October 28, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everybody. We are going to, this is our, it is October 28th. We're going to have a discussion session to start. There's going to be a presentation on the use of generators.

Do we need to start or wait for Becky? Okay. We'll get started with it in just a moment here. Okay, so we'll go ahead and get going here on the presentation. And you're gonna see that this presentation's much shorter than what we would typically give you. Typically, we would go over a topic, show you what we have on the books, and then maybe have some suggestions or alternatives for changes. For generators, emergency generators in particular, we can't find a whole lot out there that we don't already have in place. So I wanna talk through the issue a little bit and see if there's something we could potentially put in that may be helpful going forward, but I just want you to get a sense of what we've got on the books. And then let's talk a little bit about how to address maybe some of the nuisances that popped up during the tornado if there is a good option for that. So with emergency generators, or anything really that makes noise here in the city, we've got our noises section. We're very familiar with this. We've talked about it time and again, especially as it relates to things like leaf blowers and contracted motorized equipment here in the city. And they all have hour restrictions as to when you can use them, but there's no mention of generators specifically anywhere within our code. It would of course be an option to add emergency generators if you wanted to, the portable non-permanent type of generators. And I think that's where a lot of the concern came up during the tornado was those that were being run outside. Some were on trailers, so the trailer would kind of rattle and they were pretty loud. You could hear them a long way away, but we don't have anything that would actually deal with that in our code. We've got this blanket provision that just says you can't create any noise that's unusual, disturbing or unnecessary. But that's a really difficult one for us to enforce. You know, you've got to. the officer that writes it has to determine that it's unnecessary using their discretion and then go to court and defend that, which is typically going to be a pretty difficult thing to do. So that's what we have on the books right now as far as noises are concerned. Within our building and mechanical code, we do have some provisions in here that dictate the placement for the permanent generators. So we've got a number of these throughout the city where homeowners buy an emergency generator, they put it in the side yard or the rear yard on their property. We had these running throughout the city really without any complaint during the tornado because Those permanently installed generators, they're enclosed. They're fully enclosed within an insulated box that usually has some sort of ventilation. They're made to be able to run without disturbing people because the people that build those know that they're going into side yards, rear yards and close proximities to other properties. So you can hear them, but especially if your windows are shut, it's not going to be a major annoyance the way just a portable generator sitting in a driveway would. So within our codes, we do permit these inside and rear yards only. They have to be at least five feet from all lot lines, and we don't permit their location within any kind of easement. So that's what we do right now for generators. So they have to get a permit and meet these really basic requirements. We also have, of course, the emergency provisions. So with the tornado... We declared a state of emergency. The emergency management director has a series of set up emergency powers and can waive ordinances and suspend different regulations. And we did that with quite a few after the tornado. I would say that when you have that type of emergency, even if we had something on the book with portable generators, The difficult thing is it's hard to tell a resident you can't run a generator when the power's out. A lot of times those are running sump pumps. What we found in a lot of cases was they were running medical equipment. So two generators in particular that were generating electricity didn't mean to say generate, but creating a lot of complaints. When we would go and talk to those homeowners, that's exactly what was going on. One was running some sort of medical device, another one was running a CPAP, and we can't tell those people at night, hey, you need to turn that generator off. It's disturbing others when it's running medical equipment. So that's what we have on the books, which isn't a lot. And so I actually had Myron do a lot of research as far as what other cities have on the books and see if there's anything that deals with the portable generators anywhere. And we can't find any examples because you typically see those in those emergency situations. So my recommendation to the board is if we want to do something, I think this is probably the section where we want to capture it. So that if you weren't in that emergency situation where you might give some leniency for somebody that's running that type of equipment, and maybe somebody just has a generator that's running outside. There's complaints we get from time to time because people have like a camper. and they'll park it in front of a friend's house and fire up a generator. And so, you know, that might be a situation where if we had something on within our code here, maybe we can enforce a situation like that. But I do think enforcing something during an emergency gets pretty tricky. Even if you carve out some exceptions, say, hey, if you're running medical equipment, this doesn't count. I can't imagine an officer going to a house, it's 11 o'clock at night, knocking on the door to get the person to come down and then asking questions to see the medical equipment or whatever it is to make sure that they're compliant with that particular regulation. So it just gets a little bit dicey when you go to enforce it. I'm assuming that that's the reason we don't see those types of ordinances at any other city within the metro. So I wish I had a really good example to show you of the portable emergency generator, but we really don't. see anything like that out there. So I just want to have a little bit of a conversation, understand this a little bit better. And if there is something we can put in, let's certainly do it. I just don't have a good example or alternative to give you this evening to start off the conversation. Any questions about any of that?

Susan, I know this was affected a number of your neighbors during the tornado. So I don't know if you, you know, I'm sure you have comments and questions.

I do. I do have comments. Question first on the permit generators. There's no decimal level, decibel level or anything that we have?

There's not. There's no decibel level within our code that we enforce on those.

But it tends to be that they are not as loud anyway. That's correct. And there's more screens. Yes, it was. It was a big problem in our neighborhood because, you know, people. It was a lengthy period of time. You couldn't open your windows. They went in tonight. There's a lot of families with younger children. And also there was an awareness that, well, the discussions went from a lot of it was keep my, well, I need to keep my food frozen. And, you know, that's all fine. And there's a lot of sympathy in general until you're the house right next door and it's going on all the time and everybody's nerves are already fried. And then you've got this going. I mean, I'm getting... I'm feeling it now. And I love my neighbors. So it is a problem. And the question that I had asked you, David, too, is that my understanding was we had a couple of neighbors that generators didn't didn't make much noise. And then we had the really loud ones. And I understand it's a matter of how much you want to pay for your generator. And it comes to that. I think and I don't know the differences in cost, but I think there could be some type of phasing out. of the less expensive generators as a matter of a balance of the entire neighborhood. Because my neighbor's generator is going to be hitting, you know, being heard by five houses, six houses, and especially the houses right next door, and only benefiting them. And then it's just, there's got to be some community balance of that. And so I would hope that we can come up with some type of a reasonable standard of a decibel level or whatever, however they measure these things, because it truly begins to fray relationships and nerves and getting kids up in the mornings and already very difficult times and all that.

I think what we can take a look at, the ones that were really causing the issue, they don't have any insulation of any sort. It's just an engine, and these were brought in on trailers. I know that we had a couple that were in Ward 2 that were on trailers in driveways, and so the trailer itself would kind of rattle along with the engine. I mean, they were loud.

