November 11, 2025 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everybody. We're happy to have you all here. We are here for our November 11th City Council meeting. If the city clerk could call the roll.

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

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

Here.

Aldeman Jeffery Yorg? Alderwoman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager David Gipson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe?

Aldeman York? Alderwoman Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager Gibson? Here. City Attorney O'Keefe?

The first part of our meeting is a time for anybody to address us about a matter that's not on the agenda. So if anybody wants to talk to us about something that's under our control, that's happening in the city, you're welcome to come up now. Otherwise, there'll be time for people to address us on different subjects as we go through the agenda. We do have a new program. procedure. So if you want to address us, there are speaker cards out in the lobby that you'll need to fill out. It's just a way for us and our city clerk to keep track of who's speaking. There's also a three minute limit on speaking. So that's why the clock is up here. With that, the first item on our agenda is an amendment to our retail smoking establishments. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing for an ordinance submitting Chapter 405, establishing regulations for retail smoking establishments. The community has expressed the desire to increase the oversight and regulation of the sale and marketing of tobacco, non-tobacco nicotine products, alternative nicotine products, electronic nicotine delivery systems, vapor products, hemp-derived intoxicants, and supporting paraphernalia to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, businesses, and property owners in the city. The proposed regulations create a definition for a retail smoking establishment, which is a business primarily engaged in the sale of the products listed above. This definition allows for specific protections to be placed on this use outside of more general retail use. Staff propose limiting the permitted locations for retail smoking establishments to the C2 and HDC zoning districts with buffer requirements around schools, daycares, and places of worship. The buffer requirements proposed match those currently placed on marijuana dispensaries. In addition, staff have proposed revisions to licensing regulations and offenses provisions outlined in a separate agenda item. The text amendment was presented to the Planning Commission on November 3rd, 2025 and unanimously recommended to the Board of Aldermen for approval. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 405 to address the management of retail smoking establishments. And I will mention there is, before you this evening, everyone should have had a copy of a revised ordinance that deals with the zoning changes relative to retail smoking establishment. There are two changes that are, and one was posted online, one is new this evening. One is Section C that deals with no covered product as defined in Section 215, which is the offenses section shall be displayed to be visible through glass windows or doors by a person of normal visual acuity standing at the outside perimeter of a facility where such covered products are available for sale. What that means is we're taking the language and the zoning code and we're matching that to the licenses and the offenses section. So if you look at what was previously drafted within the zoning code, there was some variability in that language. So we wanted to make sure it was consistent in all three documents. So that's the change that you see there to C. D was stricken because it's covered by C. And then again, the change that was online for or within the packet for public review was the removal of item E, which is the sale or consumption of alcohol with an establishment as prohibited. We've taken that provision out, recognizing that there are our cigar lounges that exist in the city that are tied to retail smoking establishments where members can bring their own alcohol in. So that would be detrimental to those particular businesses if that were to be included. So I just wanted to point out those changes, and I will open it up for any questions or discussion. And we do have Anna Krane, our Director of Planning and Development Services here this evening as well.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing for an ordinance submitting Chapter 405, establishing regulations for retail smoking establishments. The community has expressed the desire to increase the oversight and regulation of the sale and marketing of tobacco, non-tobacco nicotine products, alternative nicotine products, electronic nicotine delivery systems, vapor products, hemp-derived intoxicants, and supporting paraphernalia to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents, businesses, and property owners in the city. The proposed regulations create a definition for a retail smoking establishment, which is a business primarily engaged in the sale of the products listed above. This definition allows for specific protections to be placed on this use outside of more general retail use. Staff propose limiting the permitted locations for retail smoking establishments to the C2 and HDC zoning districts with buffer requirements around schools, daycares, and places of worship. The buffer requirements proposed match those currently placed on marijuana dispensaries. In addition, staff have proposed revisions to licensing regulations and offenses provisions outlined in a separate agenda item. The text amendment was presented to the Planning Commission on November 3rd, 2025 and unanimously recommended to the Board of Aldermen for approval. Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 405 to address the management of retail smoking establishments. And I will mention there is, before you this evening, everyone should have had a copy of a revised ordinance that deals with the zoning changes relative to retail smoking establishment. There are two changes that are, and one was posted online, one is new this evening. One is Section C that deals with no covered product as defined in Section 215, which is the offenses section shall be displayed to be visible through glass windows or doors by a person of normal visual acuity standing at the outside perimeter of a facility where such covered products are available for sale. What that means is we're taking the language and the zoning code and we're matching that to the licenses and the offenses section. So if you look at what was previously drafted within the zoning code, there was some variability in that language. So we wanted to make sure it was consistent in all three documents. So that's the change that you see there to C. D was stricken because it's covered by C. And then again, the change that was online for or within the packet for public review was the removal of item E, which is the sale or consumption of alcohol with an establishment as prohibited. We've taken that provision out, recognizing that there are our cigar lounges that exist in the city that are tied to retail smoking establishments where members can bring their own alcohol in. So that would be detrimental to those particular businesses if that were to be included. So I just wanted to point out those changes, and I will open it up for any questions or discussion. And we do have Ana Crane, our Director of Planning and Development Services here this evening as well.

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

My only comment would be, I have the advantage of hearing this from the Planning Commission as well, that again, commending staff capturing the concerns of the community and expressed by the board and also then especially with tonight's modifications addressing the concerns of our existing businesses. I think it's a very It's very well drafted and supportive of our community.

I have a question about the significance of the change to item C from referencing the revised statutes of Missouri to our section 215.610. Because those things aren't defined here, what's the substantive effect of that

change? 215.6.10, and that will be on the agenda later. we're referencing the covered products that are defined there. And so those covered products are all of the things that I spoke of at the beginning of the report, which are tobacco products, non-tobacco nicotine products, alternative nicotine products, electronic nicotine delivery systems, vapor products, hemp-derived intoxicants, and then the supporting paraphernalia. So anything that you might use to smoke them. So, so we just wanted to make sure that our definition throughout our code of ordinances, whether it's the offenses section licensing or zoning that we were consistent and referencing back to those covered products and all three when we talk about the display of product.

And where else is that section reference like what. What, like, was it referenced in a prior? I guess I'm just trying to figure out.

That's a new definition.

Okay.

It would be established this evening.

All right. Thank you.

I would just echo the prior comment, and I think it's very responsive to concerns we had about a new smoke shop, especially people in Davis Place, very concerned about one that was nearby. And so I think this ordinance change, along with the others, will greatly solidify our position in dealing with these kind of uses going forward. So pleased to see it adopted.

Alderman Rick Hummell, do you have any questions or comments?

Alderman Hummel, do you have any questions or comments?

I guess I'm looking for some clarification here. We're calling it a retail smoking establishment. But in the summary, then we talk about a business that's primarily engaged in the sale of the products. And then you mentioned like a cigar bar, which is sort of like blending all kinds of these things together. So all I want to make sure of is that... We're capturing many things. I guess that's my question. Like a business that's just purely in the business of selling, but they don't have any onsite smoking, for example, it's still being captured by this.

Yeah, the smoking portion is actually in a different part of the code where we deal with those regulations generally where it's prohibited in the city, occasions would be permitted. This is dealing strictly with the sale. So right now, if you look at our zoning code, we just have general retail. And so these retailers are allowed under that general retail. We're just adding a new provision in there, separating out the specific type of retail and tying it to all of those products that are defined.

So then how does a cigar bar private establishment, does that fit into this or is that covered elsewhere? It's

covered elsewhere in a separate part of the code. Okay. You can't have a cigar lounge that's incidental to a retail smoking establishment, but all of those standards are contained in the code and other places.

Okay. That's all I have.

Yeah, I'm just very thankful that we really listened to our residents and moved on this very quickly and efficiently. So thank you.

Yeah, Ana, thank you too. I just want to reiterate to everyone that this would, because as Gary mentioned, a lot of the concern over this was related to adding any other vape shops near neighborhoods. So here they're, and Ana, just correct me if I'm wrong, C2 is along Clayton Road, right?

Clayton Road, east of Big Bend. And then the CBS property is C2 as well.

Okay.

There's also a little bit of C2 on Maryland, which are the Claris properties. And then on the east end of Forsyth, if I'm not mistaken. North side of Forsyth on the east side of the city.

Okay. And then, so in addition, there would be, you know, there's limits on future I know there's people in the audience that, you know, have spoken to about this when we discussed this. So there's limits on having additional shops that would like there couldn't be another one on Clayton Road where they're currently one is now. So they would be only in C2 districts or in, you know, kind of downtown areas. So and then again, having the buffers similar to what dispensaries have from schools and churches. So that's kind of what we're adding in here. Yeah.

Is this actually, because you said Clayton Road east of Big Bend. So what about Clayton Road between Big Bend and Brentwood? Can one of these establishments exist there?

The property zone C1, which is a... So if there's an

existing property, an existing business that falls under this section of the code, what happens to them?

It's a legal non-conforming use. So they're allowed to continue to operate. They could actually convey that business to another operator that does the exact same thing and they could continue that use.

As

long as they don't change the use to something. Once you change it to something else, you can't go back to it essentially. But yeah, they can continue to use it.

Is there anybody in the audience that wants to talk to us about, this is really just related to the zoning regulation and then there'll be an additional item that's related to just the products more specifically. Looks like there's nobody in the audience related to that. Any other comments or questions up here? I will close the public hearing, Alderman Buse.

I'd like to introduce Bill number 7105, approving an amendment to Charter 405, establishing regulations for retail smoking establishments to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7107. Bill number 7105, first reading. An ordinance demanding chapters 405 of the Clayton City Code to establish zoning regulations for retail smoking establishments.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Alderwoman Buse?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration of adoption of bill number 7105 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favour? Aye. The opposed, let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill No. 7105, approving an amendment to Chapter 405, establishing regulations for retail smoking establishments to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill No. 7 105, second reading and consideration for adoption. an ordinance amending Chapter 405 of the Clayton City Code to establish zoning regulations for retail smoking establishments.

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

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Patel? Aye. Aldermen Fader?

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye.

