April 14, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Thank you for coming. We are here for our April 14th City Council meeting. If the City Clerk could call the roll.

Council Member Buse? Here. Council Member Patel? Here. Council member Gary Feder?

Council Member Buse? Here. Council Member Patel? Here. Council member Fader?

Here.

Council Members Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Council Members Waldman? Here. Mayor McAndrew? Here. City Manager Gibson?

Here.

City Attorney O'Keefe? City Attorney O'Keefe.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you. The first item on our agenda is called the open forum portion of our meeting. So if there is anybody that would like to address us about a matter that is not on the agenda. So if you're going to speak about an agenda item, you'll wait until that item comes before the council. But if you would like to talk to us about something in the community, you're welcome to come do that. I see that I do have a couple of speaker cards. Just a reminder that If you do come up and talk to us during the open forum portion, you are limited to three minutes to talk. And if anyone would like to come forward, I'm not sure, I won't, I'm not going to call any sort of order. So if there's somebody that would like to come first, you're welcome to come out. And then Natalie, if you just want to make sure you'll give your name and address for the record, and then just make sure the microphone has a green light at the bottom. Your address would be great for the record. Is it is the microphone on? Does it is it green at the bottom?

Joanna knows she'll help you there.

Oh, you have to fiddle with it. Okay. There we go. Otherwise, the Zoom recording doesn't pick it up.

Sure. My name is Natalie Dowd. I live in Ward 2 at 75 Parkdale Avenue. I'm here to share my concerns about flock cameras. The city of Clayton has a contract with a surveillance company called Flock Safety, which uses AI technology in their camera systems. The Clayton Police Department uses Flock video cameras to record license plates. And this isn't just plates of those who run red lights, but the license plates of every car that passes in view of the cameras. Clayton also participates in Flock data sharing, which allows the police departments of other cities to quickly and easily access footage from our cameras without a warrant. Many of these other police departments use facial recognition, and Clayton has no control over how our camera footage is used. Here are some examples of news regarding AI cameras. A grandmother in Tennessee spent five months in jail, falsely accused of a crime that took place in North Dakota, a state she had never visited. The arrest was based on AI facial recognition. In Greenfield, Wisconsin, a police chief weaponized flock cameras in his divorce proceedings. In Sedgwick, Kansas, a police chief used flock cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, accessing the flock system for this purpose 228 times over four months. In Brazelton, Georgia, a police chief accessed flock data from Capitola, California to stalk and harass unnamed victims. Let me say that again. A police chief in Georgia used flock's shared system to stalk and harass people in California. Just this year, Coralville, Iowa became one of 53 cities to cancel or suspend their flock contract due to efforts of concerned citizens exposing how flock AI cameras make communities less safe. I know Clayton made our contract with Flock in good faith, but interagency sharing is a problem. We cannot possibly know the privacy policies of every police department accessing our cameras. Flock is also being used by ICE without any kind of warrant and without consent from our city or its residents. According to the Colorado Sun, police departments across the U.S. accessed Denver's flock data for ICE and immigration-related searches nearly 1,400 times between 2024 and 2025. Today, I ask that the council consider urgently pausing all interagency sharing of flock camera data in order to protect our residents and reduce liability while the council reevaluates the security of the flock system. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Natalie. We appreciate it and appreciate the information that you sent to all of us in advance of the meeting. Is there anyone else?

I'm Pam Hatz, 220 North Forsyth Boulevard, Clayton. I'm here to talk about native landscaping. I commend Clayton for their tree regulations and their introduction of native trees and their encouragement of native plant material planted in our public and private spaces. I would like Clayton to go one step further though. Did you know that April is Native Plant Month? So that really could be broadcast in our Clayton Connections at some next year. I'd like more emphasis and education on our native trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, grasses, and sedges, as there is much on trees and their preservation here in Clayton. As I mentioned, you do have native trees present. provided in your website as well so the insects need soft landings and in order to overwinter in the soil and emerge in the spring hence native plant um ground covers, as well as leaving the leaves for them. And it would further Clayton's environmental goals to ensure public health, but safety, welfare, comfort, and enjoyment of our citizens. Grownative.org has an ordinance sample and additional resources for Clayton to use. You can see other ordinances for the County of St. Louis, Webster Groves, Ladue, and Overland. They include native plants and their maintenance. I emphasize maintenance because just like with trees, they require maintenance as well. They can't just grow wild without us helping them along. I recommend establishing a native plant landscape committee chaired by a horticulturist to focus on increasing awareness and educating the public about 70% to 75% of plantable space be recommended for native plants. It's not a mandate, but a recommendation. I know people should have choices so that our wildlife can be supported, so we can reduce our runoff, water runoff, reduce the need for irrigation, reduce pests and weed control, and to reduce noise and air pollution. The leaf blowers kind of blow my mind a lot in the neighborhood. Uh, the landscape committee could bring the community, the community together as are the tree city and bird friendly city programs. I'd like to see businesses, schools, churches, hospitals, parks, and especially our boulevards streets and transition lines. and other public areas team with native plants and not our invasive plants. If residents see native landscapes in our public spaces, they might be more educated about them. They may be incentivized to do it themselves. So we start with the public spaces and then maybe the private residences will follow. Funding grants can be provided by MSD, MDC, Municipal League, Forest Relief and other entities. I suggest putting a native plant corner in the Clayton Connection with timely information featuring a native plant of the month, its description, its benefit and its picture or feature a resident who has an already established native garden in their yards. Thank you very much. Appreciate

it. Willing to chair the first, you'll be the chairperson then of our native landscape. You bet.

You bet. I sure will. And I have copies, three copies of the ordinance if anybody wants them. Okay.

Yeah, we'd be happy to take them. I wanted to make sure you know, because you passed along the resolution related to the native plants encouraging MoDOT that Chuck Caverly passed on. So that's on our agenda tonight, just so you're aware.

Great. Thank you.

Sounds great. Perfect. Perfect. Great. Thank you very much. Yep.

I'm glad I could second that. So, Sasha question 8145 Pershing Avenue. I'm going to speak a little bit more from the heart. I'm not as well prepared, but we share a street and we work really hard to pay attention to sustainability. I think Once you catch the bug, it's really hard to get rid of. In COVID, when we were all staying at home, that's when I really started researching plants. I do work at a plant science lab. So sustainability, ecological disasters, they drive me crazy. But I want to say something that maybe is missed by that speech. Native pollinators and native plants co-evolved. They have genetic diversity. They depend on each other. So what comes to mind when I think of native plants is the entire ecosystem needs to be sustained. We need to think about this in a really... I know she mentioned it too. We can't force people to do it, but everyone should see the benefit of at least some native plants. I have half... native hydrangeas, half non-native hydrangeas. Why? Because they're more beautiful, more colorful. I mean, the wife wants it. What are you going to do? But the truth is that just taking one or two steps towards that goal seems reasonable to me and could be achieved by just a simple recommendation. Thank you. Appreciate it.

are some great ideas i will say we also have a sustainability committee too which are open meetings so you're always welcome to go to those meetings um deb grossman she's the chair of that committee always is like loves to have people visit we have washoe interns that help but i know that's what they're talking about in a in about a month i can't remember the exact date We will have somebody could talk to us about our trees and making sure that we have the right tree plan. So, you know, keep an eye out. I mean, you're welcome to email me too, and I can give you the date, but you know, sustainability native plants are all things that we're always talking about. So

like a plant swap, we spread seeds, you know, wildflower seeds. So all these programs help just every, every inch. Right. Thank you. Right.

Thank All right. With that, we will start our agenda. The first item on our agenda is a conditional use permit for 6800 Y Down Boulevard. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, Mayor. This is a public hearing and resolution approving an application for conditional use permit submitted by Washington University. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Y-Down Boulevard and Big Bend Boulevard. It is owned R2 Single Family Dwelling District and is home to the former Fontbonne University campus. WashU purchased the property in 2024 and Fontbonne continued to operate through the end of 2025. The site is governed currently by 18 CUPs or conditional use permits, and the applicant is seeking to consolidate governance of the site into a single CUP. The applicant proposes the regulations remain consistent with previous CUPs with two exceptions. First, a CUP that was issued in 2014 granted font bond use of 153 spaces on the Concordia Seminary property. The lease of those spaces has been terminated and WashU is not requesting continued use. There's also an existing CUP that granted use of a connector drive in 14 spaces that are parallel to Big Bend Boulevard, which WashU is requesting to be included in the consolidated CUP. A CUP was also issued on July 27th, 1998 that authorized the construction of 152 space parking lot and includes a condition that the university will agree to limit enrollment to 2200 students on the campus. The applicant letter states that the subject property will operate in conjunction with the Danforth campus and not as a standalone site with its own enrollment. Therefore, the applicant would like this condition to be excluded from the proposed CUP. The consolidated CUP would maintain existing uses on the campus and preserve conditions that manage the operations in physical site development to mitigate potential impacts on the adjacent properties. The proposed CUP does not allow for new or additional uses or contemplate new construction projects. The applicant's letter does identify potential building demolition. Future building demolition, reconstruction or replacement would require an amendment to the CUP. The plan commission considered the CUP request at its meeting on March 30th, 2026 and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the city council. Staff recommend approving a conditional use permit for the operation of a university campus the subject property per the conditions outlined in the resolution

thank you um i will open the discussion are there any questions or comments up here from the council and then i'll see if there are any from the audience

yeah i just had one question and thanks for coming back with this at the plan commission we had talked about um talked about a few things and overall the planning commission was supportive very supportive of this Dark skies had come up, and the statement, I think the discussion was that the lighting there would be dark sky compliant. I noticed in this, I think I can't find it right now, but it was modified to any changes in lighting would be dark sky complaint. Will the entire area be maintained as dark sky compliant?

Yes, the area will be maintained as dark-sky compliant.

Thanks very much. You don't mind staying up? I mean, I don't know if you're the right person to answer what I'm going to ask, but I think generally very supportive of doing this. Seems like a straightforward move to clarify what's happening on the property and reduce the number of CUPs involved. Um, I do. I'm glad we talked about lighting. I know there've been some issues with lighting impacting the neighbors on Dartford. And I believe that, um, I've heard from them this week that that last week that that appears to have been addressed. So, um, just obviously will be, I'm sure they'll let us know if a light moves and shines in their windows again. Um, And then I wonder if you'd be willing just to kind of explain in your own words for folks that are listening in what WashU's plans are for the property, like near-term actual use or like travel by students or staff or faculty, what's happening with like the long range planning. Thank you.

And let me start by saying good evening to Mayor McAndrew, to the honorable council members and to city staff. I appreciate the time this evening to talk about this request, this application for 6800 Y down. We continue to assess the conditions on the site. We have not developed a long-term plan for the Fontbonne site. As the summary discussed, we purchased the site in 2024 as a means to be supportive in a very challenging situation when Fontbonne The board decided it needed to cease operations. We leased the site to them to continue to use, and they did that and wound down their operations and vacated the site in December, which was earlier than we had anticipated. And so with that, certainly the CUPs, when we bought the site, when we purchased the site, were transferred to Washington University with Fontbonne as the user. Now that they are no longer using the site, there's a need for us to continue We consulted with Clayton staff, certainly, to understand the situation and what we needed to do. And their advice was that this needed to be consolidated into a single CUP. There are 18 CUPs, some issued back in 1960, as far back. They apply to various parts of the site. There are some parts of the site where there are no CUPs, and so consolidating it into a single CUP was the recommendation. In terms of our uses of the site, we really are in our campus planning process very much in preliminary stages. I think This has been an interesting, very dynamic year in the higher education space where we have had to really manage and review our spending and certainly understand what the landscape was going to be as we moved ahead. With that in mind, we really have focused on two projects on the campus, on the Danforth campus. Our Alumni and Career Center that's on the corner of Forsyth and Skinker and our South 40 residential project. This particular site has buildings that are in various different conditions. Some pieces were long in disrepair. There are other places where there's potential to be used on a temporary basis. And as the report talked about, there's some buildings that could potentially come down without a plan for what would go in there next. Our plan is to use... This site for temporary uses as needs arise. For space, if there's a need, there are times where we have floods, there are times we have needs where you have to shift around. This provides temporary, temporary space for us for those types of needs. Parking, the temporary parking for those types of When we have a long-term plan, when we're in the position to have a long- term plan, we certainly are going to, that would involve community engagement and we would come to the city for an overlay or for an updated conditional use permit. But truly for temporary uses is what we see.

So I think right now there's really no operations of the university happening on the Fonfine campus. Is that? What's happening? I mean, we see, I know you have like security patrolling and things like that, but there aren't people like going to work or school on that property at this time.