You're making me nervous talking

about this. I do know that there's a generator that's towable, that's insulated. We use that sort of thing from time to time. Those aren't as loud as the types of generators I think that we're out there and running. I'm just trying to... We can do some research to see if there's a way to differentiate between the two and a way that we could codify it. A way to define that type of insulated generator versus the other type.

Right, and I assume I know at least one that is owned by a neighbor that is very loud. So I assume we'd need some type of a phasing in time period, though I hate to say that because hopefully we won't have anything like that that necessitates generators for a long time, but recognizing that somebody invested in this piece of whatever.

In that case, is it permanently installed or it's a portable one that they would pull outside and then fire up? Okay, yep. Great.

Um, I have to say even living where I did right in the heart of a lot of damage, I heard nothing about this as a complaint. So, um, that doesn't mean it's not an issue that we should address. So I really appreciate hearing the examples and experiences and look forward to if other folks heard stuff. Um, I think I definitely don't, it doesn't seem right to tell people they can't use a generator when we lose power. Um, And at the same time, if there are things that we can set up to say, like, that it has to be, like you said, just the kind of things we talked about in terms of like the noise or ability to control the noise or how it operates. If there are ways to specify that, I would support that. I mean, that feels okay to me.

I didn't know there was a generator issue either. In fact, I asked David what this topic was about because it didn't occur to me what it would be. Having said that, obviously, it's been an issue. I guess my sense is maybe there's some opportunity to write some somewhat unenforceable language that says it is understood in the case of emergencies, as declared emergencies, that there may be a need for portable generators with the understanding that such generators must be cognizant of the impact on their neighbors or some very generalized language that it would at least allow our officials to perhaps go and visit someone and say, hey, we know there's an emergency, but we think the equipment you're using is not adequate. I mean... I don't think that's going to be very effective, but at least we could sort of recognize it. I also wonder, you know, in addition to tornadoes, which hopefully only happen every 50 years, we do have storms that knock people's power out for three or four days, you know, because they hit the Ameren wires, et cetera. And I do know people, I don't think any of them live on my street who have said, I'm getting a generator here. because I'm tired of having my freezer die and losing all my food, and so I'm going to get a generator. But it sounds like from what David is saying is that those are already pretty well regulated, and there's really not much use to do with it, much reason to deal with those. So if anything, I would think if we could do something that is very generalized and at least recognizes that we – We appreciate there is an issue here between serving public need generally and the private needs of individuals. But some standard that we could put in there, again, I don't think it's going to be very enforceable. And frankly, in a tornado, I think our staff had better things to do than tell people their generators were too loud. But if we can do something that at least puts some small teeth in the ordinance, that would be okay.

Um... I do recall hearing noises in the night and having neighbors saying, why are people operating chainsaws in the middle of the night when in fact they were really generators? And so, so I know the noises were there. And so, but I guess what I would say is I have a high tolerance for in emergency situations for having deviations from our normal standards. And so I get that. That sounds good until it's right next door to you, in which case then it's really annoying. So I get that. So my thought is it seems reasonable to have some type of a decibel limit. And so I would certainly what I'd like us to do is make sure that we've done our research to understand the universe of normal or typical generators and make sure that we have a decibel limit that is reasonable. well above whatever the norms are so that we're trying to really capture what most people could do as opposed to creating a new standard. or having something that is very expensive or elite. And then I think we should include in that portable generators to see if there are any, if it's reasonable to have a decibel limit on portable ones as well. I just don't know how reasonable that is, but I'd like us to do our research before we consider something like that.

I think generators during emergency time is okay with me. I think, you know, powering your house and your fridge and everything, you know, during a state of emergency, I don't think we really should like worry about that too much because I, again, I just think people are trying to like, you know, we had to like move out of our house for five days cause we didn't have power. And I know some people in our neighborhood had generators and it was, it's hard. And I think, you you know, are not your daily life. But saying that, I think, you know, you mentioned like if you have a generator for like a mobile home or something that's parked in your garage, I think that should be under a very strict requirement. You know, like in a non-state of emergency, like those types of things I think should be taken into consideration. I do agree that I think if we could find a decibel level for things, but I don't know, I think just during emergencies there needs to be some you know, understanding for that.

Well, I mean, Susan, I certainly do remember all the emails that we got. I mean, it was, I mean, I think it was, I'm trying to kind of equate the noise. Like I think when you sometimes go to festivals and there's like a food truck, you know, that's having, I mean, David kind of talked about a food truck and we have, I mean, that's what it was like, but we know like a lot of our neighborhoods, the houses are very close together. So just imagine living through that. And we had no, I mean, they had no airflow. So everybody had to have their windows open. So I, you know, it was difficult. And as Susan mentioned, everybody's nerves were already a little bit on edge. So I'm wondering too, you know, I think everybody's comments were great. I am concerned about limiting people's use, you know, in emergencies. You know, I know we tried to find some common ground during COVID The emergency, you know, we tried to get the police to talk to people and say, hey, you know, can you just use it at night when medical use is needed? Or, you know, is it really needed during the day? And I think people, I think at times people were willing to kind of bend to that. So I don't know if there's a way to You know, I know that's kind of just like a good neighbor provision. And I don't know if that's possible at all. But, you know, that helped a little bit where people only used it and turned it off. You know, I mean, on one hand, like, yes, we understand you want to power your refrigerator. But the other hand, like you're making your neighbor's lives miserable and they can't sleep. So, yeah. So, I mean, that's kind of what I'm thinking. But, yeah, I think a decibel level exploring that idea is a good one.

I think we can take a look at that. The one thing I want to remind everybody of, and we talked about this with the WashU project quite a bit, we can put decibel standards in, but for those to be enforceable in court, we typically have the county come out and measure those because they have the calibrated equipment with trained staff that run it for a specific period of time. We could have... police go out and try to read the decibels with a phone or with another device, have some idea what that is. It's not necessarily enforceable, but it's a really good opportunity where if the limit's 75 decibels and it's reading at 80, the officer can have that conversation about, hey, this thing is too loud. I don't know that we can necessarily issue a summons or some sort of violation based upon that because, again, it's hard to go to court and say my phone picked up certain decibels, typically you need a more engineered process for that. But again, I think if they went out and they had that number on their phone, it makes it a lot easier to have that conversation about, hey, can we do something about this or change the hours? And if it is an issue, then we can get the county over, get some other means to enforce that sort of thing.

Would it not be maybe listed on the equipment itself at all?