Bill passes. June, could you please correct the typo that I left in the title? It's chapter singular for the execution draft. Thank you. Thank you.

next item on our agenda relates to sign regulations i will open the public hearing and request proof of publication

this is a public hearing to consider amending chapter 425 sign regulations of the city's land use regulations to revise regulations governing ground and blade signs the plan commission architectural review board and the board of aldermen are in the process of implementing key results from the clayton tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan The zoning code currently limits blade signs to one square foot. Staff evaluated past blade sign approvals and determined that the planned commission architectural review board was regularly hearing requests for and approving blade signs larger than one square foot. Following the analysis of recent blade sign and planned commission ARB approvals, Methods for calculating signage and goals of various sign types in relation to the character development, staff are recommending increasing the maximum allowed size to five square feet. Additionally, staff recommend blade signs not encroach more than two feet into public right-of-way and be no less than eight feet above grade per the recommendations of the Public Works Department. The zoning code also currently requires all ground signs to be reviewed by the ARB. Ground signs are unique in that they often employ a greater extent of materials than other sign types. A staff analysis of previous ground sign approvals found that the ARB applied consistent material recommendations by encouraging the use of brick, stone, metal, wood, or similar materials and prohibiting the use of vinyl and PVC products. Staff recommended revising regulations to remove the ARB requirement and recommend that future approvals be guided by ARB guidelines. Staff have provided draft guidelines with this report. Under the revised conditions, a ground sign could be reviewed administratively but would still require ARB approval if the proposal did not meet the proposed guidelines. The Plan Commission Architectural Review Board considered this request at its meeting on November 3rd, 2025 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. In addition, ARB approved the proposed architectural guidelines below or attached, which do not require approval by the Board of Aldermen, but are provided for context. Staff recommends approval of the text amendments as proposed.

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

question. What we were provided gives examples of the ground signs, but not the blade sign. I don't know what a blade sign is. A

sign that sticks out from the building? Attached to a building. Anna will probably have a better definition for you. I'm trying to think of an

idea. No, you got it. That's pretty much it. So they're the ones that project perpendicular to the building face. So you can see them from both sides. The reason that we have the architectural guidelines for ground signs is because that's part of what the ARB adopted for this change. The blade signs fall under our typical material review. So we don't have an architectural guideline for blade signs.

Okay. And can you say what it means to say, and how big can a ground sign be where multiple sign locations are proposed on a single ground sign? What does that mean?

Are

you reading that?

So what it is is you can have 25 square feet. And so you can have one big sign area that's 25 square feet, or you could have the multiple sign locations, um,

Like five different businesses, you mean? Yeah. So that's why in the guidelines, Brian included the diagram. I guess part of what in the analysis of ground signs over time, we found that there was some inconsistency in how those signs had been measured, which led to some confusion when people were designing their signs. So we kind of outlined a standardized approach to how we'll measure the size of ground signs moving forward and included that in the guidelines.

Okay. And if someone like wants something to be slightly different, they can go before the ARB and propose. Right. There's still

a sign. Yeah. There's still assigned modification process. And it used to be before the last update to our sign code, it specifically referenced up to five tenant names being allowed on signage. So that's part of where there's been kind of historical confusion about it.

Okay. Thank you.

I just had a question as long as Ana's up here. So if someone administratively has their sign denied, does this change? I assume they would still have a chance to go to the Board of Adjustment for sign variance. Does that affect the fact that it's not going through the ARB? Does that affect appeals if you get turned down administratively?

Right. So there's a sign modification process that's outlined within our sign code that provides a pathway for people to go to the Plan Commission Architecture Review Board to ask for slightly different signage from what's allowed. So right now what happens is on all signs, now if this proposal passes, including ground signs, are eligible for administrative approval. So as staff will review that proposed sign against... the guidelines that the ARB has adopted. And if it conforms to the size and the material guidelines, we'll approve it administratively. If it doesn't conform to the size or material guidelines, we will refer that application to the Architecture Review Board. So the applicant will be given the choice to either modify their plan to conform with administrative approval, or they can apply for the Architecture Review Board to get a sign modification. So we actually have a process that does not include the Board of Adjustment for a variance. There's a separate process that we can go into if they feel like the code has been improperly applied by staff, but otherwise the sign modification process goes to the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Alderman Rick Hummell. Comments or questions?

Thank you. Alderman Hummel. Comments or questions?

No, I don't think so.

Sure about that. Seems,

um, no, I was going to have an editorial comment. I'll just, no, I'm

fine.

No, I mean, being on the Airbnb, you know, previously, I think this, this really does make sense. We were approving these just all the time and it was, it's not a good use of your time and our time. So it's a smart decision.

Any questions or comments from the audience? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Alderwoman Buse.

I introduce bill number 7106, approving an amendment to chapter 425, sign regulations to revise the permitted size of blade signs and allow administrative review of ground signs to be read for the first time by title only.

Any discussion, Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7106, first reading and ordinance amending chapter 425 sign regulations to revise the permitted size of blade signs and allow administrative review of ground signs.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7106 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in

all

right any opposed let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent

i introduced bill number 7106 approving an amendment to chapter 42425 sign regulations to revise the permitted sign size of blade signs and allow administrative review of ground signs to be read for the first second time by title only second

any discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7106, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Chapter 425 sign regulations to revise the permitted size of blade signs and allow administrative review of ground signs.

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Mattel? Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder?

Alderman Buse? Aye. Alderman Mattel? Aye. Aldeman Fader?

Aye.

Aldman Rick Hummell? Aye. Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you. The bill passes.

Aldman Hummel? Aye. Alderwoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Thank you. The bill passes.

The next item on our agenda is a conditional use permit for 905 St. Rita Avenue. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted by Mike Lutzky on behalf of Byron Company. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit or CUP to allow for the primary use of an existing parking lot on the subject property. The property is located on the west side of St. Rita Avenue between San Benito Avenue and Alamo Avenue. It is zoned R5 medium low density multifamily dwelling district, multiple family dwelling district and is developed with a multiple multifamily structure that is in the process of demolition. There's a parking lot at the rear of the structure with space for about four vehicles. A demolition permit would typically require demolition and removal of all site improvements and restoration to a green site the applicant is seeking to retain the existing parking lot for use by adjacent residents of a building under common ownership the plan commission considered this request at its meeting on november 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval with the following condition use of parking on the site as the primary use shall not be expanded beyond the existing conditions approval of a conditional use staff recommends approval of a conditional used permit for the operation of a parking lot located at 905 saint rita avenue per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments from the board?

My only comment is when this came before the plan commission, it did seem that obviously it was a unanimous approval recommendation and it seemed to serve the building and the neighborhood well in keeping it as it was.

I just want to be clear. There is a multifamily building there, and the intent of the property owner is to demolish it and turn it into a parking lot. No. I'm confused.

So what's going on is the property owner has a multifamily structure on it. The structure is in disrepair, and it's currently unoccupied. There's a parking surface that accommodated that building and served that building that's on the property as well. The building is not being utilized, but the parking is currently being utilized by an adjacent multifamily building that's under the same ownership. So what the owner would like to do is take down the building that's in disrepair and leave the parking surface so that the residents that are in his adjacent building can still utilize that parking surface.

And the condition that the use of parking shall not be expanded beyond the existing conditions is what's preventing it from, what will prevent the property owner from changing from the current number of parking spots to like a whole lot.

That is correct. Right? The surface.

And what do we know about the applicant's intent for the longer term development of the site and use?

That question came up at the plan commission, and at this point in time, it's just the parking lot. They don't have any plans to redevelop the lot at this point.

Because under our code, normally the whole thing would have to be graded and grassed and

everything. Correct. The parking surface would need to be removed.

So he didn't indicate any sort of intention to build a new multifamily? I don't

know if the applicant is here this evening. That's what was indicated at the plan commission meeting. The exact same question came up.

And can you remind me how we handle demolition permits? Like, is there a fee for it? How is it managed and

There is a fee. We require all the utilities to disconnect their services and verify that those have been disconnected. And then we require the site to be fenced and then restored, as the mayor has stated. But there is a fee. Like

to

grass?

Restore to grass, yes. Graded flat, seeded, and sodded.

Yeah, the fence will go up during demolition, but then they take it down and they've got to sod it and grass it.

What's the range of the fee? I mean, are we talking like hundreds of dollars or

thousands? A lot of crane could tell us on this particular project.

And what do we know about... I mean, I just think one of the risks that we have as a community is that some of our older buildings are not well maintained and might be taken into disrepair where like a preferred, I think... outcome or desired state for a lot of residents would be to maintain the existing buildings and the character um and it's also like a better certainly like environmental choice like there's a lot of reasons to encourage that existing buildings be retained so i just want to make sure i understand as much as i can about the process thank you

The consultants in the comprehensive plan suggested one of the ways that we could help with that is like. Really ramp up our demolition. Yes, that's what I'm curious about.

Yeah, we haven't really dug into that key result yet from the plan. The permit fee for the demolition for this project is about eleven hundred dollars. So our demolition fees are pretty low. I mean, that's negligible, I

assume, in the cost of actually

demolishing. It is. They also have to go through the process through St. Louis County Public Health to do asbestos abatement and remediation and removal of all that has to be approved before they can complete the demolition. So we don't have some communities require demolition. you know, essentially them to prove that the value to put the building back into use, the amount that would cost is more than the value of the property. So there are things you can add to the permit process. We would have to do more of an evaluation. In this case, the building does have some pretty significant structural issues now. You can argue that maybe some of that was caused because they kind of left it unused. So who really knows? But that's something that we will, as we continue to implement the comprehensive plan, we'll eventually get to that analysis soon.

What do we know about how long it's been vacant?

I know the neighbors contacted me at some point because they were upset because there was like animals going in. It's been

vacant for years. The conversation that we had briefly with the owner was that it was vacant when they acquired the property. So it's been vacant for quite some time.

Which was like five years ago, 10 years ago? I

don't know off the top of my head.

Okay. Okay. Because that would mean we haven't been doing occupancy permit inspections because nobody's been occupying it, right?

Right. So there haven't been any occupancy permits inspections because they haven't been in there. But the exterior of the property in terms of code enforcement, I mean, they were cutting their grass and doing other maintenance issues. It's just the interior maintenance side is something that we aren't tracking if they're not getting occupancy. Yeah.

Okay, I would love to see us work on that key result before it's too late. Thank you. Alderman

Gary Feder? No comments. Thank you. No.

Fader? No comments. Thank you. No.

Yeah, I just want to echo Alderwoman Patel's concern. I think, I guess I didn't actually think about that when I was writing through that. And I think you bring up some really important points for us to consider for our older buildings. So appreciate that.

And I should mention too, I know there's some people online. So if you have a question or comment, please raise your hand on any of the matters that we're talking about this evening. Are there any questions or comments from the audience? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Alderwoman Buse.

