Yes. Yes. And so the Board of Trustees of MSD has the authority to issue that tax policy.

to annually set a tax rate that's no higher than what's been approved by the state of Missouri for that OMCI that was grandfathered in from the 1960s. Right now, that maximum cap after it goes through the Hancock analysis sits at 6.4 cents. MSD board has the ability on an annual basis to set it anywhere as long as it's within that 6.4 cents. And that's why we're talking here about what we're offering is charging one quarter of that or about 1.6 cents.

And so can you remind me, what we communicated to residents and voters about Prop S. Like, so, because what I'm hearing, what I think you're saying is right, we had this idea to move away from the OMCI as the funding mechanism and to move to Prop S. And it's both like a different actual funding mechanism or taxing authority, as well as a different way of distributing the funds within the district. So to be clear, Prop S was approved, which means MSD gets to assess the Prop S tax as a property tax. And our voters would have had the idea that the OMCI was going away with that. And what you're being asked by some municipalities is to go back and say, oh, actually, we're still going to assess some portion of the OMCI because even though we told you we probably weren't going to, we can. And so even though it's not subject to Hancock, that's not going to feel great. Right? Am I missing something?

No, you're explaining exactly the decision you have to make. That's

what we have to decide.

And our answer was, yes, we are. Because our commitment was not to charge it. Yeah, you don't want

to use it. You've decided to operate differently.

But we do have customers who have asked us to put something in place, again, that staff would take to our board for consideration. This doesn't mean they will say yes. Right, right. The only thing we're asking is trying to get an opinion from the municipalities in the various OMCI's. Okay.

And David, my other question is I think for you. So we talked about this Clayton Central OMCI that ended some number of years ago and had some money sitting in it. Um, have we been like holding our funds in the other OMC eyes or forfeiting them to regional projects? Or can you talk about that a little bit more? I

understand that money has been forfeited to the regional.

Okay. So we've been in the practice of forfeiting the money from the Deer Creek and New City OMC eyes. for regional projects. And...

The 2 million that was mentioned earlier, that's the separate OMCI that was used in 2008 and the balance is still just sitting there. For the two that we're talking about this evening, we've been deferring those for a number of years. So we

don't have balances sitting in those and we have not been in the practice of using those funds or earmarking them for anything. There were no projects

identified within those eligible areas, so we deferred that to the region.

And with the exception of a couple things, like obviously, I don't want to underestimate the impact of our residents who have that flooding, like that hasn't felt like a burden to our residents, or our staff's ability to like plan projects. Right? Okay. Thank you.

Questions, comments?

Well, my general reaction is obviously this change in the formula from looking at property tax to population. Clearly, we're one of the six who are sort of disadvantaged by that. For me, the bottom line is, as was talked about, for example, in Topton, there is a need for being able to address different kinds of projects. It sounds to me like the impact on our residents would be exceedingly small and so i think given the flexibility of this i would you know i would be supportive of of seeking the to be supportive of this as one of the cities who would request this kind of flexibility

that would would request the tax

yes yeah yes so um i'm um still somewhat confused by all of this, but I think that my understanding is since we've rarely used this, that most of the problems are in other parts of our broader community and that we need funds to fix those to address our own problems. And Prop S went to our voters and all voters to approve these major issues in our service area, that that is what we're supposed to do. And that since consequently, these OMCIs are designed for higher priority community projects, which we don't have, I struggle to understand why we would do this. unless there is something about the greater whole that we aren't doing our fair share to tax our taxpayers to help the region, which seems kind of a backwards way of looking at things. And so I don't subscribe to that, but I'm trying to figure out either what I'm missing or why we would do this. And so I, I don't know that there's any comment you need to make that I'm just processing it. So.

Stephanie, thank you.

Yeah, just a couple. So, I mean, Becky asked a lot of the questions I did, but help me out. So in this, when it says Clayton, are we talking a portion of Clayton or is that the whole city?

It is not the whole city. There's a portion of Clayson that's in something called the university city branch of river to pair.

Did you mention, so like what's, if I'm trying to think of like a percentage of Clayton we're talking about, are we talking 10% of the city, 50% of the city?

I think if we look at it by, I think the OMCI grants amounts that you would be getting in each. So in Deer Creek, it's 401,000 per year. right now prior to it stopping. In the University City branch of River to Parrot, it's 17,000. It's a very small portion of Clayton that's actually in a Dunder OMCI. 17,000. I don't have the exact map with me or know exactly where the location's at, but...

I know that Matt has a copy of it. I mean, ballparking, I took a quick look at it. Maybe, what, 40% is in the Deer Creek and very small, under 5% or so in the U-City.

I would say largely we're probably 75% to 80% of Deer Creek. Okay. The remainder geographically is University City, and it's focused really it skirts the northern edge of the city a little bit.

Okay. Thank you, Matt. So I guess that's what I'm saying to this. So what would be service and available for the 401,000 now and the 20,000 later is 40% of Clayton? I'm just trying to understand how much land mass of the city of Clayton would actually be eligible for this money.

I'll let Brian correct me if I'm wrong on this. The $125,000 you see up there is under Prop S and would be the entire city.

Okay.

The additional... MSD has developed as a response to these communities looking for another option would be that quarter percent of the tax that they can charge to generate the extra $200,000. That would still have to be spent within the Deer Creek watershed.