We have facilities maintenance, maintaining the property. We have our facilities folks certainly assessing and ensuring things are maintained there. And then also security.

And the way we're approving the conditional use permit, I think that will allow you to flex into the space as you deem appropriate without like coming back to us, right? So something happens in a building on another part of the campus, you can move people there. And we won't have to review it again, right? I mean, like you said, as a kind of flex or temporary space. That would be a temporary. I just want to be clear.

That would be permitted under the CUP.

And in line with what is allowed in the CUP. Right.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Totally. I'm supportive. One thing I'm thinking about is kind of like it would be nice to know a little bit, and I know you're good about communicating with us just in case we get questions from neighbors about increased activity or something. Like if there is a department or function that moves there for a period of time, to the extent you can inform us, it might help us Just feel like we know what's going on. I don't want to suggest that we should need to approve that or anything like that. Would that be? Yes,

we like to. I really strive to keep the communication lines open. That's great. So we would maintain that.

And the buildings won't come down or be structurally modified without, like that would require, either of those actions requires a different application. You

have to modify the CEP and potentially go through the site plan process if they're going to, right?

Great. That's all that I have. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Gary, I'm sorry. Joanna, can you just, because you mentioned the master planning process that you're doing. I just remember when Chancellor Martin had his presentation to the neighbors. he talked about that there is actually even a group that's like kind of in charge of Fon Fon right now. So are they kind of a subset of that master plan, like evaluating what's there? So there was... I'm sorry. There was just somebody that was in charge kind of, there was a group that was in charge of FON Fon of just thinking about it and addressing it.

My campus planning partners who are actively always working looking at and paying attention to our facilities and Font Bonne is absolutely one that they're certainly maintaining and staying on top of.

A couple of questions which might be mostly rhetorical, and I think actually more directed to David and Ana. It seems to me that there are obviously going to be changes on this property over the next five to ten years. There are changes now because we have a different owner. Plans are going to be different. I guess if I lived anywhere nearby, I guess... I would want to know after tonight if this is approved from a regulatory standpoint. Is this more restrictive than what it was prior to the consolidation? Is it less restrictive or is it the same? I think the answer is it's the same because it's a consolidation of existing restrictions. The couple that I was interested in, and I couldn't quite work out the math, but I think I know the answer from... talking to David, are the specific restrictions in terms of number of parking spaces where there's a maximum number. And I think so there's 584 maximum parking spaces, 328 beds. I think, and just making sure I understand this correctly, that although it wasn't obvious from the materials total that we got it, if you take all of the parking spaces that were approved over time You took out of that the number that basically that WashU is saying we don't need anymore that was in a prior CUP, that you would come to 584 parking spaces so that that is the same number. That is a cumulative number. So I guess I'm just confirming that that's correct, David.

Yes, the only spaces that were removed were the spaces that were on the Concordia Seminary property.

Okay. And then similarly, to the extent that there's a maximum capacity of beds, that also seems to be just taking all of the beds that were approved for different residences and totaling them. So in that respect, the numbers are essentially what's in place already. Yes. Correct. Yes,

correct.

And the other one that I did wonder about is at some point, Fontbonne, I guess in connection with getting a parking lot approved, agreed to have a maximum number of students, which was 2,200. I don't know the history of that, but it was a maximum number. And Washington University is saying, well, unlike Fontbonne, which had a controlled campus and they could pretty much commit to that number, WashU over time is going to have people coming from the main campus, from the Danforth campus. And so it'd be very hard to calculate exactly what that maximum number would be. So the suggestion is that would be dropped. So despite everything else that's been consolidated into this one, that's one of the provisions that would drop out. And it seems to me that makes some practical sense why Wash U would have a hard time figuring that out. But I guess my question, again, somewhat directed to David and to Ana, is that in Mary Campbell's letter, she basically, your vice president, your legal officer who wrote the letter, she basically said, well, we can't really do the 2200 because it's not a self-contained campus. And then she said, we have no practical way to calculate enrollment for only this site, but WashU will comply with all other CUP conditions that limit the number of seats, beds, parking spaces, square footage, and the like. As long as the city, I think, is comfortable that we can, in a sense, regulate it and keep it that number, then I'm okay with it. I would note that I don't think, although there are in the past capacities on beds and parking spaces, even though Mary Campbell refers to seats, I don't think there's ever been a cap on seats. But I mean, if the city is comfortable that between our building code, et cetera, that we are comfortable with that number, that's fine. Otherwise, I would have a little concern that we had a number that sort of limited how big this campus can ever be. And now we're not going to have that anymore. But if the staff is comfortable that we can control that, I'm okay with that. That's the only thing that concerned me a little bit And other than that, I'm supportive of it. I think it makes practical sense. But I do think we want to make sure that people who live nearby and even those who don't live nearby but are in Clayton feel like this is not significantly different than what we have already as we move forward.

And I would just say that that number that was in there was really getting at the size of the student body for Fontbonne. The commuter nature that they had for a long time in their existence, I can't imagine that they ever had the entire student body on that campus at any given time. But the primary limiting factor, as far as the number of people you may see there, is the building code itself. You're going to have occupancy limits on all those different rooms and structures. And so for that number to hit 2,200... That would be every possible space they're really being utilized at the same time. And under this CUP and under what they envision for that property, I can't imagine that we're going to hit that threshold. Looks like Anna wants to give us

that. The seat references in the exhibits, so in Washi's letter as well as the staff summary, we actually limit the number of seats in their auditorium and I believe maybe the gymnasium as well. So that's where the reference to seats is. Oh, okay.

I didn't see that anywhere. Anyway, if that's adequately addressed, which it sounds like it is, I'm supportive of the request. Thank you.

Great. I'm just looking for a little clarity, if it's possible, regarding the parking garage. I understand that you're not going to lease it or you're not leasing it any longer. I'm wondering if there are any agreements with Concordia to provide them access through Fontbonne or if the city is aware of Concordia's plans for this parking garage and whether they'll seek access in some other way.

So the parking lot that's on actual Concordia's property that was previously leased to Fontbonne, that parking area, Concordia is showing in the conditional use permit that they've submitted now to the city for consideration coming up, that that particular area would be cut off from the Fontbonne campus. And then a new internal connector drive will basically connect that to their driveways that they have backed by the brick multifamily buildings on their campus. So it will be cut off from Bonbon altogether.

So I'm just looking at an aerial. So perhaps there's a street called McCall Terrace, and so that's the one that gets really close to Dartford. So I'm Because that's where the older buildings are. Correct. It'll connect to McCall. Okay. All right. So from your standpoint, you don't have a need for the old parking lot?

That lease is terminated, and it was certainly between Fontbonne and Concordia. That CUP really also covers those 14 spaces that are on the Fontbonne property and the connector drive. We're just asking that that be in the CUP. and continue to be in the CUP to maintain those spaces. And the connective drive, certainly until we know, you know, until further notice, until we know.

Okay. I don't have any other questions. Thank you.

Just for the record, the connection is actually from Founders Way, not McCall.

Oh, okay. I wondered if that's where it would come. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

My

apologies.

Yep.

Um, most of my questions have kind of been answered. I think the big one that we had talked about was I just wanted to make sure that at the end of the day, any changes to what is going to go on on that campus, that we would have a chance to kind of review that when it came time, whatever that may be. And yeah, I feel comfortable that that's what's going to be. So this to me just seems like a general cleanup. To provide flexibility in terms of making sure you don't violate it by, let's call it a foot fault because of all the different rules over them. And we kind of know what the rules of the game are. But fundamentally, it doesn't change anything that's going on on campus or what historically has gone on and what may go on. So I have no other really concerns about it by and large. Thank

you. Yeah, similar. I think all of my questions have been answered. I just had one quick question about the overflow parking for special events. Is that, you know, because a lot of the neighbors are concerned with, you know, traffic and things like that. When you for like overflow parking? Like, what does that kind of mean?

Well, certainly as we talk about in our letter, that our plan is to operate the Fontbonne campus and the Danforth campus in coordination. So there are times where certainly we have special events like commencement. There will likely be other things that will come up, needs that will arise. and where we will need to within the constraints of the CUP be able to use that parking. And that's what we are talking about when it comes to overflow. There are times where you have things like parking that is not usable because we have floods. We have floods in our garages. There are times where we have had tornadoes and our properties have been impacted where we will need to use that type of parking. There are other things. We have other projects.

Yeah, I'm just kind of concerned with the large ones where that's going to create a lot of traffic or disturbance just for the residents and things like that.

Just two more points. Yeah, sure. We would maintain, ensure that we are only using the access points on that site that are allowed within the CUP. And we would only use the parking... in alignment with what's in the CUP. We would not be looking to use more than what's there. We're gonna stay in line with those needs. Thank you.

Thank

you.

Thanks, Joanna. I also I don't have any problem with this. I think, again, the most important thing that I think for everyone to understand tonight is the site will continue to be used the way it was used before for educational purposes. And I certainly look forward to you letting us know once the site once you guys decide what to use with the site, you know, letting us know how it might change. I think that will certainly be important for the community. So, but thank you. With that, I'll see, is there anyone in the audience that would like to have any comments or questions that would like to address us? Yep, come on out the end.

Hi, I'm Anne Martin from Five Tuscany Park. And I just had a couple of questions. How many parking spots exist now at Font Bonne? Total now? Okay. And also, how many students recently have been attending Font Bonne annually?

Hi, I'm Ann Martin from Five Tuscany Park. And I just had a couple of questions. How many parking spots exist now at Font Bonne? Total now? Okay. And also, how many students recently have been attending Font Bonne annually?

I don't know if anybody has the exact

answer to that question. I do. Of

course, the last year when they were closing down, there were 332. In 22 before a lot of changes, there were 944. So...

there's going to be obviously an increase in activity, bodies, traffic and all that. The 2,200, I don't, somehow it's reminiscent of, I don't know, field house. Cause that was how many were going to be in a field house. And it was a some discussion about ingress and egress on in and off of, um, on big bend. There's a older map of Fontbonne on aerial view showing, um, the suggested traffic patterns when we talked about, uh, using, uh, Washu taking over the wooded area for sports and field houses and all that. Um, Are those changes going to be used, the ones that were proposed previously when there was going to be an increase of activity from WashU's sports complex?

I'm not sure. I totally understand the question, but the site is not going to change the way it is now. So there won't be any additional access points off of Big Bend or Wydown. And currently Concordia has no plans to sell their land or change the site in any way. They have submitted a proposal that is on the plan commission's agenda, just for your information. on Monday, which basically really reuses the site the way it looks now. There may be some changes related to some road circulation. We talked about the parking lot, but they are likely just going to, again, they're at the first stages. So the plan commission will evaluate their CUP, but they basically want to just rebuild their housing. as it is now with a very similar footprint. But I'd invite you to look, those plans are online, so you're welcome to look at them.

So the ingress and egress will remain the same as it is now on the Big Bend? Yes. Okay. And as you know, the problem is Big Ben coming from Webster is a six lane highway. No, I know about work. It's to Tuscany Park. It's suddenly four lanes. So with twenty two hundred possibly new students, which is a lot more than. Well, I don't think there won't be any new students there right now. And if they're I'm not talking about this year when there's a cap at twenty two hundred, I would think Wash U, because they don't want to lose money, would want to fill it.

Well, and again, if there's any changes where, I mean, I don't think they plan to house students on that site anytime soon. And if there's any change in the buildings, whether they rebuild a dorm there, those would be issues that they would have to come back before us for new site plans. So any changes to the site, whether it's demolition, whether it's wanting to take a building down to put a new building up, those are all things that would have to come before this body and the planning commission.

Sorry, I forgot what I was going to ask. So even though there'll be an increase in activity there with the possibility of almost a threefold increase in activity and traffic, they could go to 2200 without any problem or requests as it stands now. with the new consolidated CUP.

I mean, I guess you're right. If there's, you know, a fire in one of their dorms, I suppose, Joanna, that in your, I don't, you know, if there's a fire in one other dorms and they have to house up to a certain amount of students, could they do that? I mean, if.

The reference to 2200 is good. Right. Which is yes. That's bold. Yeah.

where there's a bed count limitation that's based on the existing buildings that are there. So unless one of those buildings were to come down, that's where that would change. But as we've said, we plan to use this site in coordination with the Danforth campus. And so there's going to... We have to... temporary uses, but not, we are not there that we'd have to do. These are in very interesting conditions and to make them inhabitable, there would have to be a considerable amount of work done over many years to be able to use it, to be able to some of these buildings. So.