I move to approve resolution number 2025-32, granting a conditional use permit for a parking lot located at 905 St. Rita Avenue.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Conditional use permit passes. The next item on our agenda is a conditional use permit for 16 North Central, 16 North Central Avenue to be the new restaurant called Torah Asian House. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, this is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted by Jennifer Gong to allow for the operation of Torah Asian House, a 2,500 square foot restaurant with an outdoor dining area. The subject property is located on the east side of North Central Avenue between Maryland Avenue and Foresight Boulevard. The property has a zoning designation of high density commercial or HDC and is in the northeast downtown overlay zoning district. The site is currently developed with a two-story mixed use commercial building. The proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. The proposed restaurant measures 2,500 square feet and will include 50 indoor seats and 20 outdoor seats. Off-street parking is not required for restaurants located in the Central Business District, measuring less than 3,000 square feet. The Planning Commission considered this request at its meeting on November 3, 2025, and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the operation of a restaurant operated by Anya 16 LLC, located at 16 North Central Avenue, per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Does any board members have any questions or comments?

Again, this was well received by the plan commission. We're looking forward to the restaurant opening. And also, I'm hoping that the applicant consider looking at the Green Dining Alliance opportunities that come with that. And the city also gives formal support for that to cover the costs of becoming part of that alliance.

Thank you for mentioning that, Susan.

Great. No, I'm excited to see investment in a new space. Thanks.

I'm comfortable the plan commission looked thoroughly at the, at the plan and has approved it. So I too would look forward to having dinner at the new restaurant in the near future.

No questions or comments.

Yeah. Just excited for a new venue in downtown Clayton.

Yes, I too am excited. We're always excited for new restaurants. So yep. I'm excited to eat at it. I don't know if there's any questions or comments from the audience. If not, I will close the public hearing. Alderman Buse.

I move to approve resolution number 2025-33, granting a conditional use permit to Anya 16 LLC to allow for the operation of Torah Asian House Restaurant.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. You're well on your way. Congratulations. We're excited. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. Are there any questions or comments from any board members?

Alderman Buse. I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

Any discussion?

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye. Aldermen Rick Hummell. Aye. Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye.

Alderwoman Buse. Aye. Alderwoman Patel. Aye. Alderman Fader. Aye. Aldermen Hummel. Aye. Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye.

We are moving into some new business. The next item is related to our retail smoking establishments. So I will the city manager will give his report.

Thank you. The proposed ordinance enacts a new chapter of the Clayton City Code by requiring an additional license for any retail smoking establishment selling tobacco, vapor, alternative nicotine or hemp-derived intoxicant products. Applicants must demonstrate good moral character, hold at least $50,000 in net assets and maintain $1 million in liability insurance. Licenses are valid for one year, non-transferable and may be suspended or revoked after investigation and hearing if violations occur. The ordinance also mandates background checks, character references, and compliance with zoning and health standards, while exempting existing lawful operators until the next licensing period. Operationally, the ordinance imposes strict controls on sales and marketing. Licensees must conduct quarterly lab testing of hemp-derived products, complete annual training related to sales to minors, verify customer age, and comply with packaging and display limitations. Sales are prohibited between 1.30 a.m. and 6 a.m. and barred windows or doors would be forbidden. Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance.

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

I actually have a question. With existing businesses exempting existing lawful operators until the next licensing period, we haven't had a licensing period before. Does that mean?

This would be the first. The first licensing period will occur in June at the same time as the business licenses that go out.

Okay, so every, oh, licensing in the general sense of business licenses as well.

Correct.

So existing operators. They

already have business licenses within the city. This will be a new requirement.

Okay. And then the other question was, what I have is the annual training. I remember when we looked at this for bars and restaurants and training for identification of sales to minors, there was an actual program out there on how to train that. Is it the same program used?

It's not the exact same program, but it's offered through the state of Missouri just as the other program is.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm whether the licensing period was annually. And do all business licenses renew in June?

They do.

I didn't realize that. the definitions in here um i know i believe the cover like are they all new the person of good moral character like is that a new thing that we're creating

so you'll see a similar requirement under the um liquor license

that's what i was wondering

yeah

but it's um

but it's not defined exactly that way if i'm not mistaken i got i would have to pull up that section

It's substantially.

It's very close.

Okay. That's all. Thank you. I

have no questions. Thank you.

So my only question is on how we administratively address these things. So the controls on sales marketing, lab testing, all these other things. So whose job is it to make sure that they actually do these things? Do they need to submit reports to us? Do we follow up if they don't submit the reports? How will that work?

We'll work that out primarily with the police department. The license itself, that's all administered through our finance department. So when the annual license comes due, they're going to get a letter from finance. They're going to need to come in and submit all the proper materials. As far as the testing of those materials on a periodic basis, that's something we'll cover through the police department, just like the random checks that we do on the underage sale compliance.

Just quick, so the existing establishments, they will now have to conform to all these? Is that right?

That is correct.

Okay. And then, you know, the like background checks, character references, is that for all employees of these establishments or just like the

owners? That would be the owner and manager, I believe. Yeah, it's not all employees though.

Okay, so if you're a salesperson at the counter, just... They don't go through any of that.

We wouldn't have background checks and all of that. We would require them to take that state certification, state training. So they would have to go through the training as far as sales to minors.

Okay.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the audience? That'd be great, Shelly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kelly, is the button on? Just make it open.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you. Send up people.

Novice. Hi, I'm Chelly McClellan. I head up the All-In Coalition for the school district in the city of Clayton, and I am a Clayton resident. One of the questions I have is around the age of someone who can work at an establishment. I understand someone of the age of 16 could actually work in a nicotine shop, licensed as a nicotine. Do you have any information or background related to ages of employment?

Under this ordinance here, someone under the age of 21 wouldn't be able to enter the premises.

Oh, wouldn't even be able to enter. Correct. That's terrific. Thank you.

Thank you. It's all new for us.

Good evening. My name is Wally Pankowski. I'm the owner of J.R. Cigars in Clayton. On the restaurant that's opening, I didn't hear any free dinners coming up. That may happen. My one concern is under Section 617.040, Subsection E. provision of not distributing or giving away free samples of any of the covered product. I understand everything other than cigars. I get that. But many of our customers come in, and I think Gerard will testify to this also, they're wondering what a particular cigar is like. And to make the sale, we will provide them with a cigar so they can try it. Not dissimilar to going into a supermarket and going to the deli and wondering what that piece of turkey tastes like. we are able to facilitate the sale of those products by letting the customer try it for free. I understand all the other ramifications of non-tobacco nicotine, delivery systems, hemp, everything else, but cigars are for a different category of people. No minors are coming in, no minors are buying cigars that are $15 and $20 a stick. So I ask that you reconsider that or at least exempt cigar sales from that provision.

So can I, so cause I, I don't smoke cigars or I haven't smoked one since

college.

But so people, you come in and you give somebody a cigar and they try it. So sometimes they try it and then you're like, okay, you take it. Or I mean, I, so I, they don't, they don't I guess light it, enjoy it. And then you're, and then they decide to buy it. Sure. So, but that's usually what happens or you give it to them for free or it's, it's a decision. Yeah. Yeah.

If somebody comes in that we've never seen before and he's looking around, gee, I wonder what that cigar is like. No, we don't give them a sample. If a regular customer comes in that's spending $1,000 for a purchase and he says, I wonder what the Cohiba cigar is like, here, try it. Now, he'll smoke it there or he'll take it home. But either way, we're possibly facilitating a future sale. And that's the whole purpose of this. It's not to get somebody hooked on cigars because they're already a cigar customer. Nobody's coming in off the street that we're going to give a free product to. We're just trying to help make the sale.

Right. I mean, it looks maybe our city attorney is conferring a little bit. I mean, I'm wondering if that actually is considered a free sample under what we're probably posing here.

We could certainly look at that. But of course, we also don't set the price you may charge or the timeliness of your collection.

I don't understand

that. I don't either.

If someone was interested in a particular product...

Even $2. It doesn't matter what the price of the product is. It's the cigar.

I understand.

Okay.

But this doesn't regulate what you might charge that person.

It's the price on the shelf. We don't

change it. I'd be interested in considering striking that provision. If no one can even get in the door without being 21 years old, I'm not really worried about them being swayed by some free giveaway. What are we... Like we don't have, it's one thing to protect our children. But if the only people engaging in these like businesses are 21 or older, I don't see why we wouldn't let them be given a free cigar or a free vape or a free cigarette.

But we do give children free bubble gum cigarettes.

Individual cigarettes. Like, why would we, why do we care if a 25 year old or 50 year old wants to walk into one of these buildings and buy a single cigarette? I mean, weird, but like, whatever. I don't. I would suggest we consider striking D&E. Some of these things in my mind become less meaningful when everyone inside the door is 21 or older.

You haven't had a college-age kid yet, have you?

Once they're 18, you can't control them. Let's not be overly... I am prescriptive here.

Part of the situation that you have is you do have on-site checks that we don't know about. You'll bring somebody in that looks like he's 45 and he's actually 16 years old, so you have that check that if we violate that, we're fined.

Yeah. Yeah.

But for the most part, if it's done correctly through the staff at the store, those people are weeded out. And I agree. The only ones in there are 21 years old. Giving somebody a free vape, that's not my bailiwick. I'm only interested in being able to satisfy a potential customer by giving him a cigar that he may or may not buy in the future. As far as price, it doesn't matter what I'm giving him. The price is set already on the shelf. So whether he wants a $2 cigar or he wants a $100 cigar, which you won't get. But that price is done. So we're just trying

to

help our business.

I guess why did we put it in there? What were we trying to protect initially with it? Because I can understand your circumstance, but I'm assuming we put it in for a different reason than people going in and trying cigars.

Yeah,

sorry. So this actually came out of research from some of the recommendations for the FDA and how they regulate. So there's actually a ban on free samples per the FDA regulations except for qualified adult-only facilities. They provide for an exception under the FDA. So essentially what we've done is created a qualified adult-only facility with the 21 age restrictions. So that's kind of the... We didn't in our draft reference that exception like the FDA did, though. But I think that's the intention.

So by having them be 21 to go into these stores, we have created an adult.

Right.

only already

which makes the provisions like

moot

so we can we can reference it so that's where it came from so yeah we could reference that or however our attorney would recommend it

it doesn't make it moot but taking it out would not be inconsistent with the with our

intent and yeah i mean i would move that we amend section 16 040 to strike item d and e

D is one we need to keep in there. Why? I think there's a separate law dealing with individual cigarettes because of the way they're taxed. I don't believe

you can

buy into

it. Yeah, you can't sell a single cigarette.

