August 27, 2024 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, welcome to our August 27 board meeting and our discussion session is going to focus on storefront windows and Gary. Ouch. Ouch.

Good evening. Tonight we're going to have a follow-up conversation from last month about the storefront coverings of vacant commercial space. I think at our last meeting, everyone had an interest in how much space was actually out there. It's roughly about 95,000 square feet that we have. And I have the totals broken down or the sections broken down by ward here so everyone can see. Ward one, obviously having one space. Average size is about 4,100 square feet. And just to put it in context, I picked a build or picked a business. I assume everyone knows the crossing right up the street here is about 1,900 square feet, so. That's the potential that's out there. As we talked about last time, our current ordinance requires a workmanlike manner of white butcher paper or covering provided by the city that we haven't done for quite some time now. The issues with the paper is that it simply fades, it stays and falls and it's in constant need of attention. This was the photo that we used back in 2012. Basically just a colorized photo of the outdoor seating of Napoli there. We bought the paper, the city bought the paper, had it printed and we staff distributed to people that wanted to use it. It was the Novelli property on the corner there that went through two or three Where the condos are going now. It was just regular paper, so it faded. The tape gave way. It was a good attempt, but I don't think the technology was there for it. Then like last time, we talked about a couple different programs. Miami Beach has... five prints that people can pick from and the city actually pays for a vinyl film to be applied on the inside through an application process. I only put two of them up there, but we talked about it last time. They're similar in design. And then Evanston, Illinois takes a different approach where they require either art or displays of local artists or displays of merchandise from nearby retailers. Talked about different styles that we can use. I mentioned that one possibility may be the St. Louis Art Fair and their designers. I did talk to Sarah And she's on board with that. So that would be an option for us. And then just another option of just showing motion, which I think is kind of popular among cities that get involved in this type of stuff. And then other some options we had there. I think that will be one of the key points is deciding on if we do this and we do it with art, what is the art? So I've tried to become a window expert since we last met and had substantial conversations with various vendors. And you'll notice yesterday, I sent out some revised numbers and that was really just based on some conversations. There are no other sustainable options than vinyl. That's our choices. Cost varies greatly, and it would really have to go to an RFP process if we were going to do it ourselves. But there's differences between inside and outside applications. Inside applications require what they call a white ink. Outside applications don't require that special ink. Different thicknesses, vinyl itself, so... A lot of options, and that's why you see almost a doubling of cost. And then another factor is the size of the windows. The smaller the window, it requires more cuts, which requires more material. Actually easier to have giant windows and do it on a single roll than it is a bunch of little cuts. But those are the ranges that we are talking about there. One of the questions that came up If the city was going to use the SBD funds, what would the potential impact be? We're looking at somewhere in between 70,000 and 112,000. That's if you would use SBD funds

for all of the vacant spaces that is

within the sbd only that doesn't address because svd has to be spent and within its boundaries so that doesn't address play

would it cover most of the ward one or ward three most vacancies

but that number is only off of what's currently vacant

that's correct okay

Did you say how long the vinyl is expected

to last? Depending on the thickness of the material, but some of it will last up to seven years, which ideally you wouldn't want. You would never need... It is a rather permanent material. I mean, there is an application process and there is a process of taking it off. It is not like peel and stick wallpaper, so to speak. There is a heating that has to go on to take it off. But the good news is it's on there for the duration of the vacancy for the system.

And I think we determined last time that we can't reuse this, like functionally, like you couldn't put it on one store and then move it to the next store.

No, no, it's destroyed in the takeoff process. I mean, it's meant to stay up there. So if you go down to like Ballpark Village, there's some spaces down there that have a window wrap on them that this is the material that we're talking about.

And this would be, I know we talked a little bit about, have you thought about putting a time parameter? Like if it's vacant for six months, this triggers it or what? Currently

the ordinance is as soon as it's vacant. Okay. It has to be covered.

With no prospects. So if we reached out to the property owner and said we're in the process of, or we're, I don't know, we have a few interested tenants. You know what I mean?

Yeah, I think that, I'd let Ana address that, but that's a typical response is that we have interested parties.

Any

day now,

it'll

be full.

Yeah, no, I mean, I'm not suggesting. I'm just trying to, you know, before we ask, potentially ask people to incur this kind of cost, you know, I mean...

Well, I mean, these costs are for everything. So, you know, for...

Like an individual business incurring this cost would incur between $2,000 to $10,000.

Yeah, so at the top, I took the crossing that we're all familiar with. It's not vacant. I don't imply that it is vacant. I just... pick the spot that everyone is familiar with. So you're looking at a cost of 1400 to 2300 for the materials and then anywhere from 500 to 800 for installation.

You're not talking about across the street from the crossing, right? I'm

talking the actual crossing because that was a point I figured I could throw out in this meeting and everybody knew exactly where it was and what it looked like.

They have very small windows.

Very small windows and that's one of the complicating factors because of all the cuts that need to be made and the material that's wasted essentially because of the cuts.

The one thing that's kind of hard, makes it kind of hard to assess for me, I think, is we have all these addresses. But if we were to say, here's the basic list of property owners, because I don't think the business, I think it would be the property owner of the building that would put it up. And what are the kind of costs that these... per property owner, you know what I mean? To understand if it's realistic or not to actually have them pay for it. So for example, the Centene building, those spots on Forsyth that are all vacant down there near the hair blow dry place or the dentist. I don't know how you'd go about, I mean, it'd be an exercise to go about assessing per property owner or the Montgomery Bank properties those are terrible, right? And that's one of the things that really stimulated this. And so what would be the cost for them to do this? I guess you can tell if you know the addresses of the Montgomery Bank property, you could figure it out from this list.

Perhaps they would be incentivized to more aggressively lease the space. if they really are concerned about this cost and wish to make the space productive, like they told us they were going to.

You're talking about the centene space probably.

Yeah. I mean, that was the one that was like more public recently, but I mean, they, these property owners have options. I like

Montgomery bank people. It's

not that people don't want to be in Clayton. People don't want to being Clayton at the terms that the, property owners are offering so yeah

i don't know why um i have to be convinced or the property owners aren't actually offering them and why the city would take on the cost versus the property owner i'd be like evanston does not do that um and certainly then it also depends on the enforcement mechanisms too if it doesn't go up after x days does the city have the right to go in and do it and then charge the land you know all those types of logistics but it seems that the property owner is in a better position to figure out how to move the property. The incentives are right, keeping it on them. And they want their area to look attractive so they get the better rents. And maybe they can up their security deposit or whatever with their tenants if it's considered. They have other ways of doing it. I need to be convinced that the city would incur that expense versus having-

And I agree totally. I was trying to you know, between sticking with paper, which they're now doing, they're supposed to do and going to something more appealing like vinyl, then you get into asking them to, you know, undergo some substantial costs, especially if there are a lot of windows on a property. And so I'm just trying to get a feel of some of these bigger properties. What would we be looking at asking of them? And is that,

Well, and that's where the cost varies because like I said, on the bigger windows, they can be printed on one sheet that doesn't have to be cut and can go up. So the cost is on a per square foot basis for the larger windows, actually less than it is for the larger windows. And this presentation wasn't putting together to suggest that the city actually fund this. I was addressing one question from an alderman earlier about if the SBD was going to pay for it, how much it would be cost. I mean- The simplest approach would be for the city to actually change the ordinance and require a material like the vinyl, and then let the property owner figure out what quality he wanted to do, knowing that it had to stay up during the entire vacancy. And then we simply pick... a design or designs to provide to any of the vendors that they so choose. This conversation, I mean, these numbers are based on, I talked to three separate vendors. I mean, I... Certainly don't know the exhaustive list of everyone that does this in the St. Louis region, but my recommendation would be that we do go to vinyl because it does stay up until such time as an alternative is available and simply require that point with a design that the city provides to any vendor that they so choose.

So just taking the Montgomery Bank building, for example, or Centene, for example, that building, do you have an idea in your mind of what each property owner, like these bigger, what would be the total cost they would incur to do the vinyl on their windows, roughly? Have you thought that through at all? The only

example I've provided tonight, Mayor, is the crossing.

Do other people have comments or questions?

Yeah, I do. Since I was one that advocated for the special business district. So it seems to me that there's a minimum standard of expectation we have, which is to put some kind of paper in the window. And that should be done, in my opinion, at the property owner's expense. On the other hand, if we're looking because we think we have a problem with all this vacancy and we want it to be more attractive, then I think we should have an option that helps subsidize that expense. And so it doesn't have to be that we pay for all of it, but I think I'd like to have a program where we perhaps offer a significant subsidy, maybe it's 50% or some magic number, to give them an alternative that's more attractive that they may say, oh, okay, I'll spend more money on that because of its benefits. And we get what we want, which is something that's more attractive than butcher paper in the windows. So that's what I'd like to see.

Good. Good idea. Yeah, Gary.

So I think so far we've mostly talked about what the burden is on the city versus the property owner. I mean, I think that's a valid concern. I'm concerned that we hear from a lot of people or fair amount of people who walk around downtown and are saying, God, everything looks awful because we have these vacant buildings and they look awful. I mean, it's not just, it's, it just jumps right out at you because of these, they're poorly maintained. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for a lot of these owners because basically they have vacated their own properties and in anticipation of development, which hasn't happened. So it's not like suddenly their business was lousy and they lost all their tenants. So in many ways this is sort of self-executing. But I'd like to come up with something that, although it's not going to fool anybody, but where these properties don't look nearly as bad and maybe it actually looks somewhat intentional. Like, for example, if you used art fair posters everywhere, you would at least sort of get this theme that we're promoting what we do in the city of Clayton through the art fair. I mean, I think people are smart enough to realize those things are there because there's nobody behind the wall. I mean, somebody's vacated it, but... But I think we have to try to figure out how is this going to, however we get there, how can we make this look more attractive? And I'm actually less concerned about the cost than I am about what the message is in terms of the aesthetics. What does it look like? Because right now it looks very shabby and we need to fix that somehow as well as we can.

I mean, I agree. And Gary, I think it's great to be able to use the art fair. I'm just afraid that each year it's going to be somewhat dated. You know, if we put up like this year's poster, then next year is going to be like, oh, look, that's the art fair from four years ago. I mean, hopefully it won't take that long. But it seems like it might be the simplest to just... pick three designs and give them the option. You can pick one of these three, but, and you can pick the material, but it has to be vinyl so it stays up. So, I mean, that's, I don't feel like there's any, to Gary's point, I just don't think there's any reason why the city should pay for it at all.

Part of it may be to, do you know how successful Evanston has been in enforcing their ordinance? Yes. if you had something that was paid for by the, uh, landlord or not, not by the city. And I wonder too.

Right. Evanston and I provided their ordinance last time. It goes on for pages and pages. It just dictates, you know, the two or three op three options, I guess one is art. Uh, one is our covering and then two is materials or merchandise. Um, So I'm assuming it would be enforced like our butcher paper. When our inspectors go around and see that it's not there, they send a code violation notice to the property owner and then start that proceeding through there.

Because maybe that's the approach to take if we did something like that. If there was a problem in enforcement and making it actually happen, I don't know. Again, the city could do it and then bill them if it's not done within X days or something. There could be that That kind of a structure to it.

Well, I wanted something to build on that like I don't. It's it's I like the idea of potentially the city going in and having to put the outside vinyl longs right? You can't you won't be able to get inside the building, but i'm curious what the cost would be or the fine cost would be if somebody doesn't meet the rules. Because if we're talking, you know, 50 bucks every time they violate it and you can violate it once a month, it's cheaper, frankly, for them to just not do it than it is to actually put the vinyl up. So I just don't know what the penalty – I'd be curious what the penalty is.

It'd be a municipal code violation, so the maximum penalty would be $225.

And if I got fined – I was going to ask frequency of that. Like if I got finED in March, do I get finED every day in March or do I – Now,

we typically do one violation, and then if we have subsequent violations and it's a problem, then we can start enforcing it on a more regular basis. But typically, once you get to municipal court, they're just going to want to deal with the violation one time, see if you get compliance. If not, then we can star stacking those up. But it's rare that we have to go to that with properties. So

what are we entitled to do if we have a tenant or a property that's

not? We could theoretically write a new violation for it every day.

Not that I want to do that, but I'm just thinking through the cost and benefits, especially like the cent team building. It may be cheaper for them to just let it go than pay the – you would hope as a corporate citizen they wouldn't, but from a dollars and cents standpoint, it's doable. But that's why, Susan, I'd like your idea, theoretically, if it's legal, to be able to just say, look, we're going to give you 30 days. If it's not done, then we're just going to go put it up, and we're just going

At

least it's up, right? And to Rick's point, if we have to eat the cost because they won't pay it, okay. But at least then we've got it up. If that's the ultimate goal. I mean, Rick, would you, of your idea, would you think like 15%, 10%? Like what would be the idea of like the subsidization, can't even speak today, for a business?