And does that answer your questions? No, but that's fine. Okay. Well, and you're welcome. And you are welcome to follow up with myself or, you know, Becky or Rick if you have additional questions. Got it.

Also, the news or the consolidated CUP allows for restaurants. Are those going to be open to the public?

I don't. they're not planning to operate i don't

i don't think they're going to operate any food service um no i don't think plan to operate any food i thought it

was listed that restaurants could be included

no

i would think it's just the dining halls that would support a residential residential housing for students

okay yeah great thank you thank you are there any questions or any other questions or comments from the audience All right. Any other questions or comments from the council? All right. Council Member Buse? I move to approve resolution. I'm sorry, and I'll close the public hearing. I apologize.

I move to approve Resolution No. 2026-08, granting a conditional use permit to Washington University for property located at 6800 Wydon Boulevard.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The vote passes seven to zero.

Thank you.

The thank you everyone for coming. The next item on our agenda is our consent agenda. Are there any questions or comments from the council? Or anything? Anybody from the audience? Council Member Buse. I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Any discussion?

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

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

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell? Aye. Council members Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Councilmember Hummel? Aye. Council members Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. I don't know if anybody is here for Zenzia coffee so that your liquor license was approved as part of that consent agenda. Okay. All right, the next item on our agenda is a report about the Planning Commission ARB in the last year.

Okay, I'm just going to do a really brief summary. A lot of the items from Planning Commission ARB make their way to you all here at the Council anyway. In 2025, we had quite a bit of turnover in terms of the members of the Planning Commission ARB. We even had a vacancy for a short period of time within 2025. So here you can see the members that served at various times there, including a few of you sitting here right now. So just a really quick reminder, the planning commission A or B are technically two separate board and commission, and the members are appointed by the mayor and city council. Planning commission is generally in charge of the rezoning text amendment. They're the ones who adopted our comprehensive plan and, and, and, enforce our future land use map. And then the architectural review board really focuses on the design materials, kind of the aesthetics of projects. So looking at the trends of total applications in the calendar year of 2025, we saw 80 applications in total, which is just below our 20-year average, as well as our five-year average. Over the 20-year trend, there is a slight increase in the number of applications we're seeing over time. However, the five-year trend is pretty stable. So we would expect that to, as we continue to go on, to lower a little bit. There's been a higher number of text amendments in 2025 as we implement our comprehensive plan. But the overall drop, a lot of that is due to the higher number of planned unit developments that occurred in 2022, 23, etc., which require multiple application types for that one project. So that kind of skews those years to have a higher number of applications. When we look at our application type, just comparing 24 to 25, architectural review remains the largest in terms of volume of number of applications that the ARB looks at. We did see an increase in the number of conditional use permits as we supported six new restaurants. We had an accessory dwelling unit as well as our first short-term rental and a small parking lot. So the other increase is really from that text amendment process. i mentioned before another way that we look at our trends is identifying the project type by use so here there are 31 residential projects and under 30 when you group commercial and institutional together so this is pretty consistent with 2024 as well we tend to see the higher just in terms of volume and the number of applications uh lean towards residential which makes sense we have a lot of residential land use in our city. So then we've also seen a very consistent distribution across that project type from our smaller projects, accessory structures, additions, alterations through to the new larger projects for new construction. And then what you'll also notice there is we had a handful of sign applications so that Signage, I would say kind of ebbs and flows. We did a couple of text amendments, smaller text amendments to update our sign code in the last few years. And we've also had some sign districts that have been modified for SIFE points, an example of a sign district that had a couple of modifications to that one. We're also seeing a little bit of a trend where we have more projects that have fewer applications per project. So that, again, really relates back to the PUDs or when we have new construction for a new house, for example, that often is an architecture review and a site plan review. Sometimes there's also subdivision plots involved, etc. The major projects from 2025, we had a handful of text amendments. Again, I mentioned this is our implementation of the comprehensive plan. So we updated our vacant storefront window coverings. We added regulations to allow for bars and modified our liquor license procedures for that. We allow short-term rentals now. We had our first conditional use permit for short-term rental downtown. That's under construction now. We also modified regulations for retail smoking establishments. And then two really kind of heavy lifts in terms of tax amendments were the updates to our green space and stormwater management regulations. as well as moving to a unified development code for non-residential and mixed use zoning districts. And then in terms of construction, it was a little bit of a year of smaller projects. We didn't have anything really large or significant that was actually approved in the year of 2025, but we did have two smaller condos, one on Topton and one on Brighton, as well as that short-term rental project. And then in 2025, there's also just It's not mentioned here in the annual report because it's not technically an application type, but the Planning Commission ARB has really contributed a lot in terms of discussions related to some of our long-range planning topics. So as you all are well aware, we've been talking a lot about architectural guidelines and neighborhood standards and other elements that the ARB has been pretty important and helped moving along. So hopefully those will... you know, lead to some additional text amendments being adopted in 2026. And then when I was looking back in 2025 to remind myself of what we did then, we actually finished the adoption process of the South 40 overlay district in 2025. The plan commission wrapped up their role of that process at the end of 2024 though. So I didn't include that on the list as a project for them. Um, so the there's a report that Ryan created for that summarizes this in more of a draft language. That's on located on our website already. People can access that under the plan commission ARB page of the website. If anybody's interested in looking at it, there's slightly more detail than what we went through. And then I'll just wrap up. I know that they aren't here, but just thank all of the plan commission ARV members for their time and commitment. Cause this is probably one of the boards that really requires a lot meeting twice a month and doing a lot of plan review and, and, and, and going to visit different sites and keeping an eye on the trends and the best practices for construction and zoning. So I appreciate the commitment that they've all made.

Yeah, if any questions. Thank you, Anna. Does anybody have any questions or thoughts?

I just want to commend you and your staff and the commission and board. It's a lot of work, and I think it'll be really interesting to see, like you said, so much was done this year as a result of comprehensive plan objectives. and to see how they actually impact now what happens this year. And then going forward, it'll be really interesting to see if like we get what we're going for.

Right.

Yeah. So far, I think we've already seen some positive signs of that. So I'm going to take the opportunity to ask you about signs and particularly, I don't know the right thing to call it, but the electric or LED sign like we have. How many of those do we have in Clayton?

I believe just one. I

was wondering if there were any others.

I don't

think so. Okay, I couldn't think of any, but that's all. Thanks a bunch.

I just wanted to add that I remember going back three years ago, roughly when it was talked about projects that would be undertaken. particularly those I think you described as the heavy lifts. And I was thinking to myself, you know, I think the city really needs to bring in like a consultant, not to question your abilities, but just in terms of the time and commitment necessary to do the everyday work of the staff and also take on these projects. And of course that didn't happen. And we did, of course, extremely well. And I think so. Kudos to you and everybody on the staff for being able to do the stuff that goes on every month, twice a month, and yet also take on these major projects. So I think you all have done a remarkable job. Congratulations.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I can't really take all the credit. I've got some great people I'm working with that are able to do that. The Planned Commission, I've worked with a lot of different cities all over the country, and it's evident that our Plankish members actually read all of the text. That's part of the text amendments, which doesn't always happen. So they're able to really contribute to discussions and recommendations and et cetera to help frame those and make sure that they're ready for the council to consider.

I'm going to jump in real quickly on that little segue. Okay. Coming into serving on the Planning Commission with very little background in architectural review or site, you know, reading these site plans, the way that you all present it to us, the thoroughness and the responsiveness to total confusion has really helped, you know, feel like everybody is contributing and working together toward it. So thank you.

I know that collectively we're probably disappointed we didn't see more construction. On the other hand, given our master plan and all of the things that were identified, I think you and your staff have done a terrific job identifying and prioritizing things and then actually getting them accomplished and setting the track record for going forward. So I would just add my thanks for a job well done.

I would echo that both for the staff and, and they, in the commission members. Like, I don't think we, well, I know we couldn't do what we do if they don't do what they do. And I think as a city, we're all, um, better off because of that. And I don't, I don't know what all goes in because I don't sit on planning commission, but I look at the agendas and I kind of know the hours that go in and I can't, can't imagine how much hours the, the, both the staff does and then the commission does. So, um, I just commend you all for doing it and the dedication, especially for the commissions when they don't have to, for reading everything and being involved in making the decisions. And I feel comfortable knowing that. decisions that get to us and decisions by them are being made with thoroughness. Whether I disagree or not with them is beside the point. It's that it's being done from a thoroughness standpoint, and I think as residents we're all better off, just like I would say for most of our commissions. But in this case, I think we're definitely better off by having folks who are in that. So thanks.

Yes, in agreement with everything that's said, I think it is great that everyone sees how much work and time that the commission puts in because it is a lot. And I just think going through, you know, the comprehensive plan and seeing it actually come to fruition is a really big deal. And I know that's not easy and all the changing of the tax and understanding all that. And it's such an important job. And I know they've done such a fantastic job with that. And I'm really excited to see like the character study of the neighborhoods because I think that's very important to the residents, you know, when there are all these new buildings and all this stuff. And so I think kudos. It's been really great work.

Thanks, Ana. We really appreciate you and your staff. So thank you. The next item on our agenda is a new agreement with the City of Maplewood for IT services.

Yes, this is a contract for technology services to be provided by the City of Clayton to the City of Maplewood. Due to the service concerns Maplewood has experienced with its current managed service provider, an opportunity arose for Clayton to include the City of Maple Wood in the technology services that we currently provide to other partner cities. Clayton staff work closely with Maplewood staff to develop a detailed understanding of Maplewood's current technology operations, infrastructure and their future needs. The program supporting this agreement included a staffing and management plan designed to provide the level of service required by Maplewood without diminishing the level of service currently provided to Clayton or its existing partner cities, which are the cities of Brentwood and Richmond Heights. This arrangement will extend the higher level of technology services delivered by Clayton to Maplewood, while also helping to reduce shared operational costs across the technology services department for each of the existing partner cities. Each partner city will realize annual savings in excess of $40,000, with Clayton saving an estimated $51,000 annually. The attached agreement is structured similar to those existing agreements for Brentwood and Richmond Heights and outlines the scope of the services to be provided, as well as the cost to be paid by Maplewood. Approval of the agreement will require additional staffing and related operational expenditures for Clayton. However, these costs will be fully recovered through the service agreement and the contract payments. The city of Maplewood is considering this agreement for approval tonight, April 14th, 2026, and staff recommends approval of the ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Maplewood for Clayton to provide technology services.

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

Yeah, I think this is great. Um, When we are working together, it's savings for everybody. It's more depth to the services that are being provided. And it's a more cohesive approach regionally. It makes sense as far as I can tell in every aspect I can think of. So I appreciate that we have a city manager and staff that looks for these opportunities on behalf of the entire city and area. So thank you. Looks great.

Second, the one question I have is the nature of the way that we provide these services, is it Brentwood and Richmond Heights that are part of it today?

That's correct.

Right? Their costs will go down, but we don't have to amend agreements with them. They will just get that benefit? Absolutely.

We are going to try to amend their agreements in order to get all of the agreements aligned. So we did that at Richmond Heights a few years ago so that they all expire at the same time. Okay. So when we do that, we'll align the cost, the reduction as well. But both of those cities are happy to see costs go down.

Yeah, they don't need the new contract to pay less. Great. Good work. Thanks.

Looks good to me. Thank you.

Great. I echo the comments thanking Larry and David for pursuing this and making it happen. I am curious. if we've learned anything from our experience in the joint agreement we have so far on how we might approach things going forward, either things we've learned that we'd want to implement if we pursue other such agreements or things in particular to this agreement that after we've done it for a while, we may need to do things a little differently going forward.

Let Larry talk about lessons learned. I will say, as far as expansion is concerned, we found that taking it slow is the way to go. When you go in, there's a lot of work to do to get their networks and their servers and everything up to the standard that we expect here. And then also to implement our help desk, because there's really two pieces of this, right? You've got the network piece that you maintain on the back end, but then you've got that active help desk that's out fixing computers and taking care of issues. So it takes a long time to get that up and going in these cities. Um, so we may look at more opportunities in the future to try to expand, but I think one of the biggest lessons has been to take it slow. I'll just say one other thing before I turn it over to Larry for, for other things on it. Um, The biggest advantage here, while there is cost reduction by doing this, is just the resiliency that you can build in this department that we wouldn't otherwise have. So typically a city of our size, you're maybe going to have an IT staff of two or maybe you're going to outsource that. And what you're at risk of is if you lose those two people or you change consultant that's coming in and working with your system, You've lost all of the institutional knowledge about your network setup and about how everything works, which is a very, very dangerous spot to be with technology because it obviously drives everything. What we've been able to do is scale up the department. So we've got a much larger staff than a city of this size would ever have because we have to provide these services to other cities. So we had a situation a few years ago before we adjusted those salaries where we lost essentially half the department within a year and a half. And there was no disruption to service, because we still had enough people here with knowledge of how those networks. Work and operate so that we could really overcome that if we were just an independent it department that wouldn't have been possible so. that's why will I think continue to look for opportunities in the future to try to scale this they're providing an amazing service their surveys are incredible coming back from every city. Maplewood's been begging for this for years. We've got other cities and agencies that ask on a regular basis when we can take them on. But the biggest thing is going slow and making sure we're doing it right. But Larry, I'll turn it over for you for other lessons learned.

