March 11, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, everybody we're ready to start the seven o'clock portion of our meeting. Welcome to our my ex student stand up and tell everybody your name.

yeah

very good right well thanks for being here um alright, so the first thing that we do is call the roll.

Alderman McAndrew. Here. Alderman Buse. Here. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Aldermen Gary Feder. Alderman Rick Hummell.

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

Here.

Aldeman Yorg.

Here.

Mayor Harris.

Here.

City Manager David Gipson.

City Manager Gibson.

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Very good. And now's the time on our agenda for public requests and petitions. If anybody has something they want to mention to us or ask about that is not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance either in person or online. Anybody online? No, I cannot see that, so you'll have to tell me. All right, then moving on, we have some unfinished business from last time. Bill number 7059, parking restrictions on Gay Avenue. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, at the February 25th, 2025 Board of Aldermen meeting, the board considered an ordinance to amend parking restrictions on Gay avenue to improve site visibility at University Drive and the driveways immediately south of the east entrance, east side of Gay Avenue. Following public discussion, the Board recommended a modified version of the ordinance that removes four specific parking spaces to improve site visibility and safety. This includes one space south of the driveway, two spaces north of the driveway, and one space north of University Drive. The ordinance has been revised to reflect this recommendation discussed by the Board and is being brought back for consideration. We do have with us this evening Matt Malek, our Director of Public Works, and Rich Wilburn, our Senior Civil Engineer.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, I think i'll just open the discussion and maybe first let's hear from the word three alders well older. PB, Lupita Д Montoya, And sorry, the one is not here and is any comments questions that you'd like to say

um yeah I would just like to say, you know I think after the last meeting, you know the original recommendation. was to remove many spaces. Mayor, I know you weren't here last time. So I feel like this was a good compromise. Safety really is... Site distance is a real issue over there. Certainly the egress out of the townhomes, the new townhomes, is very difficult. So I think removing a space to the left of their driveway is a no-brainer. I mean, you just could not see it all. The other spaces certainly make visibility... For the people who are leaving the townhomes that are coming, I guess, south, you know, their visibility improves. People coming up University and looking left and right, really, when it was fully parked, it's nearly impossible to see. You know, I think there were comments made by citizens last time that there are site issues, you know, around our community, and that's absolutely true. I do think that in this instance, though... We've got a new development that is more parked. There's just more parking up and down the street. And you've also got a new utility pool that is for the townhomes that also blocks some visibility to the left as you're coming out of university. I also think you just have an unusual area. This is kind of semi-commercial, semi-residential. You've got quite a bit of traffic coming up and down Gay because of the... uh, Gayfield, you know, you've got lots of young drivers coming up from the high school that are headed to Gayfield, not to mention parents picking up their kids. Um, and you also have, you know, cut through drivers that are just trying to avoid traffic and, you know, heading to U city or, um, so, um, I am hopeful that the parking situation improves over there. The rest, thanks to Matt, all the two hour residential parking signs went up. The signs were missed they were never put up after construction, so it was great that they have and I mad I appreciate that those have gone up in the last. couple of weeks, so hopefully that will help so if people were sitting there parking all day there they can't do that anymore, so that that's great. But again, I do think that this is a good middle ground. I am also happy, a lot of what people talked about last time with speed, which is a totally separate inquiry in a separate process. So Matt does intend and the police department will evaluate speed with our actual speed testing mechanism. I think it'll start not during spring break when everybody's gone, but after spring break. So that will kind of give us some direction on if there's some potential traffic calming measures that'll be warranted. And I know Gary's not here, but he is in full support of removing these spaces as well. Yeah,

very good. I

don't have much to add. The discussion last time was very informative with the engineering studies and everything else, and we do need to be clear of the difference from the visibility and the traffic calming, and I do defer to the Ward 3 all the persons who are closest to this. So, I agree, Bridget, the compromise to going away from taking away a lot of spots to just a few, even though those few will be painful, it seems to be where this, for safety reasons, this should land. And I think, Bridget, you said this as well, keeping an eye on it as we have the two-hour parking, as we look at the speed and if there needs to be other traffic calming methods so that we continue to watch that area and make sure that we're meeting the needs of the neighbors in that area. So I do support the recommendation.

anything thanks no just I yes I do want to just say that um the comments at the last meeting I would describe I perceived them as very split there were a portion of residents who did not want any parking spots removed and um and the prime like there was a lot of suggestion that this like sight line issue exists in other places in the city And so why would we like study and enforce or impart changes to parking restrictions in this particular location? And I think the other part of the comments that we got that night was, is the reason why because people who live there are concerned about the safety and the sight lines and have asked us to study it and to make a recommendation and so um in the in light of that you know um division and the issue being raised and the um study that indicates um you know the things that we could do to increase the safety as it relates to the sight lines leads me to support passing the ordinance. Very good, Rick.

It sounds like this is a solution that works for the people that are most affected by it. So I'm certainly supportive of that. And I'm glad to hear that we're going to consider or that we're actually going to implement a speed study. So I think that's good. I am wondering about parking enforcement. I am concerned when one of the neighbors said that people park in front of a fire hydrant all the time or do other things that otherwise ignore our parking regulations. And so I don't know if anyone can respond to if we're going to do anything different or if there's a need to do anything different regarding parking enforcement. Any insight on that?

Now that the signs are back up, we're going to make sure, because there's going to be probably a free education period associated with that, that those patrols as far as parking ambassadors are concerned, that those will be stepped up. at least for the next few weeks here.

Okay, and I'm wondering, do we ever take anywhere in the city a more restrictive approach to make sure people can't park there like either a bump out or some kind of a low profile impediment or something that would prohibit a car from there? Do we do that anywhere else in the city?

I'm unaware of any physical improvements that would block parking spaces. I got head shaken in the back from our engineers.

Just for completeness, we do have bump outs in some areas like for downtown, but it's not done with the purpose of strictly limiting parking. It's done to also or to really decrease the pedestrian crossing distance.

Yeah. And I was just thinking, you know, if it really was if the sight line at, let's say, University and Gay was really an issue, then we want to make sure somebody doesn't actually park there. And that would be a way to prevent that if we found it was a problem. It's obviously a more expensive solution than simply doing what we're doing. And I have no problem with what we're doing it just to, if we had to elevate it, then that's something to do. My last question is did, I can't remember if we discussed this fully at our last meeting or not. Did we go back to evaluate anything in our process through the plan commission or architecture review board or anything to do with the original design of this to say we would do something differently in light of what we know now?

We typically don't require any kind of traffic impact study for a residential development of this size. So we didn't want to add to our process because we evaluate every driveway that came in front of us for traffic impact and or site distance. And that's not something at this point in time we feel is necessary.

Very good.

Obviously, I was on Zoom for the last meeting, so this may have been come up. So I'm looking at the figure in the thing. And if I'm reading it right, it says the only space that's being removed is the red clear box, which it sounds like we're removing four, so I'm just trying to figure out which of the other ones are actually removed. There was an initial

survey that was done at residence, and in that survey, the three spaces that are colored in, those are all to be removed with this ordinance, but they were also included in the survey. The one that is not filled in Was not included in the survey, but is to be removed per the ordinance.

Okay. But it is

all for

being removed. So the city staff decided to add the red open box and the citizens were already talking about the red. Yeah. After the engineering review, that other box was added. Okay. Everybody else has kind of said what I've generally said and we've covered. So I just want to make sure I understood what I was looking at.

All right. And I will just ask, I'm not sure, is there are there any residents here tonight that want to address the board on this topic? Yeah. Why don't you come forward?

Oh.

Thank you.

All right, good. Thank you very much. All right. If there are no other comments, we can move to make the amendments. approve the ordinance

i'll introduce bill number 7059 approving an amendment to table 3a and table three one or is that a i table three i of the parking regulations in title three of the city code to be read for the first time by title only second any discussion

city attorney

Bill number 7059, first reading, an ordinance amending Table 3A and Table 3I of Schedule 3 of Title 3 of the Clayton City Code relating to parking restrictions on Gay Avenue.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? I'll move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill number 7059 on the day of its introduction. Second.

all those in favor

aye aye

opposed okay let the minutes reflect the board is given unanimous consent

i'll introduce bill number 7059 approving an amendment to table 3a and table 3i of the parking regulations and title three of the city code to be read for the second time by title only second

all right uh any discussion no mr city attorney

Bill number 7059, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending table 3A and table 3I of schedule three of title three of the Clayton City Code relating to parking restrictions on Gay Avenue.