I don't have a magic number other than just what is the alternative? Here's what you can do on your own, and it's going to cost something for you to do that. And then I would contrast it to what we want them to do. What's the gap? And if we can bridge half of that gap. So I don't know what that is in dollars and cents. But I'm just – I'm a little hesitant to be what I would deem to be – heavy handed in terms of not only do you have to comply, but you have to comply at a very expensive rate. I'm fine with you have to comply. But I'd give them sort of a cheap option or cheaper option for complying. And then if this is considered a superior option, then we would subsidize it would be my theory. That's it.

I like the idea that what I heard you say, Gary, was that the range here isn't potentially due to a variation in the time it could be expected to last? Like how well it would maintain

itself? There's three variances. One is the thickness of the vinyl. The second one is whether it's internally or externally mounted. because the additional ink required on the internal mount. And then the third one is the installation cost. Like I said, I keep saying this, but the larger rolls are actually easier to do. Yeah, I understand. If you think about if you wallpaper your bathroom, if you have a section where you can just run the roll down the wall, it's easier than a bunch of little cuts.

So I like the idea of letting the property owner make a business decision about how soon they think the property won't be vacant any longer and then deciding whether to invest in the less or the more. And if they choose the less and they don't lease the property and it wears, then they'll have to replace it. I think like there are costs associated with owning property and maintaining it. I think as residents, we have those costs and we do not subsidize those for our residents and all of the ways that we expect them to maintain their property and keep it nice looking whether they live in it or not. And I'm not interested in subsidizing businesses who do not lease out their space. To maintain it so that it is not an eyesore for the community. So I and I think as far as like what the design options are, I think it'd be okay for the art for it to be like historic art fair prints. Like, I don't think it has to be timely. Like it's like advertising the event, but it's like something people strongly associate with Clayton that is, has been curated by experts. Like we're not, I don't want staff to have to like design things and evaluate what's a good art or something. So for me, that's like a way that we can sort of like outsource that and do it with something that works. really people across the region associate with our community in a positive way. Um, and so I would support you putting together like a program that gives those kinds of options for them, um, but requires the property owner to, um, to do it and to pay for it.

So I, I, I, um, I like the idea of the vinyl. I like the idea I just did some really rough math and I figure that if you've got three crossings on your property, that amount of window space, you know, it's still going to cost you way less than 10 grand to do the vinyl for your property. So that was kind of my hangup. I couldn't figure out, you know, and so if I don't think it's an exorbitant cost for them to do it, the way that I would, justify us contributing or subsidizing that as if we could we could put uh somewhere with a with a the beautiful background some art maybe but put you know september and clayton art fair jazz fest june wine and music, things that are always happening. And that, you know, we don't put the date. We just know that we have, this is stuff that's going on in Clayton. Hey, you know, you might want to check it out. Art or photographs that we have of our events or whatever could work. I don't care about that just so it's appealing, but If we're able to promote ourselves a little bit with these window coverings, then I think it's really well worth it to help subsidize it. Maybe we do the 50% or maybe we do 25% or whatever. Whatever is the right number. But unless you want to do some calculations at some point after this and just to make sure that we're not asking for the moon when we ask people to do all their windows, I think it seems like it'd be pretty reasonable for them to do. So there you go. It's just a one-time cost until they fill the space.

Yeah, we have this square footage. Yeah,

I just couldn't figure out for building what, you know, I mean, I couldn't figure out which buildings were which property owners.

Just to address two points, Miami sets aside a certain amount each year and when it's gone, it's gone. So that's how they address that there. And then Evanston, everything that has to go to arb if it's artistic so yeah like like i was a

sign review i mean

yeah our plan commission if they're having to review that's why i kind of like the set art if we ever decide what is set

so i just have to add to i know you're tired of the issue perhaps but um the Sustainability Advisor Committee was, I did present this to them and I know that they're looking at alternatives as well. So I don't know if it can be written in such a way, vinyl or material of consistent character fits or something like that just in case somebody stumbles on something. And is there any discount, any cost savings for the crowd flow, the pedestrian flow picture that you showed? if everything was the same, and so it's not, I don't know how vinyl works printing these posters, printing every time. Is that something that is

considered?

Well, that's the part that'll never happen, yeah.

So I just want to weigh in to say that I want to be clear. I'm not advocating that we need this to be a subsidy program. What I am saying, however, is that we should have optionality and that if we want to impose this particular program, that we have this subsidized. But we present other alternatives just like they did in Evanston. So if there are other ways that we find to be satisfactory in solving the problem at the owner's expense, then I think that's great. So that's my point of

view. Well, it seems to me like we need to simplify this a little bit. So either we are okay with the paper and we just keep on that road or we are going to require people to do something more and it's going to be well-defined vinyl. And it's going to be, I don't think we can say or whatever material because who knows what would come up. I mean, there's a list of possibilities. That's one thing, but just to have them go out there free form. And I just think it needs to be set and whatever the imagery is, is kind of set. And if we can, I'm not against subsidizing it a little bit, but I think we should just require everybody to do it and not have paper or vinyl within a certain area um damon gets the award for the least vacancies but uh you know i think yeah that's what i think i think it just made it simple for for our staff to administer um and you know so i don't know if we need to vote necessarily or how we wrap this up um i don't know i feel

like most people were in favor of like at least going down the vinyl route. I mean, it seemed, you know, encouraging. I think the question becomes whether or not we subsidize it if we want to start encouraging them to choose our photographs of our city or advertisements, which that probably complicates staff. So that to me, if there were like three choices, you know, but again, I'm, you know, that seems like that would be the most simple. And I think we could probably amend the ordinance later if a more sustainable product came down the pipe. If we find out about one.

Yeah. So that just made me think, cause I think I was struggling Rick to understand what the like options would be. That would be less expensive that we would present. That would be the current problem that we have. And so in something you just said, Bridget made me think like we could have an option. That's like, you can just do white vinyl. Like today we want you to do white butcher paper. We say white butcher paper, but it falls down. We could just say white vinyl, then they don't have the printing costs and that's maybe a less expensive option, but it would be steadfast. I don't, I don't know what people think about that. I think it's okay. I definitely don't want the city to pay for this. Like, I don't, I don't want to do that. Like, I

Didn't we say this was less than $10,000? That's the

back of the napkin. The

crossing would cost $2,000. The biggest property on here, maybe you get to $7,000 or $8,000 for the biggest address on here.

I think if we're going to do it, we should have an attractive, appealing image there personally.

The only thing that I would add is like, let's say we had three pictures and one of them mayors to your point of like basically selling Clayton. Maybe you have like the equivalent of like a sewer lateral fund. We put like 20 grand in a year and we're like, look, we'll pay 20% of the cost if you choose that picture.

Yeah.

And then all of a sudden you've incentivized them to put the picture we all want, which is advertising Clayton. It's still the city subsidizing it, but we're getting advertised out of it. Just tell them to put the

That's like so overcomplicated. Like I don't know.

Well, I do think though, I mean, we're in the weeds. I'm so sorry. But you know, the thing is if we have, I mean, it'd be nice to have several different designs going up and one of them being promoting us just because seeing the same thing every single window, especially as you walk down one street might, I don't know, be nice with a little variety. So I like the idea of having two or three designs and one of them promoting us And, you know, there's no reason why we couldn't use our photos on all three because we have some brilliant photos of Clayton, of the jazz festival, et cetera. Or we can use the artsy designs. I don't care. But it's just a thought. Are those hard to reproduce?

No. I mean, I think ideally we would design right on X.

Yeah. I just think scenes of Clayton when it's activated would be really great for the three. I think we can come up with three for sure.

I do think that we've spent enough time on this, but

that's okay. We can do more.

Right. I wondered, I think we will have some property owners who want to put up their own choice of something and I guess there should be a mechanism to handle that or not versus being really prescriptive on three or four things. I don't care. If they want to put up a sign, we have a process for them to Right, okay. Apply for a sign, right? And I think the property owner should pay for it.

Okay. Okay, is that clear as mud? Thank you for all your research and your work. And, you know, disaster check. You can see that some of these properties are going to have to pay, I don't know, way too, you know, unreasonable somehow. Please come back to us. Yeah, we... Thank you. Right, and they have the most, the biggest budget.

And we have to be clear on enforcement and make it something they pay attention to.

Yeah. Okay, I think we've covered it. Thank you so much. Okay. Thanks, everybody. I guess we're ready for the 7 p.m. meeting, and will you go ahead and call the roll? Alderman McAndrew.

Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Alderman Gary Feder. Alderman Rick Hummell. Alderman Jeffery Yorg. Mayor Harris. City Manager David Gipson. City Attorney O'Keefe. Thank you.

Alderwoman Buse. Alderwoman Patel. Alderman Fader. Alderman Hummel. Alderman York. Mayor Harris. City Manager Gibson. City Attorney O'Keefe. Thank you.

First up, public requests and petitions. Are there some people in our online audience? And there's a couple people here, but anybody who wants to talk about anything not on our agenda tonight, now's a good chance. Please let us know. Okay, moving on to the consent agenda. Would you like to report? Is there anybody that has anything on the agenda, the consent agenda that they wanna discuss? Let's just go there. Okay, all right.

Would you like go ahead and make the motion? Yeah. I move to approve the consent agenda. Second. Any discussion?

Okay, said clerk. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Alderon Jeffery Yorg. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, said clerk. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader. Aye. Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Alderon York. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

Okay, city managers report with the aquatic facilities first.

Yes, this is the facility management contract. The Parks and Recreation Department issued a request for proposals for aquatic facility management services for Shaw Park Aquatic Center and the Center of Clayton on June 18th, 2024. The current contract with Midwest Pool Management or MPM... runs through September 30th, 2024. We received three proposals in response to the RFP. One was from our current service provider MPM and two others were from companies located in Georgia and Florida that was USA management and the sports facilities companies. After extensive review of the proposal, staff is recommending that the city enter into a three-year contract with MPM. Though the initial increase for the management fee is significant, the following years are more normalized and include a 4.76% increase in fiscal year 26 and a 4.77% increase in fiscal 27. Despite the increased costs, which are results of increased hourly wages, we believe this is still the most effective way to operate our aquatic facilities. MPMs proposed salary expenses are in line with their current pay plan, which allows for higher hourly wages for frontline positions. Vacant lifeguard positions have been particularly challenging to fill and this trend has shown little signs of improving. The total proposal for salaries, the total proposed for salaries is a not to exceed amount for a total number of hours It's negotiated upon history of full operations and any hours not filled or used will be credited back to the city and or center of Clayton at the end of the fiscal year. Throughout the nine years with this service provider, we have generally received a refund due to open shifts, weather cancellations and other variations to the schedule. Changes to the general terms of the agreement, levels of staffing, hours of operation and other details of the contract are not being proposed at this time. The cost for the contract would be $813,220 in fiscal year 25, $855,755 in fiscal year 26 and $897,340 in fiscal year 27. The total cost of the contract is $2,566,315. Of those charges, $1,005,465 would be charged to the city's general fund. That's for the operation at Shell Park Aquatic Center. And the other $1.56 million we'll call it would be charged to The Center of Clayton Operating Fund. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance authorizing the execution of a contract with Midwest Pool Management. And Tony Searing, our Director of Parks and Recreation is here this evening if you have any questions.

So I'll open the discussion. Any comments or questions from the audience? Can't see if anybody online has a hand up, okay. All right, no? All right, discussion running on our board will go in order of seniority.

Tony, can we ask, would you mind? Yes. Do you feel like, I mean, I didn't realize we've been using MPM for quite that long. And I know we've largely been, it sounds like, happy with their performance. Obviously, we're dealing with a nationwide lifeguard shortage, which I feel like we can't necessarily blame them for. Correct. But in terms of the other, I mean, just... Do you feel like, I mean, do you feel like it's best? I mean, they are a local company. So, I mean, I would obviously have concerns about trying to have an outside or out of state company try to recruit lifeguards, um, again, I was astounded at the cost, but maybe this is, you know, this is just kind of the way it goes. But I

think it is. We are happy with their services. I think it's important to note this past summer, the one we're in right now, I guess, is the first summer in four years that they've had a consistent pool manager. So I do think that that has been part of their challenge for the last few years. I do think they've addressed that with their increased rate increased wages for not only the manager position, which has gotten us that consistency, but then also the frontline staff, the lifeguards, the head guards. I think with the pool manager, we have had more attention to detail going forward or at least this summer. And I would not expect that to change. I do think that, uh, Since we've had this person in this position, this has been her first summer. So now that she has this summer under her belt, I do feel pretty good about that. I don't disagree. I think they are pretty large numbers. I think one of the other key points is that they are local. So they are servicing all these other communities. cities, they're servicing St. Louis County. And I think because they have this large abundance of staff presence in the St. Louis metro area, if we are short staffed, they're able to pull people, whether it be for our facility and send them somewhere else, as long as we're okay on our staffing levels, or vice versa. Quite candidly, last week, we had a situation where we called them and they had somebody else there within 20 minutes who was at another pool. So I do think that is a very key, key aspect to this position or this this contract. Did I answer your question?