They may have some sort of idea on the range, but typically not. The ones that will post what their decibels are are going to be the insulated units that are really low because they're basically bragging that you can put this on your side of the house and it's 50 decibels. And

we require that they be insulated? That's what I

wanted

to I don't like if there's something other than measuring decibel levels that would actually be much easier. I think that's something

we can take a look at

for people because if I going to order, like if I decide to get a generator, I'm not gonna like it's hard for me to know what I'm going to get but I can say is it insulated or not or whatever some other characteristic of it might be.

Yeah, there's always reducing boxes you can buy. Yeah, generators.

Yeah, and I think where the application to me comes into play would be, and I'm presuming that if let's say people want to install generators as a result of this, I'm guessing they may need a permit to do that. And if they need a permit, then it would be good to have a standard at that time. And so I think that's where we need to do our research, whether it's a decibel limit or specs from the manufacturer.

Any other thoughts? That sounds good. I think we all recognize that, yes, in emergency you do need those generators. That's also a part of being part of your community and having that decibel level. And I don't know if we enact something, if there are certain generators that, for example, this generator. I would think there are some specs, whether it's an insulation or what's on the equipment itself. But I think it would be very helpful.

Generally, what we found is that these numbers are going to mean much without some kind of thing to compare it to. But the permanent installed generators, permanently installed generators that come with that insulated box, typically they run between like 50 and 75 decibels. The portable units, if they're totally open to the air, those can run up to 100 decibels. Yeah. I think those are typically causing the issue. We can look at how much a box dampens it, some of those. And if that's a requirement that we have some sort of silencer box on it, then maybe that's what we take a look at. So we'll do a little more research. But for this initial conversation, like I said, I'd love to have ordinances that we can kind of show you that are other places have implemented that have been successful. But we don't really have anything to work off of here. So this conversation is helpful for us to try to develop something that's our own.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And thank you, Myron. I know you did a lot of the research on that. We appreciate it. It's still a little bit early. So I guess we'll take a brief break until seven o'clock. Yeah. All right. Good evening, everybody. Tonight is Tuesday, October 28th. We are getting ready to get started with our meeting. If the city clerk could call the roll. Alderwoman Buse.

Here. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Alderman Gary Feder? Here. Alderman Rick Hummell? Here. Aldeman Jeffery Yorg? Alderman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Here. Alderwoman Patel. Here. Alderman Fader? Here. Alderman Hummel? Here. Aldeman York? Alderman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe?

Here.

Thank you.

This is the time in our meeting where if there's any public room requests and petitions from the audience, we do have a member from MIAC here, Luke. I don't know if there's anybody on Zoom. I also just wanted to acknowledge a couple of things. First, our public works director Matt Malick received public works leader of the year from the Missouri chapter of the American Public Works Association. I know how much Matt loves the attention, but Matt, it's very well deserved. So you've done a phenomenal job in the last year and we're grateful that you've chosen Clayton to lead our public works department. So congratulations and thank you again for your service to Clayton. I also just wanted to acknowledge, I found out today that one of our oldest residents, I wish I knew exactly how old Susie Forsyth was, but she passed away yesterday evening. Susie and her husband lived on Central in Old Town, I mean, I think for over 50 years. I mean, Susie talks about streetcar. She really knows exactly kind of what Clayton was a long time ago. She was a great advocate for her neighborhood. She was certainly just a great advocate for our community. I enjoyed Susie a lot. She was a really great woman and Clayton will definitely miss her. She lived such a, she was such a spirited woman and lived such a wonderful and I think a very rich and long life so she was very lucky but I will certainly miss her so I just wanted to mention that. With that, we will get started with our first public hearing related to a CUP at 7931 Forsyth Boulevard. Oh, and I will request proof of publication.

Thank you, Mayor. This is a public hearing and subsequent resolution to consider granting a conditional use permit to allow for the use of short-term rentals on the subject property. Short-term rentals are dwelling units offered and used for occupancy by transient guests for a period shorter than 30 consecutive days, but not less than 48 hours, and this excludes hotels and bed and breakfast. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Forsyth Boulevard and North Merrimack Avenue. It is owned high density commercial or HDC and is developed with a two-story commercial structure. Both floors presently contained commercial office space and the second floor is intended to be converted for residential use. The conversion would yield four units, each with two bedrooms. Based on the preliminary plans provided for the application, The maximum residential occupancy would be four people per unit and 16 people total. As outlined in the letter submitted by the applicant with the CUP application, the property owner will use a property management company as the host for the short-term rental units and will comply with the special rules and regulations governing short-term rentals. The Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board considered their application and associated plans for the project on October 6, 2025 and unanimously recommended approval of the CUP to the Board of Aldermen as submitted. Per the short-term rental ordinances, short-term rentals must provide at least one off-street parking space per unit unless a waiver is granted by the Board of Aldermen. The proposal would have four units and requires four off-street spaces. The applicant is looking to convert an existing structure which does not have on-site parking and therefore is requesting a waiver from the Board of Alderman. Staff are of the opinion that the short-term use will not add an additional parking burden to the surrounding area and that any parking needs can be met by nearby public garages. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the resolution, granting a conditional use permit to allow up to four short-term rental dwelling units at the subject property.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any questions or if there's any comments from the audience?

No, I'll just say that... The idea and your presentation was very well received by the Planning Commission, the Architecture Review Board, as well as the intentionality of what you're approaching this and the entire property. One of the issues that came up was parking, if there's that many units. And you had talked about that even though it may be waived by the board and your requirement that you were arranging parking elsewhere and the other thoughts you had. So it was a good meeting.

I have secure parking 8,000. So it looks like I don't have it. But I'll also just thank you. I need to. Thank you.

Well, I just want to make sure I understand. So approving this as submitted would be approving the use, which I'm really excited about. Sounds great. And approving the waiver. And the waiver is for on-site parking. What I'm trying to understand is whether there's a, like, do we say something about the fact that it is, that the applicant has arranged for off-site, like, has arranged for parking, but it's not on-site, and that that's actually really great? If

I could just address that, it might probably make a big investment Okay. Right, I can understand that. Yeah. Okay.

right but you have actually already secured parking at least for now like you have a contract for the yeah for how many spots

10 spaces right so yeah i don't think i'm going to be ready to be occupied for at least six run ahead and just order yeah these little spaces okay in advance

great

um

Thanks. I'm assuming, too, it'll be more attractive to rent the spaces if there's parking available. Alderman Gary Feder?

Thanks. I'm assuming, too, it'll be more attractive to rent the spaces if there's parking available. Alderman Fader?