Can you turn the mic on? Is it red or green?

I should know that. It's

okay. So

And what David said is very much true to take it slow and to figure the site out. My estimate is always two years actually to get a site up to what I call the Clayton standard because we'll spend the first year evaluating it, researching it, documenting it. And then I go to their board and I ask for this budget to fix everything that is wrong with their infrastructure and And if I'm lucky, they will give me that in year two. Sometimes it takes two, three years if they can't afford to give it all in one year to us to fix their infrastructure. So each city is at least a two-year process, I think, to get to where we're just maintaining and it's not a lot of extra overhead to us. But as far as future cities from an IT department's perspective, I do think we're at a place as far as, again, the cities being close enough to us to run a service desk out of one location, as well as the management hierarchy is probably at capacity without changing the org chart and spreading some of our operations out further. That's my opinion.

Thank you.

You answered the first question, which is I see in the quote covers basically staff and whatnot, but I wasn't sure who covered the extra hardware. If you decide that you need additional servers or different software or whatever that is, we wouldn't be eating that. You would go to Maplewood's board and say we can provide services at a certain level based on your Not great equipment, but in order to provide what you would call the Clayton standard, they need to upgrade their equipment.

Yeah.

And they would pay for that.

Correct. All we really give them is staffing. We're treated like a managed service provider in that we give them staffing, but I do all their budgets separately. We do all their three-year technology plans separately, and their boards approve their budgets for hardware and software

staffing. Would all the staff be located at 10 South Brentwood then? Or would they have staff on site,

City Hall? So even with our existing partner cities, we do sit one person at each of the cities. We have a person that sits at the Brentwood Police Department. We currently have a person whose office is at the City of Richmond Heights City Hall. And so there will be one person that will sit at Maplewood City Hall as well.

So in terms of capacity, like physical capacity at the 10 South Brentwood, Is that something we need to be thinking about in terms of, let's say we wanted to take on two more contracts in the next four years if you're a two-year plan. At what point are we going to be out of space?

We're there now. Okay. Ever since this started, I've been reconfiguring the same footprint over there at 10 South Brentwood. Even, you know, we started with the city of Brentwood in 2017. Immediately, I had to build a new office because there was not enough capacity over there for the new staff members. Same thing here. with City of Richmond Heights when they came on board. And so right now, if you would walk over into the IT hallway over there, every desk is full and we're out of space. We have spoke with David and worked with Public Works. There's some unused space kind of on the other side of the IT hallway there that we've already... kind of eyed up and had had public works come over and do some initial uh estimates for us that i i think we may be asking for some additional space at some point in the future

okay you'll see it in the five-year cip

yeah

so i was going to say so that'll come out of our our budget the city of clayton budget to build out the extra

space so we'll probably build this into future contracts as well if we need to expand and that's driven by these other cities okay

yeah And I guess the third question is, and if I missed it, I apologize. So I see the roughly three-year plan that you've got built in for what they're going to pay us for salaries and benefits and whatnot. Given how fast salaries are growing, who eats the cost if we underestimated what the staff is? Are we eating that? Can we reopen the contract with them? How does that work?

If we're fully staffed and our salary increases outpace what's here, then we eat it. If for some reason our staffing fall falls short of full staff and you have turnover from time to time and there's savings that's realized by that vacancy, then we keep it. What we found is over the past few years with these agreements we've had with Brentwood and Richmond Heights, it's really kind of averaged out years where we've been fully staffed or times we've been fully stopped versus times where we've had vacancy. It's really hard to predict that in advance, but the cities want predictability so they know what to budget three years out. But we found that this – we tried to get more detailed and go with some kind of actual cost model, and it starts to get really clunky. But there are years where we've lost money, so to speak, with this agreement, and other years where we've made it, and it really just kind of balances. But it really ebbs and flows based on your

staffing level. So what's the – general like salary raise budget in there they are we budgeting off of their um their salary schedule off ours and i also see that salary and benefits drop from 243 down to 335 and then back up to 247 so i don't know if if there's if that's the benefits and training embedded in for a couple of years so

So the reason why year one is more, I believe, I don't have that document for me. Sorry. If you look at the dates on that, it's actually a 13, it's 13 months, that first column. And that's because Maplewood would like us to start June 1st. It's two Junes. Got it.

13 months. Got

it. Yeah. That's why that first year is more.

Okay. And again, I don't need to know that now. It's not going to ultimately change my decision, but I would like to have a sense of, I would assume in the raise we built into this roughly corresponds to what we're expecting our raises to be based on salary schedule.

Step increase plus an additional raise. Because all of

these are going to be Clayton employees regardless of where they're serving. That's correct. Okay, thanks.

I don't have any additional

questions. Thank you, Larry. Good to see you. Council

Member Buse. I introduce Bill No. 7147, approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Maplewood for technology services to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill No. 7 147, first reading, an ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Maplewood for the city of Clayton to provide technology services.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any

opposed? Council Member Buse.

I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 7147 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The vote passes 7-0. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill No. 7 147, approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Maplewood for technology services to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7147, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Maplewood for the City of Clayton to provide technology service.

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

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

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell? Aye. Councilmember Jeffery Yorg?

Councilmember Hummel? Aye. Councilmember York?

Aye.

CouncilMember Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. The next item on our agenda is some new signs at 10 South Brentwood.

I'll turn this over to Mr. Myron Burr. This is his project.

That request approval of a contract with Blink Signs for the addition of exterior signage at the 10 South Brentwood Boulevard building. Signage is needed to comply with directives from the Missouri Supreme Court monitor to establish a clear separation of the municipal courts from the police department and for better wayfinding purposes. The requested signage option has been approved by the court monitor. Funding for this project is not included in the fiscal year 26 budget and will be included in a future budget amendment. The city issued a request for bids for exterior signage at the 10 South Brentwood Boulevard building. One sealed bid was received and opened on March 23, 2026, as listed below. Blink Sign submitted two options in their bid. Option A includes a wall-mounted sign on the exterior of the building above the awning. Option B includes a hanging mounted sign below the awning. Both options include a projecting blade sign on the exterior corner of the building at the intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Carondelet Avenue. The proposal submitted by Blink Signs includes two options. Option A totals $21,745.94, while option B totals $18,066.96. Staff recommends choosing option B as the lowest bid. Staff is also requesting a contingency of $1,800 to address any unforeseen field conditions, adjustments, or site-specific challenges. plus a 10% contingency. Staff recommends approving the ordinance authorizing the contract with Blink signs in the amount of $18,066.46 plus 10% contingency of $1,800 for the 10 South Brentwood exterior sign project for a total of $19,866.46. Thank you, Myron. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from the council? It all looks good.

And I did find it very informative, too, to read the attachments that came with the contract and wondering even our survey that we ask about participation in different programs. At some point, if we could kind of get a summary of what our contractors are doing and what those survey results are showing

us.

There was one about did you participate in – right, what did you call them? There is a questionnaire that we do asking about participation in – DEI programs, minority hiring, and things like that. I think it would be helpful for us all to hear every now and then a summation of what we're finding out with people with whom we're contacting and what we do with that information. Of course, I also found E-Verify again a refresher of what the contractors need to sign, especially at this time where it's constantly redefined what a who's entitled to work in the United States, whether they have a social security number or not, or work authorization or not. So that's just something of which we all should stay aware. Those are more observations than any questions. And I think it all looks good. And so I support that the bid that you're recommending.

I just want to clarify that. I believe the difference between the two bids is that the one that you're recommending and the cost less is a much smaller sign. That's right above the doorway and under the awning. Right. And I would like to suggest or understand what the rest of the council thinks about the other one, because if the purpose is wayfinding and people really understanding what's happening in that building, I would strongly prefer that. the one with the larger sign. So and I don't think the cost difference is enough to like, not make that more visible. So that's that would be my preference. And if there are other folks on the council open to that, I'd be happy to make a motion or second a motion made by someone else.

Well, I know that I understand the difference. The other one sits on the ground, right?

The other one hangs under like on the door of the frame and the option A is on the building.

Just okay. I don't know. Yeah. Okay.

And then option B is like below the door.

I mean, you really can't see it, at least not in the picture that was provided in our materials. Like it's almost a waste of putting the sign there, I think personally. And that's why I found the other one so compelling. So

Yeah, I see what you mean. I thought there was a choice of having something at the street level on the ground. I just didn't understand where the...

Well, there are two signs, right? There's one that's either on the building or under the awning. And then there's also a... Yeah, we'll get two signs with either option. Right. And what's the second one? That's a... It's a

light sign that's on the corner. So it'll protrude right there at Brentwood and Carondelet. All

right. Because I was kind of thinking the same thing, that you wouldn't be able to really see it under the awning, but then I'm also thinking like if you're walking, are you going to see it above also where I think the The side sign, what's it called?

Blade sign. Blade sign, I'm sorry.

Kind of helps that because that was a concern of mine too. I was like, does this mean that if it's under an awning, does that mean like what we're trying to do? But I think the blade sign helps with that. But that's just my two cents.

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't sure. I mean, because I feel like if you're down at street level, maybe you are going to see the one under the awning a little bit better. But maybe if you're driving by, you see the one up So I don't know who we're trying to... No, I mean, that's a great

question. That's why I kind of opened

it up. That was the thought here. So we could have done a monument sign, but the problem is it would be perpendicular to the street. Nobody would ever see it. That's why the blade sign is up there. And I think that's what the court monitor wants to see for people that are in vehicles. As they're coming up the street, they'll see, okay, there it is. I need to park and figure out where to go. For somebody that's on the ground walking... that sign that's over the doors what indicates that it's the police building in municipal court if it does go up in that higher spot

okay

it is better for traffic but it's not good for pedestrians so the the blade sign in conjunction with the sign over the doors the combo that we think i appreciate that

description if that helps um and understand the recommendation better thank you

yeah that is i mean that was yeah yeah

I like the blade sign, and when I saw the $21,000 sign, I thought, that's a great-looking sign. So I have to say I agree with Councilmember Patel. I thought the sign that was higher up in the building was much more effective. I really hadn't thought about the walking by factor, but I still think that sign that is being proposed here is very diminutive it doesn't i don't think it really works very well i think if you have the blade sign that tells you which building it is and i i always like to see us spend three or four thousand dollars less but i think it's not nearly as good a choice i i think the one that's above the awning is a much better choice

What signage, is there no signage? No, there's

not. No, and that's why we have, because the court monitor, that was the one suggestion. Yeah. Or one, I guess, mandate from the court monitor.

Yeah, it's the mandate from the court monitoring. There is signage on the street level, but they're like... maybe yeah it's black black pole signs and it's very hard to see them whether you're walking or driving doesn't have

some name on the building like somebody's name i mean i know it doesn't say what it is that's a problem heritage exactly that's what it says heritage but that doesn't help much

Anybody over here have any thoughts on whether under the awning or above the awning can be seen?

I just appreciate the revealing explanation of what this was all about. It's been very helpful and I'm supportive of it as proposed.

So it's interesting because I was actually going to make a joke about let's spend some time talking about the two different options. I didn't know we'd actually start talking about the two I don't care all that much. I mean, to me, if I'm looking at this correctly for option B, we've got the sign under the awning, the long, I want to call it the long sign. And then you've got this like sign that's hanging off the side of the building, which to me, maybe I'm thinking about differently than Gary, you were, but like, I don't view that as diminutive. I feel like it's a pretty big sign that's hanging It says,

yeah.

Okay. Well, so, but option B is the sign hanging off the building plus the skinny, the skinny sign underneath the awning. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Yeah.

Blade sign on the side of the building is in both options. That's the one that court monitor I think is most concerned

about it. So the one hanging on the building is getting done regardless. That's correct. So the question is whether we're going with the, the long skinny sign above the awning.