Within the Deer Creek Watershed, which is, do you have a line with where it's at? I believe that's up there. So the part of the city that's not, you know. So this red line. So the part the city is right here. I mean,

we're not voting today. I

was just trying to scale

it. I think the one thing I can give you, that ratio is indicative of property values. So the property value as a ratio in Deer Creek is $401,000 compared to $17,000 is the ratio of property value in University City branch based on the taxing. So it's It sounds like I would suspect based on what I said, it may not be completely developed. I'm not really sure what the area looks

like. Okay. I mean, for me, it comes down to at some point it was proposed to voters that it was going to be replaced. And I don't know if we should be in the position to go against voters voted for it. This is what they expected. I don't, I'd be hard pressed to then go back and say, okay, yeah, we know you voted for this thinking this, but we're going to go ahead and layer the tax anyway because we think we know better than what voters have voted for. But anyway, that's my initial kind of two cents on it. But we obviously have a larger discussion and vote on it.

So we need to kind of wrap it up since five after seven. So we have to start a regular meeting. So I think what we have, we don't make a decision tonight. I think it would be great if David and Matt could help us educate us just a little bit more before we do make a decision. I'd love to see a map of all these different districts and to know if if some of our nearby cities that are adjacent to us, kind of what they're thinking. And the main thing is, are there joint projects that would be really important? Let's just say between Richmond Heights and Clayton, you mentioned that across Clayton, where they find upstream problems there. So are there projects like that, that if we had this money, we could solve combining with Richmond Heights or whoever or not, and any other sort of nuances of this thing that we're not picking up on tonight and we could have another discussion and then decide what we want to do. And we have until the end of September, you said?

For this year. It can always come up again next year.

Oh yeah. Okay. True. So it's not, it's not a deal. It's not

an all or nothing for this year. It's something that potentially could come up every year.

Right.

Okay.

Did you

have

some clarification? So my understanding was that based upon the old system, it has to be sent within that geographic boundary. of the watershed. Based on the new system, we can combine funds with...

There are some cities, if you're familiar with 24-1 up in the Normandy School District, who pool their funds for infrastructure repairs anyway. They will be pooling their monies of all the city's And those cities may not get a benefit. They may decide in this area we're going to do this with that funding.

The distinction, though, is that under the prop S? That's under

prop. All I'm talking about is prop S. Not talking about ONCI.

So when you're talking about working with a neighbor, the work that we pay for has to be within our geographic bounds if we're doing it under the...

And there's one too, but if those geographic bounds meet up, there might be an opportunity. I know that's sort of a stretch. Okay. Thank you very much.

Staff, please call us if you've got a question. We're willing to come back if you think it's worthwhile MSD presenting any additional information.

Okay, thank you.

Thank

you. Okay. All right, so we're now ready to start our 7 o'clock meeting. And will the city clerk please call the roll?

Alderman

McAndrew.

Here. Alderman Fuse. Here. Aldeman Patel. Here. Alderman Gary Feder. Here. Aldermen Rick Hummell. Here. Aldemann Jeffery Yorg. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager David Gipson. City Attorney Jones.

Here. Alderman Fuse. Here. Aldeman Patel. Here. Alderman Fader. Here. Aldermen Hummel. Here. Aldemann York. Here. Mayor Harris. Here. City Manager Gibson. City Attorney Jones.

Here.

Thank you.

Oh, welcome, Attorney Jones. I don't know if we've met, but welcome to our... for a board meeting

thank you it's my pleasure

um okay so before we get started um before public requests and petitions i just want to take a minute and just recognize that we um some weeks ago now lost a very um a very important and beloved member of our clayton community mel disney and he was kind of an institution, and some of you obviously are too new to have seen him come to our board meetings for years and comment on various things. He was always engaged. He was always civil and good spirits about everything, but he really cared about our city and gave a lot of input over the years, and I didn't know if any of you know him and would like to make a comment on that. I'll start over here just in case, and we'll go around.

Yeah, Mr. Disney is a neighbor of mine he lives on Westmoreland or he lived on Westmoreland him and his wife did I really didn't know him very well him and his wife moved. I don't know maybe a few years after I moved onto the street, but I just remember yes, he was always. always wanted to be involved. The last committee he was a part of, I remember when his term kind of ended, you know, I sent him an email saying, you know, Mel, thank you so much for your service. And he wrote back just the kindest email, like, thank you so it is such a privilege to be a part of this community and a privilege to serve on the city's committee. So it was just such a gracious and very kind email. So yeah, he was, he was, you know, had a stroke about five or six years ago, well before COVID. And I don't think there was any thought by his family that him and his wife were ever going to move back to their home, but he would not let them sell it because he always, I think, really hoped to move back. So yeah, he was a great member of the community and will certainly be missed on, has been missed on Westmoreland, but it will be missed. So.

I knew Mr. Disney for over the years at various meetings, and I guess the one thing I would say that really reflects my respect for him is that as many times as I saw him, I would never call him Mel. I would always say Mr. Disney because not only was he older than me, but there was just something about him. He was authoritative. He was knowledgeable. He was cantankerous, but he was obviously dedicated to the city. He always deserved to be known as Mr. Disney.

I was acquainted with Mr. Disney. I was familiar with him and I admired the fact that he was highly engaged in city politics and cared. And so he was a good man.

Okay. Well, thanks everyone. He will be missed. All right. Now's the time on our agenda for public requests and petitions. I don't know if we have, we have some people online and we have someone in our audience.