I think the staff has really developed an excellent ordinance to deal with these kinds of uses and I think puts a lot of restrictions on the use and ones that recognize there have been problems in other situations, but I think they've all been anticipated here. I think Mr. Schlafly being the first one to come in under the ordinance is only appropriate since I think he was the one who really brought to our attention how helpful it would be to downtown. I know he gave the mayor and me a tour of the space a year and a half, two years ago, and It's really a great space, but I could see where it needed to have some flexibility, which it didn't have. So I'm very enthusiastic about it. Mr. Schlafly's also talked about some potentially great uses on the first floor. So I can't think of anybody better to undertake our first project than Mr. Schlafy. I think he's really committed to it. So very excited to support it.

Great. I share the sentiments of my colleagues. I'm excited about this and certainly would like to move forward with it. I do have just a couple of questions since it's our first application and it's more general questions, not necessarily specific to this. So people oftentimes will take whatever the easiest route is, meaning in this case, the occupants. And so what is our what in that immediate area? Do we have a time limit on street parking that would make it impractical for somebody or could that could they just park on the street?

during business hours within the downtown area, there's a two hour restriction for street parking.

But not overnight. And so, okay. So that is an option for them. And generally there's tons of parking anyway, so it doesn't really present an issue. The second thing, I noticed then that the property management company and or super host is in Chicago. And I don't have a problem with that, but I thought that when we, at least when we discussed it, I don't know what was in our final ordinance. We talked about having a local contact. And so this person just happens to be, doesn't mean that you won't have a local contact, but this person happened to be in the Chicago area. So... Super

host is in Highland Hill.

Oh, Highland Illinois. Okay. Not Highland Park. I'm sorry. I made that mistake.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay. But again, more generally, do we have a requirement? That's really what I'd like to know because I can't remember what finally got into the ordinance.

Yes, so that is a requirement. So part of what we'll do is when he actually has the units constructed and then we're ready for occupancy. So that's when we're going to require that new short-term occupancy type of permit. So there's requirements that they'll have to provide with the actual application information and other things when we issue those permits to him. But as of right now on the application for the CUP, it will be issued to him with a super host. So David's local. So we do have two people that would potentially meet.

Perfect.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Nothing else.

I'm very excited. Also, I love the layout of these spaces. I think that's very smart. I did just have a quick question about the total amount of people that are allowed in these units because, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's normally based off square footage. Is that right? This is way back when, so I don't quite remember.

Yes, so we did with the short term rentals what we did is established a maximum or of either the square footage calculation per our occupancy codes. or the maximum of the two people per bedroom. So the reason that we did that was so that the board would be pretty comfortable with what the maximums would be. And then also during the process of actually constructing the units, it could be that walls shift slightly, square footages of bedrooms shift slightly, and that would be something that we could improve administratively without impacting the overall confinements of the CUP that you guys might approve.

So the CUP, we are proving that is only for four people per unit. That's correct. So then if someone wants to bring like an air mattress into these units, that's not allowed?

Correct. So that would be in violation of their actual short-term occupancy permit, which will have the occupancy rating listed on it and a violation of the CUP. Okay. So that's something that we would, because we're not doing inspections every time they have guests, that's something we kind of will rely on the host to make sure that they're enforcing. But if we were to become aware if there was a problem at the property and we found that there were more people staying there than there should be, then we would be able to issue a violation.

And that's just for overnight guests, right? Correct. So you could have people for dinner. Right. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you.

Thanks, Anna. Yeah, David, thank you. I think we're excited. I kept telling people it'll be nice to actually see lights on up there. And certainly, obviously the goals, one of the big goals of our comprehensive plan was to bring more vibrancy downtown. So we have a lot of vacancy downtown in places, especially in a lot of these older buildings. So I think this is certainly a step in the right direction. Yeah. yeah great um if there is no one else any other comments um i will close the public hearing elder woman abuse

i move i move to approve resolution number 2025-29 granting an additional use permit for the short-term rental located at 7931 forsyth boulevard

second i apologize david do we need to amend it to add the parking waiver

yes we could add that to the resolution

It's the parking waiver is not explicitly written in the resolution. So You

want me do we need to vote on that separately or do you want us to do it as a

Motion to approve it would be fine

A motion to

prove the waiver, but I think there should be before acting on the bill

Okay, I move that we approve a parking waiver for seven nine three one four site Boulevard

Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Move that we approve resolution number 2025-29, granting a conditional use permit as amended for short-term rental located at 7931 Forsyth Boulevard.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor. Aye. Any opposed. Great. You are on your way, Mr. Schlaffy. All right, the next item on the agenda is our consent agenda. I will open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Alderwoman Buse?

You need your light on. I move that we approve the consent agenda. Second.

Discussion? Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Alderman Rick Hummell.

Discussion? Alderman Fader. Aye. Alderman Hummel.

Aye.

Alderwoman Waldman. Aye. And Mayor McAndrew.

Aye. All right, the next item on our agenda is an amendment, is actually, I'm sorry, the next item is an ordinance relating to standards for addressing the Board of Aldermen, the Planning Commission, and the ARB.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. It is common practice for local governments to have standards and rules for public participation in meeting. The City of Clayton does not currently have any adopted standards for addressing the Board of Aldermen, Plan Commission, or Architectural Review Board. The attached ordinance would establish such standards. Members of the public will be required to complete a speaker card with basic information when speaking. Comments during an open forum must relate to matters under the City's control. Generally, applicants will be limited to 10 minutes for the initial presentations and public speakers will be limited to three minutes. Provisions have been added since the September 30th, 2025 Board of Aldermen meeting to allow for subsequent comments by applicants and public speakers. A previous provision limiting speakers to speaking only once per item has been removed. And there are also basic provisions related to written communications from the public and the receipt of public protests and petitions within the bill. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermens approve the attached ordinance. And I will mention that tonight there is an amendment in front of you this evening. It's a revision from what was in the packet. Basically, what it does is it tweaks the written communications portion just a little bit and adds it to the plan commission as well. It used to just be in the previous draft with the Board of Aldermen. We've added it to the plan of commission to where the plan commission can also receive written communication, which it does from time to time. And it also changes the numerics so that they're consistent throughout the ordinance. i did want to point out those changes and it's available this evening in a printed copy if anyone from the public wants to inspect it but it looks like we don't have anyone from the public here so i can take any questions on this about the changes as i pointed out in the in the summary uh we really tried to change this based upon the comments and those were primarily centered around the fact that uh public speakers couldn't actually speak more than once on an item or that we would somehow cut off any kind of conversation that may be going on uh where an applicant would present something and the public could react to that the applicant could react to the public comment uh we basically designed this where that can still take place uh granted that the permission is given by the chair so again we'll take any questions but i feel like we've incorporated the comments

Thank you. So we'll open the discussion. Does anybody have any questions or comments of the changes?