Then why do we even have to specify it?

I think

we'd like to articulate it in our standards of conduct so that that can be considered at issuance or disciplinary proceedings.

And does it only apply to cigarettes, like tobacco wrapped in paper?

Yeah, just cigarettes.

I mean, that's, I think

it's because of the way they're taxed.

Yeah. All right. Then I move to amend section 617.040 to remove item E.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any, anybody opposed? The eyes have it. The eyes have it, yes. Thank you. Do you have any other comments? I'm going to run,

but no.

No. No, thank you for your comments, though. We appreciate that. Again, we're trying these regulations. You know, again, the goal is to protect young children, and we certainly value your business here in Clayton. Again, we're just trying to do what we can to make sure, you know.

I respect that, and I appreciate that. You know, we're just starting to run a business for adults.

Yes, and I know how many people value your business. So thank you for coming, and again, we appreciate your comments. Thank

you very much. Appreciate it. Yep.

I am curious. Shelly, do you have any concern with that amendment that we just did with the all-in coalition? Kelly, do you

mind coming up? Sorry. Because otherwise the people on Zoom can't hear you.

It's on green, right? So no, I don't, especially because of the 21 umbrella. Once that's in place, that really is so helpful and it sends an important message. And when we send and help support doing the compliance checks, you know, I think that you're doing a great job of buffering and creating some hurdles. So thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions or comments from anyone? Alderman Bios.

I introduce bill number 7107, approving an amendment to title Six of the Clayton City Code by enacting a new Chapter 617 pertaining to the business license for retail smoking establishments to be read for the first time by title only. As amended? As amended. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7107, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 6 of the Clayton city code by enacting a chapter 617 pertaining to business license for retail

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alderman Abuse?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7107 as amended 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 7106 as amended approving an amendment An amendment to Title VI of the Clayton City Code by enacting a new Chapter 617 pertaining to the business license for retail smoking establishments to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7107, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Title VI of the Clayton City Code by enacting a new Chapter 617 pertaining to the business license for retail smoking establishments.

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

Alderman Buse. Aye. Alderman Patel. Aye. Aldermen Fader.

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell. Aye. Alderwoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank you. The bill passes.

Aldeman Hummel. Aye. Alderwoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank you. The bill passes.

The next item on our agenda also relates to tobacco, nicotine, hemp vapor and other related products. Mr. City Manager will give his report.

Yes, this ordinance revises Chapter 215 of the Clayton City Code to expand local tobacco regulations to include nicotine, vapor, hemp-derived and related products, and introduces new definitions such as covered products, hemp-derieved intoxicants, and retail smoking establishments. The ordinance prohibits selling or providing any covered product to persons under 21, restricts minors from entering or loitering near establishments selling these products, and mandates the use of digital age verification systems. Additional restrictions prohibit free samples, so if we want to make this consistent with the previous one, we'll want to remove section 215.660C. It also, let's see, other restrictions are with the sale of flavored tobacco other than menthol or tobacco flavor, prohibits individual cigarette sales and the repackaging of smokeless tobacco. All smokeless and vapor products must be sold in original packaging with marketing limited to FDA-authorized products. The ordinance clarifies proof of age requirements, outlines penalties for underage possession and retailer violations, and provides limited liability protection for business owners maintaining compliant training programs. Overall, it broadens public health regulations to comprehensively govern the sale, possession, and display of modern nicotine and hemp-derived products within Clayton. Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be approved.

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

Yeah, I'm still reflecting on taking out the no free samples. I guess it's legal for a store to give out free cigarettes if they want to.

I mean, you can give away free anything. I've had free samples of liquor at liquor stores. I've had, right? You get free samples of the turkey at Schnucks. I

mean, I think the idea is anybody that's getting a sample is at least anyone. They're allowed to go in the store. I just have to think about it a second. I agree. It's good. An addictive substance that they at least maybe add 21. It's arguable that they've made the decision to The adult decision to go in and partake. Okay, nothing.

I want to be clear about the difference between this and what we just passed so like the first one, the one we just did is about like the establishment of the business, and it's licensing. And this is about more things about like operation and hiring, like. I want to be clear about, because a lot of the things are kind of duplicated,

and

that always worries me when we duplicate things. A lot of

it's redundant, basically because you'll have two courses of action if there's a violation. You can go through the offenses section, which we're talking about now. And those would all be taken up within the municipal court. So we could issue municipal violations and take them to court for that. Under the other provision, if they're violating that, then you can actually suspend or revoke licenses. So we have both pathways open if we have it redundant and it's in the licensing and the offense section. So we want both of those available to us in case we have a bad operator. This one goes a little bit further than the other one that just focuses on the licensing portion and this is when we get into thing like possession of of these products by minors uh in those types of things that are outside of the bounds of licensing but would constitute an offense under the municipal code

okay that makes sense to me um so i will um propose that we amend this to remove section 215.660 item C. Is that a motion? I think I said I moved. I didn't hear what you said. Yes.

Yeah. I will second, but then I have some discussion on that. So I just want to make sure we read through the whole ordinance just to see if that accomplishes the intent of the amendment. So, for example, in Section 3, Item H, there's a reference here about if a sample is distributed to an employee of a company conducting the sampling, such employee shall be guilty of an offense. I'm just wondering, is a sample in that context appropriate? considered to be something that's free and or is that apply in some other way i i just want to make sure that we're getting at the substance of what the amendment is intended to do

can you tell me exactly where you just read from

yeah it was on it's specifically on page 46 um so it's um uh letter h the last sentence of that um and so it talks about a sample i i don't know if that's the same context of what we're talking about or not though

It's a little confusing because it's covering multiple things, it feels like. Like it's covering a sale and a vending machine and sampling. Right?

Well, that's my point is I don't want to remove it if it has a different intent. On the other hand, I don't want them to be entrapped either. Yeah.

If we're making an amendment like that... something that we want to put off until the table till next meeting. So we have time to go through for consistency or Kevin and David, are you comfortable that any inconsistency now?

I think subsection H deals with the question of who is liable for the conduct. In circumstances, is it the owner? Is it the employee? Is it someone who is on the premises on behalf of a vendor conducting marketing activities? And that's what it's talking about in subsection A. I think that should continue to be there to assign liability and responsibility for the conduct.

But distributing a sample is no longer an offense.

Is it a sample to somebody under 21? If it's

distributed improperly, then it is an offense. Okay. This is trying to address the question of vicarious liability of a business owner versus direct liability of others on the premises who may be responsible for the offending conduct.

But it's all under the umbrella of giving a sample to somebody under 21? Yes.

But no one inside the building can even be under 21. Are we trying to just provide for further compounding the significance of doing it?

We're trying to identify the responsible party in the event someone under 21 is on the premises and they are vended a covered product.

Okay. So the only actions we're imagining the... business or employee taking are either a sale, vending, or sampling. Those are the things that they would do, and that's why they're each covered?

Yes, ma'am.

Good question, Rick.

Yeah, so that addresses my concern on H, and so I'm not concerned.

So I would argue then that that motion would not be applicable.

Right, we don't need like we will we need word removed, so I would just formally

withdraw

it,

I think, like you would withdraw the motion that's

not really withdrawing the motion. Like section item see this section five

was not referenced in the motion to amend

oh I

was raised

oh i'm sorry okay okay my motion still out without a second

I seconded

yeah.

Oh, yes. I see. Yes. I thought that you were covering both sections.

It was in Mr. Rick Hummell's debate on the motion. Right. Got

It was in Mr. Hummel's debate on the motion. Right. Got

it. Okay. So based on the motion related to letter C, are all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. So the bill is amended. Are there any other questions or comments from the board related to the Are there any questions or comments from the audience or online related to this? Seeing none. I'll do one in motion.

Yeah, okay. I introduce bill number 7108 as amended to remove 8.660C approving amendment to Article 8, Chapter 215, Title II, regulating certain tobacco and nicotine, hemp, hemp vapor, and related products we wrote for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7108, first reading, an ordinance amending various sections in Article 8 of Chapter 215 of Title II of the Clayton City Code, regulating certain tobacco, nicotine, hemp vapor,

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Alderman Buse?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7108 as amended on the day of this introduction.

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

I move I introduce bill number 710 8 approving As amended, approving an amendment to Article 8, Chapter 215, Title II, regulating certain tobacco, nicotine, hemp, vapor, and related products to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7108, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending various sections in Article 8 of Chapter 215 of Title II of the Clayton City Code regulating certain tobacco, nicotine, hemp, vapor, and related products.

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

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

Aye.

Aldeman Rick Hummell?

Aldeman Hummel?

Aye.

Aldermen Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Ayes have it.

Next item on our agenda is 25 North Central CID appointments. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, in June of 2015, the city created the 25 North Central Community Improvement District, or CID, for the property located at 25 North Central Drive. This is the Ceylon building. I believe it said 212 in the packet, but this is the Ceylan. This imposes an additional 1% sales tax on restaurants and other retail sales that take place within that building. The CID uses the revenues from the sales tax in the special assessment to reimburse the developer for certain eligible redevelopment costs. The CID is governed by a five-member board that's appointed by the mayor with consent of the board of alderman the property was recently sold and so the cid board is requesting a new slate of directors that are affiliated with the new property owner those candidates were listed in the board's packet with all of their terms expiring on september 23rd of 2029 staff recommends approval of the appointments

i'll open the discussion any questions or comments from the board or the audience

Just a curiosity question, just to make sure that there isn't something we'd have to amend later. I noticed that the terms of the existing directors aren't all the same, meaning that there's two that expired earlier and these are all the same. Perhaps that's just because of new appointments and they changed it, but I just want to make sure they didn't have some requirement that they have a staggered term or something. Not the where, where. Okay.

other woman what altman oh no questions one in the audience uh alderman mcbuse

introduce bill number 7109 approving the appointments to the 25 north central avenue community improvement district to be read for the first time by title only second any

discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7109, first reading, an ordinance of the city of Clayton, Missouri, approving the appointment of certain successor directors to the board of directors for the 25 North Central Community Improvement District.

All those

in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7109 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 7109, approving the appointments to the 25 North Central Avenue Community Improvement District to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7109, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance of the City of Clayton, Missouri approving the appointment of certain successor directors to the Board of Directors for the 25 North Central Community Improvement District.

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

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

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Ayes have it.

The next we're just going to flip the next two items. So the next one will be our amendment to the software license and service agreement with passport labs.