You got it.

I will defer to my esteemed colleagues as to which one of those two options they want to do. As long as we've got the one hanging from the building, I think the drivers and walkers will know what's going on. So wherever you want to put the other one, if we need to put it at all, I don't have a huge preference.

I mean, I visually like the one under the awning because I think the one on the building doesn't look great. But from a wayfinding standpoint, I think the blade sign does the job. And so again, if you're walking under the awning, you're going to see it. So from a street level, I feel like that's the better option. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I just I think I think it's good to have a sign on the door. It's kind of like on the door and it's not I mean, way above the door. I just I like the idea of having a sign basically at the door that says, OK, I'm walking in. I see that it's the police department and the court.

The thing that they really didn't like the first time they went is when you go up to the doors, there's just police badges on the windows. We've got our Clayton Police logo on there. So there's nothing that even indicates municipal court. And so people get really confused. They think they're just going into a police department. So the placement over the door, I think, helps negate that concern that they have.

I'm convinced. Councilman Gary Feder, are you okay with that?

I'm convinced. Councilman Fader, are you okay with that?

That's why they play the games. So, I mean, no, I'm not being facetious. I thought otherwise, but I understand them based on the discussion why that probably makes sense. So I'm okay with it.

Yes.

It

is the option in the

ordinance. Council Member Buse. I introduce bill number 7148 approving a contract with Blink Signs for the 10 South Brentwood Boulevard signage project. to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7148, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with blink signs for the 10-cell Brentwood exterior signage project.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7148 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The vote passes 7-0. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce bill number 7148, approving a contract with Blink Signs for the 10 South Brentwood Boulevard signage project to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7148, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Blink Signs for the 10 South Brentwood Exterior Signage Project.

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel.

Aye.

Council member Gary Feder. Aye. Council members Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank

Council member Fader. Aye. Council members Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew. Aye. Thank

you. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is to a contract for some additional stump grinding help.

Yes, the Public Works Department requests approval of a contract with Gamma Tree Experts Tree Care LLC for the 2026 Stump Grinding Services Project. The city has been removing stumps associated with sidewalk reconstruction and will continue to remove smaller tree stumps. However, 287 large tree stumps remain from trees lost during the 2025 tornado. Completing this work now will prepare the locations for replanting during the 26-27 planting season and subsequent years, supporting the city's long-term canopy restoration efforts. Five bids were open on April 7th. Gamma tree experts submitted the lowest responsive responsible base bid plus bid alternate A for a total of $80,107, approximately 3.5% lower than the second lowest bidder. Bid alternate A is for the restoration of each site with soil, seed and straw because we have some that will sit there for a couple of years. We want to make sure we take care of that. During the bid period, staff identified that several stumps included in the bid package had already been removed by city crews and other contractors, reducing the final quantity from 370 down to 287. Gamma Tree Experts has acknowledged the reduction. and then adjusted the contract amount to 62,662 based on the new numbers. Due to the unplanned nature of the work, this project was not budgeted for in fiscal 26 and will be included in a future budgeting amendment. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing a contract with Gamma Tree Experts and the amount of $62,662 plus a contingency of $5,000 totaling $67,662 or the 2026 stump grinding services contract. And just to be very clear, there is no FEMA reimbursement for stump grinding. So this is a cost we're just gonna have to take on ourselves. Unfortunately, we just don't have the staff capacity to go out and take out nearly 300 stumps at this point without contractor help and then get the rest of our work done. So that's the request before you and Mr. Matt Malik is here if you have any questions.

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

I just want to clarify because I got asked this multiple times at neighborhood meetings last week. When can we expect all of the stumps to be ground?

This contract should remove the remainder of the stumps. In addition to, there's some smaller stumps that are less than 10 inches we're going to do in-house that will take place in parallel with this contract. So I would say by October of this year, we would anticipate to have all stumps removed.

Contractually, they have to be done with their portion by September 30th.

And then are in-house.

Thank you very much.

Matt, could you just address too, I just want to make sure once we approve these contracts tonight, there will be additional communication that will go out from the city talking about that, talking about the grass seed and I mean, that we talked about, that there'll be kind of an update to the tornado.

Yeah, there's a few different projects that we're moving forward with. Like for instance, tornado tree pruning has been complete in the last couple of weeks. We've got the stump grinding here. We've got, uh, the tree reforestation project that was recently approved by the council. Uh, we've got a list of those trees that's going to be published out so that you can see those online. People can see those online, um, And that'll all be part of a packaged update with some other probably FEMA-related street lighting, all of those things, which is coming up next.

So when you are going out to grind a stump in somebody's yard, do they get notice ahead of time? that you are coming, but some of them are pretty.

These stumps that we're grinding are within the right-of-way at the tree lawn. They won't necessarily get notice of the stump removal unless it's a situation where we need, if it's a high traffic parking area, where we would need to post signs. Yes, when we plant trees, that's different because we give instructions about watering and those type of things. But stump removal is not always a contact.

Yeah, that was the next question I got was, will people know in advance? And the concern raised was that it can be loud and people who work from home can be disturbed. And so it sounds like folks may inadvertently be notified because there may be no parking, like you may establish no parking signs

Right, and there would be utility locates that would be placed in those areas where the explanation would take place.

Okay. And they would always happen like after 7? 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 7 a.m., right? Yeah, that's what I figured. Okay, thank you very much.

So Matt, since it indicates that a lot of folks are going to be getting soil seed and straw because there it may be a long time before an extended period before this gets addressed i guess the obvious question is there any way to speculate when you say when we say extended does that mean two years from now three years from now and and what's kind of the priority because i'm sure people in davis place like the faders who lost a stamp there's a stump we're going to wonder how many years is going to be before we see anything so

Yep. So we addressed that with the tornado reforestation contract that gave the ability a couple weeks back or maybe a month now, they gave the ability to the contractor to have some flexibility to plant and grow those trees locally, we provided all of the trees that are going to be planted throughout the city. We established for priority zones based on the amount of canopy loss we had in those areas. For instance, the east end of Y down was ranked as a zone one. The contractor every year is responsible for planting certain targets. Half the trees have to be in zone one, 25, 15, 10 on down to zone four. So we don't know until spring of each year, roughly what's trees going to go in in the winter. So we're going to grind all the stumps now, have them ready because there'll be some probably changes on trees they have grown or can get or just to give the contractor that flexibility. But each year we'll be able to pinpoint more exactly which trees are going in that year. So We're getting the funding, we're asking for the funding for the restoration of each stump area with the full intention that if we're going to grind a stump on September 28th and plant a tree back in November to December, to January, we're probably not going to seed and straw that in that time of year. So that number will probably end up being less. We'll have savings there, but we're getting them for all of those. So if you're that two or three year planting window, we'll seed and straw that area so that it can preserve until the next year. Thank you.

Two questions. One, I see that the contractor is supposed to start within 10 days of execution of the contract. Do we typically, as soon as we ratify this, execute the contract? Should we expect this to happen within the next two weeks or are there some delays involved in the execution of the contract?

Usually, excuse me, usually once we have the contract signed, we will schedule a pre-construction meeting. At that pre-construction, meeting will issue a notice to proceed once we have their schedule. We don't anticipate a delay with this at this time. I don't know if it'll be two weeks, but I imagine it'll be soon because the the end date for the contract remains September 30th. So they want to get started.

And then my last question is just scope. Does this include all of the known stumps that we have, or are there sections like white-on median or something that are excluded for some reason?

This includes all known stumps, 10 inches and larger. Smaller stumps will be just fully extracted by city staff. We're going to continue removing those. But this does include the Y-down median area, which is a separate project. We're removing those stumps with this in advance of that

project. Okay, thank you. As a guy who cares too much about his lawn, do we have any idea what kind of grass seed they're going to throw down?

It'll be probably a, boy, I'd have to check the spec on that, but it's probably a fescue mix.

Okay. That's what I was hoping you'd say. And that's all I had.

Thanks. I appreciate that we are doing, you know, the soil and the seed and all that for our residents. And just as far as, I know you don't know a specific schedule, but, you know, we're dealing with like a five-month window. Would you be able to kind of give like Ward 1 will be done in these weeks? kind of area two, three, just so we could let our residents know.

Or stump grinding? We will, when we have the pre-construction meeting with the contractor and have a schedule, we'll get a better idea of that order of work. Many times it'll come down to what other work is going on in town. Is there utility work going on in a neighborhood? And we would avoid that. So we'll have a general idea of order that we could share, but it But it could hop around a little bit. And they may have multiple crews running, too, in order to knock it out quickly. And we wouldn't want to put them right on top of each other to overwhelm an area. At the

end of the day, it's going to be done at the end of

September. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Matt. Any other discussion? Council Member Buse.

I introduce bill number 7149, approving a contract with Gamma Tree Experts Tree Care LLC for the stump grinding services project to be read for the first time by title only.

Second.

Any

discussion? Mr.

City Attorney.

Bill number 7149. First reading. An ordinance approving a contract With Gamma Tree Experits Tree Care LLC for The 2026 stump grinding services contract.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any

opposed? Council Member Buse. I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7149 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in

favor? Aye. Opposed? The vote passes seven to zero. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce bill number 7148 approving a contract with Gamma Tree Experts Tree Care LLC for the stump grinding Services project to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7149, second reading in consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with Gamma Tree Experts Tree Care LLC for the 2026 stump grinding services contract.

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

Council Member Buse. Aye. Council Member Patel. Aye. Council member Fader.

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell.

Councilmember Hummel.

Aye.

Councilmember Jeffery Yorg.

Councilmember York.

Aye.

CouncilMember Waldman. Aye. Mayor McAndrew.

Aye. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is a contract for the Y down median restoration project.

Yes, Mayor. Unfortunately, we heard from the council for the contractor late this afternoon. They've asked that we postpone this item so that we can work through a few contractual items here. We don't expect the amount of the overall contract to change, but we need to clean up some of the language. So we're asking that this be postponed to April 28th.

Council Member Buse, would you mind making a motion to that effect? I move

that... uh bill number 7150 discussion be moved to the meeting of april 28 2026.

All those in favor?

We have some discussion first.

Oh, sure.

It's a little detail, but I'm just curious. Because this was a request for qualification and not for a bid, I'm curious if you can give us any insight on how the fee negotiation went. Did it come out anywhere where you thought it would? Any feedback on the fee? So I will say that

our public works director did a substantial amount of work to get the amount within a range we felt was acceptable. So I'll let you Matt talk a little bit more in detail about it, but, and I don't know how deep we want to get into the negotiations, but

yeah, I would just say get it

down significantly.

Yeah. Most of what this comes down to when we begin these negotiations is trying to determine the consultants trying to determine how much level of effort they need on certain things. So we'll start at a step based on what they think they understand and We'll get information about that and try to narrow it down. No, we only need this for that. We've got some general guidelines we go by in the industry for how we fall. We felt like we were able to refine the scope to get just what we need for this project, for the scope we've all talked about and we were able to convey to the consultants. And we're fitting within those percent of anticipated construction is kind of how you look at that as far as how much design goes into. You usually want to be 8% to 12%. And we felt like we got where we need to be for that.

Great. Well, I know we were impressed with their credentials and their resume, but the challenge was the price. So thank you for working on that. I appreciate that.

All right. I guess all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. So we will talk about that on April 28th. Next item on the agenda is a contract for some monument maintenance.

Yes, Public Works Department is requesting approval of a contract for the Monument Maintenance Contract Fiscal Year 26 project with the Harlan Company. This includes preventative maintenance, repair and reconstruction of various subdivision monuments under city maintenance throughout the city. This is the second and final phase of the work and will address 11 monument locations maintained by the city. One bid was opened on April 1st, 2026 and the Harlan Company submitted the lowest responsible base bid of $85,033. It should be noted that staff has removed a retaining wall that had recent repairs from the base bid. So this is going to result in a reduction of $24,670, resulting in a revised base bid of $60,363. We also have an add alternate A, which includes repair of the monuments at Y down in Dartford in the amount of $50,376. This was included to establish a price to share with the Hillcrest Homeowners Association, which is responsible for major repairs or reconstruction of the monument. It is not included in this request for contract approval. Add alternate B includes partial reconstruction repair of the wall between Claverack Park and Clayton Road. That's in the amount of one hundred eighteen thousand three hundred and twenty five dollars. The CIP has $240,000 budgeted for the project. City staff recommends approval of a contract with the base bid and add alternate B, which is the Wall of Claverac, with Harlan Company in the amount of $178,688. In addition to the contract amount, we're requesting... A contingency of 5.2%. So overall staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing a contract with the Harlan company and the amount of $178,688 plus a contingency of $9,312 totaling $188,000 for the monument maintenance contract for fiscal year 26. Thank you. I'll open the discussion. Are there any questions or comments from the council?