It's a roll call. Alderman McAndrew. Aye. Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel.

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldernan Yorg.

Aye.

Mayor Harris.

Aye. Okay, next is our consent agenda. And I think we might have somebody here representing Five Iron Golf. Is that right? That's on our consent agenda. So why don't you come up and we'll prepper you with questions.

Okay.

We are super excited about it. Some of us are golfers, but others are excited as well. I knew you were here for that because I saw the PGA on your shirt. But anyway, when are you opening? We're slated to open right now, late May. Late May. Yes. Okay. You know, Flight Club beat you.

They did. We found out about that and I was a little disappointed. Hey, we're ready to work with them and be good neighbors. You got to make it perfect. Yeah,

absolutely. All right. And what can you just describe what's going to be like there and what kind of offering and what can go on?

Yeah, so Five Iron Golf is a premier indoor golf facility. We're based out of New Jeffery Yorg City. They just launched their franchise program. So that's when I kind of latched onto that. I was actually in the process of opening my own facility and I kind of got partnered up with them. Our facility will have 10 indoor bays, all with TrackMan technology. And then that's the state-of-the-art PGA-sponsored technology. We will have a full bar inside. We offer memberships. We're going to be a very big proponent in the community for event space as well. We do lessons, seminars. We're really big on community engagement from a corporate standpoint. We're about, I think, just under 8,400 square feet of indoor usable space. We've got other amenities like pool tables, shuffleboard, some bags. Each bay is... uh set up with a whole like lounge area couches chairs everything so it's good gives you a very uh club feel like a country club feel but still very you know open comfortable uh inviting setting so

Yeah, so Five Iron Golf is a premier indoor golf facility. We're based out of New York City. They just launched their franchise program. So that's when I kind of latched onto that. I was actually in the process of opening my own facility and I kind of got partnered up with them. Our facility will have 10 indoor bays, all with TrackMan technology. And then that's the state-of-the-art PGA-sponsored technology. We will have a full bar inside. We offer memberships. We're going to be a very big proponent in the community for event space as well. We do lessons, seminars. We're really big on community engagement from a corporate standpoint. We're about, I think, just under 8,400 square feet of indoor usable space. We've got other amenities like pool tables, shuffleboard, some bags. Each bay is... uh set up with a whole like lounge area couches chairs everything so it's good gives you a very uh club feel like a country club feel but still very you know open comfortable uh inviting setting so

so we could just if if we haven't reserved a bay or whatever and not doing that whole deal we could just come in Have a drink, play shuffleboard or whatever. Just walk in. No

problem. Walk-ins are great. We do operate, you know, to use the golf nomenclature, there's a tee sheet that we have. So if we're booked up completely, that's just kind of, you know, how it is at that moment. But we are open. We have a lounger right when you walk in the front door. with some couches and it's i think if i'm not mistaken 16 seats at the bar some other lounge areas and tables um so yeah it is it is 100 open uh 6 a.m to midnight open invite to anybody that wants to come check it out whether you're playing or not

Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. We're really excited. Welcome. Welcome to Clayton. Anybody have other questions for the gentleman?

So I'm not a golfer, but my 16 year old son is a big golfer and I actually tried to figure out on your website. So can, can he go in with his friends or do you have to be a certain age?

So that's a great question. Typically, yeah, when you're a little bit younger, we would prefer that you're accompanied by an adult or somebody of age, but there's that little bit of a gray area if you drop them off and they're 16, as long as they're young. kind of follow the rules. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. Not a problem at all.

I was trying to find him a birthday present and thought maybe I'd buy him a temporary membership, but I didn't know when you guys were opening, but I was trying to figure out so, but that's helpful. I mean, I think he's really excited.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. We're, we're definitely open to anybody of any age. So, uh, and, and to piggyback off that, even, even if you have some, uh, kids that are younger, um, Two of our bays that are kind of in our deemed like VIP area are not actually just golf. They can do like disc golf, soccer, hockey. They're multi-sport and multi-entertainment. So if there's a situation where the kids, hey, none of these kids golf. They're eight years old or six years old even. We can put them in a bay and have them kick balls at the screen or soccer balls or something. So we do facilitate, like I said, any of all golfers, non-golfers, to you know semi-pros or whatever wants to come in but even people that don't want to golf we have things for them to do as well

very nice other questions comments

yeah just um i know where the building is but what i don't know is um um you know what floor are you on how easy is it to access what are your hours and how easy is it sure

um so we are right in between the two towers on the ground floor retail outside um so it's if you're thinking about that parking garage where you go in we're just if you're facing it just to the left of that entrance okay on the other side from first watch

okay

so yeah and we're open uh to your other question we're open from 6 a.m every single day uh i think it's midnight monday through friday or monday through thursday um 6 a.m to 1 friday saturday and then 6 to 10 i think on sundays something right seven days a week

That's great. And will people park in the garage or street parking? What do you anticipate?

Pretty much anything. We actually have in our lease deal some spaces that we are doing validated parking for. I think it's eight spaces in the garage. They can utilize the whole garage. I think it is capped at 30 spaces until five. But after that, the whole garage is accessible. And then street parking is obviously what they can use as well.

Well,

good luck.

Thank you very much.

The only question I had is curiosity, like in terms of a marketing plan, I'm just, I'm just kind of curious what's your, how's that going to work? What, what kind of, how do you envision that getting kind of the name out to not only the Clayton area, but just kind of the surrounding. That's a great question.

I have a meeting actually with our corporate marketing team tomorrow morning. So they do what's called a, at least what they deem a 90 day, a 90, 90. So 90 days before we open, we're going to start doing business outreach and community outreach. We're going to get into some of the groups to, you know, try to boost memberships. And I already have two hires. One's a salesperson and she's working actively too. She's actually local, but she works for corporate headquarters, which was a very convenient thing. But yeah, so she's, we're kind of working together behind the scenes right now to do a launch to hopefully get a lot of engagement. Okay, cool. Yeah.

Do you have signage up that so, you know, announcing you're coming soon? We had

a temporary sign for I think the last three months. Permit ran out and we're kind of deciding whether or not we want to extend that. But I think on the 17th, we have our meeting to get the meeting with the city to get our approval for our outdoor side. Okay. Yeah. So that's already in the works and has been agreed upon with the landlord and everything. But yeah. I think we're going to extend that permit to put the coming

sign up again. I know that I hate to keep bringing up this example, but flight club had this giant, you know, big, billboard essentially on their on their windows and it really generated a lot of talk and excitement and an awareness so i just would encourage that instead of a storefront yeah

we've we've already been talking about it i think we took it down two weeks ago and so it's like hey how do we get this back up like i don't want to have nothing on the way people know it's coming but

yeah

you know

okay

definitely want to see it

all right very good thank you very much thank you okay um All right, do you want to move to approve the consent agenda? I'll move to approve the Consent Agenda. Second. All those in favor? Oh, any discussion? No. And a roll call, sorry.

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell? Aye. Aldemann Yorg? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye.

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Hummel? Aye. Aldemann Yorg? Aye. Mayor Harris? Aye.

Okay, city manager report, starting with the salary range adjustments.

Yes, keeping pace with comparator cities is essential to maintaining the city's competitive position in the labor market. Competitive salaries help attract and retain high quality employees, reduce turnover, and ensure operational stability. Survey results indicate that the median salary range adjustment among comparator cities was 2.5% for the current fiscal year. It should also be noted that represented uniformed employees received a 2.5% range adjustment each fiscal year per their current collective bargaining agreements. Maintaining alignment between represented and nonrepresented salary structures is crucial as certain nonrepresented police and fire supervisors under the nonrepresented plan, which is this one. A misalignment in salary structures could result in compression, retention, and morale challenges for leadership positions within these departments. At the February 25th, 2025 meeting, the Board of Aldermen reviewed options and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for formal consideration of a 2.5% nonrepresented salary range adjustment effective April 1st, 2025. The fiscal year 25 budget currently includes a 2% adjustment for nonrepresented salary ranges. Increasing this adjustment to 2.5% would require an additional $24,111.50. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance adopting a 2.5% range adjustment to nonrepresented salary ranges, effective April 1, 2025. Okay,

very good. Let's go around in order for questions and comments.