Yes, we'd like to do this one first because this ordinance here just does one thing it removes the exclusivity clause from the contract that we currently have with passport labs passport is the third party app that's utilized for parking within the city of Clayton. And tonight we would like to add a second vendor in addition to Passport Labs. And so it would be appropriate to remove this exclusivity clause before we take up the contract with Park Mobile. So with that, we do recommend approval of the change.

I'll open the discussion. Is there any questions or comments from the board?

My only, looking at this, the one thing that I want, that caught my attention really is that We talk a lot about trying to make sure there are no disincentives to coming downtown. There are conversations about the fact that we have metered parking versus surrounding communities that might have two-hour parking or unrestricted downtown parking for their shops, and we talk about what is the best way to try to make downtown amenable in somewhere people want to come without a second thought versus going to a neighboring spot that's much easier without the parking. So my concern's with this, and I think they've been answered, is that there's no increased disincentive. There's no disincentive, there's no increased cost. Even if it's minimal, it can be psychological to the user. I think for the city costs, there's not going to be much. It sounds like a lot of it has passed through and the companies handle that even after the waiver period. But that did concern me. I was thrilled because when I go downtown St. Louis, I use this other app so it's nice to have one versus trying to remember which one goes where But that is the one thing I think we always have to be at which we always have to cognizant is making coming downtown Clayton to one of our shops and hopefully more shops in time, something that people do easily and without any hesitation that it's harder to come here than somewhere else so.

But to your point, I think it will, I mean, I think it makes it more accessible to people because people who are used to ParkMobile, then they're like, they come in and they're like, oh, I got to download the Passport app. And like you said, ParkMobile, I know there was a reason we got Passport in the beginning, but ParkMobile maybe has done a better job of marketing themselves to other communities.

I

don't know. And

I agree with that. And I think I'm comfortable now that there's no increased burden on the user that they can do it and they have that additional option. So it's a good move forward. Yeah.

My only question is whether Passport has to agree to this modification of the contract, and if they've already indicated willingness to do so.

They do, and they have.

Okay. Thank you.

Flexibility is good. I'm for it. Great.

I've read this, and it's still not clear to me who insisted on the exclusivity to begin with, both of us or just us or just Passport?

Our contract with Passport goes back to 2016, which was a millennial ago in parking. And at that time, parking apps were all the agreements where they attempted to be exclusive and keep out competitors. And they would white box your app under like Park St. Louis, I think is what St. Louis was. park mobile was and that was it was just an old term from 2016 they don't enforce it they told me they weren't going to enforce it me and kevin decided well if you're not going to enforce let's just take it out so

okay i just wanted to make sure i like the idea of um putting these together i think that's a good idea or having more than one vendor i guess and so i just i think it's a good idea i just wondered why are we doing it um but so okay thanks

no questions uh great um let's see any hands up at all so um alderman abuse

i introduce bill number 7111 approving an amendment to the agreement with passport labs inc to be read for the first time for by title only second

any discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7111, first reading an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the software license and service agreement with Passport Labs Incorporated to remove the mobile payment for parking exclusivity clause.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All the women abuse?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7111 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 7111, approving an amendment to the agreement with Passport Labs Incorporated to be read for the second time by title only. Any discussion? Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7111, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the software license and service agreement with Passport Labs Incorporated to remove the mobile payment for parking exclusivity clause.

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

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

Aye.

Alderon Rick Hummell?

Alderon Hummel?

Aye.

Alderawoman Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Ayes have it.

Great. The next item, we'll go back to that agenda item four related to the agreement with ParkMobile to operate their parking management software in Clayton.

Yes. This ordinance would authorize a three-year service agreement with ParkMobil LLC for a comprehensive parking management solution. This new contract will supplement the existing system and enhance the parking experience for residents and visitors. I will say that the RFPA, I think it caused some confusion, had the word replace in it. It is not a replacement. This would be an addition to passport, as we just discussed. The package includes a mobile application for smartphone payment and extension of parking sessions, support for pre-booked spaces if desired in the future, a data platform providing data-driven insights into parking occupancy and software necessary for real-time enforcement validation. The fees are charged to users of the mobile app. The fee for the initial term of the contract is 15% of the parking fee with a minimum collected of $0.63 per transaction. The contract has an initial term of three years automatically renewing, uh, for successive one year terms and less notice of non-renewal is provided. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing a contract with park mobile LLC for implementation of a parking app enforcement and data insights platform. And one thing I would like to mention, um, You know, we just had a great conversation about this. It's just this is a step in the right direction for us, I believe, as far as parking is concerned in the downtown area. We need to get further and further away from quarters if we can. And the more solutions we have like this, the better. The Parkion units that we have, the pay station units, those are $7,000 to $8,000 apiece. And we have them essentially on every half block. So when those are damaged and we have to replace those, they're quite expensive. We have some units that have become obsolete. So replacement parts are difficult to get. It's hard to manage a pay station system. But the thing I'll mention about quarters is the last time we went out to bid financial services, banking. about, well, I would say almost two-thirds of the respondents to our banking proposal declined to take our business because of the number of quarters that they would have to process because of the parking. They don't want all that changed because we require that they accept all of these quarters that we're out there collecting. So it's starting to impact banking as well to have a mountain of quarters that you're giving them every three days. So just wanted to point that out as well. So everything we can do kind of incrementally to get more efficient with parking and more app-based, which is becoming very common everywhere, it's probably the better for us in the long term.

David, we'll have to send you to the grocery store with all the quarters. I don't even know if there is a coin thing at the grocery store anymore, but yeah. Thanks. I'll open the discussion. Carrie, I just had a couple of questions. You know, with Passport, there's a resident reduction. Will Park Mobile have the same?

That is an excellent question. And I think the answer is Rob with Park Mobile, I think, is online. He may have given up at this point.

No, he's got his hands up

too. We don't have the permitting. We only have the permitting system through Passport, and that's what enables the resident discount. So I think for residents to maintain the discount, they will still have to have the Passport. In addition, the residential permits are tied through Passport also. So to answer your question, it's only going to work with Passport, but I'll let Rob address it also.

Rob, we're able to hear you if you want to respond to that. Perfect.

Yes. So we do have options around residential discounts. I won't go into all the details at the moment, but we are able to do that. It'll be a different configuration than your current permit setup, but you can find a way to incorporate that. Also with the pay stations, if you all wanted to explore that option too, because we are the same company as the pay stations, by the way.

Thank you very much. So that you'll work with Gary then to kind of facilitate how we get the residential through?

Yeah, we can explore that option and see how that configuration would need to be set up.

Okay. Thank you. Great. Gary, can I ask too, will you just put Um, like stickers up? Like, I mean, cause I'm assuming we don't want to put all the signage up right now. So

this contract, they are providing free signage and stickers. Oh, okay. So we will, we will put that on the list of to do to swap those out. Okay, great.

it'd be a good thing to put in city views too, to tell people. Yeah. I figured. So does anybody else have any questions or comments?

I do. Gary, you go ahead. Do you have anything? I was curious about, I've heard about this ability to reserve parking spots, pre-book parking spaces, but I've never actually tried it. And I'm super curious if and how it really works. If I reserve a spot, like what keeps somebody from parking in it? That's

exactly why we haven't executed that yet. It is an availability, and it's really more for, well, again, I'd let Rob answer this, but it's more for garages or fenced-off parking lots. It's going to be very difficult to achieve that in the Midwest with on-street parking.

We don't intend to utilize

that. I don't foresee it in the near future.

Right. That makes sense to me.

No questions. Thank you.

So I'm unclear on what happens to Passport. It coexists?

It coexists.

So then what do the signs in the city say? There's two signs or one sign?

They'll have one sign with both providers listed.

Okay. And then what is our intent with these coin-operated machines? Can we do away with them right away or not?

Not right away. We need to come up with something where those meters are located. So if you park in St. Louis City, for instance, where the meters used to be, there's small... small signs that have the actual parking space number parking area on each of those we would need to look at switching to that sort of system and replacing the meters with those i think that's something we we probably need to take a look at and undertake and a discussion that we can all have as far as what we want our parking to look like but we've not had a conversation with the board of aldermen or really talked about policy as it relates to parking so we've just been continuing with the meters but it is something we could switch out of the board desired I mean, I could say from a labor

necessity, we have to pay by app. Sections already, but they're very small and isolated on

the meters themselves. Yeah. And, you know, the collection of the quarters is labor intensive, too. If you come downtown in the morning, you'll see we have a member of public work staff that just goes around and collects quarters all

day. I think that's all a good idea. I'm just I'm trying to figure out why we aren't there already. So I get that we don't have those little signs that you're talking about that I've seen. But we do have the zones. And when I park in the city of St. Louis, I just generally see big zones as long as I park in the zone. So Why do we even need to have the meters still?

I think we can do away with them if the board thinks that's okay. I'm not sure when the last conversation on parking meters was, but that's something we would happily discuss and entertain. Okay.

And then do you even have to have those? I mean, I know what you're talking about, the spaces that they have in the city of St. Louis, but can't there just be a zone that this is the zone you're in?

As long as it's handy and close. Now, the nice thing is about these apps, too, is that it knows, you know, GPS-wise what zone you're in.

Because I don't want to put – I mean, we're trying to open up our sidewalks rather than add more stuff in. I understand. You know, I mean, those signs in the city that have, like, space number, I mean, that's aggravating. We just need to talk about what

that system is. So we've not really – Doug into it, but if that's something the board would like to explore we'd be happy to talk about getting rid of meters

okay yeah sounds like a good discussion if it needs to be just yeah. Oh, who does, do you got it rob do you want to. Do you have a comment?

Yeah, just I'll add real quick that if you do decide to go in that direction, we would provide the signs at no charge. And multiple cities have done this. There are a couple in Tennessee that have recently taken out all their meter heads. College Station, Texas is another example where they did the exact kind of setup that you're talking about for the entire area. And we've serviced their needs. So just meant to throw that in there.

Great. Thanks. Yeah, I'm sure as we have a discussion, it'll be nice to have any input that you can have professionally. Any other comments or questions?

I had a couple of them I thought of. One is that I've thought of before that isn't really specific to this topic per se, is people are constantly trying to figure out when they have to actually pay to park. And so I'm interested in like our ability to add or increase signage about what our actual hours of enforcement are.

So the app will notify you if you're outside of the required payment time. And we just recently updated all of the pay stations to one, give a message and to not accept funds outside of collection hours.