Yeah, you did. I mean, I just kind of wanted to make sure that we've been happy with them. And I think they, I mean, they certainly had a large presence at the center trying to recruit lifeguards in the last year. So, yes. And of course, I think really the only reason to do that or only way to do that was to increase hourly

wages. They were successful in they had a lifeguard class in July. They added more staff not only to our facility, but other facilities in the St. Louis metro area. So I do think that some of that could be changing in our favor, but I don't want to guarantee that. So they have been trying different things to think outside of the box as well, not just increased wages.

And then do you have, if you don't have the exact number, it's fine. But can you comment on about how much we get refunded each year? Do you know? I

don't know that off the top of my head. It really just varies from year to year depending on how many open shifts. I would not expect us to get as large of a refund this year because they have had more shifts covered and have had more staff scheduling that has not been vacant. But I can get that information for you. Okay.

Thank

you. You're

welcome.

Yeah, and I sent an email earlier with some of these questions. And maybe just if you can clarify for me, just looking at the chart, when you say management fee, does that include all of their employees? Because I had first read this management fee was to manage the pool and the salary was what they were paying when they were raising that to $18 to $20 an hour.

The management fee includes their overall management, for lack of a better term, of the contract itself. So it It doesn't include the, it includes the, I can't think of another word right now. Sorry. The management of the contract that sits so- More like their

administration and overhead and stuff. Their administration and overhead. Yes, that's the word.

So again, when, and I am confused, if part of the reason, it's a huge, and if it's because of an increase in the salaries they pay down the line, wouldn't that be in the salary? Number which does not jump that much.

Correct. No, it's in... it's part of their increase that they're absorbing at, I guess, their corporate office for the staff that take, have to process the payroll, process all the new hire paperwork. But it also does include some of the management fees, the overall administration of the contract. So if they're hiring- It's

not the front line people.

Part of their salary is dedicated to that line, but not all of it. They consider like about half, I'm sorry, 50% of the manager's fees, I believe is in the- Of the manager's salaries included in that management fee.

Okay, so that's where the management fee is in the salary budget when they first went up to $15 and now we're moving close to $20 for the lifeguards and everybody else. That's under the salary

line. Correct. And that salary line includes what they charge us, what we reimburse, NPM, so includes FICO, workman's comp, all those extra expenses as well, not extra.

So then it continues to be a really large dump for me. And I agree that they've given us good service and they're local, those are all good things. The other two bids that we received, Do either of them already do business in this area? Neither

of them have any pools in the St. Louis area.

And how different were the bids that they gave?

So the management fees for, if we're just talking about Shaw Park Aquatic Center, from one company were $60,000 per year. And for the other company, it was $103,000 for the first year, $108,000 for the second year, and $112,000 for the third year.

That's significantly higher.

Correct.

Okay, so this was the lowest bid as well?

No. No. No, the salary budget for the other two submissions were less, which means they are paying their frontline staff less. But the

overall cost of the contract is more on the other two?

No. No?

Because the salary budget is such a big portion of the cost that it, that them claiming they're going to get people for $14 an hour, make the look not expensive. Correct. And they're taking a bunch more money for their corporate office.

And it's not realistic. It's not, I mean, we know that because NPM had to pay more to get more employees, to get the qualified employees. And if we're, if these other two companies are going to be paying 14, 15, $16 an hour for some of their services, they're not going, I mean, It didn't work when MPM did that.

It's a much fairer wage to get hired.

Correct, yeah. So MPM is prioritizing the pay of their frontline employees who are critical to the services and the hours of operation that we currently

have. And what's in our budget? We anticipate a jump like this?

Actually, what's in our budget for the city was, I believe, 3% under what we ended up, the bids that we got. It was actually spot on for the center.

And is there, I don't know what the net cost or revenue for the pool is, but is there any consideration or need to look at the pool fees that we charge?

We did adjust those last year when we knew that MPM was doing a rate increase, an hourly rate increase, or for their part-time employees. For, let me see here, pull this up. For FY23, if you don't include, as you had asked earlier, if you don' t include revenue or expenses for any programming because we do all that in-house, we had a cost recovery of about 72% at Shaw Park Aquatic Center. We brought in $334,000 and spent $462,000 And the pool management services are the largest expense than utilities. But yeah, and you know, the average again is anywhere from, I believe it's from like 28% to perhaps 80%, depending on what type of pool you operate. Did I answer your questions?

um one area of questioning so the um set up clayton operated by crswc right and that so that's why 1.5 goes to the center of clayton operating fund which is crswc and so um I don't think I've ever thought about this. So I'm just generally asking the question is that like, how do we think about who, because what the action we're taking is to approve a contract entering into a contract that is actually has the most significant portion of its expenses to the CRSWC, which is technically a different entity of sorts, right? Is that in our like MOU or whatever that we have the authority to enter into those contracts? Yeah.

Well, the city is the one who has managed the contract, but then the CRSWC will also approve this contract as well. It will? Yes.

Okay, great. Thanks. Good question. Hey, over to this side.

Just a quick question, not to raise an issue that probably we didn't want to hear about again, but I noticed the contract talks about the dates that we open and the dates that we close, Labor Day being the final date. You know, we have had some discussion in the past about an extension. And it looks like the pricing is sort of based on those calendar dates. But I do see there's sort of an option that says kind of like if we wanted to change the dates, we could. So again, I don't think that issue has been particularly raised in terms of extending beyond Labor Day. Maybe it has.

I don't think that issue has been resolved as of right now because we are still experiencing staff shortages these last few weeks of the season. Like I said, for example, last week there was apparently one or two times where we only had one lifeguard until we called MPM and they immediately sent somebody over to us week could not operate with only one lifeguard. We would need to close one of our pools down. So that issue, to my opinion, has not been resolved and won't be until we can get adequate staffing. So yes, we did put it in the budget with those what we call end-of-season hours, which start when fall sports start, which seems like a very arbitrary date, but fall sports for the Missouri State High School Athletic Association because we will lose a significant amount of staffing once kids return to their fall activities and then to school. But we did want to leave it open so that if we did get into a situation where we had more than enough lifeguards, we could discuss extended season after Labor Day.

But Lisa, it seems to me we've addressed that possibility in here. Correct. So with that, that was my only issue.

Okay. I'm at the risk of being redundant. So the budget that we just passed for the CRSWC in our board meeting contemplates these kinds of costs in them. And then I don't know how significant this is, but the fee schedule for Shaw Park in terms of things like special events, third-party events, rentals, anything that might require lifeguards is If we were to modify those fees in light of these significantly higher costs, would that make any kind of a difference? I have no idea if that's a small number or a big number.

We don't do many after-hours rentals right now at Shaw Park Pool. It could have... We are billed directly from NPM based on those extra hours. So we'll provide those events to them. If I understand your question correctly, I don't think this will have any impact

So let me ask it differently then. So what I'm really wondering about is not our core service to our residents, but anything we might do that are non-resident oriented. So it might be a major weekend swim meet. It might be pre non-resident use of the pool, whatever that is.

They pay a premium for that.

Right. And so should we revisit whatever our fee schedule is in light of these expenses? That's what I'm asking.

We could, certainly. I think it would just require a small adjustment. I don't think it would be anything major because we do look at those every year and we want to make sure that those fees do cover above and beyond what those expenses would be for MPM, but we could certainly look at that.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's all. So one is a question for me to understand and then another question. So on the Senator Clayton part, so how does this work? We sign the contract, we foot the bill, and then CDRWC reimburses us to the extent they have it. And like, how does the school district get in kind of their parts of this bill?

So really the aquatic management services for the Center of Clayton, those are use agreements that were signed by the city and the school district. And the city is responsible for providing aquatic services at the Center of Claydon. So the city is the one then who administers this contract. Once this contract is approved, we know exactly how much should be charged to the city and exactly how much should charge to the center. So when we do the purchase order, we just do those accordingly. And then what happens at the end of the year, as we mentioned earlier, we will get a full reconciliation from MPM. We'll compare that to what the numbers we thought and to see if there's any refund. But the city is the one that is, per the usage agreements for the center, responsible for managing the aquatic operations, same as fitness operations. Okay, so there

isn't, in essence, a reimbursement from the school district or CRWC in relation to this number?

No, it's part of the CRSWC's budget. And then really, if there's any deficit at the end of the year, that's what the city and the district both contribute to.

The other question is... Walk me through the three-year contract versus a one-year contract. I get the one-year change. My guesses are just trying to right-size management costs that they couldn't do over the last couple of contracts. But I also see because they've built in basically a 5% annual increase, which seems sort of – it doesn't seem high based on recent inflation, but it seems high if inflation is going to go down. So I'm just trying to understand, are we okay locking ourselves into that 5% or would we prefer to have a shorter contract? Right.

I think a one-year contract could be difficult because by the time you got a company settled in and they got used to whatever, our hours, the constituents, what have you, the way we operated all of our pools, if we're changing them the next year, that could all change. I think that would be difficult to manage, quite candidly. I think that if you're talking about... A three-year contract isn't really, I guess, out of the realm of possibility is, I guess, what I would say. And I'm sorry, what was the second part of your question? No, no, that

was it. I was just trying to think through like the 5%, the almost 5% annual changes. I'm kind of like... Does it make sense to roll it through your contract? Does it make sense of a shorter one and see how the world shakes out?

Sorry, I got distracted there at the end. Please keep in mind that the contract numbers are not to exceed numbers. So those again are assuming we're fully staffed for every single shift, every day, week and month throughout the year. So those are the not to exceed numbers Again, I do think we have operated recently with less than that, but those would be the maximum amount that they would be charging us, I guess, each year. So I don't necessarily think that the 5% is really out of whack. I think it's more in line probably with what we really need and really would require as far as staffing numbers in all of our facilities.

That's all I had.

okay just one remedial question um so if bottom line on the center since we i think share equally the expenses of the center with the school district correct if they're share equally the pool expenses with the school district this indoor pool at the center Yeah. Anything at the center?

Yes. I mean, anything at the center is essentially built into the center's budget. This was all included at these dollar amounts in the center's budget and should there be a deficit at the end of the year, this would be part of that that overall deficit that would be split between the city and the center. I

know you said that, but I was just, I just needed to hear that again. That's okay. Yeah. Okay, great. Okay. I think we've discussed it. No hands up. So Alderman

McAndrew. I'll introduce bill number 7037, approving a contract with Midwest Pool Management LTD for aquatic facility management services to be read for the first time by title only second

any discussion city attorney

number 7037 first reading an ordinance approving a contract with midwest pool management limited or aquatic management services for the city of clayton

all those in favor

aye opposed I'll move that the board gives unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7037 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7037, approving a contract with Midwest Pool Management, LTD, for aquatic facility management services to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7037, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Midwest Pool Management Limited for aquatic management services for the city of Clayton.

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

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

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell.

Aldeman Hummel.

Aye.

Aldemann Jeffery Yorg.

Aldemann York.

Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, the motor-driven outdoor maintenance equipment for mostly lawn blowers, leaf blowers.

The Board of Aldermen discussed leaf blowers and gas-powered lawn equipment on April 19th and July 19th, 2024. The Board of aldermen expressed a desire to further restrict the permitted hours for contracted lawn maintenance using gas-powered equipment. The attached ordinance would reduce the permitted hours for the operation of motor-driven outdoor equipment on weekdays for contractors from 7 a.m. 8 p.m as currently allowed reducing that to 7 a.m to 6 p.m residents maintaining their own property would still be permitted to use such equipment until 8 p.m staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance

okay great any discussion any anybody in the audience or online has a comment okay any discussion on the board

just a clarification when it says the use of motor driven outdoor maintenance equipment an electric leaf blower has a motor. It's motor driven. Yes. It's not gas powered, it's the motor.

It's

everything.