No, for all the reasons we kind of talked about last time, I would be supportive. Yeah,

anything additional? Yeah, yeah, quick.

I don't have any questions. I would just reiterate my concerns of the past that my understanding is that this increase will have another increase regarding the step aspect. And that while we need to do these things, and I'm supportive of it, these are, at least in the short run, very challenging expense factors to keep up with on the revenue side. And so I am looking forward to having discussions where we can be more creative about how we might address these issues over the long run. including engaging in some type of a citizen finance commission or something to study not only this, but all of the various issues and challenges we have. So that's all.

Very good. Jeff?

I'm generally fine. We've covered most of it already. All

right. Very good. All right. One of the things that is not currently in this bill is the – adjustment that would be made for both june and our city manager our city clerk and city manager since essentially they are non-uniform but they uh we as a board are solely responsible for setting their salaries and so i want to suggest that we go ahead and adjust their salary in concert with what we're doing for everybody else and we might want to think about making that sort of a something that is just automatically part of this kind of adjustment when we do it each year which I think we'll be looking at it or each time might not be each year but it might be every other year I don't know but in terms of and so the idea is we wouldn't have to consider it separately each time they would just ride with the rest of the employees. And then, of course, when it comes time for their performance reviews, which is usually in September, we then have the opportunity to make adjustments based on performance. So that's separate from these range adjustments. If anybody objects to that, say so and we can talk about it. I probably have not said it very well. I think

you've said it very well I think it's clear I just I'm not sure that that's The approach that we've taken, I was under the impression that we looked at more or less a salary study, a salary range, and we wanted to make sure that we had competitive salaries. So, substantively, I want to end up in the right place. I'm not sure that's the right way to approach it. My understanding is that we're looking broadly at other city comparables, looking at the range within a certain group. And it may be that those two positions are treated very differently. And an increase like this may be inadequate or it may be too much. I don't know. But it just strikes me that those two positions we have analyzed in a different way. And clearly, we want to make sure we have competitive salaries. I'm not sure that this is the way to do that, though. At least intuitively, that doesn't make

sense. Right.

Are they not in the grade step system?

I'm going to ask David to just address those

questions. We are not. We have generally tracked it, but per the charter, our compensation is set by the Board of Aldermen.

Outside of the grade system. So we're

outside of the system. If you look at the salary system that we have, there is a grade, so to speak, for city manager and city clerk, but there's an asterisk next to both of those positions that states that the Board of Alderman sets the salary for those positions as called for by the charter. And I don't know when those comparator cities... with those increases, whether or not they included manager and clerk. I'm sure they probably included the city clerk, the city manager, I'm not sure.

I would agree with Rick's comments. I'm not sure that I'm ready tonight to make that the process that we do with those two positions. Certainly, we have phenomenal people, and I fully support that, but as a matter of how we handle those salaries, I would need more time to think about that one

Just to clarify, the action we're taking tonight has nothing to do with performance or assessment of duties in the role. It is everything about the municipal job market has shifted a median of 2.5%. And so we are adjusting all of our salary ranges for our employees by 2.5%.

So

my question

was two part, which is one, just what you said. And then secondly, do we want to make this a sort of a process, a practice that we always do to consider it with these range adjustments? So take those two separately. I think the important thing tonight is to decide if we want to go ahead and include June and David's in the salary range adjustment that we're making for everyone else. Well, and

I thought Andrea, you were going to say something. So is it, do we know whether or not the city manager or the city clerks were included in as, as we were looking at comparables?

We didn't ask about those specifically, but we did ask what they adjusted their ranges to. And so

adjusted the ranges that included city managers. Some of the

cities include the city managers or they show it similarly to how we show it where They appear on a grade, but the board can adjust those.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, sorry. I was just going to say like, I feel it's a weird situation. It was like we dealt with comp for June and David in like exec session. And not that this is a little different. We're not talking about performance, but the whole thing is just kind of, it's a little bit weird since it's direct folks that we deal with compensation on. And yeah, I would like to have also a little more data on kind of, we had a little bit of it when we did performance evaluations and some of this was factored in then. So it's a little bit, that part of the conversation is a bit out of the blue though. I think I agree with Rick and Susan that it's not that I have a problem with it, but I kind of want to see the data as it relates to those positions and have a bit more time to think about it because I had not at all kind of actively thought about it for those two folks. I don't want to say I purposely didn't think about it either, but I think I was approaching at it as David is basically recommending that this is what we need to do for staff. I hadn't thought the farther step of like, okay, what does that mean for us for the direct reports we have?

I mean, I'll be honest. I assumed it included them because it's not performance-based. We have our opportunity to evaluate them in closed session on a performance basis and that will not go away. And we have the opportunity to make whatever decision we want at that point. But if we're shifting salaries in closed at this time of year, based on the market and the market has moved 2.5%. I see no reason to overanalyze this. I think we shifted by 2.5% and we go deeper into depth when we do the performance-based review. Yeah,

I agree. I mean, I think we are shifting everybody else's salary again, based on the Andrea has told us that they looked at city managers and city clerk salaries that went 2.5%. And if we want to evaluate later and say that we want to just include them on any salary adjustments in the spring, then we can say that. But why not just add them in now?

I would just say this.

And like the performance... in terms of looking really in depth that, you know, salaries for city managers across the region, city clerks, we can do that in September.

So like, I don't, again, because there was exec session when we did all this before. So I'm a little bit uncomfortable talking about it now, but I will say there were discussions that we all had back then that factored some of this performance space. Well, it was a performance evaluation, but we also factored in comparables to others folks. And I feel like That was in part already done. And the idea that we're then kind of trying to figure that back out like in public session now just seems very weird at the last minute. Because I do think some of that was factored in when we did this, whenever we did the performance. It was performance and a bit of adjustments if I remember the conversations right. But again, I don't want to go into too much detail because that was... Private for a reason.

And I think that, I mean, we can do whatever you all want to do. I think that the way I was understanding this from my discussions with Andrea was that this is really a market, a reaction to the market, solely a reaction to the and where it has moved and what other cities are doing, which we know that is why we are taking everybody else's moving the other ranges. And so I think that it certainly affects all of our employees, including the city manager and the city clerk. And waiting until September or whenever to do it That's an actual loss for them. Just relative to the

market.

Relative to the market, yeah, just relative to the market, so I'm a big believer in us staying competitive with the market. I do think we have... Close your ears. I do think we have top performers, and so I think we want to stay competitive with the market. So I would support moving ahead with this. I understand we don't want to make it automatic. That's fine. We can reconsider each time or whenever we decide to change that process if we did. But I would prefer to go ahead and make this range adjustment for them. To me, it seems like a sort of an administrative – act almost, not performance-based at all.

Mayor, can I confess that this whole discussion is because I spoke up, so I feel this is my fault. There was discussion of having a closed session tonight for the purpose of the conversation. about compensation for the city manager and the city clerk. I pointed out that the Missouri Sunshine Law and the city's ordinances allow closure of a meeting when the merit or performance of identifiable individual employees is discussed, but not otherwise. Compensation for employees of the public is a public matter. And said if you're not going to conduct a performance evaluation, this is not a matter for closed performance element In the review, it's not really appropriate. And I suggested to the mayor that I would draft an amendment to this bill, which raised the clerk and city manager salaries. the same amount that you raised every other employee's salary in the city by the bill as written, and that that would be an appropriate subject for an open meeting. And that if you want to make your closed meeting that had been contemplated unnecessary. So I created this mess. It was not... It was not the city clerk, it was not the city manager, it was not even the mayor. It was me putting my big foot into it and created this discussion. It is not intended to create an environment for discussion of performance by either of the employees. It does recognize that the charter specifies that the board will establish compensation for these two employees in particular. And it would discharge that by saying the rising tide will lift all boats and just provide the same adjustment that is the product of the survey of where has the overall market of public employment in the area changed. changed since the compensation schedule was adopted. So I apologize for kicking off this awkward discussion and I'd be happy to answer any questions, but my reason for doing so was saying that if this is intended to reflect a market change and not a performance evaluation, that this is the forum in which that discussion should take place. That's how we ended up with this awkward situation.