I'll introduce him really quickly. That's Ronald Jones. Ronald's a student at University of Missouri, St. Louis in the public administration program. He's also a building inspector with Delwood. Is that correct? Yes. So he's here this evening observing our Board of Aldermen meeting for an assignment. welcome

ronald yeah welcome uh okay so next then i still see any other public comment coming so we can move right into our consent agenda if does anybody have any comments about it would you like to discuss anything on the consent agenda okay so then we can go ahead and have a motion

um i will move to approve the consent agenda

second any discussion Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

second any discussion Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Alderon Jeffery Yorg.

Alderon York.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, time for the city manager report. All

right, first item tonight are some community improvement district appointments. This is for the Danielle Community Improvement District, which is located at 216 North Merrimack. That's the Hampton Inn and Suites. Typical with CIDs, representatives of property owners within the district Actually make the appointments or recommend the appointments in this case the developer is the sole property owner within the CID The five appointments were contained within the packet and staff recommends approval

Good Any questions or comments from our audience? Okay, and any discussion on the part of the board Take a motion

I will introduce bill number 7027, approving the appointments to the Danielle Community Improvement District Board of Directors to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 7027, an ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri, approving the reappointment of members to the Board of Directors for the Danielle Community Improvements District. First reading.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7027 on the day of its introduction.

Second. Okay, we got a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, great. Let the minutes reflect. The board is

giving unanimous consent. I'll introduce bill number 7027, approving the appointments to the Danielle Community Improvement District Board of Directors to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion?

All right, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7027, an ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri, approving the reappointment of members to the Board of Directors for the Danielle Community Improvement District. Second reading.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Fader.

Aye.

Aldemon Rick Hummell.

Aldemon Hummel.

Aye.

Alderon Jeffery Yorg. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Alderon York. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Yes, in September of last year, the city of Clayton entered into an on-call service agreement with CDG engineers for streetscape lighting and landscape architecture services. Before that, in 2018, the city contracted with CDG to study residential street lighting and produce the 2018 lighting standards report for the city. From that report, the areas of White on Forest High Point and demand were identified as areas for improvement due to maintenance concerns related to the existing direct burial electric lines in these areas. The city of Clayton took over the existing systems in 1987 and the buried lines in these areas have been more prone to failure. The attached proposal from CDG provides for professional engineering lighting design for the design phase pre bid and certain services during the construction phase of the projects. The proposed total fee for these consultant services is $129,100. The design portion of the project was amended from the fiscal year 23 budget to the fiscal year 24 budget the amount of 172 303 therefore sufficient funding is available for this task order these projects are included in the approved cip for fiscal year 24. under this task order design services provided by cdg are scheduled to be completed by december 31st 2024 and construction is expected to take place the following calendar year staff recommends that the board of aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the task order with cdg engineers For $129,100, plus a contingency of $15,000 for lighting design in the Wydown Forest, High Point, and Daman areas. And just to be really clear about the work they're performing here, this is the detailed construction drawings that we would need for the project. So everything that was done in the past was really at a conceptual or preliminary level. This will give us the detailed designs to actually carry out the project itself.

Okay, great. I'll open the discussion. I'll just go around. Any questions, comments?

David, so just so I'm, this would be these, so we're using funds that would be left over from like the bonds that were, you know, like left over from before and then This so in terms of obviously there's mass lighting repairs that have to be done throughout the city that we would have to finance in another way. So, but this particular I guess area of the city would be done then right is that so this would be like I mean this year and next year, that area of Clayton would be up to date on all their lighting.

That's correct. These are the three highest priority areas, so we broke these out from the larger project and then applied the 2014 bond construction funds to it. The 2014 bond construction funds, we really need to deplete that balance, and this is certainly a worthy project.

And then when they do construction, will all new lights go into? Is that part of—

So that's— Sorry, I was getting up because I figured it might come to me. Yes, the biggest thing that we experienced is the lines that are underground and those direct burial that caused the faults that we can't repair easily. So a good portion of the improvement is below grade, but also in the areas where we have spacing that needs to be brought tighter to get better coverage and uniformity of light, you're looking at new lights and fixtures for that new poles.

So we're not necessarily taking out all the existing lights?

I don't know enough to say that at this point. I would say in general, you're probably looking at mostly a full-scale replacement, but we'll look to do savings where we can.

Okay. I was just kind of curious. And I know that obviously the construction won't happen for a little bit.

Yeah. The goal at the end of the project is to have things up to illumination standards, lines and conduit, and it's easy to repair and fewer lights that are down for an extended period of time.

Thank you. You

could just stay.

I

just want to build on that a little bit. Same topic is, you know, I think if you're replacing poles and fixtures or lanterns, whatever you call them, I'm just going to make sure that before those fixtures are chosen, that the board will have an opportunity to see What the plan is to put in because we have, as you know, all these historic neighborhoods and we need to make sure. I know there's a need to standardize we discussed it and that's that's great, but we just need to make sure that we have an opportunity to kind of weigh in on what what you're what you're going to what you want to do in that regard, and then the other way and and that i'm hoping for is. You know, we've done a lot of work with our overlay, our WashU overlay, working with Dark Sky. And so I just am hoping that this group will also take a look at, you know, what does that mean for a project like this? And are there things we could do better with regard to, you know, our natural environment, birds and all that stuff?