Yeah, I'm just thinking like... Like on the weekends and stuff. Yeah, no, I know. But wouldn't it be great to not even have to pull up the app? If there are signs, I would just encourage us to think about that. It makes it easier for people. And then on the topic of quarters, I would just courage us to think about the fact that if we're collecting a ton of quarters, it's because somebody or lots of buddies think it's like actually prefer or feel like they need to pay via coin. And so there's, and there's actually kind of a movement of people moving away from smartphones. I mean, it's small, but it's happens. And so I don't want to create a community where you have to have a smartphone to come in park. And like, I mean, that's a big, that's like a real issue equity wise. I mean, accessibility. So.

That's why I think you

have to have a credit card to have a park app

like that's why we need to have the conversation also yeah that's why we wouldn't just if we got rid of the meters get rid of all the pay stations at the same time too. So the pay stations kind of give you that option if the meters are gone, but then you have to be kind of tactical about where you deploy those to make sure they're

accessible

accessible so yeah that's definitely part of the conversation.

Well, in different sections of town have different demands for quarter use than other sections to

like what we

affectionately call the lot 52 or the lot at the jail and courthouse is high usage of quarters. Maryland Avenue obviously is not.

Good points, though.

I would just add on the prior point that I hear people often say it would be nice coming to Clayton, especially if you don't live here, to know, in fact, that you don't have to put coins or use your card at a certain time during the day, whether it's 5 o'clock on or on Saturday mornings. sitting at City Coffee on Saturday morning sometimes. Many times people who are sitting out there, myself included, have to tell people, hey, you don't have to put money in because it's Saturday. And to some extent, it would affect the impression that people have is I'd love to go to Clayton, but it's a pain in the butt because I always got to put money or use a card. in a meter and a lot of people would like to come from five o'clock on, on weekends. But I don't think we really promote the fact that those are times when you don't have to deal with paying for parking.

We've had actually several campaigns on social media about that, about not paying at certain times in certain days. It's just a matter of, of reach. And I think that is going to fold into the broader discussion of, A complete parking renewal plan, including that communication. But what's it going to look like when we don't have meters and don't have parking or so forth? And just to add on to that. A lot of these app companies allow pay-by-tax too, so you don't necessarily have to have a smartphone, but you do have to have a credit card. So we have attempted in the past to communicate that. It's just finding a vehicle that reaches everyone.

Alderwoman Buse.

I introduce bill number 7110, approving an agreement with ParkMobile LLC for parking management software to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7110, first reading an ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a service agreement with ParkMobil LLC in connection with the parking application enforcement and data insights platform.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7110 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 7110, approving an agreement with ParkMobile LLC for parking management software to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7110, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a service agreement with ParkMobil LLC in connection with the parking application enforcement and data insights platform.

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

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

Aye.

Aldermen Rick Hummell.

Aldermen Hummel.

Aye.

Aldewoman Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Ayes have it.

Gary, thank you for all your work on the new park or new park mobile. It's like I'm asked for park mobile. Thank you. All right. Now we're going to get into some ordinances related to our new or reflective of our charter changes.

Yes, that's correct, Mayor. So the next five are all the results of the recently approved charter changes. And so the first one in front of you this evening is a red line and a clean copy of Chapter 110 as it pertains to the city manager's office. So I had a discussion with Alderman Gary Feder yesterday afternoon, and he had mentioned just the format of of this chapter 110 as it relates to the city manager. I had a conversation with the mayor today and she tends to agree that what we were trying to do is take the language in the charter that relates to the city put that in the code of ordinances as well. So we've moved all the administrative departments over to the code of ordinaces and for the city manager, we wanted to make sure that those duties and responsibilities were there in the same place so that if somebody wanted to renew or review the code and see who was responsible for what here in the city and what the departments were, you could see all that language without having to bounce back and forth between the charter and the municipal code. What you have in front of you tonight, this red line version, it adds a whereas clause that basically states that the sections 110.101 through 110.016, that all of those reflect what's in the charter there. And it strikes out the charter references that were in the code itself. So if that makes sense, we put in a whereas clause saying that those sections came from the charter and we've taken out the specific charter call-outs within the code. So that's the change that's in front of you. The other one that's really minor doesn't even show up as a red line here is section four, which is the final section. These will all read the next five that the ordinance is in full effect both from and after its passage by the city council. We've changed that because originally it had said effective immediately But it also had on there, the requirement that we received the certified election results which we now have in hand so. That has been adjusted as well, but I just wanted to mention on Chapter 110 the intent is to reflect the languages in the Charter and that we've changed the whereas clause to to just streamline what's in the code.

Yes, that's correct, Mayor. So the next five are all the results of the recently approved charter changes. And so the first one in front of you this evening is a red line and a clean copy of Chapter 110 as it pertains to the city manager's office. So I had a discussion with Alderman Fader yesterday afternoon, and he had mentioned just the format of of this chapter 110 as it relates to the city manager. I had a conversation with the mayor today and she tends to agree that what we were trying to do is take the language in the charter that relates to the city put that in the code of ordinances as well. So we've moved all the administrative departments over to the code of ordinaces and for the city manager, we wanted to make sure that those duties and responsibilities were there in the same place so that if somebody wanted to renew or review the code and see who was responsible for what here in the city and what the departments were, you could see all that language without having to bounce back and forth between the charter and the municipal code. What you have in front of you tonight, this red line version, it adds a whereas clause that basically states that the sections 110.101 through 110.016, that all of those reflect what's in the charter there. And it strikes out the charter references that were in the code itself. So if that makes sense, we put in a whereas clause saying that those sections came from the charter and we've taken out the specific charter call-outs within the code. So that's the change that's in front of you. The other one that's really minor doesn't even show up as a red line here is section four, which is the final section. These will all read the next five that the ordinance is in full effect both from and after its passage by the city council. We've changed that because originally it had said effective immediately But it also had on there, the requirement that we received the certified election results which we now have in hand so. That has been adjusted as well, but I just wanted to mention on Chapter 110 the intent is to reflect the languages in the Charter and that we've changed the whereas clause to to just streamline what's in the code.

Great Thank you, I feel like that yeah I feel like that that's a great clarification. um does anybody have any questions or comments related to that from the board i

appreciate the changes that were made i think it's a lot clearer now and thank you

and i appreciate you taking the time to do that

questions thanks

great um older woman i did one question this might be a silly question um do we have to do anything to make a city council versus board of aldermen did i miss something in here

so we'll follow up and we'll have to change we'll have we can do it i think through one ordinance um

but if we're instructing

these we don't even need an ordinance we'll just instruct the editor at the next time the code is supplemented now that's going to cause reprinting virtually the entire code But to go through and change the references to Board of Aldermen to City Council.

Okay, and the reason I ask is because this is by passage by the City Council. I just want to make sure that we are a City Council. You are the City Council. As of right now, you are. We didn't need to do anything. Because we've

already approved the election results in the consent agenda. So I should have been saying council member after the consent agenda. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Introduce bill number 7-1-1-2, approving an amendment, Article 1, Chapter 110, pertaining to the city managers to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7-112, first reading, an ordinance amending Article 1 of Chapter 110 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code, pertaining to the City Manager.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? I move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill Number 7-112 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed. Let the minutes reflect that the Council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill Number 7-112, approving an amendment to Article 1, Chapter 110, pertaining to the city manager to be read for the second time by title only.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7-112, second reading in consideration for adoption. Excuse me. An ordinance amending Article 1 of Chapter 110 of the City of Clayton, Missouri City Code pertaining to the city managers.

council member abuse aye council member patel aye council member Gary Feder i have to look around aye council member Rick Hummell

council member abuse aye council member patel aye council member fader i have to look around aye council member hummel

aye

council member waldman aye mayor mcandrew aye eyes have it

thank you uh all right uh next item is related to our administrative departments of the city

Yes, so the recently approved charter amendments took all of the administrative departments out and remove them, we need to place those in the municipal code. And so we've listed out every department specifically along with the officer that is in charge of that department or the director for each department. There were also provisions related to the finance department and director of finance that were removed from the charter. And so those are going into the municipal code. That includes the preparation of the budget, budget-related public hearings, open inspection of the budget, transfer of appropriation and establishment of tax rates. So all of those items that came out of the charter are going into the code with this ordinance. And then we're also listing the specific duties of the public works department and the director of public works as it was listed in the charter. We recommend approval.

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

I didn't. So is this one similarly, basically a copy of what was in the charter or were there, did you do?

These responsibilities have not changed. This is just restating the charter language or moving it at least.

No comments. Thank you.

Council Member Buse.

I introduce bill number 7113, approving an amendment to chapter 110 pertaining to the administrative departments to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7113 first reading an ordinance amending chapter 110 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to administrative departments of the city.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7113 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 7111 approving an amendment to chapter 110 pertaining to the administrative departments to be read for the second time by title only.

Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7113, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending chapter 110 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to administrative departments of the city.

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council member Gary Feder. Aye. Council members Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew.

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council member Fader. Aye. Council members Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew.

Aye. Ayes have it. The next item is related to a change in our municipal judge requirements.

Yes, this takes the provisions of the city charter that pertain to the municipal judge and moves them to the city code. There are two modifications that have been made from the charter to the municipal code. The first one increases the term for the judge from two years to three years, and it eliminates the residency and elector status requirement that was previously in the charter. Staff recommends approval. The other thing I would mention, he's not here this evening, but he also sent it to me in writing, was that Alderman Yorg would like to see a preference that the judge be a resident, but just wanted me to mention that to the board.

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments, I suppose, specifically related to Council Member Jeffery Yorg's suggestion?

Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments, I suppose, specifically related to Council Member York's suggestion?

Yes, I have to say that I would support Council Member Jeffery Yorg's recommendation that we have a preference for a residency for the judge. It's something that is now an ordinance. If things change in the future, we can always, it's much easier to address it at that point in time. But I think we have... Anyway, I would support adding that.

Yes, I have to say that I would support Council Member York's recommendation that we have a preference for a residency for the judge. It's something that is now an ordinance. If things change in the future, we can always, it's much easier to address it at that point in time. But I think we have... Anyway, I would support adding that.

I think that the... City Council Chambers, Are the process that we've outlined whereby I think there's at least one member of the board and in the end, in the end, like we make the appointment allows us to the Council at any given time to prioritize what they prefer to and I wouldn't I don't see a reason to modify it.