And I just would like to respond to a couple comments that the mayor made. I believe that our charge is to, we have two employees that we can conduct reviews on and make sure that we have competitive salaries. And so we have the time and energy and resources to do this. This proposal here is has to do with an entire city staff for which our city manager may manages. And so this is and we created a whole new structure and this is consistent with that structure for us to just arbitrarily add this sort of diminishes the entire annual review process we go through, which is incredibly customary throughout the of all of industry. And so why we would change that, it seems to me we should have some compelling reason other than it seems to be expeditious to do so. I don't find that compelling.

So Rick, just to be clear, are you suggesting that we not entertain an increase for those two roles at this time and that we only do it at the time that we perform? Yes, absolutely.

Every place that I have ever worked, every company I've ever known does an annual review. It is very customary. I don't think we're being the least bit inconsistent with any industry standard at all.

I think that's a separate question. What bothers me, what I'm struggling with is we are responsible as a board for two employees to doing the salary, which is a package analysis that we go through very, very carefully. Whether they do it once a year, twice a year, whatever, is a different question. I am not comfortable putting a part of it in with an overall salary structure action.

Let me just ask a question. How often do we look at range adjustments?

Every April 1.

Every April. So range adjustments are always on an April timing, and our reviews are always on a September timing.

That's correct. Every city employee's review takes place August, September time.

So in the instance of, and I'm just trying to better understand the process too. So in the instance that's not you or June, but somebody, I'll use Matt. So in the incidence of Matt, he would get a range adjustment and they'd be considered for a range adjustment every April, but performance will be evaluated every September.

Yes, so- Matt or any other employee would have a performance evaluation in August or September. The outcome of that performance evaluation determines whether or not that individual gets a step increase on October 1. So if the performance review is satisfactory, then on October 1 they would get that pre-programmed step. So you would move one step within that grade. What we do now on April 1 and this assessment that we just did is we look at those comparator cities to see how they had adjusted their market ranges throughout the year. And then in April, we make that adjustment for everyone. And again, the reason we like to do that in April at the mid-year, I mean, first of all, it's half a year. So there is some savings because you're not doing the full year increase. But more importantly is the information you have is more accurate because you have all of the January 1 cities current information, which we don't have in the fall. We'd be working with a smaller set of July 1 cities and relatively stale January data when we make that decision for October 1.

So if we were to just say for all of our employees, hey, you know, we give their performance reviews in September. Why don't we just wait and then take under advisement whatever the range adjustments would have been because we have this information from April? I mean, why wouldn't we do that? Have it all on the same timing. That's what Rick is suggesting.

Yeah, so again, we've broken this out so that on October 1, everybody would get that step increase. Customarily, the first day your budget, when your budget goes into effect, that's when those increases hit. And again, those are all performance-based. The reason we've split the year and we do this range adjustment in the mid-year is because we've got the fresh data. We've got all the current fiscal year July 1 data, and we have fresh January 1 data to make that decision on what to do with our ranges. And again, that increase only hits half a year. So if we did that range adjustment along with the step increase in October, then rather than the 2.5% or 2.75% step increase everybody gets, it would have been basically 5.25 for an entire fiscal year when you do the range adjustment at the mid-year You're paying 2.5% for half the year, and then it jumps to the 5.25% for the remaining half of the year. So there's significant savings along the way as you do that. So your market ranges are staying competitive, and people are getting their step increases. That's the flow of the system. It's a new system. We just implemented this October 1st. fiscal year 24. So I mean, this is a newer thing for us. This is the first time we've had a range adjustment come up.

Yeah, I would just note, I mean, I've led teams in a variety of companies. And I think while performance reviews and annual increases are Like a standard practice, there isn't one way that they're performed. And in fact, the company that I work at now has like two times of year, six months apart, one where the increase is market based and one where the increase performance based. very similar to what we're talking about here. So I don't feel like this is like deviating from some sort of industry standard that, that is like, I just want to point out that there are a variety of ways that industry handles this. And I think that the idea of separating the idea of like performance from market actually is pretty valuable to me. Like I like that.

And I guess I would argue is I don't think there's a way for these two employees that we can completely separate market and performance, because I can remember the conversations we had during the performance evaluations. And There was a combination of market-based conversations and performance conversations. So I don't see how we can – given the way that conversation went, I don't know how we can please separate it. So while I can understand the legal part of it, Kevin, I guess I would disagree that I just can't separate them. So – Therefore, it's really hard for me to buy into the, well, this is just a market-based adjustment for everybody. Because I just don't see, to me, with the city manager and with the city clerk, based upon the first time I sat through it earlier, is that both of these things also factored into that conversation. So now we're basically saying we factored it in then, we're going to factor it again now. That doesn't make sense.

And when we did those reviews, was this system in place? This range system when we did last September.

Yes, the range was in place. So when the study happened, they compared all of the positions and they placed the city clerk and the city manager on the range in comparison to their comparator cities. And so obviously the board can pick if those are the ranges and the steps that you would like them to be at. So this essentially is just adjusting what the range is based on.

So have we ever done a range? We've never done a range adjustment for these employees before. It's a new concept for the city in general. And

under the previous plan. So this is the new concept, first time under this plan.

Yeah. So that might be some of what's difficult here is because the last time we did the review- We were operating under a little bit of a different system, Jeff, if you heard what I said. Last time we did it, we were sort of just moving into this system, so we did consider everything. And we may not do that going forward, though, because if we were to update this now, we would have already considered the market movement. I guess what we would, and you guys are going to vote.

I was going to say also, I don't want this conversation to derail the range adjustments for all of the employees. We need to get that done so that on April 1st, we know what that pay structure is going to be and we need time to enter that information. So I'm totally fine. Let's break that conversation off and just go ahead and if the board would take up the ordinance as it is, that would be great because that way we could get it done tonight. We can prepare everything for those April one increases. And then we can take up the other matter separately. Yes.

Okay. So I agree with that. Let's just make sure we want to take it

all or whatever the board wants to do. I mean, I think it's

something we should decide. So I think it's, I think it'S something we should do, but you know, there's obviously disagreement among.

Yeah. Yeah. So I just wanted to, confirm before we do that, that we do not want to that we do not want to uh

i don't think we have four votes to amend to include yes right and it seems that

way so i just wanted to do a double check

so plus anyone like i think the mayor and bridget and i would like to move forward that way but the others aren't prepared yes exactly so is that correct yeah okay

the bill as written does not include those two yeah

right yeah so

we just

don't amend it right so um Right. So I can talk, Andrea, we can maybe talk again about this because I do think there's some confusion and we can decide. I think we need to consider whether we want to separate this from the April, September, like everyone else for these two employees, because when we don't do that, we're asking them to forego salary.

Having a little more time and conversation would be helpful in getting an answer by the board.

Yeah,

I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept. I just, again, I think Susan's point, the time, and again, I still think that it's enough of a performance base. We probably should have had it not in open session, but that's just the way I'm thinking about it.

yeah so we'll just put on our list to bring back i think soon so we can get it resolved yeah okay all right so we will then move on with just the ordinance as it is written

yep i'll introduce bill number 7062 approving the fiscal year 25 non-represented salary range adjustments to be read for the first time by title only second

any discussion Okay, Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7062, first reading and ordinance adopting fiscal year 2025, non-represented salary range adjustments.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7062 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favour? Aye. Opposed? Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

I'll introduce bill number 7062 approving a contract. No, that's I will introduce bill number 706 to Yeah, approving the fiscal year 2025 non represented salary range adjustments be read for the second time by title only.

All right. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7062, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance adopting fiscal year 2025 non-represented salary range adjustments.

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel?

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell? Aye. Aldernan Jeffery Yorg?

Aldermen Hummel? Aye. Aldernan York?

Aye.

Mayor Harris?