So two points on that. On the first, we did ask the consultant to build in some extra time to consider, since this is the first lighting project we're approaching in the city, and as we look at ways to standardize so that we can store those elements down at the municipal garage a little easier and have interoperability, we thought there might be more discussion. So we asked them to include a little bit more time for that, as well as just kind of a meeting cost in case we need to add more. part two uh any of the fixtures we buy right now are cut off style fixtures that would meet dark sky certifications but that's certainly something we'll look at we've got lights in town that may not meet that based on when they were purchased last but that's what we look for whenever we're replacing those fixtures now

okay great thank you

okay

sorry can i can i just ask a fellow you made me think of so as we do this just because i'm curious you know as it comes up you know like communication with our residents which i know this is in ward one But I'm just curious too, will it be very standard like the distance between light poles? I'm just curious if somebody all of a sudden finds a light pole in front of their house and they're like where it used to be dark and now it's all lit up. And now I can't sleep at night and I have to buy new curtains. I'm just curious how standard it will be. And I guess maybe the consultants will give us some idea of that.

The light will be standard spacing more likely, but it may not be standard as to what's there today. So right

that's why it might change so i'm just

curious I guarantee you we're gonna have people complaining about.

Right yeah so but i'm just wondering if like if they come in and communicate to us if there's if there's any sort of if there can be an adjustment as to where the light goes, but maybe there can't be if it has to be a certain distance.

So the thing we have a problem right now with in some areas are intensity and uniformity. We can get enough average light, but the uniformity may be real bright here, real dark there. And part of that is due to the trees in the area. So picking the right height pole so that the trees don't become an issue for blocking that light while not utilizing more light than we need to will be a balance. I can't say that we'll go back with the exact same height poles because it may not be the best fit for that area. But there is the potential that those lights could move locations as we do the design.

I just feel like there's a lot that goes, I don't know, there's a lot of that goes into it.

And so there's different lighting distributions too in the light you pick about how it spreads the light. Not all of them are just circular. You can have them be more linear and ways that maybe you, depending on the light that's chosen, if there's a way it can be shielded.

And I would think neighborhood by neighborhood potentially could be different, right? Depending

on... Be different based on the needs of what they would have for the... Well,

needs or like spacing of driveways or I don't know, you know, it just might...

Yeah, if the trees are more mature in certain neighborhoods or a higher canopy, yes, that could come into play for sure.

But you've got to be careful. I don't have much to ask. I do catch my breath every time we come up with the lighting projects, the fact that we, as I recall, it was a pretty substantial sum that we paid for the original lighting standards report for the city. And this is a design. I understand the difference. And as we go through the different areas, I can't remember what the schedule is in the budget for the different areas and doing lighting projects.

Currently, as far as what's funded and been discussed, it's only these projects. There are many more projects looking into the future that we would be looking to, in some way, fund. We haven't identified exactly what that would be like yet. but the the study that was done in 2018 was a very high level i think it was about a 35 000 study just for

reference okay all right um and so did but is this is this what we should whatever board is sitting here should be expecting when another neighborhood when the next step is taken when there's another neighborhood this is a pretty typical cost for uh getting that design because we haven't even gotten to the actual work and getting it done yet

Something that

you can build on when you start figuring out what the right space for the different poles are and everything else. Does it reduce the costs going forward?

If I'm understanding your question correctly, yes, this is for just the design of these three areas, but we expect the construction and what's in the budget right now funded is just under $2 million for the construction. These are not on the lower end. These are some of those that There's more maintenance needed on these areas, and therefore a little more intensive on construction. Y-Down Boulevard is one that would cost more than this when that project would be scheduled. But generally, a lot of these areas may be this or lower. So I don't expect them to continue to be much larger than this where we're starting at the low end. I'm not sure if that's really addressing your question. I'm not

certain it really is an answer to what I'm trying to figure out. It's just a lot of money. It's important to get done. Yeah. This is really daunting

a big numbers in aggregate when we looked in this 2018 I think we estimated, we have about $15 million worth of work, this is two of it.

Okay, thanks. I was going to ask about the light shielding and dark sky considerations it sounds like you've already got that incorporated, and then also you know, like what the impact will be on residents and how we'll communicate that so. I. trust that will care for that that's all I just want to bring up and I would just add that. As a person who has a streetlight right in front of my house it's actually quite nice it's not like glaring it's a like warm quiet light and it increases the sense of safety and. I believe that personal opinions will vary. I know we will hear a wide range from people in our community, but it's not like a glaring, right? I mean, I can expect it to be the same type of. Yeah,

that uniformity I expect on average on the whole, we would increase that so that you don't have those areas where you're still going to have some areas that are a little bit brighter than others just because the lights are spaced, but not as drastic as a contrast between the two areas. Yeah, thank you.

I do have one more question. Are you using, are there any solar components to any of this?

No. We've tried a few solar lights. We've got one installed on Big Bend right now. We're going to have to upgrade that one and try maybe a different one, but right now the technology is not there.

So I'm sorry, but I have to build on Becky's comment as well. So streetlights are kind of something that I get in the weeds on. David is mad you know really tired of me asking them questions over the years but and nevertheless so when you talk about a warm and glowing light we get down to what are the lumens going to be and so I would just be interested to see once they do their study and you know everything what they're going to recommend for neighborhood lighting you know it was very different from you know downtown street lighting which is presumably brighter So you don't have to say what it is now, but I'm hoping, like Becky, that our neighborhoods can still have that warm kind of glowing light versus a really bright, stark, high-lumen picture.

um just for clarity uh lumen is the the brightness temperature is the color when we start talking about that so as you might hear something with higher lower lumen that doesn't necessarily change the color just just in case we get into discussion we

want the warm and the glowing let's put it that way but we do anyway okay sorry okay keep going guys

i'm sure there's going to be a lot to talk about but the task order makes sense to me so i don't have any other questions

Most of my questions have been answered as well. I guess the only one I wanted to ask about had to do more with funding. Bridget had brought up the bond funds, and David, you mentioned the CIP. So I understand this expenditure is already built in, but the approximate $2 million for the actual work that would be done, what's the source of those funds? Are they built into a budget already as well?