My only comment is I appreciate the changes that have been made and the work to incorporate the comments by the board. And again, the goal of this is really to give everybody, to improve the input from our community and the board's ability to consider the different issues that are raised. And I think we're getting them. I appreciate that.

Yeah, I would just add, I think you that the revision addresses the concerns that I had before. Um, the one that remains is, um, related to, um, folks online and I actually thought we had stuff. In the prior version about people being able to submit in advance online or something. And that's gone so. I didn't actually pull up my old one, but my concern is just that I don't see how we are providing for folks who are online to quote unquote submit speaker cards. And so I think we need to think about that. I don't know if there's a way to do that in Zoom to have like one sort of chat option where people would... Submit something and say they're what they're doing or I don't know if we can ever I know we close down the chat and there's good reasons we do that on our zooms. But like sometimes you can allow like a Q&A kind of thing or something else that would be very limited. So I think we need to think about that.

Yeah, so we can look at how to do it. I mean, we treat someone online as if they're here.

Right.

Even if you're remote, you're playing by the same standards as anybody that's in person. So

it doesn't have to be in the ordinance. We have to just make sure we allow for

it. Speaker card gets a little bit tricky. We didn't have it in the previous version, but I did mention that we would have some speaker card online.

Okay.

And so we want that out there in advance. If somebody wants to fill it out in advance, they can. But also, yeah, we need to figure out how to capture that with online speakers. So it's something that June and I will talk about and we'll see a way to do it.

In the meantime, I can just make sure that we don't overlook people. If we don't figure it out quick, we can still just accept people, I would assume.

On Zoom, there's no... Air can do that. Yeah, I mean, there's no way for people on Zoom to submit a question in the comments or... Okay.

Right.

It can get messy right yeah I want to keep a control yeah

so I guess we'll just have, but I think that's a really good point. yeah, but I

think it's that's a matter of like how this gets implemented and executed I don't i'm not I don't believe that anything in the what's proposed needs to be amended. Tonight,

thank you for that

yeah.

Lemon Gary Feder.

Lemon fader.

At the prior discussion, I think people from the community, those who came forward and a few sent emails did have concerns that they would somehow be cut off in the middle of a presentation, wouldn't have a chance to speak again. So I think addressing that is a positive change. While I was somewhat concerned that, you know, this... 10 minute, five minute, three minute, whatever it is, has a little bit of a, you know, college debate rules to it. On the other hand, I think it does give people a comfort level that they will be fully heard. And so I think it's in the long run, it's a positive. The speaker cards, I think, will help record keeping and communications. And I think we've There was some inconsistency, I thought, between the way the three, the board, the PC and the RB were being treated in terms of communications. I think we've evened all that stuff out and made it applicable throughout. So I think we've addressed any concerns about the ordinance. So I think it's one we can proceed with.

Thank you. Alderman Rick Hummell?

Thank you. Alderman Hummel?

um

comments or questions

generally i'm fine with what's here the one thing i remember asking last time and i didn't see it in here although i don't know that it needs to be in here is if for some reason as an example we're having a public hearing And we think it's in the best interest of that meeting to dispense with these rules. Is there any reason we can't do that? So from a legal standpoint, I don't know that we need to have a provision for that. I just want to know, is there any problem saying that we move to dispense with the speaker rules? So I'm looking to you, Kevin.

The chair always has some authority with respect to keeping the meeting on track and operating it in an efficient, orderly manner. So I think the chair always enjoys some latitude. And under Robert's rules, any body is always free to waive its rule. I would caution, however, that it would be prudent that waiving the rules would be the rare exception. We're talking about core speech and varying the rules from time to time, from subject to subject or speaker to speaker can be highly problematic.

Yeah. So I'm just thinking that just in three years, there may have been one occasion. So it would be a rare event in my mind, but I understand your point. So that's all that I need.

I just had a question about the speaker card protocol. It's not really like laid out here, like when you need to have that submitted by or how that all works. So if I come and see, the meeting starts or whatever, and then I eventually like, oh, I have a question. How does that kind of work?

So we're going to do a few things. We're going to have speaker cards that are outside the room. So when you come up to the chambers, we've got that little sign out there. So we'll now put a sign up that say, if you intend to speak this evening on a topic, please fill out a speaker card and turn it into the city clerk. When people want to come up and speak, they didn't intend to, they want to say something and come up. We'll have some speaker cards in the podium as well. So when they come up, we'll ask for their information, let them know there's a speaker card in there that they could fill it out after they comment and turn that into the clerk. We're going to have to play with this a little bit. But we didn't want to, the way it was written previously was they had to submit it prior to speaking, which that's where it becomes a problem because the person that just pops up and decides to say something, you're not really accounting for that. So it's going to be a work in progress, but we tried to make this as flexible as possible.

Okay, yeah, because I just think it's good for the expectation for the resident to understand what is expected of them. And so I don't know if that needs to get added or just how that is, but to really understand how they do all that is important.

Yeah, David, thanks for making the changes. I think that in the end, as I've talked to other mayors and other municipalities who really largely seem to already have these in place, it seems like there is a lot of deference, as Kevin mentioned to the chair. I, of course, would never intend to... you know, prohibit anybody's opinion or speech. But it does seem like a lot of the decorum and the way the meeting, you know, the meeting transpires is, you know, can be not flexible per se, but I am glad that these regulations or that this allows for additional speech. I know, Kami, you mentioned, because ARB can be very different, especially when somebody's building a house, like neighbors kind of pop up and respond. And I think these This allows for that which I was glad about because ARB does seem to follow its own its own rules sometimes but that's just the way it is, because you have neighbors who are very often concerned about what a house looks like so. So yeah so if there are no other comments I know i'm not sure if there's anybody online that has any questions or comments. If not, I will close the discussion and then Alderwoman Buse.

I move that the board approve bill number 7098. Oh, that's right. Sorry about that. For first reading.

Second? Second. Any discussion,

Mr. City? You are introducing the bill as distributed this evening, correct? Yes. Thank you.

Second. Any discussion, Mr City Attorney?

Bill number 7098, first reading in Ordinance Abending Chapters 105 and 400 of the Clayton City Code regarding public participation in meetings of the Board of Aldermen, Planned Commission, and we will correct the spelling before this is published, Architectural Review Board.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

I really didn't know there was an H in it. I just forgot it.

I move that the board give unanimous consent for consideration for adoption of bill number 7098 as submitted tonight on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

I move that the Board introduce bill number 7098, as submitted tonight, to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any

discussion?