Yeah, that's just how our ordinance is written. So if it's gas or electric.

I don't think electric is very quiet. I don't know that that was what brought this before the board. And I'm not sure that's what we're intending. Or are we?

So today we make no distinction between gas powered or electric powered. We talk about motor driven and technology. When we were talking about making a change to specifically further restrict gas powered, a couple of folks brought up wanting to just actually shorten the hours of use in general. And that's what this is attempting to address. And it's only addressing... businesses, so like I can use my mower frankly whether it's gas powered or electric. Right right yeah and I

also like we're

not making that distinction yet between gas and electric

well in doing this. i'm wondering if we should because we also talked about the incentives as people replace their equipment that they would move toward. Electric equipment and if it's the same hours and the same restrictions. we're not building an incentive in with this. I don't know that there is an issue with, you know, we have neighbors with electric mowers and electric leaf blowers, and there's really minimal noise, and do we want to be this restrictive?

Well, I would just comment that almost no, I don't know, I'm not sure there are any commercial yard folks working around, maybe there's one or two that use electric, but they are all using gas, which is extremely noisy. And as we know, a lot of emissions. I think at this time, I would vote for keeping it simple because this is really about the hours and really honestly, whether it's electric or not, even electric mower or electric leaf blower, I know because we have an electric leaf blower. It's still noisy. And so if you get two or three of them going around your house right during your dinner party, it's not going to be fun. So I like it just reducing the hours. It's not that much. And then if we get to a point where we can start considering restricting the type of equipment, which I would love to do someday, we have to kind of wait for the technology to catch up, I think, or at least wait for us to have sort of some research presented on because we would have to change our equipment as well. So I think but my thought is let's just go ahead with this, and at a later date when there's more technology or when we can understand that there are options for others to do electric, we could incentivize it because right now there's nothing to incentivize.

I think the technology is pretty much there, and the question is as people replace, it's still cheaper to go with gas, but as things, when we talked about not making businesses incur that expense, But maybe the normal cycle of replacement that they would move toward electric. And so just presenting to the board that if that's truly what we're hoping to incentivize, having this limited to gas might be something we want to do. If we want to restrict everything, I'm still going to support it. I think that we're missing an opportunity.

Well, Yeah, okay. So I would say I would still like to restrict everything, but I would still like the restriction on time no matter what the equipment. But I think there are other ways hopefully we can incentivize moving to other equipment down the road when there is viable options. So I don't want to be the only one talking. Yeah, I just want to be

clear because my impression from our last discussion and next steps was that we are moving forward to try to draft something to restrict the use of gas powered equipment that is not like on hold pending something else. It's just not quite as easy to do as this. So we're getting this sooner.

I thought the research, before we start drafting stuff, we were just going to get some more research to figure out where the technology is right now. That was where we left it. And where we are as a city.

Pause for the city. What would it mean for us to implement it and all that so that we could think about do we want to do it in one year or three years and all that stuff? I get it, but that's happening and it's not... like just on hold i'm asking you david that's that's still an

active item and yeah so

as far as i'm concerned i can vote for this right now as long as i know that's happening and i'm yeah thank you

I'm supportive of it. It's a step in the right direction. I guess I just had a practical question to David. So assuming this passes, how do we get the word out sort of to the community that we now have new rules? There are lots of different contractors out there. Somehow we have to let contractors know. that we have these hours because unless we let them know if they violate it, they're going to say, well, we didn't know you changed the hours. I'm just wondering how you think we're going to do

it a couple of different ways. Contacting all the contractors is tough because we don't have a list of who's actually operating here in the city. And there, if you ever look at pull it up on Google, there are a ton of lawn contractors in the St. Louis area. What we'll end up doing is we'll put this in all of our publications like typically do to let residents know that the hours are now more restrictive. And then typically on the enforcement side, our officers are kind of in education mode. You know, they can use their discretion with these things. So when they find violations, and that's what we did the first time we tightened it, they would let people know, hey, the ordinance has changed. You need to stop this and come back tomorrow. And then if we've got repeat violations with the same companies, then we'll start to, you know, issue a summons or whatever we need to do. But it'll just be an education process.

And are we comfortable if there are violations that we have so many limitations in our municipal court that we can actually significantly enforce this if someone chooses? Absolutely. I mean, yeah, we can write the summons

and prosecute it. Is the fine going to be enough to discourage? Just like any other municipal ordinance violation. So 250. Yeah.

I think otherwise it's fine. I find some of the language at the end of this, which deals with private property owners, a little bit antiquated. It seems like it sort of gives a specific right to private property owners to operate this machinery. it sort of like in the old day, it looks like it was written in like 2016 when people, you know, they're still going to be home between seven and nine in the morning and they're going to come home at five. So we want them to be able to use these things before they go to work. And afterwards, obviously the world's changed. I don't think it's necessarily worth fooling with now, but the language is a little bit stale at this point in terms of sort of as I read it, but I realized that's not the thrust of it, but yeah. At some point, it wouldn't hurt to look at this language a little bit more and see. It seems to me it's a little out of date.

If I may, it does not restrict them to those morning and evening hours. The ordinance only prohibits the early morning and late afternoon hours, and it exempts portions of them for home orders. So the midday is not

regulated. You could do it at 2 o'clock.

Anybody can. Not before 7 or after 8.

Works away. Very good. Rick, anything?

Yes, a couple things. So first, the way I read this is differently than the way Becky identified what she thought, at least what I heard Becky say is that it's sort of the difference between residential and commercial. But what I read is the distinction isn't residential and commercial. The difference is occupied areas. It's either an occupant or not an occupant. So an occupant owner or a contractor. So the way I read this is anybody, whether they're a business or a resident that contracts for this service would be subject to this.

Unless you're the property owner or the occupant mowing the property yourself, it wouldn't be allowed between 6 and 8.

Correct. So it's not a residential distinction is my point. It's not a

residential commercial. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I understand what you're saying. I

just want to make sure we're all clear on that. That's all. I don't have a problem with that. I just want to be clear on that. Then the second thing is, assuming we were to pass this, would it become effective immediately or is there any kind of another thought on when it would be effective? This would be effective immediately. So there are a lot of people that have already contracted for services throughout a season. And so this could be perhaps problematic, maybe not. But either way, it seems to me that if we're going to enact this, I'd like to make sure there's some kind of a notice period. So rather than approving this tonight, give a second vote to do it another time so that at least we can go back. back and say that we've had adequate time to give notice that we weren't rushing this through. So those are my comments.

Well, so let me just ask, so are you worried about notice to who? Because we won't be getting a hold of these commercial contractors during that time.

What I'm suggesting is just from a process standpoint. So for example, if there are subdivision associations that have contracted with third party contractors to take care of their common ground, I don't want them suddenly to be, okay, we just made this without really any notice to anybody. We just passed it tonight and that's the first time anybody ever heard about it. So I just think it's appropriate that we use our ability to wait one meeting in order to review it a second time.

Okay, I like it. And that makes me think that maybe we should uh, contact the neighborhood associations and let them know. Cause especially in the private neighborhoods where you're actually doing the contracting for your common ground. Yeah. Okay. I hadn't thought of that one.

Yeah. Because Rick, you're worried that they are always going to come at 7 PM on a Wednesday.

I'm not worried that they are. What I what I'm suggesting is, is that I don't know what's already been agreed to. And so if, for example, the Whiteown Terrace Association is contracted with somebody and they permit them to come and do this, then they were in full compliance under the contract. And so I'm just saying that we should. It's a it's a I think a good practice to give proper notice and that not to have to approve it in one night.

So there's actually two. If you're talking about giving notice, people can come and have input, then the delay makes a lot of sense. But I think we have been talking about this for a while. If we want to make sure we give notice to contractors and subdivisions, what we could do instead is pass it. If that's a concern, we could pass it tonight and have it effective in June. I

agree with that. That's why I asked about the effective date. I'm happy with either one. We can have a delayed effective date, or we can have adequate time to make sure that this has been fully revealed to everybody so that they can incorporate it as they enter into agreements with their contractors.

Well, but David's also said too that like the police aren't going to provide a summons the first time around. I mean, that's kind of some, you know, I don't, I mean, I'm not

so worried about the enforcement as I am. Everybody would like to comply and have make sure that they had good notice and that we're following a good practice. So I'm not worried about the enforcement aspects.

And just to be clear that the ordinance has drafted is effective immediately, but the board does have the ability to amend section three of the ordinance and set an effective date. That's sometime in the future.

Would you like to offer such an amendment?

I'd really like to have this reviewed at a second meeting, but I'm happy with an effective date later as well. I just hadn't contemplated that, but I would be happy with that if that's what everybody else would.

Yeah, I mean, if you just don't vote for unanimous consent, it'll happen next week. It'll happen in our next meeting. It's either that or an amendment.

But logistically, if we approved it and gave notice that it's effective in 30 days, we can give that notice out once it's approved. Right? Versus if we wait to approve it, then it's just pending on our agenda. Can

I

just interject to make it easy? As the more I've thought about this, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with six o'clock. So to Rick's point, either way, we're going to have to talk about it next meeting. So instead of spending 15 minutes spinning around stuff like You know, we can go through it. Like my concern is, which is kind of a riff kind of off Rick's part, which is I don't have a good sense. And maybe you all do. It's like if most companies work seven to five or seven to four 30 or whatever, there's possibility they're going to run late. Six o'clock seems really early. for lawn care companies to wrap up on a day that it's rained or a day, whatever, like seven seems more sense to me. I can get on board with six, but to Rick's point, like, I don't know how much notice we've provided to the community other than on this agenda, we did have the, the, the, The work session, being able to basically say we passed it and then there's two weeks for people to be like to storm the city hall, if you will, and have issues with it or be like, yeah, we don't care. Would give me more comfort that the six o'clock isn't going to be as problematic as I think it may. And I also think it probably sets a little bit of a. precedent for when we tackle the bigger issue which is what we do with gas powered stuff period

so i have a suggestion i i suggest why don't we just do both why don't we why don't we um a allow a two-week you know we will table it you can tell me the procedure we could table the

first read it only

just first read it only and then we'll move on And then, and also we could, someone could offer an amendment that we put in a, an effective date that is like three months from now or whatever we want it to be a month from when it's enacted. I mean, there's no harm in allowing some time for people to adjust. I have no problem with that. I mean, we've waited this long to do it. Let's just give, give, let's just give everything. Okay, so if you want to make an amendment for a timing when it would take effect from its time of approval.

Sure, I would make a motion to amend the ordinance to include an effective date of November 1st, 2024.

Second. Now, what do I need to do next? I'll just introduce the bill. Okay, thank you. Okay, any discussion on the amendment? The motion to amend? Okay, and so all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, the motion to amend has passed. Now we would like to have a motion to approve the ordinance as amended.

I'll introduce bill number 7038 as amended approving an amendment to section 215.765 to modify the allowable hours of usage for motor driven outdoor maintenance equipment to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Very good. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7038, first reading. An ordinance amending section 215.765 to modify the allowable hours of usage for motor-driven outdoor maintenance equipment.

All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Very good. And we'll have the second reading next time.

And just so I'm clear, we can send notice out to the trustees that we have in our system, the board would like? and then include something in the Clayton Connection. Would you like us to provide notice

how

this item is being considered?

Yeah, I think we should.

Yeah. All right.

Make sure we met that

expectation. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Moving on, I think.

Mayor, before we move on, I just wonder, in terms of something like this, whether putting something in the Claydon Connection or somewhere... Where we put things out to the public just to make sure they're aware that this issue is being considered?

Correct. That would go along with it. Okay. Because we have some neighborhoods that don't have associations or trustees. We want to make sure we capture everybody hears about it.

All right, next is the traffic code.

All right, staff recently conducted an audit of the city's residential parking zones. During this audit, it was determined that some ordinances did not match current needs and usage, specifically the section of West Biltmore Drive between 925 South Hanley and 7701 Clayton Road. This section of West Biltmore Drive is currently serving the parking needs of the condominiums at 925 South Hanley Road and the law offices at 7701 Clayton Road. The area is currently signed as unrestricted parking. However, during the audit of residential parking zones, it was discovered that the area is included in a code table that restricts parking to residents only except for Sundays between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. In addition, the residents of 925 South Hanly Road have not historically been issued residential parking stickers, which would allow them to park in the Davis Place neighborhood. Staff has since authorized the issuance of stickers to these residents since they are adjacent to the residential zone. Staff recommends amending Table 3-M to exclude this section of West Biltmore Drive to continue to serve the needs of the area. Essentially what this would do is take it out of the table and the signs that are in place or the lack of signs, that's what would govern. So unrestricted parking within that block.