I'm curious about the two ad alternates. So I want to understand what, how we define, I forget the precise language, major repair or whatever the description was. Can you please describe how we define that?

I don't have the agreement in front of me for the subdivision for Hillcrest. Sorry. Each subdivision, when it converted from private to public, had certain dedications and agreements on how maintenance would happen with different things, including monuments. The one for Hillcrest defines minor maintenance is responsibility to the city, but anything substantial, and I don't have the exact wording, I apologize, falls to the Homeowners Association for repair. There's not a, if I recall, there's not a definition of a dollar value or a certain nature, but something that would be a significant repair or reconstruction was our view of that.

And can you explain to me then the nature of the construction that needs to take place on this wall at Claverac? And do we have a different agreement with them? Like, what makes that not major? Or do we do major repairs for Claverac neighborhood? Like, you understand what I'm saying? I mean, we're just... Can you say...

The Clavarac agreement is a different agreement and doesn't distinguish between minor maintenance and major repairs. So I don't know why those agreements came to be that way whenever they... went to public, but that's what they are. There's no distinction. So the construction that's planned for Claverac is mostly tuck pointing along the wall just with some arches that just require a bit more maintenance for clarity on what that is. But that agreement with Claverac Park is different than the Hillcrest Agreement.

i um will not make a motion on this because i'm a resident of hillcrest and therefore personally impacted by this i'm not like concerned from a personal financial perspective about the issue um but it does strike me like an unusual situation where we're where we and i understand that we have a lot of inconsistencies with how we do stuff in the city because of how it happened and when it happened and who was on staff and who was on the board and all those things um but the idea that we're not supporting um a monument repair of one neighborhood that is half the price of a monument repair at another neighborhood doesn't really feel good to me like i don't i don't like that i believe i would feel similarly if it wasn't my neighborhood but it's impossible to separate that obviously and um particularly given the fact that these estimates are under what we budgeted in the CIP budget, I'd be really interested to know if any of my council members are interested in like handling this differently. So that's what I have to say. Thank you.

Yeah. I mean, I know that we treat monuments differently throughout the city. I mean, you know, I think there was something in Davis and we just decided to take it down rather than fix it because it was a pain. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, it is very unusual. I don't know how we would go about rectifying or making it more equitable because I agree. Why would we fix one and not the other? So I don't know Changing the agreements.

Do we have a sense with all the agreements? I wouldn't expect you to ask anyway, like is is the one with Hillcrest the only one that we split the cost and are all the other neighborhoods we basically eat the full cost or is it or are there a bunch all over the place?

I would say Hillcrest is more of the unique one. I don't want to say it's the only one. It very well could be, but from the ones I've researched, I think that's the only one that I found that is in that manner where its responsibility is split. The others all fall to us.

Okay. And I asked to Becky's point, like, I don't know if I'm at a point that I would change what the recommendation is today, but I do think there was a question that If it's the only one, it seems sort of weird regardless of how we got there. But if they're like all over the place in the city, then I'm like, okay, well, those are the agreements the city made and whatnot. But it does seem a little weird and probably, I would argue, a little bit of additional investigation maybe for another discussion. If it is the only one, do we feel comfortable having one agreement out there for a neighborhood when we're covering it for everybody else? I mean, maybe we are, maybe we aren't, but I do think – It would make me feel better to have some sense of whether we know or more than likely that Hillcrest would be the only one or whether we've got four other ones that we're also splitting costs with.

Well, and like how hard is it to change it? Like even if it is a one-off, like why could we not amend it? And is it actually

just a matter of interpreting the definition of major repair or would it require an amendment to the agreement, which obviously Hillcrest would entertain, I believe?

I just want to say, my question comes from the consistency part, right? So if there's like four neighborhoods that have this, then I'm like, fine, we're just going to stay with the negotiations. But if Hillcrest is the only one, then I may lean towards like, let's just have a... That one we can fix. But I don't want to fix Hillcrest to fix Hillcuest. And then two years from now, we find out that...

I think

the Morelands have a second one, or Polo.

Take care of theirs.

Okay.

So, I mean, I think they're in the private streets have to take care of theirs. Right, but we're not private. But I'm just saying there's differences.

I just don't want to run on the issue of, to your point of Polo is that, like, we fix Hillcrest and then Polo comes back with a $30,000 bill. And we're like, well, we took on Hillcrest anyway, so now we should take on Polo's. And then we might as well just take them all on. So that's why I was asking about if anybody has a sense of how many we had.

So the difference with Polo is there wasn't really an agreement the way it was so old. And when it was platted, it's trying to read the plat. Kevin was the only one that could do it. I don't know how he did. Got some information off of it. But some of those monuments are actually on private property. So it's not because of the agreement. It's because of where they live and we don't maintain them. So there's portions of Polo that we do, portions that we don't, but it's not because There's no consistency throughout these agreements other than there is a handful, and I'd say the majority are that city has sole discretion if they have the maintenance authority. I think Hillcrest is the only one that lives in that regard, but it's been probably over a year since we first developed the CIP projects to when I last researched it.

And I just want to say our preference would be if the council's inclined to pay for this monument repair, then our suggestion would be to try to amend that agreement. I wouldn't want to do anything that's outside of what the agreement has because if we're in that situation later and we find some monument where it's ambiguous and I don't want to prove something that's outside of how the agreement reads. So if we think we're going to go that path, I think we have a conversation with Hillcrest and try to change the language in there just so our action is consistent with the agreement itself. And I agree when you read this agreement, there is no direction on what is a minor versus major repair. We're looking at the dollar amount and the amount of work that needs to be done in determining it to be major, but there's no guidance within the agreement itself. So I just wanted to put that out there that we think we're gonna go that direction. Let's address the agreement just so we're consistent with how we're doing these things.

It is, I would support going forward treating the neighborhoods Equitably, but then I don't know what that means. Like, when you say there's monuments on private property and what monuments here are there. It doesn't make sense that we would pay for 1 neighborhood and not. Another if the similarities of the actual monument. Are there.

I don't know how to see in many other cities is they're all responsibility to the subdivision. So it's a bit unique in Clayton.

Yeah. Right. And as someone who lives in Clabberrack, I really don't want to change it, but I bet what Becky said makes, makes sense for us to look at that.

Yeah. And I, I'm, I don't mind looking at this. I think we should, but I, my only issue is like some of these are exorbitantly expensive. So I don't want us to kind of buy, um, And I'm not saying we shouldn't pay for Hillcrest or treat things more equitably, but I also then don't want to find out that we should take on a huge expense fixing a monument in a subdivision that normally they would take on. I just don't know, Matt, if you think that it's worthwhile to open up the investigation again to kind of look at where if it also to ensure that Hillcrest maybe is the only one where we're

carving them out. I don't think that's a me decision, to be honest with you. Well, I just want to

make sure that maybe Hillcrest is the only one that we perhaps are treating. this major minor question. Cause I, I mean, I think we all know there's monuments around the city. I don't want to all of a sudden be take, I mean, it's a huge expense. So

no, it, this, by the time we finished phase two of this will be, you know, close to a half million. And then by the next time we have to do now continuing on, we'll be doing smaller maintenance preventative maintenance where these weren't maintained for 50 to a hundred years. So hopefully they'll continue to be lower, but yeah. get into a reconstruction effort like this again in the future it'll be it will be substantial

So, David, your suggestion was to amend because if we were to move forward with this project, could we then have a discussion about or maybe other people want to move forward and just amend it? And I wasn't totally

understanding. We'll follow the council's direction. All I was saying is if we're going to accept ad alternate B, we would be more comfortable accepting that ad alternate if we had amended the agreement with Hillcrest. to clearly state that we're responsible for the maintenance. We don't believe, reading the agreement, that we are. So we would be uncomfortable saying, yes, we'll go and take on this private obligation through this particular contract. So if we want to approve everything else and then have a conversation with Hillcrest, if that's the direction, then that's what we'll do. and then we can bring back that monument later, but we would be uncomfortable approving that expense without the agreement matching our actions. If that makes

sense.

So

I just wanted to add or weigh in on this. So one of my concerns on this is I just think it's premature to even be discussing that. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, but it's premature in my mind that we've had a number of private subdivisions over the years convert to public, not necessarily all at the same time. And there's more terms and conditions than just maintenance of the monuments as a condition. There were curbs and there are all kinds of sidewalks and a whole bunch of other issues. And so to me, it's important to understand the context of why an agreement was the way it was. Plus, if we do want to think about modifying it, there are other private subdivisions that are still private that might want to go public and we might be setting a precedent for how we want to go forward. I'm just saying we should have our eyes wide open as we look at whatever decision we want to make.

Yeah, I mean, so I guess then my suggestion would be or my preference would be to move forward with this project and then have further discussion with Hillcrest to figure out how we can be potentially more equitable going forward. And that's not to say that we wouldn't necessarily potentially cover this project, but having first an idea of what these agreements were and make sure, like you said, that we're not opening ourselves up to other issues.

So the discussion is not merely subsequently with Hillcrest, but it's also making sure the context of how we deal with Hillcrest and what impact it has on the rest of Clayton. And we're not just saying to Hillcrest, you want to amend it. We want to know what the implications are of amending it. not only in terms of other aspects of private subdivisions, but is it really the only outlier? I mean, there seems to be a number of things we don't know the answer to.

When you get deeper into the agreements, it's going to get even messier. They're going to be all over the place. So I think understanding Hillcrest within the context of that agreement is important. I also think it's probably worth having a conversation about how we're going to treat all of these private neighborhoods going forward if we're going to do a conversion. We don't have any clear policy other than, you know, bring your streets up to standards and do this sort of thing. But there's nothing kind of written in stone. If you look at past agreements as a guide, you're going to find all sorts of different things within those. So they, as Alderman or Councilman Humble had mentioned, they're all over the place, done over decades and decades and decades with different rules. So It's not a conversation we've had a long time as far as setting that standard. I

guess an initial question would be, do we want them? to become more uniform? Or are there certain reasons that neighborhoods won't? It's kind of like with the zoning and everything

else. I think we're seeing here, there's probably value in having uniformity for those private public conversions. Because we have heard from a number of private neighborhoods, we do every year, we'll get an inquiry or two about what it takes to convert that neighborhood. And we're standard in what our response is. But in the end, when it gets in front of the council, there's nothing really no policy document that's guiding you in that decision and if you want to make changes or alter what staff is bringing up in those conversations you have the ability to do so and that's why the contracts are all over the place

right now those conversations usually begin i give a brief summary and then do a rough cost estimate and that's where a lot of them usually stop because it's a cost to upgrade and it that keeps going up every year and that's significant to upgrade to city standards

Is there any other questions or comments? The idea is moving forward on this contract and then having further discussion about Hillcrest and any other outliers.

I introduced Bill number 7151, approving a contract with Harlan Company for the Monument Maintenance Project to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion,

Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7151, first reading an ordinance approving a contract with Harlan Company for the monument maintenance contract fiscal year 26.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Council member Buse. I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7151 on the day of this introduction. Second.

All those in favour? Aye. Any oppose? The vote passes 6-0.

Well, no, I mean, I support approval of this contract.

The vote passes 7-0. Let the minutes reflect that the Council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce Bill No. 7151, approving a contract with the Harlan Company for the Monument Maintenance Project to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney?

Bill number 7151, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a contract with the Harlan Company for the Monument Maintenance Contract, fiscal year 26. Council

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

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

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell?

Councilmember Hummel?

Aye.

Councilmember Jeffery Yorg?

Councilmember York?

Aye.

CouncilMember Waldman? Aye. Mayor McAndrew?

Aye. The last item on our agenda is a street lighting replacement project.

Yes, so this is a big part of our tornado restoration. Public Works Department is requesting approval of professional services agreement with CDG engineers to provide professional design services for the street lighting restoration project. The city issued a request for qualifications for professional design services for Three firms submitted statements of qualifications, and a committee reviewed and evaluated the submittals. Based on the evaluation, CDG received the highest overall ranking, was identified as the preferred firm for the service. Staff has negotiated a professional services agreement with CDG to provide design services, including the assessment, survey, engineering design, preparation of construction documents, and bidding and construction assistance. The proposed fee for these services is $172,700. The current project schedule anticipates completing design and soliciting bids in October, followed by construction with installation prioritized for areas experiencing the most widespread outages, including South Brentwood, Parkdale, and Buckingham. The city will seek reimbursement from FEMA and SEMA for up to 85% of eligible items during construction. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing professional services agreement with CDG engineers in the amount of $172,700 plus a contingency of $5,000 for a total of $177,700 for design services associated with the street lighting restoration project.