It is. It's in the five-year CIP, and it's paid for out of the 2014 bond construction funds. So this will, for the most part, deplete that balance completely.

Okay, great. That's all. Thank you.

And the only thing I had was, if I remember correctly, and Matt, I think alluded to it, this will wrap up the biggest needs. But then the next set of big lighting projects is five years away. Am I remembering that right on the CIP?

Well, we had them in the out years. So beyond the five years, we were kind of looking at that 10-year projection. And we started sprinkling those in, starting with Y-Down Boulevard. And I think that was at maybe the six or seven-year mark. And that gets back to that discussion we were talking about where we're probably nine years out or so from having to do the next geo bond for road construction and all of that, and the possibility of wrapping the street lighting project into that overall general obligation and just doing a bigger issuance at that point in time. That's a conversation we're going to have to have down the road. But within the five-year CIP itself, I think it's highly unlikely that one of these larger lighting projects ends up making it into that that five-year program okay i just don't think the funds will be available

okay thanks everything else was people already asked what i had thanks

one one last minor question like for y down forest as an example um i'm familiar we're all familiar with how these the trees and the tree lawn and the sidewalks and it's just really like a tangle of stuff how will replacement, and I realize this is the study, how would replacement affect all those street trees in a situation like that?

So part of this design is going to get location of all the utilities, which will drive a lot of the design. So we'll have to make those decisions once we see that information. Many times you'll see contractors are able to identify boring between the lights in order to preserve those type of trees. You can also do things like hydro excavating that uses water to excavate to maybe not damage roots in certain areas. But where those pits are, where they're You mentioned that they're very tight in there that's some of our tightest streets and green spaces, so it may be have to be in the roadway which will increase construction costs in order for the board pits, for instance. So that's a that's a to be determined once we kind of get survey information but it's definitely consideration because we've got some trees in there that are. there. quite large and occupying a lot of space, and some of them have to be removed on occasion just because of that.

Right, right,

right. Can I follow up with one question? Sure. I assume we can't double up on conduits. So if the electric company writes the conduit in there, we can't run our lighting?

Not in the same con. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. There's not spare conduits out there where we could just run them in.

We can't like double up them in one conduit? Like if there's a PVC pipe in the ground that we're running the electric cable through already, we couldn't run our lighting cable through that.

Yeah, nothing that runs from light to light that's there for us to utilize.

Do we know of any utility projects that are going on in these neighborhoods that we could try to spare the neighborhood a little bit of our construction and then six months later Ameren comes in with their construction?

White Island Forest had a permit come in, submitted to us last year. We've asked them to hold on that for coordination. I think it was for a communications company as we work through this to see if there was a way we could coordinate. But as of right now, there's nothing coordinated like that. But we're trying to consider those things when permits come in.

OK, great. Thanks.

Great.

Thank you, Matt. OK. Alderwoman

Gander. I would like to introduce Bill No. 7028, approving a task order with CDG Engineers, Inc., for the design of lighting improvements in the Wydown Forest, High Point, and Daman areas to be read for the first time by title only.

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

Bill number 7028, ordinance for a task order with CDG Engineers, Inc., for the design of lighting improvements in the Wydown Forest, High Point, and Dumont areas. First reading.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? All right. I will move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7028 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent. I

would like to introduce bill number 7028, approving a task order with CDG Engineers, Inc., for the design of lighting improvements in the Wydown Forest high point and demand areas to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7028, Ordinance for a Task Order with CDG Engineers, Inc., for the Design of Lighting Improvements in the White Island Forest, High Point, and Daman areas. Second reading.

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

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

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Aldemann Yorg.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you. Okay, Selective Control.

All right, so before anyone asks why we're doing an ordinance for something this small, it is a requirement that anytime we have an intergovernmental agreement that we do it, we do it by ordinance so. This particular project, this is the city's contract with St Louis county for vector control which is mosquito and rodent control. That expired on march 5 of this year we'll we were notified by the county that our existing contracts to expire and we were invited to renew the contract. The St. Louis County Department of Public Health Vector Control Program provides adult mosquito surveillance, lab testing of field collected adult mosquitoes, larvicidal treatment of mosquito breeding sites, and then other treatment related to adult mosquitoes and rodent abatement in public areas. Fees for mosquito treatments and rodent abatement have increased slightly with this new contract. The average annual costs of vector control services over the last three years have been roughly $2,621. The general fund has $3,564 budgeted for vector control in this fiscal year, and the new rates have been included in the fiscal year 25 budget planning. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a five-year contract with St. Louis County for vector control services.

Okay, thank you open the discussion was go around

Bridget I mean I guess i'm just kind of curious I mean this is a small amount, but what I don't I don't what are we. So where do they spray do they spray downtown near government building it's really

all. it's purely reactive so they'll get complaints from residents that there's maybe a high concentration of mosquitoes somewhere. within our city limits and if we get that call we refer them to the county, the county will come out. Typically they'll do some kind of test or trap some to see if they have any kind of virus but if they find a certain concentration then they'll go ahead and spray that area. This just covers that particular service.