Okay. I'll just go around.

Any comment? I don't know if there's anybody in the audience.

Okay. I've asked it every time except this one. Yes. Is there anybody here that wants to talk about this? Yeah. Come on up. Yes, please. And your name and address and make sure the mic is on.

Okay.

So we have been copying for about a year of that property. We knew that there was just about every parking space failed.

And we affect our business and the park up to a number of people. I was hoping this would pass this. I appreciate everyone taking time.

Thank you very much. All right. Anybody else? Please come up to the podium and again, your name and address and then your question.

Hi, my name is Kiel. My name is Kiel Nguyen. And my question is that yes, it's a wonderful thing to go for. Are we getting the same amount of stick? Little moments, okay.

Here's our parking czar. He's going to come up and explain it. There's

no differentiation between types of owners, so any car that's registered at that address would be available for a sticker, with the caveat that it won't be a sticker on January 1st. It'll be an electronic tag using your license plate, but yeah, any car that you have titled at the address... And any five visitor tags.

Oh, so five visitors. What do you do?

I can talk to you after. It's nearby.

So are we actually issuing the stickers even though it's going electronically? In January, we're going to do stickers for a few months and then. We have a room

full of stickers right now. So yeah, everybody has

stickers.

Very good. Any other discussion?

Mayor, I was just going to say, so I was originally contacted by one of the owners, one of the condominium owner board members at South Hanley. And I'm also aware of Mr. Nissenholz's situation. And so I think this is a good approach from what I've heard from the people and as was just indicated, the fact that they will be getting stickers they hadn't in the past, even though arguably they had as much right to the stickers as the people who were more directly on Biltmore. So I think this will be a good solution and still allow Mr. Nissenholz to get the parking his visitors need. So I think it's a good approach for everyone.

Any other comments by anyone on the board? I would, in the discussion, and Alderman

McAndrew. I'll introduce Bill No. 7039, approving a modification to the Municipal Traffic Code related to on-street parking on West Biltmore Drive to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7039, first reading, an ordinance approving changes to the traffic code to codify existing on-street parking conditions on West Biltmore Drive.

All those in

favor? Aye. Opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7039 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Let the minutes reflect. The board is given unanimous consent. I'll introduce bill number 7039, approving a modification to the municipal traffic code related to on-street parking on West Biltmore to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any other discussion? City

attorney. Bill number 7039, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving changes to the traffic code to codify existing on-street parking conditions on West Biltmore Drive.

Alderwoman McAndrew?

Aye.

Alderwoman Buse?

Aye.

Alderman Patel?

Aye.

Aldermen Gary Feder? Aye. Aldeman Rick Hummell? Aye. Aldemann Jeffery Yorg? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

Aldermen Fader? Aye. Aldeman Hummel? Aye. Aldemann York? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye. Thank you.

All right. Next up is the tenant Bill of Rights.

Yes, the Board of Aldermen has discussed the establishment of a tenant bill of rights on two prior occasions. The attached resolution contains all changes and revisions requested by the Board of Alderman during those discussions. I want to be clear, the tenant bill of rights does not create any new regulations, but is rather a compilation of existing provisions related to fair housing and housing standards contained within federal, state, and local laws. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution establishing a tenant bill of

Okay, thank you. I can open the discussion. And I'm wondering if anybody, any of our attendees have questions or comments? Okay, Barb, we're gonna plug you in here. Oh wait. So yeah, Barb knew it was first with her hand up. So why don't you go ahead?

Oh, thanks so much. I'm Barb Nauert, owner of 6607 Clayton Road. I just have some input from a landlord's perspective. I know that this is a Missouri ordinance or section 441.234. It's a number Roman numeral three, number three. I have a concern only because let me just share with you that recently I've received two rent checks mailed on August 1st from our apartment building and it has not reached us in Chesterfield. For one tenant, it was 14 days and another tenant 25 days to get from Clayton to Chesterfield. So my concern has to do with the part of Roman numeral three number three where the landlord fails to correct or provide a written statement disputing the necessity of the repair within 14 days The tenant may submit an itemized statement with receipts to the landlord. And my point is, is that the section needs to be revised because it has no reference to the responsibility of the tenant to have documentation that the landlord was notified about the violation to begin with. If the landlord is not notified through verified documentation, the tenant should not be able to proceed because the landlord was uninformed due to the lack of postal service. There's a culpability on the tenants part to notify in writing and have proof that the complaint was received by the landlord. And it's not mentioned in this statement of Missouri law. And my second issue is We get into the weeds of this. As a landlord, we're thinking about what do we do here? Who is responsible if the issue is not repaired correctly by the tenant's contractor? What if damage occurs when the tenant's contractor is at fault? Who's liable? So I'm just trying to get into the weeds to find out where do we stand as landlords and what is our responsibility and liability? Those are my two points on Roman numeral three, number three.

Okay, those are good questions. Why don't I do this? I think we kind of made a note of those. I can address it. You want to address them now?

Okay. So that's contained within state law. So we don't have the ability to change that requirement or that regulation here at the City of Clayton that would need to happen in Jefferson City. As to the scenario you had laid out and how that would be enforced, I couldn't advise you as to what the legal implications would be or who's responsible as far as... you know, which party there. You know what I would recommend if, if you had questions like that is perhaps contact an entity like the equal housing opportunity council to see if they could perhaps give some guidance, but we would be uncomfortable here at the city of Clayton giving any kind of legal guidance as it relates to the state law.

Okay. Number Roman numeral two number 10. Could you please explain letters a B and D. in the tenants bill of rights

let me pull up that section of the municipal code i mean and when you say explain it in what way

well and it's a little confusing as to what the point of those um Three articles are 10 A, B and D. I just needed to have you explain what they really are trying to get at.

Yeah, so this comes straight out of the municipal code as it relates to discriminatory practices. Much of the section comes straight from state law, again, basically verbatim. That final section is entitled Additional Unlawful Discriminatory Practices, and it just lists various actions that could be It could constitute a discriminatory practice. So if this happened, if this is just a local ordinance only, it would be a municipal code violation. But again, I think a lot of these are verbatim from state law. So I could take a look at that to see if that's where it comes from. But basically what this is saying is that if you do any of these things or even the city here, it talks about if the city is discriminating on this basis, then it would be unlawful.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Very good. Okay, now, Linda, do you have some questions for us?

Yes, my name is Linda Auburn, the other owner of 6607 Clayton Road. And I'm addressing Roman numeral two, number nine. And our first issue is who determines what are reasonable modifications, even if it is at the expense of the person with a disability? Does the disabled person determine what is reasonable or the landlord? I mean, we could be sued by a person who is not even a tenant yet because they decide the modifications are reasonable and they can afford the modification. But the landlord does not consider those modifications reasonable or legal. Is the city willing to take on the liability of the landlord and pay attorney fees and court costs due to this wording? The second issue I have is, does the prospective tenant or landlord determine the contractor for the modifications and restorations? The city of Clayton again is leaving the door open to a suit from a disabled person against a landlord in both these cases. Unless the city is willing to reimburse us for attorney fees and court costs, this wording needs to be changed. And for a third part, for modifications to be done between a landlord and a tenant, a contract should be written to make sure that the landlord is informed as to what's to be done, who's to do the modification, both initially and restoration. Who pays for that contract to be written, the prospective tenant or the landlord? And if the tenant leaves without restoration of the modification, is the City of Clayton going to enforce the tenant to restore the landlord's building and or enforce a contract between the landlord and the tenant regarding restoration?

So again, like my previous answer, this section does come straight from state law. This is verbatim from Missouri State Statute, so you can look it up in RSMO as well. They've got that published online. But Anyhow, being that it's a state law, we don't have the ability to change that here locally. And again, I would encourage you to contact a local authority like the Equal Housing Opportunity Council or EHOC to see if they can give you any guidance on that type of provision. But we couldn't offer any legal advice.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, David, can I just ask one clarification, which I think is kind of what Barb and Linda were getting to? Is basically everything in here just a, I don't even call it the summary, but a compilation of state law? State law, a lot of it is federal as well.

But in terms of like... There are very few provisions that are just local ordinances. So one thing that's not in state law that would be local would be the requirement for occupancy permits. Another one would be discrimination based on source of income. That's a local requirement. You won't find in state law. Aside from that, just about all of these provisions are either federal or state

of Missouri requirements. Okay, so for purposes of Linda and Barb's question and others, we basically, short of those two, basically just summarized what was already enforceable by tenants anyway. We just put them all together. That's correct. And

questions did come up locally because we do have this cited within our municipal code. We would probably go to an entity like equal housing opportunity council and start to have those conversations.

Okay. And I know I'm kind of scumped ahead. I'm sorry, but since I'm already talking, did we decide whether we're going to require this to be posted or just put it in ordinance?

That is, that is in here in the resolution in order to be enforceable though, where you can actually take somebody to municipal court for violating that we would need to codify it within our municipal code. So we are going to let prospective occupants when they come in to get an occupancy permit or the landlord in that situation, let them know that this exists. We'll make sure that QR codes are available so they can post the notice in the smallest form possible. But there's really no teeth here unless we put something in the municipal code requiring it.

And the reality is, since almost all of it is federal state law, if I had a big issue as a tenant, I could just file in state court. That's correct. We just want people to be aware that these. Yeah, I got it. I just wanted to. That's what I thought. But given Barb and Linda's question, I wanted to be clear to them as well. There isn't a ton that we can do because this is just a summary of a lot of that. That's a compilation of a lot of it. OK. In violations

of these are typically a bigger issue than what the city of Clayton would impose as a as a penalty. I kind of jumped out of order, but I was.

No, no, no. But I think, well, like you said, I think the goal is just that we're just trying to make tenants aware of their rights. I mean, ultimately we want to make sure that if there's problems in their building, they know that they have, you know, some recourse, you know, that they don't have to stay silent.

All makes sense. I just wanted to make sure for that for again, for Linda and Barb and whoever else that we kind of knew what we were

doing. Oh, okay. We've discussed this quite a bit before, but any other comments or questions going around?

Yeah. Um, This is really, as you said, a summary of federal and state law. And I just pulled up some of the Missouri revised statutes, which do have more detailed notice provisions and things like that. Would it be prudent for this to say that this is to ensure awareness of Missouri in federal law? Can this be interpreted... Is Clayton giving more rights than – because it's a summary, it doesn't have the detail of the steps, say, a tenant or a landlord has to go through. Should this – should the lead in this be that the Board of Aldermen hereby gives notice of federal and state law, which provides as follows or something? I don't want us to create rights that aren't there. So it's a legal question, I guess.

Well, I have the same point when I said talk to David. I think – As far as drafting, I would probably add a whereas in the beginning that basically says whereas numerous laws, state, local, federal, provide tenants' rights. The purpose of this document is to put the compilation of those into one document. Otherwise, I think it's frankly sort of disingenuous. It's like, oh man, the city of Clayton has got this new bill of rights. Well, actually it's nothing new about it. We're just, and it's helpful. It's putting everything in one document, but we ought to say that's what we're doing. It says it in our, it says it in the request for board action, but the document itself never lets on. And so, I mean, the only thing that's new in here is article four or section four, everything else is just a compilation. So I think, And I think it also ought to somehow, this is sort of a hand on to what Rick said earlier in another issue. Somehow, I think we want to let the landlord community know that we're doing this. It's not anything that should get them real upset. I mean, it's just, we'd like tenants to know what their rights are. This is putting it in one very easy place to get it. Yeah. They really have little obligation other than to put a card on there where their mailboxes are that says this thing exists and be happy to give you a copy. But we ought to also let them know that this is coming. And finally, as the point was raised, it does seem to me it's a little bit frustrating that if we're going to ask landlords to do this, that it's essentially unenforceable. It's kind of like, you know, this is just, it's kind of on our wishlist, you know, we'd like you to do this, but frankly, if it turns out you didn't post it or you didn't give a copy to the tenants, we can't enforce it because it's a resolution. It's not an ordinance. So, At least it seems to me we ought to think if we're really serious about this, maybe it should be somehow in an ordinance form. So if the landlord doesn't comply, we actually can do something about it right now. But maybe it's all right just to be aspirational about this. But at least I think it's worthy of some further discussion whether this is in the right format since we can't enforce it right now, even if we enact it because it's a resolution.

Okay, I think that's both great points. So let me let's I think get some other comments and then we may amend this. We'll see. Let's Becky did you have any comments or questions here.

Yeah, I just think I would agree that it doesn't I wouldn't, I don't see the point of passing something that's telling someone they have to do something without actually really saying they have to do it by making it an ordinance. So, yes. Okay.