I think it was a nice gesture at some point to suggest that out of sort of loyalty to Clayton lawyers, we should have a Clayton judge. But I think over time, if you look at what the municipal court does and you consider the people from all over the county who appear in front of the court, have sort of a hometown approach to this i think is unnecessary especially since we are considering at some point you know continuing to look at more of a regional approach uh admittedly you could leave it now and change it later but i i wouldn't see any point in doing that so i would leave it unchanged thank

you um i agree with gary's point um as well um where So what will happen, I guess my question is, in terms of the current municipal judge's term, does he have to wait until his current term expires or does his term get amended with the passage of this ordinance?

His term is not extended by the passage of this ordnance. His term is the term for which he was appointed, the next judge appointed, or the next person appointed to a term as judge. We'll serve a three-year term.

Okay. And then under the category of minutiae on page two of force under section 130.025, we didn't capitalize the letter C in city of Clayton. So it just didn't want us to be diminished.

Noted.

um i think i i don't think we should put the um preferred resident just because i think the whole point is so that we can open this up to joining with other municipalities and so i don't think that's necessary um

yes i mean i would tend to agree i appreciate um council member your suggestion but i think um gary i think you kind of said it the better best i think we've um i think we just need to move forward with this and i think as Becky also mentioned we've got a group that interviews and suggests an appointment, and we ultimately decide who becomes the next judge. So I think we can take all that into consideration. If there's nothing else.

Introduce bill number 7114 approving an amendment to chapter 130 pertaining to the municipal judge to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7114, first reading in ordinance amending chapter 130 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to the Clayton Municipal Judge.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7114 on the day of its introduction. Second.

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

I introduce bill number 7114, approving an amendment to chapter 130 pertaining to the municipal judge to be read for the second time by title only.

Any discussion? Second. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7114 second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Chapter 130 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to the Clayton Municipal Judge.

Aye. Councilmember Patel? Aye. Councilmember Gary Feder?

Aye. Councilmember Patel? Aye. Councilmember Fader?

Aye.

Council member Rick Hummell? Aye. Council Member Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Ayes have it.

Council member Hummel? Aye. Council Member Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Ayes have it.

All right, the next item pertains to our Parks and Recreation Commission.

Yes, so this takes the charter provisions related to the parks and recreation Commission from the Charter and move them into the municipal code. We already had some references to the parks and Recreation Commission in the code, but the Constitution or the composition of that particular Commission was held within the Charter so we've moved that over. This ordinance would amend the composition of Parks and Rec to remove the Board of Education recommended members as voting members and reestablish them as ex officio members or non-voting members going forward. The ordinance also provides that the City Council may appoint other ex officio members as deemed necessary. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.

Thank you. I will just mention, too, I did talk to Stacy Siwak, our school board president, about this. So she's aware of it. And we both thought an ex officio role was good. And, you know, actually putting it in the ordinance like ensures that they will have access. you know that every year they will at least think about having somebody go um i mean i think specifically you know they're very involved in shop park as tony's here you know i think they want to make sure that they're always considered when we're talking about the tennis courts and usage especially i mean it i guarantee there's other places in the city in our parks but um but i just wanted to make sure everybody did know that basey's aware of the change and supports it so

Thank you. I will just mention, too, I did talk to Stacy Seawalk, our school board president, about this. So she's aware of it. And we both thought an ex officio role was good. And, you know, actually putting it in the ordinance like ensures that they will have access. you know that every year they will at least think about having somebody go um i mean i think specifically you know they're very involved in shop park as tony's here you know i think they want to make sure that they're always considered when we're talking about the tennis courts and usage especially i mean it i guarantee there's other places in the city in our parks but um but i just wanted to make sure everybody did know that basey's aware of the change and supports it so

No offense taken. What? They're not taking offense. No, no,

no. And I think they really, they didn't know that there was two people. Like, I mean, at Frozon is, you know, we, I think as I've been, there's only ever one person that's gone.

10, 11 years ago, there were two active, very active, very attending liaisons from the Board of Aldermen. But after, but it's... School board. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, you're right. Bob schoolboy. Sorry.

Good. Yeah. So I'll open it. Does anybody else have any other questions or comments related to this?

I have a question. Do you? You were just getting ready to make narration is that do we have seven today plus the two like spots? Or are we actually creating new openings residents that need to be filled and i'm kind of confused about like the specificity about it talks about appointing for one two or three years but current members will serve the terms for which they were appointed like that all feels kind of confusing to me so i'm interested in how to understand that

yeah so going forward there'll be seven members um and then

What are there today?

There are seven, but the one school board member counts as part of that seven.

As the seven? Yes,

correct. So there'll

still be seven. You'll need to replace the one school board with a member

at large

for the unfulfilled term of that school board member. Is that right? Yes.

And so, um, thank you. So we'll have the same number of voting members, like the same quorum requirements. That's what I was trying to get at. Yes. And, but the, um, how does the, like, why are we specifying the appointment when like it's already an existing committee with people

as far as the staggered terms?

Yeah. Commencing with appointments after December 1st, 2026 So we're saying that, like, in a year and a month, we're going to – am I reading this wrong? We're going to start appointing members for different term lengths.

If you look a little bit further, it'll say those members in office at the time of adoption shall serve their unexpired terms or serve the terms for which they were appointed. So those appointments should all remain in place, correct? Yes, sir. And then as far as new appointments going forward –

What's the significance of the sentence that begins with the word amending?

Terms that already exist.

Right. Yes. It is intended to accommodate the fact that new members will be appointed in a way which will spread out the staggered terms among the membership so that it is an annual rotation.

But there's only one new member.

I believe under the charter, there were two school board members. And so I was accommodating two replacements when I drafted this.

But we've only had one. So

the question is, how many Clayton residents are voting members of the Parks and Rec Commission today? But so it is six. So we have one spot to fill. And presumably we'll actually like, are we only, are we going to wait until it's Ben Beinfeld till his current term expires to replace it? Like this wording doesn't seem clear to me. So like, it seems like we should just say the board will appoint one, a member to like, and we can say complete the term or we can say, go ahead and do a three-year term. I mean, we can do whatever we want. It's one person.

complete the term of because then you're keeping the staggered appointment now if we are assuming that's already happening with school boards the school board appointments are different

i can't speak to the current membership of the the charter assigns two seats to the school board we are repealing that that leaves two seats to be filled by a direct appointment by the city council.

We aren't repealing that. We are establishing an ordinance to ensure that the Parks and Rec Commission is cared for.

We're good. There's seven already. Seven plus Ben.

That's kind of what I thought. So like we really just need to strike the sentence that begins with commencing?

Yes.

And like we...

Yes, we can strike that. There won't be any new appointments. Your number is still going to be seven.

Yeah.

Yeah, so it was seven and then Ben also voted. So there was eight? Correct. Like, I guess there was eight people that voted if everybody was there.

Yeah, so we'll need to work harder to get a quorum if that's been hard. Yes.

To strike from the word commencing?

Members and child this. Yeah,

through the first draft. Members shall be

appointed for terms of three years each. So I think we just delete from commencing to thereafter.

Correct. Yep.

So I move that we amend section 140.010 by removing the section from commencing to thereafter.

Take out the thereafter sentences.

Just the word thereafter. If we want to keep them, members shall be appointed for terms of three

years. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Um, yeah. And, um, Tony, you'll let, you'll let know your, but you'll let Ben know that. I mean, just, you know, that he can keep coming. I mean, I'm happy to let him know, but just that we've actually taken this action today. And I mean, I think he's been an active member. I'm sure he still wants to come and. Oh, definitely.

Yeah. Yeah. So similar to every other commission word. What do you think? Well, in so many committees, it's like, we are late where we're non-voting members and school boards, non-voting numbers. So the right. be still part of the commission or committee i guess it doesn't say it in here

all right all right great thanks um uh

alderman abuse introduced bill number 7115 as amended approving an amendment to chapter 140 pertaining to the parks and recreation recreation commission to be read for the first time by title only second

any discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7-1-1-5, first reading. An ordinance amending chapter 1-4-0 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7-115 as amended on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favour? Aye. Any oppose? Let the minutes reflect that the board has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill No. 7-115 as amended, approving an amendment to Chapter 140 pertaining to the Parks and Recreation Commission to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill No. 7115, second reading in consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending Chapter 140 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to the Parks & Recreation Commission.

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council Members Gary Feder.

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council Members Fader.

Aye.

Council member Rick Hummell. Aye. Council members Waldman.

Council member Hummel. Aye. Council members Waldman.

Aye.

Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Ayes have it.

Thank you. Last is an amendment related to our Clayton Plan Commission and ARB.

Yes, this ordinance amends the composition of the city plan commission and architectural review board to remove the city manager as a voting member and replaces the seats with the resident of the city. Staff recommends approval.

Are there any comments or questions from the board? I

have a minor suggestion, which I don't feel strongly about, but I think I'll bring it up anyway. It relates to the composition of the commission. I know Steve Lichtenfeld has often talked about the fact that it would be helpful to have people on the commission who have some experience in in land use type of planning issues. And I think what's a little confusing here, but maybe it's baked in because it's in the statute is I think the statute authorizing this type of entity refers to it as a plan commission And then goes on to talk about the fact that there should be sort of a master land use plan. I am sort of wondering about in this section 400.060, where it talks about the members being residents of the city qualified by knowledge or experience to act on questions pertaining to the development and administration of a city plan. I think it would be helpful if it said land use plan, but again, maybe it's implicit that that is what the city plan is. I just think for someone who looks at the ordinance, you know, city plan could be strategic planning for the development, marketing, a variety of things. but this in fact is about land use. And so I think it would be helpful to insert the words land use, but I don't know if that, if Kevin thinks that's inconsistent with language that's in the charter or the statute and that we're sort of stuck with the term city plan, if there's any way to sort of expound on that a little bit by adding a couple of words.

have a minor suggestion, which I don't feel strongly about, but I think I'll bring it up anyway. It relates to the composition of the commission. I know Steve Lickenfeld has often talked about the fact that it would be helpful to have people on the commission who have some experience in in land use type of planning issues. And I think what's a little confusing here, but maybe it's baked in because it's in the statute is I think the statute authorizing this type of entity refers to it as a plan commission And then goes on to talk about the fact that there should be sort of a master land use plan. I am sort of wondering about in this section 400.060, where it talks about the members being residents of the city qualified by knowledge or experience to act on questions pertaining to the development and administration of a city plan. I think it would be helpful if it said land use plan, but again, maybe it's implicit that that is what the city plan is. I just think for someone who looks at the ordinance, you know, city plan could be strategic planning for the development, marketing, a variety of things. but this in fact is about land use. And so I think it would be helpful to insert the words land use, but I don't know if that, if Kevin thinks that's inconsistent with language that's in the charter or the statute and that we're sort of stuck with the term city plan, if there's any way to sort of expound on that a little bit by adding a couple of words.