Aye. All right. Bill number 7063, the PUD extension. finally for you

guys april 23rd 2024 the city approved the rezoning of 726 and 734 damon avenue to plan unit development district in addition a consolidation plat was approved on the same night the rezoning allowed for the reconstruction of the existing buildings into a mixed-use development featuring 24 hotel rooms retail restaurant and personal care uses the developer has not applied for or received a building permit since approval of the rezoning The PUD and plat approvals are set to expire on April 23rd, 2025. The city's PUD regulations do provide a process for extension requests to be heard by the Board of Aldermen. The developers submitted a letter requesting an extension of the PUD approval, giving the development until April 23rd, 2027 to obtain construction permits and begin construction. The developer is the current owner of the property and has maintained commercial and residential tenants in the buildings since prior to the PUD approval. The developer maintains that the plan has not changed and they intend to execute the plan as originally presented. City staff are not aware of any change in circumstance in the area, which would call into question the continued suitability of the land use or the project as originally approved. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached ordinance extending the plan unit development plan approval. And this evening we have with us Anna Krane, our Director of Planning and Development Services, Ellen Reed with the project, and Tyler Stevens as well.

guys april 23rd 2024 the city approved the rezoning of 726 and 734 damon avenue to plan unit development district in addition a consolidation plat was approved on the same night the rezoning allowed for the reconstruction of the existing buildings into a mixed-use development featuring 24 hotel rooms retail restaurant and personal care uses the developer has not applied for or received a building permit since approval of the rezoning The PUD and plat approvals are set to expire on April 23rd, 2025. The city's PUD regulations do provide a process for extension requests to be heard by the Board of Aldermen. The developers submitted a letter requesting an extension of the PUD approval, giving the development until April 23rd, 2027 to obtain construction permits and begin construction. The developer is the current owner of the property and has maintained commercial and residential tenants in the buildings since prior to the PUD approval. The developer maintains that the plan has not changed and they intend to execute the plan as originally presented. City staff are not aware of any change in circumstance in the area, which would call into question the continued suitability of the land use or the project as originally approved. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the attached ordinance extending the plan unit development plan approval. And this evening we have with us Ana Crane, our Director of Planning and Development Services, Ellen Reed with the project, and Tyler Stevens as well.

Okay. Ellen, would you like to come up and just talk about your project and kind of what you're looking at?

In consideration of my extension, you all, the project isn't new. You know how excited I am about it. We have made some progress, which was good. One of the key steps for us was identifying who our restaurant partner will be. That was very important to us because of the way that we intend to have the restaurant open to the lobby. And have that person participate, you know in the design drawings and how that will flow so that was a really critical step for us, which is great. But to sort of give you the overall timeline and how it flows into the extension request our next big step is working with core 10 for our actual full building drawings. Realistically that's about a six month process, especially between going back and forth different people with input. After we have our full construction drawings, we can then move on to the design phase of the interiors. So working with an interior designer to pick the unit finishes lobby design how again that might flow in with restaurant realistically that's at least six months. So one year and we should have both our construction drawings, as well as our design, then we can get actual numbers from the construction team which again. As much as i'd like it to go faster i've done this before so that's another three to six months between going back and forth. Once I have that entire package, then I can move forward through the financing piece. and get loan amounts for the actual full project go through appraisals go through everything that I need there and realistically. That again is another three to six month to where I could actually then permit ready and start construction so. As much as I'd like to have it move a little faster, it's more important for me to be thoughtful and to have all the right pieces in place, which is why I'm requesting the extension.

Very good. I'm going to let the Ward 1 Alders kind of talk, but stay at the microphone in case you're needed. Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I still think this is a great use for the site. I'm glad to hear that you're still dedicated to the project. And I'd love to know what you can tell us about the restaurant.

No, I know you're going to ask that. I'm going to wait for them to announce that, but I can tell you that you will like them.

Thank you. Thanks for the detail. I appreciate it. Yeah. In light of the timeline, so it sounds like really realistically potentially two years to construction, not breaking ground. But in light of that, are you making any changes to your plans as it relates to the spaces that are underutilized on the first floor, like the laundry? And did anything go into Dot Dot Dash yet?

Yes, we've got a really cute new design and lifestyle boutique.

yeah okay

it's I used to shop at dot dot dash on Sunday now I'm there she sells like bread and clothing and it's also a little design shop it's very cute um so the laundromat you know I've kept open the entire time that is is is open for the neighborhood there is no income being made on that I didn't want to close it and clearly I wanted to keep that space because it's our restaurant tour space so I don't have any intent to to close that I don't think it does any service to the At the same time, we're not going to occupy it because that is where we will have a change of use. Thanks. Very good.

Rick? I'm very supportive. I hear lots of neighbors excited and wanting to know when they're going to see something happen. So I'm very encouraged by your comments. I'm wondering, does the timeline that you've identified, does this have any impact on your parking agreement with Concordia?

No. No, in terms of my parking agreement with them was always a very long term. So it's not something that's that's set to expire.

Okay. And then the last question I have just, I guess, is for the city manager, I guess. I'm just wondering, Ellen went through and explained why she needs two years and the original approval was for one year. I'm just wondering from a precedent standpoint, is this a common thing that we would do a two-year or is this unusual? What has been our practice?

The ordinance doesn't really give any guidance as far as what a suitable length of a beauty extension would be we have extended projects in the past it's typically for one year in this particular case, you know the request is for two. But the ordinance again doesn't provide you a lot of a lot of guidance it's really up to the applicant what their intent is with the project. This case is probably a little bit different because it is occupied by the, Ellen is the owner of the property that wants to do the project. A lot of times when PUDs don't happen during that first year, a lot of times it's a purchase that's under contract. It's maybe a building that's underutilized or vacant or you would want to move that along a little bit quicker. In this particular case, you know, as we looked at this, you have a building that's largely occupied. The owner is the one that wants to do the project. So I think those are the kind of factors that you would want to take into consideration. And that's why the ordinance allows that flexibility.

Okay, great. Well, I'm supportive of that.

Other comments or questions? Oh, Tyler wanted to talk. Just in

response to that. Yeah, I can't go a meeting without saying something. Sorry. Just in response been a part of the Central Presbyterian Church project, the parking garage and the building extension. We went through a number of one-year extensions until the board finally said, why don't you quit coming here and asking for one years and do a two-year? The last extension we got was a two-year extension for that very reason, just to not waste your time.

Great. Thank you so much. All right. Alderman McAndrew.

Oh, hold on. Are we done? I had questions.

I'm sorry. I thought you kind of said you didn't.

No, no, no. Yeah. I was, I was going to have to roll the Susan first. I wasn't

sure. Just a real kind of the only concern I would have, obviously, but because of your relationship with the property and everything else, it's I hope it's not a concern. It's just keeping the vibrancy of the neighborhood while this is going on two years, if you have all this time to be developing it and all that, which is great. And the project is really exciting, but yeah, obviously you are conscious, keeping the tenants there, keeping it something that's a real asset to the neighborhood is really, really important to your extension.

I'm on the same page. When DotDotDash left, which was not because I asked them to leave by any means, it was important for me to continue with a new tenant that I thought would have a good fit within the neighborhood and people have been really receptive of her space. It's why I've committed to even keeping the corner open even if anything it's cost me more and been more of a headache, but I don't like vacant retail anywhere in our city. possible we appreciate that so all right thank you you would

never know that like there's a pending project or like it doesn't appear to be a place that is like waiting not at all

it is vibrant maintaining the building yeah it's absolutely we're maintaining the building with the same integrity it's just that we're waiting to do what we know will be much better um but we're operating it in the same way that we would our other properties that we own very good

So just two questions real quick. In terms of the leases that you have there, roughly speaking, how long are they running? I assume they're not five and six year leases because of what you want to do, but are the leases you signed roughly corresponding to the two-year extension you want? Are they all year-long leases? I'm just trying to get a sense of like how long. Are

you speaking of the commercial or the residential?

Mainly the commercial, but I guess either way.