And Rick?

I guess I'm unclear. I thought I heard David say that when the resident comes in to get the occupancy permit that we would give them the document then, but is that the actual practice? Do tenants come and get occupancy permits or do the landlords get the occupancy permanent? I don't know how that works.

They're supposed to think the landlord who is they? So,

yeah,

I mean, yeah,

go ahead.

Either one can apply. Most often it's the landlord or the property manager for that project who will actually apply for the occupancy permit. An easy way for us, what we'll probably do is actually add that QR code onto the permit itself that's given to whoever applies, which is already a requirement that we state on there that they provide a copy of that occupancy permit to the tenant. So if we have a QR code reference on that document itself, and they're supposed to give that to the tenant, that's an easy way to pass it on. And then we can, you know, I'll wait to hear from David and Kevin as far as enforcing of postings. But for every occupancy permit, there's an inspection that's done. And part of that includes inspecting the common areas. So it'd be very easy for us to just add on our inspector's checklist to make sure when they go into a building for a new unit that there is the in fact, the posting or reference to this document online.

So just given that it's the process, I'm fine with the resolution. I'm not opposed to the ordinance, but I'm fine that it's going to be impactful. So-

Yeah, I would just add, I think if the method of communication and awareness of this is something that we can implement by practice in the city and our existing processes, then a resolution works. feels acceptable to me also, but we would pretend, I don't know. And I don't know that we need to specify that or not, but I mean, we have, we also could say like, we currently have the addresses of every address that's had an occupancy permit in the last X number of years. And we could actually send something out to each of those addresses to inform them about of this for folks who aren't moving right

addresses and we also have since everything is online you have to have an email you're registered through an account to get our permits so we actually it would take a little bit of time because we haven't used that database for such an exercise but we could potentially pull all the email addresses for people that have active occupancy permits that have been granted in the last two years or something and send out that notice so well it should be pretty easy for us to get some mass communications directed towards people who are renting most of our units. The majority of our larger scale properties that have more than four units in them are managed by property management companies. So we have all their direct contacts and getting it to them is going to cover the majority of the apartments that we have in the area.

So if we learn that I won't name any real companies. I've been experienced a few if they are not particularly larger one, if they're not passing this on and we learn that what is our recourse then?

Well, that's kind of what we've alluded to, what David's alluded to with how we would actually enforce it. But there are ways for us to put it out there pretty widespread.

That's right. So what we'll do is as a matter of practice, we can, we can, provide all the education in the world for this thing with tenants and landlords if the board wants this to be truly enforceable we can follow this resolution up with an ordinance it would be a really easy ordinance to put together to actually make it a requirement within section 225 to post the notice

I would be in favor of doing that because just having some experience with some of these apartments and what goes on, I think that it ought to be enforceable. But go ahead, Bridget. I jumped in. Oh,

no. No, I mean, I didn't. I wasn't going to say I do. I would certainly support that. And I do think. You know, Susan brought up a good point. I think it might be helpful to add a last whereas to just say there are, you know, because I think we don't want people reading these and, you know, to Linda and Barb's point, I think there are more specific and tailored you know time constraints related to providing accommodations in the municipal code that you know are not reflected here because we shouldn't we shouldn't include everything obviously so it might be helpful to just tell people you know these are a general list of everything you know that's required but you know there are far more specific and you know many more laws that are applicable that you also need to be aware of so

so i agree with that too anybody everybody okay with that

what's the process would we amend tonight or just table it and then deal with it in two weeks we've written it

we need a motion to amend the resolution

so if you want kevin's working on some whereas language as we speak

yeah

i'll talk really slowly so we could we could add the whereas tonight if you wanted to pass it tonight that would be Totally fine. We'll go ahead and start the education process and build into our system downstairs in planning and development services, and then we'll follow it up with a separate ordinance that would actually just have the provision that it has to be posted, and then we can put that into our code. That works. So

I'm unclear. We're not suggesting we're going to pass an ordinance tonight.

No, it would be a resolution tonight. Like it is in front of you with one extra additional whereas clause that deals with the fact that this is a compilation of state and federal laws and those types of things. And then the ordinance that comes back to the board would just be about posting on those properties.

So as a piece of feedback, I don't know. I guess I'm unclear about this, but I'm getting the impression from the discussion that while we have a citation underneath many of these or all of these clauses as to where it is in the municipal code, but they also come from a state law. I'm wondering, and we're only capturing what I'm hearing as part of it, not necessarily every detail that's in the state law. Should we have... some type of a hyperlink or some other reference to these things so that it doesn't appear that this is the end all. If we're doing that in an ordinance, I guess.

We can add the hyperlink to the resolution when it's passed or the actual tenant bill of rights that would take you to the state law. But the ordinance itself won't have all of these provisions in it. It's just going to have that one little sentence about posting it. Yeah. I think Barb has her hand up. Yeah. I mean it's it's gonna be yes note notice, which is the qr code or the if they want to post the whole thing again but yeah it'll be the qr code.

yeah I

think yeah I i'm just i'm trying to i'm trying to get there okay barb please make your comment or question.

I like the idea of whereas, where you're just basically presenting from what my understanding is, is just state and federal law and not really say anything about enforcing it, just that this is available for tenants. It makes it clear that Clayton is just presenting the information, but it's not going to be involved in any of the execution of any legalities.

I don't know that we'll go that far, but I think we will reference the state and federal laws. Okay.

Okay, so if there's no further discussion, we would take a motion to amend based on that additional whereas clause if someone wants to.

I have a suggestion if it pleases the board. There would actually be two additional clauses. First is, whereas the city wants to take steps to some extent, compile information reflecting many of the more impactful rights and protections to which tenants are entitled by existing laws, by incorporating that information in this resolution. And whereas this is a compilation of rights and does not establish, this resolution reflects a compilation of rights already recognized in existing federal, state, and local laws, and does not establish any independent basis for rights or responsibilities of tenants or landlords.

I have a suggestion.

Yes, go right

ahead. The rest of this is quite simple and stated very clearly. What if... What if we worked on shortening that a little bit so it reads consistent with this other language here and maybe bring it back next time with the ordinance and pass them both at the same time? Just throwing it out there. I mean, if we can do it tonight, that's great, but that's adding as much language. Excellent language, but it's adding as much languages already.

I'm unclear of what your concern is, Susan.

I think she's just thinking that if we, not that Kevin can't create language on the fly, but we might be able to tighten up the language a little bit more if we give it

two weeks. Because if we're posting this everywhere, which we want to do, we want it to be easy to read and easy to comprehend, and saying that these are some rights from federal and state law, subject to federal and state law. Or something that's really short, I think it's more accessible to for people walking down a hallway.

Okay.

That's all.

The only thing I would add is on the last part, Clevin, I think arguably this is creating some responsibilities for landlord per section, whatever the last section is on notice. So I would just want to be careful that we don't say it's not creating any responsibilities because the last section is creating a responsibility for the landlord to post it. So it's a bit of a wordsmith, but I just want to make sure that we're not on one hand requiring something new and on the other hand saying it's not going to require anything.

I'd like to move that we table this and bring it back to address the concerns discussed tonight together with like the ordinance language to do it all at once.

I'll second that.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We will do it that way. Good points, though.

Great.

I can time off script tonight, guys. Thanks. Thanks, Becky. All right. So that's done. Now it's the MSD program.

On June 23, 2024, MSD Executive Director Brian Holscher presented information to the Clayton Board of Aldermen regarding the passage of Prop S, the impact to existing OMCI districts, and a proposal brought forward by some communities to continue to fund the OMCIs. OMCI is an Operation Maintenance Construction Improvement District. The City of Clayton falls within two different districts, Deer Creek and the University City branch of River De Pere. MSD has notified communities that it requires each municipality that supports having MSD's Board of Trustees consider implementing a continued but reduced OMCI tax in 2026 to provide notice to MSD by September 13th. municipalities who do not support this action can either respond to such or not respond at all. All positive responses will be publicly available and presented in a public format by MSD staff to MSD's Board of Trustees as a part of their consideration process. The Board of Aldermen has three options for consideration that were outlined in the packet. It should be noted that city staff plans to utilize Prop S grant funds in 2025 to reduce street overflows near Whiteown and Hanley. At this time, we anticipate the funds available through Prop S will cover these improvements. No other projects are identified at this time. And the one thing I wanna be really clear about is the additional tax can only be collected and utilized within those specific districts so this isn't city-wide there's a portion of the city that actually sits outside of that deer creek um omci or that university city omci district those particular residents wouldn't have the additional tax and they wouldn't be uh they wouldn't have the funds available to their particular area for any sorts of any sort of improvements so i just wanted to be clear that it isn't every property in the city although it's probably um you know it's definitely the majority matt i don't know a number that we could throw up but probably 70 or more of the city would be included within those districts so with that matt and i can attempt to answer your questions

yeah go around questions um i don't have any questions i would just be i i would be in favor of either option one or option two i just i don't think there's you know i think our residents should really only They were told about Prop S. I just don't think there's any reason that we need this extra funds. We don't use the extra funds. And I think as, I think the gentleman that was here, a lot of MSD projects, you know, they go across, you know, municipal lines and it's, it would be hard. It's hard to kind of find a project where I think this would be worthwhile. I mean, we already have a large balance available to us, which will, you know, fix a portion of the Topton Way drainage in a couple of years. So I don't know if there's any reason to do one or two. versus like not responding versus actually responding in opposition. I don't know if there's some reason to do one or the other, but I would just be in support of either one or two.

All the women abused anything?

Yes, I'm a little confused. So Deer Creek, it's partially Clayton and extends beyond Clayton.

That's

correct. So in the same thing. Yeah. So here's my question. From what we've heard, my understanding is that Clayton does not have the need for these additional funds. If we would choose not to, I'll just use Deer Creek. to support the additional tax, do our neighbors who are also in Deer Creek need that money? And by us not doing it, are we depriving them of that opportunity? I mean, is it the entire district or none of the district, or is it a

portion of it? It's hard to say exactly what the board of trustees at MSD will do. What they're asking for is feedback at this point. So it sounds like there's a mixture of the communities that are out there, some that are supporting it, some that aren't, some just aren't responding at all. MSD is going to have to sort that out and decide what to do with this information. If we don't respond or we respond in opposition to it, and they end up saying we're not going to do it, and they lean towards that side, then there are some cities that probably could utilize that money if it existed that wouldn't be able to. So that's a very real possibility. The larger regional projects, though, that really help the city of Clayton, as Alderman McAndrew was kind of saying, you know, those projects typically aren't OMCI projects. Those are larger MSD projects to help regional flooding issues. The OMCI are the localized issues that municipalities may deal with kind of on an individual basis. So would this deprive communities of that opportunity? Perhaps.

Okay, so given that some of the issues with some of the flooding around us, even though we don't experience, I would hate to tie somebody else's hands to do it. So on that, I would probably think not responding at this point is where I would fall.

Yeah, based on my understanding of from the presentation we had previously, and all of the information around prop s. My first choice would be if a majority of the board agrees to vote for option 2 to actually indicate opposition to msd imposing additional taxing after they told us in prop s that they weren't going to um and if that is not a majority opinion then i'm very comfortable with option one not responding okay

i agree with the general sentiment that option three makes no sense and as between two and one i think the the pragmatic way to go is option one just don't respond

My preference is number two, and I prefer number two because if for some reason we fail to respond and MSD takes that as a sign that they should move forward and they move forward, then our residents will be taxed, at least the ones that are affected. And so I would prefer number that since we aren't going to use these funds, we don't need these funds and prop S takes care of these needs that we would pursue option two.

I mean, I agree with everybody else. Like to me, it's a simple question as we told voters, they weren't going to pay it. And I just don't feel right going back to them and paying it as for option one and two, I think it's really a question of, is this something we want to take a stand on? Or is it something we just like, don't care. enough and if we want to take a stand on it option two is great and we're going to go on record as saying we don't think you should do this and be a leader within the county option one is like we don't particularly want to take a on this because it's just like i could go either way like everybody else like doesn't matter that much to me other than one or two is where i would go with

okay Well i'm just going to suggest that we that we do option one. And the reason is that there are some communities i'm going to just name, one that might be Brentwood it's got a lot of floodplain and you know we work together with Brentwood on a lot of things I think just. to let this ride and have it naturally go out or let those communities who really need it have a little more weight in the decision, I think is... is prudent because we want to be sort of a, we want to be a team player here. So that would be my thought.

Mayor, do you actually have, because when the gentleman was here from MSD, he did not share any information about which municipalities were in favor of option three? I don't have specific. So do we have actual information about that? I would not want to take action based on supposition.