And then the rodent abatement, is that, but it's abatement, like if we, you know, I remember at some point on Nextdoor, there was a giant possum on the side of Y-Down. Like public work, our public works go to get, or does, no, no, no. It was dead. But people were, the county doesn't go get that, right?

No. So we actually store those animals. Oh,

right. In the public, yeah. That's correct. Yes, that's right. I forgot about that. So, okay. I mean, I was just kind of curious what this is. If there is a

rodent problem in a public area, we can call the county and under this particular contract, they'll come out and take care of that for us.

Have they actually done that before? I

think the majority of this has been mosquito related, but I'll let

Yeah, and with the mosquitoes, they are proactively checking for areas that they would need to treat. With the rodent abatement, it's really focused more on, it says, Norway rats when they're addressing issues with that in public areas. So it's not as much of, hey, there's an animal on the roadway that they come collect, but it's very focused and specific on areas they've identified to be a public health hazard area. mostly with with areas where there might be rats

but you do find they're they're responsive and they are proactive with their

yeah i mean it's um it's a good agreement we've had with them for a long time i it's very reasonable and um yeah there's not a lot of options

i was just curious i haven't i mean i don't remember ever hearing about this so i was just kind of curious

in five years i copied and pasted the rfba

i was probably pretty glazed over five years ago so

so thanks man so um Just one other little question. So if a person, like let's say someone in one of the apartment buildings, they view there's an infestation, is it the county they would call then to try to take care of that even though that's on? Is there some inspector that would come out and say, you know, you probably are in violation of XYZ because you have an infestation of rats and you're not taking care of it?

So if it's on private property, they're probably going to refer them to some kind of pest control for the private property. This would be in areas where it gets into the right of what are public versus private. For the

abatement, but for enforcing health standards, I guess. Is the county?

Oh, I don't have that answer offhand on

how they

would approach that. And we have some

ability to enforce that under the property maintenance code locally.

Okay. I'm not aware of an issue. I'm just curious.

Yeah, I feel like that came up when we talked about if people didn't pay for their trash. Yeah. Remember, and it just sat there. We'd be able to take care of it under the – Okay. Okay, very good.

All right,

Matt.

They will respond and investigate it, but they may not service it on private property.

Exactly. Okay. All right. Thanks. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Very good.

I just –

Oh, go

ahead. It's less about this. It's more just a bigger picture. Okay. I see it's a five-year contract, and this county basically can increase the rates annually, and there's no cap on the rate increases. I don't think it's a huge deal for this. It's just something that I'd mention because it's something for bigger contracts I would be more important to want to see.

Yeah, we can also terminate with 30 days notice without any other reason, right? So if they decide to be unreasonable.

If they brought up some sort of significant increase, we bring it back to the Board of Aldermen. Okay. And it's I would also say it's it's it's atypical to have a contract that that has a provision like that in there typically we we identify whatever kind of escalation or maybe year over year. In this particular case, the county is not willing to do that so we'll just monitor year over year and if it comes back as some sort of significant increase will take action then.

Okay. I'll introduce bill number 7029, approving a contract with St. Louis County for vector control services to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City attorney. Bill

number 7029, an ordinance approving a contract for St. Louis County, Missouri for vector control services. First reading.

All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? I'll move the unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7029 on the day of its introduction.

Second.

All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? All right, let

the minutes reflect. The board is giving unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7029, approving a contract with St. Louis County for vector control services to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7029, an ordinance approving a contract with St. Louis County, Missouri for vector control services. Second reading.

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

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

Aye.

Aldernan Rick Hummell.

Aldernan Hummel.

Aye.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg.

Aldemann York.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, benchmarking.

All right, this is a resolution to initiate the collection of building benchmarking information for city-owned buildings and support the development of a policy for expansion of the program to privately-owned buildings the following year. Building energy benchmarking is the practice of measuring and comparing the energy performance of buildings to industry standards or to similar buildings. By collecting data on energy use, water consumption and other relevant metrics, benchmarking helps identify opportunities for improving efficiency and reducing operational costs. A benchmarking program allows building owners to track progress and make informed decisions about energy management and sustainability efforts. Ultimately, this practice can lead to significant cost savings, enhanced building performance, and a reduced environmental footprint. The City of Clayton Sustainability Advisory Committee discussed this topic at their September 2023 meeting and voted to forward a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen for the establishment of a benchmarking program. With the approval of this resolution, the city will begin benchmarking its own buildings over the next year and staff will also develop legislation to bring back before the board that will include the requirements and processes for privately owned buildings over 100,000 square feet in total area.

Good. All right. Open the discussion. Anything over here?

No, I think it's great. We've learned that our buildings are worst polluters. So I think it's that we're starting the initiative to study our own buildings and then it will be great to move it to privately owned buildings as well. The sustainability committee has done a great job of bringing this to us.

Yeah, I'm glad to see this moving forward. And one question I had is with The private private buildings, the conversations that I recall is that city would be doing it for the upcoming year and then within a year or so afterwards we'd roll it out to the private sector and here there's no time. frame for the private sector reference that i'm seeing and

so the recommendation was was one year uh we're saying in this resolution that will develop that legislation um and initiate that program but we don't have a specific date yet we want to put together that legislation and bring it back to the board but You know, it's unknown how many meetings it might take to get through that. We do want to make sure that we publicize this or work with those property owners to make sure that they have six months at least to prepare for this program. So we're going to work on the draft legislation and start discussing that with the board immediately. But we didn't want to lock ourselves into a particular date in case we started to slip on that schedule a little bit. But the intent is absolutely to do this within the next year if we can get it done.