Mr. City

Attorney?

Bill number 7098, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending chapters 105 and 400 of the Clayton City Code regarding public participation in meetings of the Board of Aldermen, Plan Commission, and Architectural Review Board.

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Fader?

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell?

Aldermen Hummel?

Aye.

Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

The next item is an amendment to some parking restrictions on Clayton Road.

Clayton Road is designated by St. Louis County as an arterial roadway 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. In 2024, residents along the north side requested the removal of hourly parking restrictions in certain areas. On August 12th, 2025, the St. Louis County Council approved an ordinance that eliminated the time-restricted parking areas along the north side from Big Bend eastward to the city limits. Additionally, an existing parking meter zone on the north side of Clayton Road near Seminary Place was identified and corrected in the attached ordinance. This ordinance under consideration will revise the City of Clayton parking restrictions to align with those adopted by St. Louis County and allow signage and enforcement changes to occur. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from the board?

Alderman Buse. I introduce Bill number 7103, approving an amendment to the Schedule III parking restrictions of Title III related to Clayton Road to be read for the first time by title only.

Okay.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Oh, I'm sorry. Actually, Mr. City Attorney, you didn't read first. Sorry.

Bill number 7103, first reading and ordinance of any Schedule 3 parking restrictions of Title III of the Clayton City Code relating to parking restrictions on Clayton Road.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any

opposed? I move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7103 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent. I introduce Bill number 7103, approving an amendment to Schedule 3, parking restrictions of Title 3 related to Clayton Road to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7102, second reading and consideration for adoption. an ordinance amending Schedule 3 parking restrictions of Title III of the Clayton City Code relating to parking restrictions on Clayton Road.

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Gary Feder?

Alderwoman Buse? Aye. Alderwoman Patel? Aye. Alderman Fader?

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell?

Aldermen Hummel?

Aye.

Alderawoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

I do have a curiosity question. Who takes the signs down, the county or us?

The county will do it on Clayton Road. They've maintained the signage. I

figured it was their job, so we just let them know, and then hopefully they will do it in a timely manner.

So they approved it, and it sounds like the signs are already going up. They're

already down? Oh, all right. Well, good thing we approved it then.

That's funny. Did they just come down in the last week or something? He said. Yeah. Because Barb wouldn't have followed up with us if the signs had come down. That's interesting. Yeah, so funny. Sorry, thanks. Good. I was gonna ask about this.

All right, the last item on our agenda is an amendment to our non-uniformed employee retirement fund plan.

Yes, Mayor, there are two changes here. This came about when we had a situation last year that kind of brought this to our attention. And so we sent this to our plan attorney for to make some adjustments. So the first one, essentially, if we have an employee that's met their normal retirement age, they come in and they pick up paperwork to actually fill it out and start to receive their pension and they pass away within the next sixty days uh... before they could actually turn that paperwork and uh... then basically by default the spouse will receive a fifty percent survivor benefit with this change the other change that we put in here uh... we needed to clarify that normal retirement benefit and uh... basically state that that normal retirement benefit commences uh... on the first month following the date that the participant became entitled for that benefit it's an automatic trigger for normal retirement. And this is a question that came up when we were reviewing the plan before. So we're just cleaning up those two items and again, addressing that situation, the rare situation where somebody is at their full retirement age, they get their paperwork and for some reason, you know, they pass, they can't turn that paperwork in. We have a default setting. So with that, we'd recommend approval and Karen Dilbers here, our finance director to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from anybody up here?

Yeah, the only question I had is that picking up the paperwork to fill out is what triggered the entitlement. If somebody's at retirement age, they're vested or whatever, and they haven't come in yet to get the paperwork, why was that point in time determined or chosen?

As far as getting the paperwork itself?

Right. Going to pick up the paperwork is what triggers this, versus that they're a retirement agent entitled to it otherwise as soon as they do the application.

Sometimes people may be eligible, but if they're here, they continue to work. So if we put in a broad provision that just because you're eligible, we're automatically going to make that your retirement date, then even though they're working, we can't calculate their benefit. So like they may still be earning additional benefit. But as far as this situation goes, the picking up of the paperwork or being sent the paperwork gets the process started.

So if they're of retirement age and they die but they haven't picked up their paperwork to get the benefits for their surviving spouse,

there's a provision in the plan if they are eligible for normal retirement and they haven't picked up the paperwork, then their lump sum distribution would be sent to their estate.

That still happens?

Yes. This is just in this instance, we couldn't find the person. When we found them, we said, hey, you're eligible as of six months ago. I'm just rounding up numbers. And they were in hospice. And we gave them the paperwork, but they.

I remember the instance. I just wondered more broadly to make sure that everybody's protected.

Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Alderman Pater.

Nothing. Thank you.

All the women abuse. I introduce bill number 7104. approving an amendment to the non-uniformed retirement fund plan to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7104, first reading, an ordinance amending the City of Clayton non-uniform employees pension plan pursuant to Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Claytown, Missouri, relating to personnel.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7104 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in

favor? Aye. Any opposed? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent. I

introduce bill number 7105, approving an amendment to the non-uniformed retirement fund plan to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any

discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7104, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending the City of Clayton non-uniformed employees pension plan pursuant to Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Claytown, Missouri, relating to personnel.

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder? Aye. Aldman Rick Hummell? Aye. Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldeman Fader? Aye. Aldman Hummel? Aye. Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you.

Great. We have come to the end of our agenda. Does anybody want to give us any updates on what they've been doing the last couple weeks?