I do have.

David may have something. I have a

few cities and what they're doing with it, but this is going to be all over the place. U City is going to make a decision on September 9th, so we don't have them. They're the adjacent property, obviously. Richmond Heights supported it. Brentwood wants to see continuation of the deer creek mci and I believe maple wood and i'll verify that maple wood was a no.

So if the Board of Trustees takes Brentwood's desire to continue the Deer Creek OMCI and we say nothing on it, and they decide to continue the Deere Creek OMCI, then our residents in those boundaries will be taxed. And we will have said nothing about it.

That's my impression as well. That's the conclusion I would draw.

And so I would go ahead and say, like, I'm in opposition to that. I don't think that's right. I think these municipalities should have spoken up when Prop S was under consideration. I don't, MSD presented to us that they believe that this system is actually, this new prop S system is a much better system for equitably and system-wide caring for the sewers. And I trust them, I want to trust them to do that, not individual municipalities that want different control over funds.

I just verified Maplewood is a no for the Deer Creek OMCI.

Well, to the extent that Waters doesn't know city boundaries, if Brentwood or Richmond Heights are able to address their issues better, it does help our residents. It does help our city. I mean, we can just take a vote, I think. I don't know. I thought I heard you say earlier you're okay with one or two. I said

if we could get a majority of the board in favor of option two, I would support option two.

Okay. Can I just ask a question, too, or David? So, like, I mean, if, you know... the Deer Creek one were to continue or something, you know, again, just because a lot of these flooding issues, like the mayor said, like, you know, go across municipal lines or municipal, you know, boundaries or whatever. So a lot of that then will be covered under presumably Prop S funds, right? So I guess, you know, because then in the end, what is $125,000 going to do for us? Or really, I mean, to solve any sort of flooding problem anywhere. Nothing. I mean, so I guess again, so I would, I mean, I tend to agree with Rick and Becky. I just, I mean, there's just not a reason for me to tell our residents like, oh, by the way, you know, they want to tax you a little bit more. So we have a little bit more money that isn't necessarily going to resolve any problems. for any municipality, quite frankly, because if Brentwood or Richmond fights or anybody has flooding, $125,000 is not going to help anybody. No,

it's the idea that they'll continue the OMCI if Brentwood has what they have. I mean, if they... You know, even if we come out and say we're against it, they may continue it. That's MSD.

And one thing that I want to make clear, though, is that 125 that you see in the chart, that's available to us no matter what we do. So even if we say we, that's what we would get under Prop S. What you're foregoing is the 125 plus another potential 200,000 that's available every year. So 325 per project. Here it comes.

Add for context. Of the 21 cities in Deer Creek, nine of them would have a decrease under Proposition S, and we are one of those cities. MSD did not intend to continue the OMCIs, but some of these cities contacted MSD to look for this option to leave a portion of them on to try to recoup that delta. This is not the way MSD has described it to us. It's not a vote. If there's significant support, they will make a recommendation to their board. And of course, one of these cities that had a decrease could still want to collect additional tax or even an increase could still wanna collect additional tax, but only nine of the 21 went down if that provides any context.

So Matt, would you just say, I mean, I guess, would you say that either option one or two is really the same? You know, we're not supporting it is the key.

Maybe they're

looking for support. How much is out there? Is that what you just said?

David might have a better handle on the different cities and how they're voting, but I think the distinction for me would be if we felt like there was widespread support, if there's 11 yeses but two no's as opposed to 12 yeses and eight no's then i think they lean more towards okay it's pretty split msd might and say you know we're not going to make a recommendation to our board so i think the no's do matter to them for as far as their recommendation goes but that's a and

to be clear with these other cities i don't know who's actually responding in opposition and who's not responding at all they were basically saying whether or not their cities were supporting it but i i don't know which approach they're taking to doing that.

The nine cities are supporting it at this point?

No, nine cities would, if Proposition S is directly replaced with OMCI and it does not continue, the portion that they receive for grants would decrease.

And then we're one of those cities.

That's correct.

Well, I don't know that it makes a huge difference either way. So what do we want to do? Do we want to vote on this? If

we could get a motion and a vote, that would be great.

Okay.

So we know whether or not we need to write a letter.

Yeah. Okay. Very good. Alderman McAndrew.

I will move to approve option two.

Second. Second. Okay. Is this, this is just a voice vote. So all those in favor and raise your hand too, or something. So I can see all those in favor of option two. Opposition. Which is like, we're going to say no. We are opposed

to the tax.

This is right. We're voting for option two.

We are indicating that we are opposed to additional taxing.

I'm voting for option

two, aye. Okay.

Aye.

I think the ayes have it. So there you go. You can write your letter.

Thank you.

All right. Well, I couldn't tell you didn't even vote for it. I wasn't going to wait. The honorary street sign request.

Okay. Final item of the night. This is a request that came from St. Louis County and it looks like Mel may be with St. Louis County who's on the attendee list. We'll find out in a second here. St. Louis County is implementing a new branding program, has created a tagline for the county, which is Opportunity Central. The county would like to install an honorary street sign on top of the standard street signs at Central Avenue and Carondelet Avenue that would read Opportunity Central Avenue. A request letter from St. Louis County was provided to the Board of Aldermen. The City of Clayton does not have an established process for the installation of honorary street signs. In this instance, the city could approve the sign installation with a motion and affirmative vote of the Board of Aldermen if it is deemed appropriate. I'll open it up for discussion, and we can see if Mel here is with the county.

Yes. Mel, are you with the county, or do you have another? Are you a resident? We can let you talk. It looks still muted. It looks... Oh, he has to unmute. Sorry. Okay, so... Oh, there it is. No, still muted, so... Uh-huh. What I'm saying is they haven't. Yeah, so we can go around. If not, so maybe they will. We'll keep an eye on it. Gosh. So... Let me ask this, because a lot of times with zoning and other things, the county doesn't really have to get our approval. So do we can they do this anyway?

It's a city street sign. So this would be separate from any kind of zoning matter or anything else. They would need our permission to put a county sign on a city sign standard.

Okay, I'm going to go around because I'm too chicken to give my opinion right away. Well,

I am not. I mean, I want to be a good partner to the county. But, you know, we don't have any procedure to do this at all. Looks like Mel's ready to talk maybe.

I apologize. This is Mel Wilson with County Planning. I had to change my settings. I had never given Zoom permission to my microphone before, I guess. But if I may, I can add a little bit of color to the request.

Okay, please do.

Yeah, sure. So as you all are probably aware of the rebrand that St. Louis County has gone through, we now have our tagline Opportunity Central. We feel that it's just really clandestine that we are on Central Avenue. And like was stated, there is not a formal process for this sort of honorific street sign. But we, the county, would be able to create the sign and install it. We wouldn't need any assistance or like financial contribution from the city of Clayton. We would be really excited to do it, but I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. Sure.

And just to clarify, Mel, from the rendering that was given to us, this would be a white sign with that pink color that the county is using now, pink or red color? Yeah, the rose

red. That would be the intention. But if there were other, you know, I think traditionally these types of signs are brown with white text, but we ideally would like to keep it in our brand color. So we are open. Yeah, but we're open to whatever the city finds appropriate.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

Well, since it's pretty silent up here, I'll just say. Oh, I mean, oh, okay. Were you going to say more, Bridget? No,

no, no. I mean, I was just trying to understand the, yeah, I was just, and I also, and Mel, I totally, I know that you guys have done a lot of rebranding. I didn't really realize that the tagline was Opportunity Central. So that was kind of a newer, like that was newer information for me. Yeah. So I guess I'm, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it. I'm a little concerned just again, because we did, we've never, we did, there are no honorary signs around town. So it's just something new for us. So that just gives me a little caution, but again, I, you know, I want to be a good partner with the County. I think that's important. So

yeah, let's just go over to Susan. Any, any thoughts?

Yeah, it's, we haven't done honorary signs before. It's, don't know i certainly if that's what the county how the county wants to proceed with it um could try it i assume the county would take all maintenance responsibility if it didn't work they would take it down all those sorts of things right it would be a yes full county responsibility um the you know and i'm sure our streets people could tell us if it's is interfering with reading the street signs that are there and all that. Yeah, I don't know.

Becky, any thoughts?

Yeah, I have a question for our director of public works because I know we have talked about all different kinds of signage for all different reasons. And it's often been strongly suggested that there are very clear standards about the types of signs that you put on streets and that doing things different from that can lead to confusion and stuff. Do you have input related to that for this or is this like no big deal? What's the...

I don't have a lot of experience myself having dealt with these just because we don't have them in Clayton, but doing some quick research. As the person from the county mentions, the brown sign with the white text is a MUSE-approved coloring for such signage.

You used an acronym there. I'm sorry.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Thank you. And we generally will try to follow those with our signage so initial reaction to this is yeah looking to that more typical signage and then also evaluating. The support of that stop sign out there, while I appreciate they would be willing to provide it and install it just it does reside on one of our supports that we would have to maintain into the future, so I just want to look at that some more, but my thought on the coloring and the location.

Yeah. And obviously, like the depiction in the picture is just like a square placed on the image. And I'm sure if we were to approve something like this, it would actually be the size of like there's a standard size for street signs, street name signs. I the I'm just kind of like, I don't know. We make a big deal when our residents come to us with requests about not deviating from mute sit standards. And so I would feel I would want more compelling information about doing so in this case. So yeah. So I'm not saying not do it ever. I'm just saying I think it warrants further review before we deviate from standards that we have followed.

Alderman Gary Feder,

Alderman Fader,

thoughts? Well, I'd like to be cooperative with the county, but I have to say quite honestly, and I realize this is just a first rendering statement, I don't think the sign is attractive. I think it looks very strange. I have no idea what the message is trying to convey here. I don't know. It seemed to me if I was just a resident or anyone walking by, of course, I would wonder whose sign is that? I mean, is that, I would assume they'd think it's the city of Clayton's and it's not. So, I mean, I, again, I'd like, I think it's a nice tagline for the county. I think it's But there's actually nothing I like about the sign. Other than that, that's it. Go

ahead.

I don't know that I have any objection to the, the nature of the request. What I'm concerned about though, is I would really prefer that we have some kind of a precedent or a program for this because I can imagine other neighborhoods once the precedent gets set saying, well, I want to do this and I want to do that. And we have no criteria for this. And so maybe what we should do is figure out what our criteria is or develop it so we can try to accommodate it. Um, And so, and I would prefer that it met all the normal standards that Matt referred to if we do pursue it. And I'd wanna make sure that in this particular instance, it seems like it's clear that it's limited to one particular sign. So there's no lack of clarity as by any resident or any user of our streets with what this is. So it appears that that's the case, but anyway, those are my concerns.

Good, good points.

So I've got a lot of thoughts, but I will just keep it pretty short and echo what Rick said. It's like I'm a process guy, and the idea that we don't have a process for this I'm concerned about because you've got historical markers we've talked about. You've got honorary folks you want to talk about. The minute – Again, nothing new with the county, but like the minute we open that gate, I don't know how to tell residents that any requests they have does or doesn't meet. So I would want to have the process laid out and have us have time to think about like, do we want these? And if so, how are we going to do them? And as opposed to making kind of one-off decisions as they come up. So I'll save the kind of the other thoughts for time, but that's a general question.

Yeah. So I agree with that. I just feel like, well, first of all, Mel apologies, but this is kind of just like a surprise to us. And so we're trying to think through it and we're just all thinking out loud here. But I feel like what we try to do is be consistent across our city with different kinds of requests and different kinds of initiatives. And, and so I do think we'd like to take a look at this a little bit longer and see what kind of, criteria we could come up with for something like this if we wanted to. I'm not saying we really want to, but what would it look like if we did? Also like to get more input from our public works director on any impact this would have for traffic or clarity of directions or, you know, whatever. I know it's on top of the other street signs, but... And then, you know, I just have a question about... understand this in the context of the real rollout of this slogan. I mean, honestly, and you're the marketing folks, but why don't you just plaster big banners on top of your building saying Opportunity Central? I don't know that this is going to get a ton of visibility from your constituents. And honestly, the whole county is opportunity central, not just this corner. So to me, just as a matter of logic and a former marketing person, I just have those questions. But nevertheless, if this is what you want, we just need some time to evaluate it in the ways that I just described. And we can follow up with you when we're ready to discuss it again. I don't know how urgent your request is, but I think we'll need a couple of months to evaluate it.