Well, our intent is always to keep ground floor commercial. So You know, we want to curate over time, but we're not looking to like dramatically disrupt the use of the retail. I mean, our key anchor was to find a restaurant tour that we thought would best serve the neighborhood and also fit something within the hotel. But we plan to keep our ice cream store. You know, we have other tenants that might come and go within their own business needs, but the lease, a lot of the leases have been long-term leases that are expiring in a variety of different price points. Of course, anyone new who's signing, they're fully aware of the project. And so they like the idea of going more year to year just to have an idea of if they want more space, if this is a business venture that works for them. So the short answer is a variety of different expiration dates.

But are most of the retail running at least through the two-year extension you're looking for?

Some of them have required flexibility for their own business sake that has nothing to do with... Yeah. So I've been very generous. Some of them are in longer term leases. It's just a variety.

And one other question that maybe for you, maybe for Ana, I'm not sure where we're like, when it originally got approved, is there a reason knowing the timeline of how long it's going to take why we just didn't approve a longer PUD to start with?

I think the original intention was to try to get the project, try to get a building permit within that time.

Yeah. I mean, originally when we started, you mean, you know how these projects work until you're approved. It's really hard to go to people and say, here's what we're doing. And as much as we were making investments towards it, then to go to construction drawings, you can't really start, but in the perfect world, we were excited and thinking that we could move a little bit faster, but as we started to fine tune the plan and then realizing we really wanted to find out who our restaurant tour was. And again, to me, because I own the property, and because this is a legacy passion project of mine, to me it's most important to get it right. Yes, I would like to do it quickly. It's beneficial to do it quickly financially, but it's more beneficially to have all the right pieces in place.

Thank you.

You're

welcome. All right. Very good. Alderman McAndrew.

I'll introduce bill number 7063, granting an extension to the plan unit development for 726 and 734 DeMond Avenue, Hotel DeMond, to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Any other discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7063, first reading an ordinance providing for an extension of the planned unit development permit for 726 and 734 DeMond Avenue as authorized by ordinance 6879 through April 2027 and other actions related thereto.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7063 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Let the minister reflect. The board is given unanimous consent.

Bill number 7063, granting an extension to the plan unit development for 726 and 734 DeMunn Avenue, Hotel DeMunn, to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7063, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance providing for an extension of the planned unit development permit for 726 and 734 Dubon Avenue as authorized by Ordinance 6879 through April 2027 and other actions related thereto.

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell? Aye. Aldeman Yor? Aye. Mayor Harris?

Alderman McAndrew? Aye. Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Hummel? Aye. Aldeman Yor? Aye. Mayor Harris?

Aye.

All right,

a resolution for county parking restrictions.

Yes, Clayton Road is designated by St. Louis County as an arterial maintained and regulated by the county, including parking regulations. The city of Clayton enforces the parking regulations along the north side of Clayton Road and aligns its ordinances with the county to do so. In 2024, residents along the north side Clayton Road requested the removal of hourly parking restrictions in certain areas. These restrictions were originally implemented when the outer parking lane functioned as a through lane at certain times of the day. However, St. Louis County roadway improvements, including intersection bump outs have permanently converted the outermost lane into a parking lane, making the time restrictions unnecessary. St. Louis County staff support this change and are proposing ordinance revisions to the County Council to remove the restrictions. If the City of Clayton approves this resolution, it will be forwarded to St. Louis County. Upon county approval of the revisions, Clayton will then draft a matching ordinance to ensure continued parking enforcement consistency. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and future ordinance. And Matt Malik is here if you have any questions. There was a really nice diagram that shows the changes included with the RFPA.

All right. Any discussion? Questions?

I think as I understand that this was something that

Yeah, we had a Ward 1

alderman. So I mean, I'm certainly supportive of this change.

Okay. Yeah. I let the Ward 1ers go first.

We're just ready to do it. Ready to do it. I mean, the residents are ready. I'm glad to hear the county is ready to actually do something on it. So whatever we need to do to keep that going is great.

You have to promise we're going to enforce it so they'll do their job.

I think it's fine. I'm just wondering, though, what is the thinking or the strategy of having in the 6400 block two relatively small areas of metered parking? I note that these are in front of commercial buildings, and so I'm wondering, did the commercial businesses request this, or is this something initiated by us? What's the strategy there?

Get back to that. I'm sorry. I just...

They are

metered. So those are already existing? No, I know they

are. I know we're not changing them. I just am curious about that.

Yeah, so going back in time, I don't know if the businesses requested that or what the contact was with those businesses when they were put in place. The reason they're there is to be able to enforce the turnover in front of those retail spaces of the cars. And since our parking ambassadors or parking enforcement are the ones that are doing that, the meters help us recoup that as well as providing some sort of penalty or incentive for those individuals to move their car when the time elapses.

Yeah, I don't have any problems with what we're doing, other than perhaps if there are, if things have changed over time and there's other commercial businesses and a little space in between should be metered, it's just making sure that we make a conscious decision of evaluating it again. That's all. I don't have a problem with

it. At this point, we were We were really focused on getting rid of the time restrictions, which didn't make any sense at this point. And had the other properties switched, I think we might have looked at adding some more meters.

Other questions or comments?

I like parking, so I'm fine with it.

You like it? Okay, good. Alderman

McAndrew. I'll move to approve resolution number 2025-04, supporting St. Louis County's proposed parking restrictions on Clayton Road. Second. All those in

favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, that's a go. All right, the fourth quarter financial report. Mr. City Manager?

We have Karen Dilber, our Director of Finance here this evening for the financial report. I will say the numbers that you see here are basically the numbers you saw at the last meeting when we did a fourth quarter budget amendment. The financial report, of course, though, has all the graphs and the long-term trends. The interesting thing that I would point your attention to, really the easiest way to look year-to-year how things are going, I think, while the graphs are really helpful, would be on pages 49 and 50 of the packet. Page 49 shows you all of the various funds and the change from fiscal year 23 to 24. And if you go to page 50 of the packet, the general fund is broken down into its various components on the revenue and expense side, and you can see the year-over-year change for each one of those. that I'll turn it over to Karen for anything else you may have to add.

Thank you, David. There's just a couple of points I'd like to make. To start with, our revenues are up, our sales taxes are up, and that is actually specifically from St. Louis County, the pool taxes, the share that we get. They don't break it down by individual or industry so i can't really tell you why those are up except that our share went up the utility taxes they look like they are down and we reported that they are down eight percent year over year and numerically that is true however in fiscal 23 we had a one-time payment from charter for a settlement of $656,000. So utilities are actually up 4.2% year over year. So I just wanted to make that clear for the board. And parking meter revenue is down. We had an agreement with St. Louis County for the Bonham Garage that usually generated around $136,000 a year for us that was terminated in fiscal 23. So that's why year over year you're seeing a difference there. expenditures really just the two big ones i wanted to point out the personnel costs year over year that's due to the new step and grade system and then the commodities i'm sorry the contractual services are lower year over year due to the elimination of the city paid solid waste contract Are there any additional questions or

anything you'd like me to answer? I'll just go in order. Any questions, questions, questions? Yeah, me too. Yeah,

so on utility taxes, I'm just curious on the universe. I assume gas, electric, probably still landlines, although that's probably declining cable, but that's probably declining. What about cell phones? Do we collect on cell phones or is that not eligible?

We collect in some portion of cell phones, yes. There are certain parts of cell phones that are exempt, and there's a huge list out at the Missouri's website that tells you exactly what parts we capture on and what parts we don't.

And what about water and sewer? Are those utilities included or not?

Water, yes. Sewer, no.

Okay. Okay, and you had already commented last time that, but I just want to make sure that the significant positive variance overall is largely due to deferrals as opposed to incredible cost savings.

Yes, for the most part. I mean, we did have higher revenues in certain areas than we anticipated, but the huge difference really is, yeah, deferrals. And that is in, if you look at the Capital Improvement Fund and the IRF, you'll see where the big differences are.

Okay, thank you.

But it was a little early from an audited standpoint, but thinking about the conversations we've had before, looks like we're going to run a surplus this year. How does that compare from percentage basis of revenue expenses compared to previous years? It's good to run the surplus, but obviously our revenues have gone up and our expenses have gone up. So I'm curious if we're gaining ground, losing ground as a percentage basis of the expenses we have.