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

The only question I've got is, do we know how long it'll take them to get done and then actually start putting lights in the ground? Like are we talking another year?

Probably not that long. There is going to be some lead time to get that equipment in because we have to go through the whole construction bidding process. And so it's hard to estimate right now, but I don't know what the current lead time is for light standards and fixtures and all of that.

12 to 16 weeks, roughly, depending on what we're getting. Like, for instance, the traffic signal is 16 weeks at Brentwood and Orlando. Yeah, the schedule calls for three months of construction, but that's not assuming, depending on what the light actual lead time is. there is some time built into here, but it looks like construction. There is some time built in to here for city review as well. So depending on how quick we turn that around, we can shorten this a bit, but we would receive an award bids. We were projecting in November with construction going through, it looks like March to April.

Okay. I just want to know for the folks on Parkdale and folks on Buckingham and stuff who may be asking, because it's been a year, like how much longer they were going to have for streetlights and stuff. But

I'm

sure other folks will be for their parts too. Okay.

The two components of this project that we'll... Design will dictate this ultimately, but we expect to see will be full-scale circuitry replacements, like almost a whole new system in certain areas. And then the other component is individual replacements where lights were knocked over, minor damage, broken globes, and those will be more sporadic throughout the impacted

area. So people will probably see some movement sometime in the fall, but it's not going to be done until probably March or April of next year. Did I hear you right?

Probably more in the winter,

yeah. Okay, okay. Thanks.

And then they will see activity for, you know, field staff and survey taking place.

But in terms of what Matt, what did you say about Brentwood and Orlando? Everybody wants to know about that light.

Oh yes. So that was a contract construction contract that the council approved, which goes back a while now, but work has taken place at that location. I think all, Nearly all work is complete awaiting delivery of the pole and mast arm at Brentwood and Orlando. It was a 16-week lead time, and we're projected to get that in at the beginning of July. So everything else is in place. The receipt of the pole and massed arm is the final thing we're waiting on.

So July, Gary?

July.

Yeah.

I do have a question. What are you seeing – With the FEMA submissions and reimbursement, is there any progress? This is primarily covered by, hopefully covered by FEMA,

correct? Yeah. So it's two components of it are covered. Oh, wait a second. The lighting project? Are we still talking about the signal? Lighting. Lighting. Yeah. Sorry. So the design and construction of this project in full will be submitted for reimbursement.

And it'll be submitted at one point in time.

So we have projects already developed now. They will issue, we expect FEMA to issue a, I forgot what they, it's not a judgment, I forgot. A smiley face.

Something.

FEMA agrees to it, pays the bill, and then we will bid this out in the event that this comes in slightly different price and we have to go back and ask for more money, we have to go through an amendment process, but Once we get our first engineer's estimate, once they've done their field work, we'll supply that as quick as we can to FEMA to help inform them to say, no, here's the number you want to use. We've had engineers look at it.

Okay. And who knows when that would actually,

yeah. Yeah, I don't know the timeline offhand on that. But once they get a defined project like that, they can move it through hopefully pretty quickly. Is

that what we've been seeing? So

far, we've got payment for debris removal and emergency protective measures.

In the bank? Well, not in the bank.

Obligated for debris removal, but that check I don't think has hit yet.

Oh, okay.

Sorry. It's been obligated, so it shouldn't be long until that money hits. And so that was in that fourth quarter budget amendment last year, if you remember. The auditors wanted us to put that in fiscal year 26. So, yeah, I mean, our documentation is really good, though. And staff is really responsive. So we're working this as quickly as we can. Unfortunately, with that shutdown, it really bogged them down over the last eight weeks or so. But things are picking up again.

the scope of this is for everything but the white on median restoration correct okay thanks

all right uh any other questions or comments council member abuse

introduce bill number 7152 approving a contract with cdg engineers incorporated for the street lighting replacement project to be read for the first time by title only

second any discussion mr city attorney

Bill number 7152, first reading an ordinance approving a professional services agreement with CDG Engineers Incorporated for design services related to the street lighting restoration project.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? I move that the council give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of bill number 7152 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in Any opposed? The vote passes seven to zero. Let the minutes reflect that the council has given unanimous consent.

I introduce bill number 7152, approving a contract with CDG Engineers Incorporated for the street lighting replacement project to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 7152 second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving a professional services agreement with CDG Engineers Incorporated for design services related to the street lighting restoration project.

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

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

Aye.

Councilmember Rick Hummell?

Councilmember Hummel?

Aye.

Councilmember Yorg?

Aye.

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

All right, we have come to the end of our meeting. I thought we'd do a short roundtable. I know it's getting a little bit late and we're hoping to get out. But I wanted to start tonight because I wanted to more than anything thank Council Member Rick Hummell for his years on the council, years on the board, I guess for most of it. You are a wonderful public speaker. I really admire you for that. And even tonight you talked, I think what I always appreciate you asking of staff is How do we learn? Have we learned from this? How do we do better in the future? So I always appreciate that. You're always very thoughtful, very well prepared. I think you've only missed one meeting in three years. Am I correct? Yes. So that is also very much appreciated. I know the people that you represent sincerely appreciate that. I will... Really miss your insight, your expertise. And I just I really want to thank you for your service to Ward 1, your service to the whole city and your service to the city of Clayton. So thank you very much.

All right, we have come to the end of our meeting. I thought we'd do a short roundtable. I know it's getting a little bit late and we're hoping to get out. But I wanted to start tonight because I wanted to more than anything thank Council Member Hummel for his years on the council, years on the board, I guess for most of it. You are a wonderful public speaker. I really admire you for that. And even tonight you talked, I think what I always appreciate you asking of staff is How do we learn? Have we learned from this? How do we do better in the future? So I always appreciate that. You're always very thoughtful, very well prepared. I think you've only missed one meeting in three years. Am I correct? Yes. So that is also very much appreciated. I know the people that you represent sincerely appreciate that. I will... Really miss your insight, your expertise. And I just I really want to thank you for your service to Ward 1, your service to the whole city and your service to the city of Clayton. So thank you very much.

Well, thank you for those kind words. I appreciate that.

Outside of that, I'll just say that I want to make sure everybody knows that it looks like the right away issue in Jefferson City is not going to go through. It's only going to where we were going to have to pay for any sort of updates in the right away. Like if we were redoing a street and the utilities got messed up, we'd have to pay for that. Thankfully, the governor, they've amended that. So they're just going to make MoDOT pay. Now they're going to penalize MoDOT, but municipalities have been taken out of it. And it also looks like the code issue where, you know, things, if something got submitted to the city after 30 days, it was deemed passed. That's also going to go away. However... unfortunately, it looks like basically the energy code is going to go away. So in order to make it more affordable or, you know, the ability for people to build houses faster and easier, we will revert back to the building codes in 2009. So that's disappointing in many ways, especially from a sustainability standpoint. So Those were just some big announcements in Jefferson City this week that I thought you all should be aware of. But that's all I'll say. I know we're kind of trying to get going, but if anybody has any other comments or any thoughts on what you've been doing in the last couple weeks that you deem important for us all to hear, I welcome those.

Yeah, just a couple things. One was forward to us. You saw it, I think, in Mayor's Monarch Pledge survey, and it actually came from Felix Miller, who I can't believe he's a Felix Miller, who's our neighbor, but it's from the National Wildlife Federation. And I pulled it off. It's a mayor's pledge, so I'll show it to you, but it's, it's, you know, I think it's 95% of things that we've already done. So we can look at that and, um, it's been shared to sustain it with a sustainability committee. And we can, that I did have a block camera question, especially as we've had several more citizens, um, Look at that. I was just wondering, I know that you've Mark, you've given us lots of information and it's very well regulated and maintained making sure there's no abuse of the system. Some of the one of the cases that our resident cited today was, I think, Coralville, Iowa, which is close to my home. So I had to look at that one. Talking about ice using it or things like that. And the other one she cited was a facial recognition, which this doesn't do. But if there were an issue like that, if we found there were a breach of somebody getting into our information, would the board hear about that? Or how would you handle that? Yeah, so

what I'm not aware of that happening.

That's the first

thing. And I do want to say, you know, we've been looking at things we can do to, you know, adjust our sharing in light of some of the privacy concerns. One of the things we did recently, we turned off sharing with agencies out of state. So right now we're only sharing with states, agencies within the state of Missouri. So that's one thing we did. Also, FLOC is, they're adjusting the sharing parameters as well as these conversations continue. One of the things they did, they put like a toggle switch on the admin page where you can determine if you want to share with federal agencies or not. So we turned that off. So there's no sharing.

They're

not sharing with federal agencies. That's correct.

Yep.

And I think too, just in the, Chief has offered, you know, I passed on the information that FLOC Natalie, I think Natalie had passed on. So I think, you know, I'll talk with all of you. And if I think if there's a desire for Chief to come back in and for us to have a larger discussion, I think we can do that. So maybe we can talk. I mean, I'll talk to all of you and see if there's enough interest and Chief can come back and, you know, identify and respond to some concerns, any concerns that you all have.

Yeah. And you've been incredibly responsive to any of the questions from here and from any of the citizens. And those are just a couple more things I wanted to talk on. and I appreciate that. And, um, and, and I can pass this one of, I'm happy to pass these final questions right now under her, or if you wanted to write me something to send to her to get it. Oh yeah. You prefer

you send me the specific questions. I'll address them.

Yeah. Mainly. I think the only things that we haven't talked about with her really are, um, that we have not, that we do monitor closely. She knows that. And, that we haven't seen any problems. And the toggle switch, I think, is interesting information.

Like I said, I think I used the analogy of tasers when they first came out. I spoke to you. When that came out, that technology, it was supposed to be a cure-all. You use the taser, don't fight people, and then we used it too much. And so there's modifications, policy, and training along the way, and you're starting to see that with the license plate readers as well. And so, like I said, we've made some adjustments as it's going on and we have a web page where we're kind of we're constructed right now there are web page was down for a week so we got behind now it's back up so we're constructing that so we can be more transparent as well. And I do in your correct the flock system. They do not have facial recognition. And it only photographs license plates, right? And so I've shown you the photos. If there is a front-facing photograph of a car, you can't see in the window. So you can't identify people in there. And to actually identify who owns that car, we have to go into the Department of Revenue database to do that. So it doesn't tell you who owns the car or who's driving it.

All right. I appreciate that. Again, thank you. Thank you, Chief. And the last thing is, Rick, you know I think the world of you. And these words, I hope they can capture how much I think that you've contributed to our community over many years. I mean, we first met, I think, in a preschool classroom with the kids. So they do grow up. And then it went to sports, through elementary school and sports, middle school, high school, when you really need your village helping you raise your own kids. And so thank you for being part of that village. And at that point in time, way back a few years ago, I admired that you could be that fellow parent and, you know, be working and everything else and also be so committed to helping the school board. And so a few years later, when I was ready to try that, it was you that I turned to. And you've always had that wisdom and a steadiness about you and doing things for the right reason. You know, and I really that's always impressed me. And I hope I've said thank you enough over time. And I'm saying it now. And those are some of the fundamentals that I've always seen in you. You're thoughtful, you're professional, you're kind. Around the council table, you do get your voice and you have a lot of wisdoms to share, but you're always respectful if you're in the other voices. And you respect that process of we may not get the result we want, but it comes together as a group, as the audience, and as each of us contributes to it. And you've been very steady in keeping that And of course your financial acumen and the rest of us might get glazed over sometimes, you know, even patient with us with that. And it's very much appreciated what you've contributed. So, um, thank you, um, for your city, your board now city council surface. Thank you for all you've always done for our community because it's from that, that it's from your involvement with our community, knowing our community, caring about it, that you've been such an effective advocate on this council and elsewhere. And, um, that whole community we've, I'm just so happy that will continue. And it's, it's a pleasure to know you and to have worked with you and yeah, I wish you the best. Thanks for being part of that village.

Thank you. Feelings mutual. So thank you.