Sure. It seems like I already reported on the Cool Cities event at... I guess I haven't because it was within the last two weeks. Is that kind of a night, guys? Okay. So we were at Beyond Housing and it was pretty impressive. I didn't realize they have their own forestry division for the area and they're helping their communities to... you know, clean out invasive species and to have more native plantings and they're watching their tree canopies. And it was very, yeah, it was impressive. I think it was the Beverly Hills mayor who wanted everyone to know that Beverly Hills has the first fully solar-powered municipal building. Some other things that they brought up, and Kami was there as well, so you can certainly supplement what I forget to mention. They were talking about in the spring, there were things like the Bradford pear buybacks and you get a native plant in place of what you turn in. And they talked about, let's see, what else? We talked about that the St. Louis Community College has what is one of the top horticulture programs in the state of Missouri and possibly one of the best in the country. Let's see. We're looking at, they gave some websites, treepeople.org and other websites to kind of find out ways to increase the health of your community by having more natural landscapes, suggested things like celebrating Arbor Day with events that, you know, Field Day for the schools at different places where the city has done efforts to do more native plantings or tree awareness and canopies and things like that. It was good, and it was very well attended. Another thing that Cool Cities did over the last two weeks is there was a Zoom call with the surrounding municipalities, and I can't remember. I got there late, or I tuned in late. I had a prior meeting, so I can't remember the name of the city alder person or the city council. Ann Schweitzer. Ann Schweitzer, thank you. who is presenting it and talking about the data centers and the conversation went in the way that we all have to work together on this and what kind of regulations we may need as a region, not necessarily letting individual municipalities have to figure this out all on their own. So it was a preliminary conversation, but I thought it was good for everyone to be connecting and begin thinking about it. We have a Ward 2 coffee coming up, actually, and we're doing it at Glenridge. And part of that is to kind of help because we don't have much of coffee shops in Ward 2, but also getting people to the schools as the school board begins to look at what or begins to present what they want to do on the ballot in the springtime. There is a recycling event the city is putting on, which Matt can certainly tell us more about. And that's on December 5th and 6th. Then we have different people coming, a fabric recycler, electronics, and things like that. So that should be hopefully very well attended. There was also a planning commission meeting. Five Iron was there, and they were talking about how in their design, they were looking forward to get some sign – sign variances because apparently the light comes in and you can't read the machines on a couple of their machines. And so there was discussion on that and how they could do it without defeating the purposes of our current ordinances. And so that's coming back to us.

It was

related to their window coverings, right? It's their window coverings. They want bigger window coverings, which the whole idea of regulation there. Yeah, and there are two bays that get too much light coming in. And of course, our staff handled it beautifully and giving us the reasons for the coverings. And so they're going to see what they can do that'd be the least, the most compliant with what we're trying to achieve with those. The 7200, the Regents Bank Building, there was discussion there. They've got the big sign in front with their their address on it, and they're talking about wanting to put the names of the businesses there in their discussion, which, you know, how much is too much? Can you list everybody or limit it to just several of the businesses, and when does it get too busy? So that was going on. And what else over the last couple weeks? That's all I have for right now. Thanks.

I don't have anything.

No. Surely you can come up with something. Oh. Last night, I must say that David and our staff or the architectural Laurel Harrington did a great presentation at the town hall about the Y down. First of all, presenting what the charter amendment proposal is about and also then presenting the different kind of high level options for the Y down proposal. wide-owned restoration. And it seemed well-received, and people went around afterwards looking at the different designs. And there was the QR code for comments to be coming in, things like that. So it was a great beginning of that conversation. I was asked by a couple people, what's next? Are you all getting a focus group, or what are you doing, our task force, or what are doing to actually put this stuff? And I said, I'll get back to you on that. So...

I think a lot of that's going to depend on the feedback that we actually get if most people go on there and a huge majority says just put trees back and put back what it was I don't know how much. Planning will actually need for that that's pretty easy we just figure out how the street lighting system and the irrigation goes back, no matter what we're going to talk about it with the board of alderman but. If we're going to go into a really intensive design and hardscape and all of that, then that's going to be a much longer process. And there's going to be probably some more community input opportunities there. So we're going to take this initial feedback. We'll share that with the Board of Aldermen, and then we'll get a feel for where we want to go. And I think ultimately that concept that we choose, that's what's going to dictate how intensive this process is.

Yeah, one of the interesting things, the whole night was very interesting, but Something I hadn't thought about was somebody asked, as you do this, some of it was a very much of a flowing design. And will you start continuing it over time down the rest of Y down? And of course, that remains to be seen. But it does give you a whole different image as you look at these different concepts if it came all the way down there with a continuing theme.

I still don't have anything. Alderman Gary Feder?

I still don't have anything. Alderman Fader?

I was glad to see the legislative priorities were handed out. I missed the meeting where they were adopted, but I think they were adopted exactly as the subcommittee had suggested them. So I promise I won't go through the highlights. We have a Ward 3 coffee coming up on November 15th. I think there's a meeting of the Shaw Park Project. I think it's next Monday. The committee is meeting again with the consultants and getting closer to something that can be presented, I think, as first to Parks and Rec and then come back to the Board of Aldermen. I echo the comments about the town hall. I thought it was, you know, David did a great job and... And kudos again to Public Works for you to begin to appreciate when you see all the slides, the tremendous amount of work that's been done and the efficiency of it. So I really think that's commendable. So I think I really think that that's it for me. Thank you.

Just a couple of things. One, after a discussion with the mayor, she reached out to Opera Theater St. Louis and so and she forwarded the information to me, which I thought I would share, which is that they are continuing to move forward, that they're having positive dialogue with Claris. However, parking has turned into a very complicated issue for them and they were appreciative of the feedback that we gave them. But I think it's still very hard for them and they're continuing to look at their design priorities relative to their fundraising capacity and still figuring that out. So they gave us the indication that perhaps in a few short weeks, we'll learn more. So take that for what it's worth. I had a... meeting at Glen Ridge as part of the former school board members. I missed the two of you, but I participated. I

go to California.

OK, well no problem. And so the big takeaway that I got from that was that. that well, in the dialogue that the school board has had with their public, that they're getting good response regarding wanting to take care of the schools. However, they're failing to make a compelling case to make a significant investment in the schools. And so they seem to have, they're struggling with communicating that effectively. So their goal with us, I think, was to walk us through the building and show us all of its inadequacies and bring it to life and then hope that we would promote that to the community. So just an FYI on that. Regarding the public meeting last night, I thought it was a good turnout. One of the things that I found interesting was that, and I know we're well aware of this, but streetlights, I think, will continue to be an issue. And it just, you know, we had so many subdivisions where they were private, they had their own streetlights, then they deeded them over. And I don't know that... that the residents are going to be well aware that this could be a stark change for some of them. And so I know you've talked about it many times, David, but I think we will, you can never communicate enough. And so I think we have to set expectations clearly there that change will occur. The other thing I thought that was interesting, one of the residents said, and I'm not suggesting we need to do this, but in big picture, it would be a good idea. I think just about anything. And that was, as you're considering replacing infrastructure along Wydown, would you consider infrastructure for cameras? Whether they're license plate readers or whether there's some other form of cameras. And so we haven't developed a policy on how we're going to do those kinds of things, but it might be just something once you dig it up, you might as well do it that way. So I thought that was a good thought. And then back to Susan's comment regarding next steps. I'm still a little unclear. And so one of my concerns, in terms of the Y-Down restoration project, and my concern there is simply that I will be anxious to see how many responses we get. If we only have a handful of responses, what will we do then? And how will we communicate? So I'm just concerned that we may not have reached as many people that care about this as we need to. And so It may be hard if we just draw a conclusion based on a small number of responses, if that's what we get. So I just want to make sure that we think about that in terms of making sure we have broad communication there.