Well, that's honestly a difficult question to answer because we defer every year. Okay. So I can come up with numbers for you. I don't have them here right now. I can come up numbers for you, but what? Since the three years I've been here, we defer every year expenses anyway.

I'm just trying to get a sense of, and it doesn't need to be exact. I'm just I want to be excited we're going to have a surplus, but I can only get so excited if our expenses went up larger than the surplus, we're actually going to be losing ground as a percentage of our overall expenses. So I'm just curious kind of where we'd run.

Well, then we wouldn't have a surplus, would we?

No, you would. It's a matter of if your surplus is... $20,000, but your expenses went up $400,000. You're actually losing ground in terms of what your fund balance and reserves can cover for overall expenses. That's all it is. When we

get to late spring, early summer, when we typically have that retreat time and everything else, we'll have the audited numbers. And when we put those long-term projections together, you can see that ebb and flow. So you can see some years where we're expenditures have outpaced the surplus growth and other years where it's gone the other way. So yeah, we'll plug in all the latest numbers and we'll make sure we have those calculations ready for you. Thanks.

We are not finished with our annual audit yet. That's still in process. And every year, the last three years that I've been here, we've had a general fund surplus every year. So it's maybe a million-ish.

Yeah, I'm not concerned that we're running a deficit. It's more of just previous conversations we've all had about What do we use our reserves for? Are we going to use it for this project or that project? It's just making sure that the actual number is keeping up with basically the rate of growth of expenses so that we're not losing ground. You're probably seeing a slight erosion. Okay. Fair enough.

Okay. Very good. Karen, I just want to thank you for all your sales tax information. A few years back during COVID or maybe right after COVID, I requested a lot of this information because I really was trying to track how our businesses were rebounding. And I'm looking at these numbers, and I'm looking versus 21. It looks like they've rebounded. Would you say that's true? I mean, for a long time, it was just, well, it's inflation. But I think now these numbers are so strong, it looks like I think things are pretty well back. Yeah? I would agree. We're

confident in that.

Very good. All right. Thank you. Okay, that's it for our business, I think. And we can go roundtable. We have time for that. We'll start over here. Yeah, we

had a planning commission meeting. Had a looks like a resident on Southmore is going to get a nice new ADU. And there's also a house actually on my street that we continued to get some more information. And, um, there was also a, uh, CRSWC full meeting. Um, we approved some, uh, new roof coating over the gyms. Um, we also got a very, uh, comprehensive, um, kind of, um, I guess report about the new marketing and communications program at the center, uh, Rachel Gable and, um, who's the center person. And then Lindsay was also there as well, our new communications person. They're just doing a great job with social media, just to kind of identify what's helping with the marketing. And so that was great. The center in terms of the year and draft, it looks like going to be in the negative about $74,000, which is far better than what was predicted. So that's fantastic. But yeah, I mean, overall, things look really good rental revenues up, you know, personal trainer revenues up. So, you know, I think things are looking really, really positive over there. And it was great to see that the marketing efforts seem to be working. So

yeah, it was great. All right. Anything else from you, Bridget? No? I don't think so. Okay. Go on, Susan.

I had a Parks and Rec meeting, and Kate Young, who is a WashU intern who's working with the Sustainability Committee and has done some incredible work for them, presented on stormwater best practices with permeable pavers and dry wells and things like that. And a lot of these are great in many areas of the country and all tend to be difficult because of our clay soil bioswales, things like that. But still, there's something that we need to start looking at with construction as we look at build-out of our property in more and more intense rainfall. And she also presented what others around us are doing. Ledoux and Brentwood, Webster Groves, they tend to give some types of incentives or requirements for homeowners to provide this type of best practices, stormwater control. And she also went to places like Des Moines, Iowa and Portland and other areas that have innovative and very successful projects to help control the stormwater. So that was really helpful. Then Tony presented the Parks and Rec capital budget a little bit, looking at Shaw Park, at the pool and its floor tiling that's coming in. Also talked a little bit about the Hanley House repairs that are being bid at this point i think um and this is for fire suppression and renovation and i know that we had talked about at our last retreat how to handle the handling house so i am anxious is there an estimate i mean some ballpark not

not that

we've that's been shared yet

okay

um i think it's not small because as soon as those with fire suppression everything else as soon as those come in then There's also discussion that the windows need to be repaired or replaced or whatever else with Hanley House. So that's something that we'll have to deal with. And those are the main things. And then one fun part is that there was discussion how the parks are going, again, for the night skies applications.

Oh,

great. And as part of that, we are having on April 21st at 8 to 930, because that's when the stars come out, There is a Star Watch Party, and it's being put on by the St. Louis Astrological Society. And there'll be telescopes there and everything else. In one of our parks? This is at Oak Knoll.

Okay, what's the date again?

The date of that is April 21st from, what did I just say, 8 till 930. So that sounds like a lot of fun. I'm sure the weather will be perfect. and everything else. The only other item I wanted to report on, if I can find the details, is we're coming up to the Cool Cities presentation that Clayton is hosting on April 3rd. And we'll have a roundtable with the presentation. We'll start with talking about some of the climate issues that we'll be facing, that cities are facing. And that's like a 20-minute overall presentation. It's very similar to the one that was put on when Webster did the first pop-up. And it was really informative. It gets your attention. And then what we'll be presenting to other local governments is our benchmarking ordinance and how we got there and how we're rolling that out. And David is doing that as well with somebody from the botanical community Green Building Council presenting that. And then the second part of that will be on our tracking of emissions. And Matt will be there with somebody else with our tool, which is called Crosswalks. So they tell all around the area the breakdowns of different emissions that are happening so we know how to best use that material, that information to move our city forward. So we're looking forward to that. Again, that's on April 3rd. We hope that people can come and learn from it. And it's really, again, it's geared toward city government, city officials to come and sharing information and the significant staff involved in this work so that we are working together on this because certainly climate doesn't know our little boundaries that we draw.

Will that be here or at the center?

That's my question. Here in the chambers? Here at the center? Correct?

Here in the chambers. Yeah, there's a Board of Adjustment meeting that was also scheduled at the same time, and that is going to be canceled due to a lack of items. So we'll be in here.

How are we pushing this out to other municipalities?

So they're just now putting together the marketing materials, and then once that's ready, then...

Right. Then it goes to, you know, again, Jamie... Cass Meyer. I can never say her name, is in charge of this. She's on the Webster Council and she's rolled it out. There's a steering committee with different people in the environmental areas as well as with city governments. And it goes to that group and then it grows out. I'm not quite sure if she has her mailing address. I don't know what her mailing list is. I will certainly be sharing it with you all too, but it should be to all officials.

We should share it with Municipal League is what I'm thinking. She might already be doing that. I know she's aware of them.

And it's April 3rd in the late afternoon, right? 4 to

5.30. The last one was in the morning, so I think the idea is whomever's hosting it can kind of pick the time and hopefully move it around a little bit so people can different people can make it fit into their schedules. So the first one was great. So I hope that people can come and listen.

Thanks. Becky? Yeah, just a few things. I participated in a rally along Brentwood Boulevard on Saturday for International Women's Day. And it was super cool and fun. There were so many people there. Yeah, it was like people were lining both sides of Brentwood Boulevard, like from Panera to Highway 40. And so many people and tons of great vibes from the drivers driving by, like horn honking, thumbs up. It was really awesome. So that was great. learning some more stuff about building code based on some inquiries from residents in Ward 1. So that's always interesting. Thanks to Anna and her team for educating us on that and helping us understand the process. And the other main thing I've been trying to do is recruit people for some board and commission vacancies that we have. And I think I've gotten like a little bit of progress, but not a lot. So I would just remind everybody, this is something that we need to do and it isn't always easy. And so we want to be like always kind of thinking about who are people in the community that seem like they have interest in what we're doing, right? I mean, I've kind of started to realize anybody who like sends me an email or asks me a question even is just like someone I should think about as someone who might be interested in serving. And so just a little like plug for that and hopefully we can get, you know, keep our boards and commissions active.

What are the openings that we're searching for right now?

Well, we have an off-cycle vacancy on Parks and Rec because of Ben Beinfeld's move to the school board. And so that one, people love to be on Parks and Rec. I was on Parks and Rec as a great place to be. Yeah, so I think we've got, I think I have a couple people who might apply to that and it's been advertised. So like this isn't like I'm controlling.