I want to two quick comments. I would like further discussion on flock. I would rather not spend time on what my questions and concerns are here, but that we've scheduled time for it, whether it's the retreat or a discussion or something else. And on the building codes issue. I'm very interested. It strikes me not just like sustainability, but also like safety. There's probably a lot of angles at which this could be damaging to people. people who live in and around buildings and work in and around them. And so I'd be really interested in understanding what, if anything, some cities might be doing to try to counter it, like whether there's legal action or some other action being. It

hasn't passed yet, but all the indication is that this is the adjustment that's going to be made. It kind of went silent for about a month and a half after the House had passed it. The Senate had read it and then started perfecting the bill. So the indication coming out of Jeff City is that's the change we're going to see is the reversion of the energy code back to 2009, which was a point in time when there was no energy code. So essentially all the energy codes will go away at that point. MML has opposed it. International Code Council groups, everybody has been out really kind of on the municipal side trying to fight this. So everybody's done the initial lobbying efforts. Like electricians and stuff. What? I'm sorry?

Like electricians. Are they have any standing on

it? I'm not sure where they are on it. But a lot of times with something like this that brings the cost of building down, they see that as an opportunity to get to build more, which is more jobs for those, those individuals. So, um, there's been a lot of this, uh, those different groups, labor groups are probably viewing this different ways, depending on what they're actually doing. Um, you're going to have some electricians that want to do all the solar stuff and other things. So anyhow, um, Since it hasn't passed yet, there hasn't been any talk about legal action or other steps at that point. It's still everybody trying to do this through lobbying, and that effort is underway. Our lobbyist is working on this, Metro MML, the state MML. Everybody's trying their best, but it looks like something's probably going to pass this time around. So more to come on that, and I'll let you know if there is an effort to try to fight it another way.

Yeah, thank you. And then Rick, I'll just third the thank you for your service. I know you served Clayton and our community long before your time on the board and council and certainly would welcome your continued service. So I hope you'll let us know. I know you're not going to just go quiet. You're interested in a lot of different things in our region and If there are any avenues that you're interested in serving through the city ongoing, I hope that you'll let us know and we would love to continue to have you.

Great. Thank you.

I got a few things to say about REC, but I'll get a few trivial matters out of the way first. We did have, I think since we last met, an evening with Kami and I went to see the folks at Maryland Walk. We had about 20 residents. As always, they actually are only interested in talking about the restricted bike lanes. Once we thrashed that about for 20 minutes, they pretty much were starting to walk out because that's really all they want to talk about. And I don't know that we made them a lot happier, but at least we gave them a little bit of good news, like the polls are going away and aren't coming back. So we are having our Ward 3 coffee this Saturday at the usual location. Ambo and I think it is Ambo. So I'm sorry, Nicole Ambo's who's the managing director of, uh, opera theater, um, is going to join us just because, uh, like to, I think they're beginning a campaign, I guess, especially since the site is in ward three to begin, uh, trying to make people who live relatively close by get a feeling of what it may look like and what the issues are going to be. Uh, so we have that coming up. Um, The Economic Development Committee, which is interesting, is now split into some subcommittees. I may not have the exact title, but one is dealing with parking and infrastructure, another with our small businesses throughout the city, not just downtown, and then the general topic of tax incentives. So the idea is to have those committees meet in the last three or four weeks at our May meeting, bring those back, report on those. They're all very much intertwined, but I think we're We're trying to deal with that. There's some upcoming events, which I think we all know about. The new chamber collective or collaborative, whatever it is, having an event. Missouri Growth Association is having a program at Wash U, a regional program about regional development. The MAC is having a ribbon cutting. So those are all interesting events coming up. I do want to say about Rick, I've known Rick since he was on the school board. I think when I first came on this board, it was on the non-uniform employee pension plan, that committee, which I've been on now, I guess I'm on the uniform committee. By the way, I think Rick was the chairman at the time before he was on the board or the council. And I was really impressed how enthusiastic he was about the subject. And he knew a lot about it. I frankly thought it was like watching paint dry. But he was so enthusiastic and he was so insightful of his questions. And obviously that has carried on to his service on the board. And I know when I send him a brief email that I mentioned how insightful I think he always is. We almost always agree, maybe earlier tonight, not so much, but generally we pretty much agree. And so I think he has brought just a tremendous amount of his business background and financial acumen. And finally, when the two of us served on our little subcommittee trying to deal with the various other task force committees, etc., It was really a good experience for me to spend a lot more time working with Rick just one-on-one. I think we came up with some very good changes to the charter. I think we see the product now. We have three new committees, which I hope will serve us well in any way. We never would have got there without Rick. And so, again, I thank you for your service. Gary, appreciate that.

That's very nice. I asked the mayor if I could defer my turn to the end. And so for two reasons, one, I want to give Jeff an opportunity to say something. He's always upset that I cover everything. And the second thing, this is my last chance to get the last word. And so I would look forward to that.

And it's comical because I have nothing to say as it relates to committees because I've been out of town basically for whatever, which was the joke I was going to make. So we did have a... Finance Committee, Citizen Finance Committee, which I was not able to attend. So I can give you no feedback. I'll have to defer to Rick on that one. CRSWC, again, I don't think we've met since the last time we got together. But I think we may have talked about that. They're looking for some improvements to the swimming scoreboard and scoring system and timing system, and we kind of sent the school district back to do some more research for that. So it would have been an unbudgeted capital expense. So we're still trying to get a better handle on that. Otherwise, I don't have anything else to report work-wise. Rick, I sent you a message before, but I wanted to say thank you, and I'm happy now I get to speak.

I'm happy for you.

I don't really have anything to add either. Our committee for our parks and rec was canceled, so I think that's all the ones that are here. But yeah, Rick, I want to have him work with you the shortest amount of time, but I just want to say thank you. You were always so welcoming to me when I first started. You offered to answer any questions that I had, and I really appreciate that. I do aspire and am inspired by like your thoughtfulness and your knowledge on and the way you question things. Whenever you question them, like, oh, that's a good perspective to think about. So I really appreciate that. But it's been really great working with you.

Well, thank you for that. I appreciate that. Okay, unless you have something to say. I didn't mean about me.

First, I'll say something about Maplewood. They just approved that agreement, which is great. So we're all set there. Larry just sent that note over. But Rick, it's been a pleasure. The questions that you've asked along the way have made us better. You've had us look at things ways that we hadn't thought before we started putting an ordinance together or got down the path on something. And then we would have a Monday call and Rick would ask some question. I'm like, oh man, we need to think about this for tonight. And then those conversations would carry over into this room. And oftentimes we would improve things as a result of of those questions and that conversation. And like others have mentioned, that insight is really, really valuable. You love finances and I love the budget. And so that's been a lot of fun, too. I appreciate the questions and really the detail, the amount of detail when you would go through and really take a look and try to understand what's going on with those numbers and how things are changing year over year. And then trying to apply long term strategy to that to make sure that we're on the right track and citizen finance committee and standing that up is a great example. I think one of the first committee or board meetings I saw when I came here to Clayton was a non-uniform pension board. And I remember being really impressed. So I came from another city where we had a few boards and commissions, but we certainly didn't manage our own pension. Wow, this town's on top of it. And you were chairing that meeting. And I mean, as Councilman Gary Feder had mentioned, just really great questions, really drove those meetings well. We're going to miss you on the pension board. You occupy that seat right now as a member of the city council. And we just had that conversation or that realization internally just the other day. And we're like, oh, man. Rick's the chair right now of the pension board and he's on the council. And so we're going to really miss you in that role because the institutional knowledge with you being on that for years and years and just the way you drive those conversations, include everybody in those conversations, and really make sure that everybody in the room understands a very complex topic. So when people are new to non-uniform pension board or uniformed, there's this really steep learning curve where for the first year, people are just glazed over. People are reading reports and going through all this stuff, and you take time to make sure that everybody understands what it is that they're doing, and we always appreciated that. So I'm going to miss you and thanks for everything along the way.

First, I'll say something about Maplewood. They just approved that agreement, which is great. So we're all set there. Larry just sent that note over. But Rick, it's been a pleasure. The questions that you've asked along the way have made us better. You've had us look at things ways that we hadn't thought before we started putting an ordinance together or got down the path on something. And then we would have a Monday call and Rick would ask some question. I'm like, oh man, we need to think about this for tonight. And then those conversations would carry over into this room. And oftentimes we would improve things as a result of of those questions and that conversation. And like others have mentioned, that insight is really, really valuable. You love finances and I love the budget. And so that's been a lot of fun, too. I appreciate the questions and really the detail, the amount of detail when you would go through and really take a look and try to understand what's going on with those numbers and how things are changing year over year. And then trying to apply long term strategy to that to make sure that we're on the right track and citizen finance committee and standing that up is a great example. I think one of the first committee or board meetings I saw when I came here to Clayton was a non-uniform pension board. And I remember being really impressed. So I came from another city where we had a few boards and commissions, but we certainly didn't manage our own pension. Wow, this town's on top of it. And you were chairing that meeting. And I mean, as Councilman Fader had mentioned, just really great questions, really drove those meetings well. We're going to miss you on the pension board. You occupy that seat right now as a member of the city council. And we just had that conversation or that realization internally just the other day. And we're like, oh, man. Rick's the chair right now of the pension board and he's on the council. And so we're going to really miss you in that role because the institutional knowledge with you being on that for years and years and just the way you drive those conversations, include everybody in those conversations, and really make sure that everybody in the room understands a very complex topic. So when people are new to non-uniform pension board or uniformed, there's this really steep learning curve where for the first year, people are just glazed over. People are reading reports and going through all this stuff, and you take time to make sure that everybody understands what it is that they're doing, and we always appreciated that. So I'm going to miss you and thanks for everything along the way.

Thank

you.

So I did prepare some comments, if nothing else, to make sure that I was somewhat succinct as I go through this. So I wanted to share my thoughts. So I'm considering this. My last meeting is a member of the city council. I recognize that. I may have some unfinished business to attend to at the beginning of the April 28th meeting, but I view tonight is the marking of the end of my term and the 28th is the beginning of Betsy's term. So let's, you know, have her have the light. next week and I'm happy to take it this time. So I want to reflect on my experience as a city council member. So one of my strong personal tenants in life is the belief that it's important to be personally involved in any organization you hold in high regard and deeply value. The Clayton community is one of those organizations for me. I moved to Clayton in 1984. And in addition to enjoying all of the services and benefits of Clayton residency, I've had the opportunity to serve on many Clayton boards, commissions and committees. My first experience dates to 2000 when I joined the non-uniformed employee retirement fund, affectionately known as NERF, in violation of all of the... We want lots of different citizen participation. I have violated it to the nth degree for a long time. On the other hand, that may be because there's very few people that want to do this as much as I like to do it. So... The next NERF meeting is on May 11th, and so that'll be the first one I haven't attended in 26 years. So that's a long time. There are probably some people that I'm sure think it's about time for that to be my last meeting. So in addition to NERF, I think I have probably served on at least eight different committees and commissions, and I've learned so much from my experience here. I've really enjoyed my service to the city of Clayton, and I'm hopeful that it's been helpful. I like to know how organizations work and why they do what they do, and my experiences enlighten me regarding the management and the operations of the city of Claydon. I am indebted to the city staff that have patiently helped me to understand the workings of the city government. Outside of City Hall, I truly value the wide and varied relationships I've developed because of my service. I know I've met so many residents I doubt I would have ever engaged with. I've had the opportunity to meet and learn from many business and community leaders and other elected officials. I truly appreciate the relationships I've developed with all of you, my fellow council members. I believe we bring unique and valuable experience and expertise to our community that results in priority issues getting appropriate focus and attention. Mine just happens to be finance, and I'm glad that so many of yours is something else. So that's good for our community. And my experience has occurred in a very positive environment due to the quality and competency of our city leadership team. It's been a true pleasure to get to know the City of Clayton's outstanding staff and its professional advisors. I appreciate not only the professionalism that each person brings to their job, but also the patience they have shown in answering those many questions you talked about regarding their roles, responsibilities or other topics. So thank you to every Clayton employee I've had the pleasure of meeting and working with. Finally, I am particularly proud of the work that Gary and I did to review the way we engage our citizenry in various boards and commissions. I have found that the majority of our residents are very trusting and confident of the workings of Clayton government. That is, until something happens that directly impacts their ability to enjoy the use of their property, the cost or quality of the services they obtain, or the real perceived loss of their current quality of life. So Clayton, like most municipalities, faces significant financial challenges in delivering the services and the service levels we've become accustomed to. Engaging more of our residents and more of our business community and drawing upon their experience and expertise is a foundational step in attacking those challenges. So I'm glad that we've done that. I am confident that Clayton's future is in good hands, and I look forward to watching your progress from a little bit farther away. So thank you to everyone.

Thank you very much. With that, I will move to adjourn. Second, all those in favor.