To that end, Rick, I think that's like, you know, thinking about putting a yard sign with the QR code, like in the white-out median there, you know, for people. I mean, it's just something, again, to draw more responses in. So,

yeah. Just to add to Alderwoman Buse, the Cool Cities event, it was a lot about planting like native species and all the benefits that that has for the environment. And, you know, I think that's just so perfect for, you know, for the wide on restoration project and how we can hopefully implement something like that. And just also reminding people to plant a variety of trees, not just like the same one and all at the same time. So, yeah. good information for that um we had a sustainability committee um we're looking into becoming an official bird city of missouri which is kind of exciting again just to promote um help improve the habitats reduce the threat to birds and just promote overall sustainability so that's um something when they're looking into. And then, you know, we had the groundbreaking for the municipal building, which was I got a tour of the existing building, which was very eye-opening. So I'm very happy we're doing the renovation. It is very much needed so that I'm really happy I got to see... Well, not happy, but I'm... you know, it's good that I got to see that because it's very much needed. But yeah, and just kudos to David. Great job last night. I heard a lot of positive feedback. And then again, the feedback I think is also important. I think, you know, I talked with three residents that happen to live on Y down and you're like, oh, I don't know all my neighbors. And I'm like, just make sure they, you know, do feedback. So if we can do signage or something like that, I think it's important or just door knockers or something just because, you know, that is their front yard. And I think they're going to you know, need to see some stuff. So yeah.

Yeah. I will, I will say at the cool studies event to Jean Ponzi made me want to rip out all my grass and put prairie grass in and native plants. She was, she was great to listen to. So I want to thank June for our joint Breakfast with Board of Education. She did a great job as always. We had a MIAC meeting at the fire department and Joe, I don't know Joe's last name, did a great job of leading that.

Like Joe Anthony?

Joe Anthony did a great job. Everybody kept saying Joe. So Joe did a great job of leading the students around and responding to questions. So that was great. The Municipal League meeting, yeah, I dropped off the copy of the legislative priorities. In addition to that, we had a woman, Mel Wilson, who who presented, St. Louis County also did their comprehensive plan. So she talked to all about their plan and how there could be some collaboration know certainly there were things that she talked about that just require a lot of money you know so not quite sure how they're going to accomplish that but they're they're kind of in the that beginning stages where they're thinking about implementation kind of like the matrix we have so i think they're definitely at the bidding and stated stages but mel did a great job of presenting that um something too that somebody talked about the use tax i don't know if anybody's ever heard this number but you know the county if we pass the use tax throughout the county they approximate about $50 per person in your municipality. So that means it would be over $850,000 for Clayton. So I mean just to put a number on it like to keep thinking about like that a use tax in the county would certainly be beneficial for us as well. I mean we kept saying people keep saying oh it'd be great get the use tax in the And I went to a ribbon cutting for Taylor Jens or Savile Row on Maryland, which it wasn't, it was basically a ribbon cutting for the Creve Coeur Chamber of Commerce because they've joined, a lot of our Clayton members have joined that Chamber of Commerce. And, you know, of course you understand the benefit of being a part of another Chamber of Commerce for communication and But the owner talked to me about health insurance, which I didn't really understand too, but he really only has a couple of employees and a way to join that Chamber of Commerce so he can still have that health insurance for his employees. I thought it was kind of eye-opening for me to hear, so I just thought I'd mention that. I know that we have a group of people trying to bring forth our Chamber of Commerce again, but... Yes, and also excited for the Municipal Garage. And I also too want to just thank David. You did a great job last night. And Anna and Dave, or Anna, I know Anna and Matt were helpful too in helping Laurel get her presentation ready. So I want to thank them for that as well. So yeah. I think that is it.

Mayor, can I just add, I really appreciate the city sending out the letter on the charter. I had at least three people today say, man, it's the first time I understood it. And part of it is I still think there is a segment of the population. You can tell them about every link we've got, every place you can go look. But for a segment of the We still get, I know Bridget and I used to get communications from people, I don't know anything about this event. It's been publicized widely. If they don't get something directly sent to them, I realize that doesn't always work. It's impractical. But occasionally, especially on something like the charter, I think this was a great idea to mail it out. And I appreciate the effort to do that.

Yeah, I mean, thanks again to Lindsay and June and David. I think it was a real group effort getting all the, I mean, we did all the mailing in-house, all the labels, so saved ourselves some money. So thank you to everybody who did that as well.

And building on that, thank you for helping us all respond to the emails that come in. Even if it said here and it's here and here, you still have to respond to that email.

I had a resident, he still wasn't happy with the mailer. However, I was able to go give them the link to the webpage that was very complete with all of the examples. And so kudos for having that as well.

We added those ordinances. So we still have some folks that want to see the ordinances that the board will consider on November 11th. Those have been posted now. So there are draft ordinances that are up so they can see that the municipal judge is coming out of the charter, but there's a municipal judge provision going into the municipal code, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, all of those things. It's all there. It's now drafted. So thank you, Mr. O'Keefe and his firm for turning a lot of that around quickly. But all of that is up now. So anybody going to that site is going to see it. And then tomorrow we're going to send out the Clayton Connection early. We do it typically on Friday. We're going to do it on Wednesday this week. We have better open rates when we do it midweek, and so we're going to send it out tomorrow, and it's going to be basically a town hall recap. So at the top of it will be the tornado restoration presentation. I recorded that, basically gave the presentation on Zoom, and that's on the website, the Y-Down Restoration Project, and then Prop 1 will be on there. So We're going to send all that out. Hopefully we get some people opening that. We have about a 59% open rate. So Lindsay was looking into that today on the Clayton Connection, which is a really, really high open rate for a city newsletter, e-newsletter. The problem is, again, just the number of email addresses we have are limited. The biggest shame of this whole thing is the fact that the city views deadline had passed. It was already at the printer when we passed the ordinance to put this on the ballot because city views, just like we saw in the last citizen survey is by far our biggest way of communicating with the public. And that's how people want us to communicate with them. So it's kind of a shame we missed that, but I think the mailer and these other things should help that effort as far as educating everyone. Yeah, it's coming together. So thank you to all of our staff that's working on it. It's been a lot between the town hall and prop one and the normal work and then the tornado restoration stuff over the last few weeks and everybody's hung in there and really dug in so i appreciate

it i move that we adjourn second all those in favor

hi

yeah i prefer home depot