Okay, because those were the conversations. Absolutely. Exactly what you're saying and just that by the city doing it, that's a good time for us to be rolling it out and giving that notice. So as long as we continue to feel the urgency on that, that's great. Absolutely.

Good question. Becky, anything from you?

No, I'm just glad to see us doing this. I'm grateful that you invited the folks from the city, it was probably more than a year ago now, to educate us about this and the sustainability committee. So look forward to seeing what we learn. Great. Go ahead, Mr.

Gary Feder.

Fader.

Sounds good. I'm just curious about the scope, if there's anything excluded. I'm imagining City Hall, Fire Station, Police Station, Municipal Garage, and then I'm wondering about other ones like Oak Knoll Park buildings. Are those included too?

Yes, properties that the city owns and we're paying the utility bills on. We've been collecting this information and putting it into our asset management software since 2018. So there's a little cleanup to do on that yet, but those buildings will be included if we own them. Because the building owner is ultimately the responsible party for submitting this information as we look towards the private sector as well.

And did I miss any buildings? I can't think of any others.

Oh, no, it was the big ones coming to mind that we had not yet captured. The other ones we already have the information rolling on, if you will. But yes. Thank you.

And we'll have to do the new public works garage.

We'll update the information for it so we can see the

benefit.

My assumption is there's no cost associated with developing the plan. I know in terms of like staff time, we don't need to outsource to consultants or anything like that to do what we're looking at. There will be no consultant costs with

it. It will all be staff time. Okay.

We intend to also mimic what the city of St. Louis has done with their program so that if you're a building owner in both cities, it's very similar process. OK.

Right. So yeah, for those who weren't around, year and a half ago or something. I had through my various mayor's climate organizations somehow, and also Botanical Gardens, Gene Ponzi, heard about what the city of St. Louis was doing. And so they have a great program where they are already requiring, they've moved along quite a ways. They started out with their own benchmarking, then they moved to voluntary benchmarking for the big buildings, and now it's become a required target. And so they had a lot of staff to manage the program. But, yes, we're modeling that so it shouldn't – we don't have to reinvent the wheel, but it will take a lot of staff time once we get to communicating with these property owners and kind of trying to monitor what – you know, what they're reporting, et cetera. And if we ever develop, which we will, I hope in years to come targets for them and then try to enforce that, then that'll just be a little more work. But I wanted to compliment you, Matt, on getting this thing going so quickly. I mean, I think it's a lot. I know we've benchmarked off and on in the past, but to really put this program together so it can carry forward like we want it to is a big job. And thank you.

Thank you. There's been actually a lot of effort that goes in behind the scenes just in everyday work of paying our bills that we've been collecting this data, so we're going to take advantage of that.

I'll just add to that too, Matt, which we've been able to show, and Becky and I have had the advantage of being on the Sustainability Committee to see it the way you've actually captured the data, coordinated it, and been able to explain it, and then on an ongoing basis over time is just really impressive and I think will serve us well. in this current effort and just going on, it's something that can be passed down as part of our record. So thanks.

All right. Thanks again. All right. Alderwoman McAndrew.

I will move to approve resolution number 2024-10 initiating a city building benchmarking program as recommended by the Sustainability Advisory Committee. Second. Any discussion? All

those in favor? Very good. All right, if there's no further business, correct? So we can go around. We can start with our mayor pro

tem. Not much to report. We did have a plan commission meeting last week, but it was very short. short, the M1 Bank wanted to put just make their signage a little bit darker so you can see it better. But I think everybody would probably agree that the building looks fantastic across the street. So I think, you know, it seems like it's almost done. So the members, people are the higher ups at the bank. is ken poteet is he the

he's the higher up

yeah so he was there and obviously very grateful but him him and others were there and he you know so that was nice that he was there just to kind of approve this paint change which was obviously very easy so um i was just going to let everyone know to the i won't be at the plan commission next week because i'm on vacation but um In case anybody's wondering, there's kind of a controversial development that is coming up on be missed in that I think will be discussed so I think if you're interested in it, you might want to take a look at the plans and so see, but I would just let you know.

Can you be more specific?

There's a, there's a historic home that is a double lot. So a developer has bought it and wants to put up a four, four kind of, four

condominium.

But I would just encourage you to look at the plans if you're interested. So thanks. Yep.

And the only business I have is a, the reception for the boards and commissions was very nice oh yeah i enjoyed that and let's

say

thank you june for putting it together yeah it was well done people seemed to mix really really well and a positive event yes right yeah it was a good thing to be inside we had that suggestion Thank you.

Great. I have two things that I just want to share and highlight. One, the musical nights at Oak Knoll Park was on Sunday and it had been, I used to go to that really regularly. And one of the things that I was reminded of is that even when it is pretty hot and miserable in St. Louis, it is quite pleasant to be at Oak Knolls Park. And so it really was a nice time. Attendance wasn't super high, but there was a decent crowd. The band was great. The sustainability committee was there engaging with people and they had like rock painting for kids. It was, it was real sweet. So yeah. That was great. And then one other thing that I did was attend a meeting with municipal elected officials from across the state, primarily the St. Louis region and Kansas City, to talk about strategies to combat preemption. So who knows what will come of that? But people are working on it So I'm looking forward to seeing where that goes.

Thank you. Thank you for doing the extra things. Alderman Gary Feder.

Thank you. Thank you for doing the extra things. Alderman Fader.