David or Kevin, do you have any thoughts? Um,

I'm looking at the state statute right now for planning commissions 89.320 is what I'm looking at. And there's no language in here related to knowledge of development or administration of a city plan, unless there's another section that you're aware of. The Constitution of a planned commission is actually pretty flexible, if I recall, in state law.

Is that the extent of the... Isn't there someplace in ordinance where we specified... Something about qualifications?

We do that for a number of different commissions that we have. So economic development that we just did. No, but I

thought that we had it in place for plan commission architecture. We do

for the architectural review board. And it was different for the plan commission. They didn't have the same requirements. One was in the charter, one were in the ordinances. So the ARB is in the ordinances already. Right. And requires

a registered architect on the ARB.

So is this... because the the language in the subject of the ordinance and the headings of the chapters are about the plan commission and the architectural review board

just just to clarify this is language that is our so right the charter was already replicated within the code so the way the wording is now the only thing that we're changing is removing the city manager but

we didn't touch any other

language which was already existing within our code The city planning commission reference was also replicated in the charter.

Does that mean adding the words land use would make it inconsistent with the charter?

The charter provisions have been amended out. The drafting was to import them as written.

What I'm wondering is if there's language that isn't on these pieces of paper in front of us that talks about the qualifications of the members.

There are not. No. Yeah, this is pretty much what's up. Was

there really not before? No, we didn't. There was. By

practice? Just the use of the city plan as it's referenced in here. That was the only

thing. I think when Rick and I were looking at it, we were talking about should we sort of beef this up? Right. But that's as far as we got. We said maybe there's a way to sort of give more of a direction in the appointment. to having people who specifically have some background or experience in land use because that's sort of new.

I think the language city plan is because although that specific phrase that we have as our qualification is not in the Missouri statutes, the reference to city plan is the language that's used in the Missouri statuts. So, in the qualifications of a plan commission, which is required on Missouri State Law to adopt a city plan, it talks about a city plan, not a land use plan. So that's where that language

comes from. That would be why we want that to be consistent.

Well, I think that's probably why that's the way it was worded within our charter and within our existing ordinance is using the term city plan because that's what the Missouri statutes also use.

I guess I've really thought that we had language somewhere that talked about them having some sort of experience or training. And so I guess if we don't, because we've been very adamant about it, Because, I mean, we've had people interested in serving on the plan commission or architectural review board who don't have that. And we've not really entertained it. And so if we're serious about that being a requirement. It would seem to me we might want to codify it. I

think that's what it is right now. So right now, it does require the qualified by knowledge or experience to act on questions pertaining to development administration of a city plan is what's in there right now. And that's... references you know that alludes back to what the state

my concern was that doesn't necessarily tell me a lot it

doesn't go you

mean it doesn't go i don't know what that is

yeah yeah but it does i mean i i it does at least talk that you have to be qualified by knowledge or experience to talk about development of a city plan which i mean it's general i mean i so

it leaves that judgment to the collective wisdom of the city council

yeah I mean, I think in practice, I think we've been consistent. You know, I think we'd had people like you said, Becky apply who didn't have that knowledge or experience related to planning.

It's fascinating how your brain can like store ideas. Who knows where it came from, but I really thought it was written somewhere

differently. Well, it's been policy. As a matter of practice, the board has sought out individuals that have

that back. I just thought it was actually written. So thank

you. And I double checked my summary here just to make sure. And it's consistent with the discussion we just

had. Your project.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Are there any other questions or comments related to this? Hey, I introduced Bill. One second. No, but you didn't have any other questions or comment. No. Okay. And then I know that I have talked to, I mean, because we will have to advertise for a new position. David's Monday nights will free up significantly.

No, he still needs to attend, right?

I'll be there from time to time.

But I think we do plan to advertise for it. I think Lindsay's already. Great. And there's no location. It's not location specific. Great. Yeah. So great.

All right. Okay. Introduce bill number 7116, approving an amendment to chapter 7440 pertaining or four, sorry, to chapter 4,000. pertaining to the plan commission and the architectural review board to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7116, first reading and ordinance amending chapter 400 of the Clayton City Code, pertaining to the Clayton Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7116 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 7111 approving an amendment to chapter 400 pertaining to the plan commission, the architecture review board to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7116, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending chapter 400 of the Clayton City Code pertaining to the Clayton Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board.

Council

Member Buse?

Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Gary Feder?

Aye. Council Member Patel? Aye. Council member Fader?

Aye.

Council members Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew? Aye. Ayes have it.

Can I ask a question regarding the same topic? So can someone just clarify for me the outcome of this, of our vote as it impacts any things that we didn't already address tonight? For example, the clarification on aldermanic terms or council member terms or Or pay? Is it already changed because of the vote? Do we need to amend the charter? Are there other ordinances that still need to be passed?

No, those should all be effective as of the passage of the proposition. So now that we have those certified results, the charter is

amended. So we don't need to take any other action.

It's amended. June will submit it to our code company and they'll put that into, they'll codify all of it for us.

So then, at some point when you go to look at our code of ordinances

it'll change it'll all be updated on our website. And

yeah there was a mention of like a code of ordinances gets updated and it would be like just editorial to make the Council change, for example, does that happen annually or by on demand or some other. Okay. And so does that mean like within a quarter, it'll all say council instead of board? Okay. Great. Thank you.

Feels like a lot of work. Not work that you're doing. All right. We've come to the end of our agenda, which was a pretty long one. We've all been here for a while, but if anybody has anything significant to report.

I'm going to be really quick. One thing to be on the plan commission is that most of it comes here anyway. Yeah. But, you know, I just mentioned one interesting proposal there. It was a beautiful house proposed for wide-owned forest that would have looked very much like the houses by Gatefield over, you know, in that northwest corner, very new builds, mass, a lot of mass. And that was pretty much – The and less the less probability, because it was a very wide driveway coming down and just a recognition by the plan Commission, the architecture review board that this probably. It truly was a change of character, no matter how beautiful the House it was very different from the the homes that were there, and the only other thing that I have to mention is that we have our award next word to coffee on November 20.

Alderman Peter? A very

successful polo meeting. Big crowd. We've got award three coffee coming up on Saturday. The Community Equity Commission is meeting on Thursday and has sort of lined up a number of speakers for future meetings. I think this week's meeting, our judge, Judge Strum, is going to do some updates. And I think the chief is also going to do some, some updates on what is going on from an enforcement standpoint. And I think there are future topics, including the, getting Ian Mackey to speak to us on some of his priorities, and Pat Kelly from the County Municipal League, and also looking into immigration issues. Generally, what are the policies of our city and neighboring cities in terms of dealing with ICE to the extent that that is popping up in our community? And finally, There's a new course that was off the books for a while at Washington Law School, local government law. And it's come back now with a professor, Jonathan Smith, who used to be a city attorney in California, but decided he really wants to be an academic. And so he's invited a number of people to sort of speak in his class. And he was nice enough to ask me to talk about what's going on in Clayton. And it happened to be the day of the charter vote. So they were interested in what we were doing with the charter and what we're doing with zoning and a variety of issues. So it was a nice opportunity to speak to 25 future lawyers.

It's always good to have some good news. And so yesterday we had our quarterly meeting of the non-uniformed employee retirement fund, and we received our annual actuarial report. And so we've had significant improvement over the last 12 months. That's due largely in part to very favorable investment performance, but also interestingly, a decline in the number of active retirees. So our liability went down, our assets went up, and so it was a net over overall gain, the result of which is our funding ratio now from an actuarial standpoint is now at 96.95%. So a significant improvement from where we were around 92%. Obviously, the goal is to be around 100 if we can get there. The other thing that this has an impact on Last year, our employee cost or the contribution the city needed to make was just shy of $685,000. Now the recommended amount will be $602,000. So as opposed to approving all these amendments to budgets where they go the other direction, this one actually is in a favorable direction. So that's good news.

I have to remember when David comes back and I'm like, well, we've got that extra $83,000 to play with. Yeah.

Nothing really to add except, you know, we have our Word 3 coffee on Saturday. Okay,

great. Um, I'll just mention, um, I did go to the art fair retreat on Sunday. Uh, the art fair, as you might imagine was very successful. They averaged over $14,000 in artists, um, 33 States. I did. Gary Carter was kind enough to give me some, we did spend about $150,000 as a city, um, in costs related to putting on the art fair. So it's substantial. I think we gain a lot as a city, but it is costly to us. That's in addition to the Donation we make, just the monetary donation to make as a sponsor. So they also changed their mission statement to include an educational component because they felt like their mission was very – it made it sound like all they were was an event. So Sarah wanted to add the educational component. They're also going to have less awards in order to – because if you get an award, then you're automatically – given a place in next year's art fair. So it, um, it doesn't allow for new people and they want to make sure they're getting new artists every year. Um, so, you know, they made some good changes, I feel like at the retreat. So, um, I also just want to mention, thank you to everybody, um, for any networking you did to help, you know, of course, staff did a wonderful job getting communication out about, um, our charter changes, our charter amendment, but thanks to all of you as well for talking to your neighbors, talking at coffees. Cause I think we, I think it was great. I think it was wonderful. We had an overwhelming result that was successful and I think it will make for some really important changes.

So

yeah. So thank you.

Mayor, can I make one suggestion? I think it would be helpful with reference to the charter. There obviously were some people in the community, probably the 25% who voted no, who kept saying, well, you're getting rid of all this stuff and what are you doing to fix it? And then we, I think we informed them. but I think it would be important to somehow communicate maybe through the Clayton connection some way that letting know what action was taken tonight so that in fact, we did exactly what we told them we were gonna do. We were gonna fill the gaps by our actions tonight. So I think it'd be very important to let them know that we did what we said we were going to do. And I think that's

important. And I think putting some sort of blurb in city views, you know, again, because we all know that people seem to get all their information or a lot of people get a lot of information from city views, which we missed with the charter. So, you know, our next city views, hopefully we'll have some sort of half a page about it, I think would be good. So David, any last minute thoughts? All right. Great. take a motion to adjourn i move that we adjourn second all those in favor all right post great thanks everybody

okay long night

you don't have to go home

It was

a great

one. Do you have to do all the ordering, new signs, new

name

tags?