No,

no, I want to make sure everybody knows it's open. It's like an open application process I would love anyone to apply. And I also recognize that we benefit by reaching out to people and encouraging them to apply. letting them know about it in case they don't see the information in the emails and so hopefully we get applicants and i'm sure we'll be getting the like cycle information as the term approaches in the next couple months

the exciting thing about ben is he's a great

like he's staying active

yeah so

i'm so glad

that's good

thank you

uh-huh all right rick

Great. Just to build on that particular comment, Gary and Fedor and I had spent a lot of time on the boards and commissions. And so while Gary's not here now, we did have a chance to meet and then I had an opportunity to meet with David today. So at our March 25th or whatever the next Friday is strategy session, we'll be reviewing that. And so we'll get that information out to you. There's a lot of information to support all of that. So you've got plenty of time to study it beforehand. So. I look forward to that discussion. I would just build on Bridget's comments regarding the CRSWC, the results of the marketing campaign, just to try to put numbers on it. Memberships are up about seven and a half percent. So that's about 400 members. So from 2555 to 2929. And then the number of members rather than memberships is up about 5% or 400 members. So the marketing campaign seems to be very effective, and so we're happy about that. So that's all great. The challenge that we're facing this year is significantly higher utility costs. And so it's great to hear that our revenues are likely to increase, but unfortunately, our expenses are probably increasing faster due to utility costs. Uh, Becky and Susan and I also attended the municipal league meeting. Um, and so that was an interesting meeting and East West gateway, uh, Jim wild, um, presented, uh, before he presented, uh, Pat did identify that the grocery store, um, tax issue we were worried about. We'll never make it out of committee at least this time. So that was good news. Jim did identify that while our region's basic infrastructure seems to be secure for the foreseeable future, that it's not true for discretionary items. And so under the new Trump administration, he was identifying that anything that had social justice, climate or equity associated with it, were likely to be cut or at least deferred in some way. And that included things he said that could be at risk, like, um, the gateway Greenway bikeway and those kinds of things. So, uh, the world is changing, um, there. Um, Let's see. Oh, and then I did want to make sure though, David, do we, in terms of our funding for streets, how does that work for us? And are we at all concerned about, um, our applications or our, uh, for, for street funding?

Not at this point in time, the infrastructure hasn't reached that level. It's been more social programs and other things that have taken the front of it, but infrastructure, um, at least our projects are still good.

Okay, that was the impression I got from that discussion. Okay. And then the last thing, you know, I was pleased to see that the CCBA came out in favor of Proposition F, the fire safety sales tax. And so I know you met with representatives there, David. So thank you for doing that. You obviously did a good job. So thanks.

A couple of things. Susan already covered kind of the park and rec stuff. The only other point I would mention is more proactively. So Susan and I have our ward to coffee tomorrow morning. The community foundation has been gracious enough to let us use their building. So we're going to be, for those of you who know the building, we're going to mean the fireplace room inside. So we figured this time of year, you never knew whether it was going to be rain, snow, cold, or 85 to 90 degrees out. So being able to get inside the building was nice. And I, I think it's also going to be any time that we can show off assets that the city owns to residents, especially if you may not be able to get in there very often. Susan and I thought it would be a good idea. So hopefully we will have residents who come in. So 830 till 930 is tomorrow morning for that. So we'll have more feedback kind of on what we hear from that kind of next time.

Great. Before I... I'll give my little report. I want to ask Parks and Rec, I guess it would be Parks and Rec, the dog park. So now that Clover has graduated and she's able to go to the dog park... There aren't very many dogs there, and this is her principal complaint. It's like no dogs or one dog. We're trying different times. Today we ran into the donor, Mr. Anderson, and he said 3.30 is the pretty popular time. So we'll try it. But I found out that there are only 108 members or something. what we should have more members. I don't know why. I think people, I was talking to a neighbor today and she said, I didn't know we had a dog park. I mean, so I'm wondering, um, I'm, I'm saying, could you bring this up at parks and rec and could you say, you know, how can we increase membership? Do we, I mean, I don't really know if we have, um, non-resident memberships. I mean, I would think Ladoo is right there and there's lots of dogs there. So, It seems like they would all want to come to the dog park. It's just no fun if there are no other dogs. I

will be sure to bring that up. I have no idea. We have them around us. That'd be interesting to find out who is one hundred and eight. A good number? What the

max is? Such a small number are going to come at any given time.

You need a lot. I will bring that up. Just wanted to put that out there. Since I've been back in town, I actually attended something that I haven't even heard of in a long time, but a tele town hall. It was really interesting A great one. David was one of the panelists. The topic was city manager. form what is it about how why does it work um should we have this in the city of st louis and um there were other panelists too but i how many how many uh people were online a lot of people like over 100 right it was

just under 600

yeah it's just under 600 so it was over 100 yes um it was i listened and it was it was it was good it was really educational for people and i have sort of as i'm sure you all are a proponent of that form of government so david did a great job representing us and He did a great job answering some curveball questions. I did go to the, as did Bridget, the Germania coffee brew house, the Germania brew house. It's a new coffee place inside the Emerson tower. And we met the owner and he seems all, you know, super gung ho and they have a bunch of other locations, mostly in Illinois. But, you know, we talked to him actually about adding brew to the brew house and So maybe someday he can expand into that. And this morning, I don't know if any of you went, I went to the state of the county, the address that the county executive gives annually out at the Two Hill. And so that was interesting. And Sam Page spent a lot of time, most of the time reviewing what a great job his staff is doing. And it gave a lot of great examples. So other than that, he did mention the use tax, hoping to put that on the ballot next spring, hopefully. But he seems with the program there. And and then and I was just gonna say they that's okay no no they debuted their new flag I should have brought it in here I gave mine to David I'm sure you have it on your desk yeah yeah so it's interesting they went over that so it was interesting mostly it's a good time to say hi to a lot of people that you know and you don't see very often so that was it for me yeah all right gang anything else

A couple really quick legislative things. So as was stated, the grocery tax doesn't look like it's going anywhere. There's really been a shift, especially in the house towards property taxes. So that's what's been in focus. I know that the post had an article on it here, I think it was today. But they're looking at property tax assessments as it relates to residential property, and trying to get that capped, and then also seeking to decrease the multiplier used for personal property tax assessments. So Um, this is kind of where all the attention's being shifted, uh, at this point in time. So we'll keep an eye on that. Uh, I know the municipal league is as well as our lobbyists, uh, and the other one that has passed the house and we'll go to the Senate relates to building codes. Energy efficiency has kind of been under attack the last couple of years. And so that's, uh, that's happening again, the bill that was passed started with, um, a prohibition, uh, counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance regulation or other policies that requires owners, builders, or developers. to implement green energy efficient building design and construction practices if it threatens affordability. So it's written very, very widely. So that's going to be remains to be seen how that would actually be applied. But during debate on that particular item, the bill was amended to add commercial and industrial properties to that as well. So basically the bill that passed the house would prohibit any type of energy efficiency provisions at the municipal level. So the lead silver equivalency, those types of things that we've had in place would probably come under fire with this if they could make an affordability argument. Same with the energy code provisions that we have within all of our building codes. So we are keeping an eye on this one. The lobbyist is keeping an eye on it. MML is working against it. But the vote was 100 to 47 in the House. I imagine that the Senate will probably be inclined to vote against in a similar fashion. So we'll keep an eye on this and see what happens, but it would definitely impact us here. Again, if applicants could make that argument that it somehow impacted affordability of the construction.

Would this apply to our, this wouldn't include something like our benchmarking program though then? Since it's about cost of

building. Right. This is for building design and construction practices. So this would be for basically new construction or renovation to buildings, but the benchmarking program would still be okay. Okay.

David, is it something that as we look at evolving our code, For example, if you get points for doing something, it's not necessarily a requirement because you're getting a benefit. This may impact how we look at

updating

our code.

Yeah, you'll have to find ways to almost incentivize the practice. And so points would be a way to do that.

All right. If there's nothing further, I'll take a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Very good. Thanks for coming.