The Community Equity Commission is working on a program or just a meeting with its counterpart in Kirkwood next month to sort of review what both organizations have done. um the event last week with the various commissions and members it was very nice event and uh finally just sort of anecdotally uh st louis shakespeare festival which i think has been around for 15 years started somewhere in that history to do a show every year, a sort of mini version in Shakespeare in the Street in different either cities or neighborhoods. And in 2014, it was done in Clayton, I think on North Central. and mostly featured kids from Clayton High School. It was like all these shows, it was a takeoff sort of an hour version of a Shakespeare play but modernized and made contemporary and mostly dealt with sort of desegregation and the sort of relationship of kids who lived in the district as to those who came in. But in any event, I think I was the only male Clayton resident who was actually in the cast, which wasn't my point. But the young lady who played Rosalind, which is the main part in that show, was a young woman from Webster University from their theater program, Carolyn Amos. And the only reason I remember her name is because last week we went to see As You Like It. which was in the park, which was directed by Nancy Bell, who actually wrote the 2014 Clayton version. And as I was sitting in the program, the mayor was in front of me along with Judy Goodman. But as I looked in the program to see who was in the show, and Carolyn Amos, 10 years later, is now a professional actress in New Jeffery Yorg playing the part of Rosalind. So I thought that was truly a small world. So anyway, it was a neat experience.

The Community Equity Commission is working on a program or just a meeting with its counterpart in Kirkwood next month to sort of review what both organizations have done. um the event last week with the various commissions and members it was very nice event and uh finally just sort of anecdotally uh st louis shakespeare festival which i think has been around for 15 years started somewhere in that history to do a show every year, a sort of mini version in Shakespeare in the Street in different either cities or neighborhoods. And in 2014, it was done in Clayton, I think on North Central. and mostly featured kids from Clayton High School. It was like all these shows, it was a takeoff sort of an hour version of a Shakespeare play but modernized and made contemporary and mostly dealt with sort of desegregation and the sort of relationship of kids who lived in the district as to those who came in. But in any event, I think I was the only male Clayton resident who was actually in the cast, which wasn't my point. But the young lady who played Rosalind, which is the main part in that show, was a young woman from Webster University from their theater program, Carolyn Amos. And the only reason I remember her name is because last week we went to see As You Like It. which was in the park, which was directed by Nancy Bell, who actually wrote the 2014 Clayton version. And as I was sitting in the program, the mayor was in front of me along with Judy Goodman. But as I looked in the program to see who was in the show, and Carolyn Amos, 10 years later, is now a professional actress in New York playing the part of Rosalind. So I thought that was truly a small world. So anyway, it was a neat experience.

And maybe I just say you did a great job saying all the world's a stage. You did that well.

Yes, that was my big lie. I would just share in the congratulations on the event. It was a wonderful time. And I thought it was well attended. So I have nothing

else to share.

Yeah.

I kind of want to see the picture of Gary acting in the play in 2014.

Oh, he was so funny. I laughed my head off.

Thank you. But... Other than that, no, I would echo what everybody else said. The Friday event was great. I was glad it was attended. Obviously, it was my first – well, I shouldn't say obviously. It was my first one, obviously, as an older person, and I hadn't been able to make the previous ones as committee members. So I don't know what the attendance was like compared to other years, but it seemed like it was a good showing, and everybody seemed to interact well, and it was good.

I think the attendance was more this year. I really do, and I don't know – Why but i'm wondering if they kind of wanted to see the lobby of that building. So um so is that all Jeff that you okay so I don't have a lot, I do want to say I was invited and you all should reach out and get yourselves invited. to tour Bemis in Place at your leisure. It's coming together. I saw a model apartment and sort of the space where the restaurant, the bigger restaurant will be and things like that. And I was very impressed. I really was. So I encourage you to reach out if you're curious to go and see. I did encourage more articulation along the street than what is there. There is some, but the top it's great on central but the street level is not as much as i was hoping of course david reminded me well that was all approved that way but still that doesn't stop me from going over there and saying well i wish it was a little more and so when they they they said that they would try really hard when they actually lease out these units that they will go because they want to sort of cater to the individual desires of that business owner and try to provide even more differentiation so We'll hope that that can happen. First Watch is open. I know some of you have already been, eager beavers. And so that's exciting. And I sent you an email, but we've got a really exciting news of Five Iron Golf coming to that stretch of Forsyth. So that all except for the one little space right next to the lobby area will be full. So again, entertainment for... a long-term lease now and i'm just um thrilled that they were able to really make good on that promise so

my son has already asked for uh like how can he get like a you know a membership yeah

a membership i don't know if they have memberships but they are going to have leagues right so that's a thing um and then lastly just you mentioned the shakespeare festival i for some reason within a period of two weeks i went to opera theater for the first time i went to the muni with to see Les Mis, and I went to the Shakespeare Festival as you like it. And I just was reminded of how rich of a cultural world that we live in here in St. Louis. I mean, this is one of our big strengths. And so it just kind of hit me since I went to all those things all in a stretch. Well, how lucky we are to have all of that. We complain a lot, but we really do have some great institutions and entertainment options. So lucky.

And Black Rap is at Edison Theater with their last production of the season starting Thursday, I think. Okay. What is the, you know? King something. I have to look. King something. Okay. I forgot. A lot of those. I think we're trying to decide whether we're switching our tickets because of the something on TV.

Well,

thank you.

All right. So anything else on your end? No? Anybody else? Anything else? Okay. Then we can take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright, thank you.