So I and I think that, you know, this is a very understandable response. And I would I will admit that I hesitate to even call it a rendering. The exhibit I put together just to generally show the idea. So I recognize that it's not very attractive. But I think the feedback about the MUTCD criteria is very interesting. appropriate and i can certainly go back and get much more you know a more detailed exhibit if that would be helpful to following those guidelines as sort of the base

i think that would be helpful so if you wanted to forward that to our city manager and public works director that'd probably be great and um we will ponder it and and we'll get back to you guys sound good Yes. Okay. So for this agenda item, we have a motion to table it. Motion to

table. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Very good. Great. Well, all right. We are, gosh, I came into this meeting thinking it would be short.

Always a mistake.

That was a mistake. I jinxed it. So anyway, we can have a brief roundtable if we want or you guys can sit there and go nod your head no and then we can skip it. I know it's almost nine. I don't really care. It's up to you. Well, let's do it really fast. Okay.

So we, Rick and I had a pretty impactful CRSWC meeting. We did pass a budget. There's a pretty big negative balance that will occur at the center, which I'm not going to go into again. It's late, but it's there's a lot of big capital projects that will hear about it. Yeah. And so there'll be a lot more information. I think that not capital projects, but just, you know, there's a lot everybody will hear more about it um when we have our joint meeting right but i would welcome if anybody wants um i can forward uh the packet that came to us and then you're welcome to reach out to rick and i if you have questions you know even before um we have our joint um board of education board of all can

you send that around

yes yes i will send it around So we also had a plan commission meeting last week, just a couple new houses, one that was not so attractive. So that was suggested to redesign. And I would be remiss not to mention that Becky and I went to a great women kind of campaign it was called like women's campaign science program last weekend um and that was great i'm really excited to have been a part of that um and then also today i i'm part of the clayton school district steering committee for the long range facilities master plan david and i were at um the meeting this morning and i thought it was a great start and i kind of look forward to um being on that committee and um relaying to you all kind of what um what transpires

We had a sustainability meeting and we had a presentation from Ripple Glass, which will be coming toward the board at some point. It was actually started by Boulevard Beer in Kansas City, not knowing what to do with all their bottles and trying to reduce waste. They put up their own bins. It would cost the city nothing. And by getting glass directly versus the single streaming, it's something like 90% recovery. So that presentation I think will be coming to the board. We're getting a little bit more information from public on what the baseline recycling is for glass compared to what Ripple would offer, and they're doing it and moving into more areas around the St. Louis area. We're looking still progressing with water bottle alternatives, talked about WaterMonster, which WashU had everywhere during its orientation. There will also be coming to this board a green dining presentation trying to get some of our restaurants, primarily in Des Moines, certified with the Green Dining Alliance and seeing how that might go for the city and trying to see what kind of sub-districts we can do versus the entire city. You all heard last time about urban dark skies. That went from, it was presented at Parks and Rec and then the presentation came to the Sustainability Committee and it really is an effort It's an international effort to limit light pollution and looking at human health as well as all kinds of environmental health. The data is pretty significant. Stacy Park in Olivet is already an Urban Dark Skies certified park. And we're actually going down to meet with people at St. Louis City I think in two weeks. They have a zero waste commitment and are meeting with the sustainability committee and I don't know. City Park. Yeah, the soccer team. Yes. Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, we're going down to the soccer stadium and looking at and finding out what they're doing there to see if there's anything that we can bring back here. The only other thing that I'll mention is that I actually sent David, Michelle and Chief Smith just a comment that I noticed in our city views, we talk about the, we give away at this police department, they've got the steering locks for the cars that are subject to being stolen, Hyundai and things. And just a suggestion that we look further in how we can help the city continue to provide child safety locks for guns that the police departments were funded for a while to give out. I don't know what's happening with that, but it's something that is not expensive. that our city could tackle on its own if we needed to or pursuing the avenues that might provide that. It's a very good service and I hope that everyone around us does it as well.

Thanks. The only topic I have that hasn't already been discussed is I had just a meeting with a WashU student who'd reached out to me because he was interested in pedestrian and bike access for university students to and through Clayton. So obviously, I shared Engage Clayton with him, which he had seen and was interested in. I met with him right before the sustainability meeting, and I told him about it, and he came. And there's, and he was talking about organizations at WashU that he's trying to partner with that are specifically focused on transportation access and things like that. So I just thought it was really interesting and like consistent with a lot of the stuff that we're working on. And he shared a perspective that I hadn't necessarily thought about, which was, you know, some of our communities, some of our neighborhoods around the South 40 kind of like The South 40 is actually very blocked off from our neighborhoods. Depending on where you live, you might feel that differently. But he was talking about how it could be good for the St. Louis region if students at WashU felt more integrated or welcome in our community. So that was an interesting perspective for him to share. And that's all I have. Hold them and fade out.

The mayor and I attended the ribbon-cutting at PNC Bank on Carondelet, which was very nice. I thought what was most significant is just generally the way a lot of the banks in the last few years have moved around from location to location. in many cases because they lost their lease or for a variety of reasons, but they all seem committed to staying in Clayton. So, you know, with all of them, PNC and M1 and Busey Northern Trust, they've all moved around, but they're still looking to Clayton as someplace that's very important to them to have a branch. I think I alluded to that I attended the meeting of the municipal league's legislative affairs committee. It's actually a very nice group of people. I think there are 10 different cities who have representatives and, uh, Mike Clement, who I know from Manchester is the chairman. And, uh, and so I think they're going to, they are going to take on some interesting issues and looking for a lot of input and, um, And I know we're always wondering if the cities, how widely represented they are. But it is truly North County, South County, the central part. So it really is not just the core that we're generally most dealing with. And then finally, Rick and I attended a meeting of the executive committee of CCF. And so that's not – it was not their real meeting. It was just really sort of working on their agenda. So I think whatever was said there is really subject to their next meeting, which I think is September 19th, which is – in conjunction with the big celebration at the Hanley house. Uh, I think it'll be at Stephen Rosenblum's new house, which is across the street. And so I'm sure everybody here is invited to those events. And, uh, one topic that was discussed, which was interesting instead of a broader context is some concern about CCF, whether they're sort of the continued bang for the buck in them and sponsoring sort of events, um, because it doesn't necessarily lead to what their real objective is, which is to try to get funding for private infrastructure projects. And I think a sense that where I think they're corrected when CCF sponsors an event, just as like when the chamber used to sponsor events is that, uh, in the eyes of the community, they're all city events. And so while we prosper from having these other organizations put on events, the organizations themselves don't necessarily get a lot from it. And so I have some, whether for good or for bad, ICCF I think is going to think a little harder about how involved it is in events and whether that's really driving their mission. And so to the extent that they back off some events, It will put, I think, potentially more of a burden on us as the city to do these kinds of things that reach out to the community. But again, this was just their executive committee. I'm sure it'll be discussed further and we'll see what direction it takes. That's it.

So you've heard about the meetings I've already attended. So I would just add, I found it interesting that both of the school board representatives were supportive of the budget on the CRSWC despite the deficit. So I take that as a positive. I would just add to Gary's comments regarding the CCF. Perhaps it's obvious, but the budget isn't what it once was. And so prioritization of how to spend money is, I think, going to become a bigger issue going forward. Third, I could certainly defer to David and Ana to talk about it, but we are looking at moving forward with the overlay districts at our planning commission meeting in September. And so we should anticipate if that gets approved for that to come to the board in October. And I'm hopeful that the update on all of this information will be available on engageclinton.com tomorrow.

Thank you. By the end of the week, most likely. We're still working through a couple of things. Okay, soon. It'll be soon and we are targeting September 16th and you should have that confirmed here shortly.

Right. And then lastly, just an update. Gary and I did meet on the discussion of committees and commissions. And so we've put together a number of topics that we want to follow up on, many of which were the criteria on that spreadsheet, just reviewing them, but other things would be Making sure that we understand if we did want to consider any changes, what's the legal standing? Who has the authority on this? Do we want to bring forward any suggestions for any ad hoc committees? We want to review the current documentation and propose perhaps some type of a reference guide or handbook as we go forward. And then ultimately, we'd love to learn what other cities are doing so that we may not reinvent the wheel. So perhaps June can help us with that, with her thoughts. colleagues in other communities.

Very good. Yeah,

Jeff. I'll be brief. The short point is, although not as with Bridges as the overall strategic planning for the school district, I found out today that I was put on the Glenridge subcommittee for Ward 2. So we'll be meeting to then provide stuff that kind of rolls up the chain. Otherwise, that's all I've got.

Very good. I don't have a lot, but I do want to talk to you guys and I kind of forgot to do it at the end of the agenda. So you guys are familiar with Gary has left but you're familiar with probably this group that has been doing pre musical concerts out in front of City Hall at noon on Saturday. You know, whatever, once a month or once a week. Do you remember the exact schedule? We've only

had them once or twice.

Once or twice. So anyway, I've been talking to them. Their representative, Mike Loind, who is chairman of the Interco Charitable Trust, but So the Interco Trust, along with the Kranzberg Arts Foundation, they're working on a project that they're calling St. Louis Music Commission to bring street musician programs to St. Louis. And they've been doing it all summer in the Central West End and they've done it somewhat downtown. And so I talked to him about expanding this program into Clayton. And I think, you know, we've talked a lot about wanting our streets to be more lively and we've talked a little bit about entertainment. And so this would be a chance, I thought, to at a very low cost have like every Friday night something going on in certain locations, maybe a couple of locations. And so we talked about it. They came back with a proposal just saying that they would like to do the last three Sundays and Fridays in September and provide at least two locations. And what they do at each location is they play for like, I think it's about three hours and they are two or three hours and then they have two different groups. So they rotate these groups among the locations so people don't get sick of hearing the same thing all the time. And so, and they are willing to underwrite it completely for the month of September for us to try. And so if, you know, I think I'm proposing to you that we try it And they sent me a video of the concert in Central West End, which I can't really show you because I don't know how to put it up there. But I tried to forward it to you, but it just wouldn't go. So anyway, but it's quality stuff and different types of music, jazz or New Orleans or whatever. You know, there's all classical, whatever we want. But they've got all these different musicians that they use. So, I mean, I think, you know, they even do keyboards and guitars and just even percussion. They'll do that. So I think we should try it. And then the cost is simply $200 an hour if we wanted to think about putting it into next year's budget at some point or at least. saving aside some money or knowing if we could cover it as an extra for next year if we really, really liked it because it's really, really cheap. So any comments on this?

No, I mean, if it's a pilot and there's no cost this year, certainly we don't have anything budgeted for it this fiscal year, but even next fiscal year, you know, we put that extra $10,000 in the events line every year for things that may pop up. So there's money there if we tried it in September and really liked it and wanted to bring it back in fiscal year 25, we could make that happen.

So I get a good, great idea. What I would ask though, or I guess I'm wondering is where this might be located and could we engage the businesses that are in the area and try to get their support for it? Meaning as an example, if it happened to be on city hall and cafe Napoli wants to do something else and this is going to offend them, then I would want to make sure we at least had the discussion ahead of time. So.

Great point. And so I think the, what I can, what I imagined was that, um, we would, Gary Carter would get in touch with these guys and work out really his expert opinion on what the best locations might be based on what businesses are around there. Um, because we want to liven it up for people who are actually in Clayton, not just, I think in front of city hall is probably not the best, although there is cafe Napoli. So, um, at any rate and they and then he would in his role contact the businesses around there as well and just alert them to it and if they like it which i predict some of them really will maybe if we want to do it and we have to invest in it maybe we can also get some sponsorships that then you know before when we're paying for it so uh anybody that doesn't want to do this

I'm not opposed. I think we just have to be careful where we put it, that's all. Like if it's in the evenings, you know, I just...

I was thinking of

putting it on

your street. Yeah.

I'm just concerned about it being Friday. If you want in downtown businesses, I don't know how many people actually come into the office on Friday. So in terms of like getting people out to see it, I don't have a choice on that

either. I think it's going to be more of a thing where people are going to be out and they're going to happen to see it. Unless we're going to invest in a big marketing program to alert people and get in the offices and other things we've tried to put, even like let's say parties in the park. I know they communicate with all the offices. People don't come.

We can just

do it when people are there and have our streets in live and when we have people out.

And I guess that's my point, is that I don't know how many people are actually in the office on a Friday.

It's not necessarily for office people. It's for people coming to Clayton and going

to restaurants. That was my only thing. I think you have more of a downtown population on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday than you do on a Friday. That was all I was kind of saying.

I have no idea.

I think it sounds like a lot of fun. Thank you. Okay. We'll try it out. All right. We'll have Gary let us know when and where it's going to be so we can check it out. All Right. With that, I think we can have a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. That's a wrap.