December 13, 2022

Machine-generated transcript — may contain errors.

All right, well, you guys, thanks for your patience. And we are gonna get started with our six o'clock discussion session for December 13th. And I'm really excited about this one because our sustainability committee has been talking to us a lot about solar panels and different ways of increasing or decreasing our carbon footprint here in Clayton. And so it kind of got me thinking about what about all those tall buildings in downtown Clayton?

What can we do? And I originally thought, oh, let's put a solar panel on each one and that'll do the trick. I learned that wasn't very feasible and wouldn't be very effective. But in the process, what I did learn is that the city of St.

Louis has a great program for reducing energy usage in their biggest buildings, buildings over 50,000 square feet. And I thought, wow, we have quite a few of those. And why don't we look at a program like that for Clayton? So I reached out to Emily Andrews, the executive director of the US Green Building Council.

And she very nicely came down and talked to me, talked to me a couple of times trying to explain to me how this works. And so I invited her along with the, is it building commission, building commissioner from the city of St. Louis. And here I go with names, Frank Oswald, so this program has been implemented in the city and I think it's going well.

So I'll just turn it over to Emily to take you through what it's all about. And thank you for racing over here because we had a little snafu on scheduling. So thanks for being flexible. Yeah, when it's green, it's on.

Okay. There it is. It's something in the air. Okay.

Well, first of all, let me just apologize for being late. I can blame it on World Cup fever. I can blame the fact that we're rebranding and building a new website and a new CRM all at the same time. I think that one's probably more likely.

but i'm really pleased to be here tonight to talk to you a little bit about um opportunities for energy efficiency in our buildings um it looks like we're having a little trouble getting the powerpoint up is that oh is it not working um okay emily sorry no it's all good i i am i'm I'm used to technical difficulties as well. So that looks great. And if I just tell you to forward, you'll be able to forward the slides for us. Perfect.

Great. So what we're really going to talk about is buildings, building energy efficiency being a win-win climate solution, if you want to just forward it to the next slide. And the reason that this all plays out is because buildings use a lot of energy. And they emit a lot of greenhouse gases.

And that's really through the energy that we're using to light the lights, to heat the buildings, to cool the buildings. That represents about 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are coming from our residential and commercial buildings. Next slide. In Clayton, that's even higher.

This is from your 2006 greenhouse gas inventory 87% of your emissions are coming from commercial and residential buildings 68 of those 68% is commercial buildings. So that doesn't surprise me, to be honest, because when you think about cities, what are cities made up of? They're made up of buildings. In the city of St.

Louis, the emissions from buildings is about 80%. That actually includes the industrial buildings as well as commercial buildings. and residential. So this isn't that far off.

But what this does mean, I mean, a lot of people look at this and think, what are we going to do about this? But it, to me, it means there's a lot of opportunity, right? So if you go to the next slide, lots of building energy use means lots of opportunity to reduce that building energy use. 30% of energy used in buildings is wasted simply through inefficiency.

That's according to EPA. And half of all energy savings are possible through low or no cost operational improvements. I mean, that's really when you look at more existing buildings, not brand new fancy buildings, but there's a lot of what people in the building industry call low hanging fruit when it comes to energy efficiency in our buildings. And so That is where some of the legislation comes in that the city has passed over the years, but I have a few more slides before Frank talks about that.

energy efficiency is affordable, I think a lot of people when they think about green building or sustainability they think it's going to cost more money, but in the in the end, it should save us more money because the. When you look at this graph, this is a little bit out of date, but it shows us that the lowest cost emission reduction opportunities are the sections in orange on this graph. And that basically represents the biggest one, the tallest one there represents efficiency opportunities in buildings. So if we want to make change and we want to make it fast when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, this is the place to do it.

And this is why we've seen such a huge investment in this space at the federal level as well. You know, the The federal, the Biden-Harris administration has made a lot of commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. They have made a commitment to get to net zero by 2050. And one of the ways that they are doing that is by rolling out things that are related to our buildings.

The Inflation Reduction Act has a lot a lot of provisions for building owners to take advantage of tax credits to reduce their energy use. So there's a strong focus on this across the country. Next slide. This is just another slide showing opportunities related to energy efficiency.

This report is from 2019, from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, which shows that energy efficiency can cut greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in half by 2050. which would represent a savings of $700 billion. And this report and the graph on the right basically suggest that the largest savings can come from efficient and electric vehicles, industrial efficiency and decarbonization, transportation, upgrades to existing buildings and homes, zero energy new buildings and homes, and appliance and equipment efficiency. A lot of those are connected to our buildings, and that's really a lot of opportunity and a lot of efficiency.

So really what we like to talk about is how the policies that Frank will discuss are really a win-win for us, if you want to go to the next slide. And people are acting on it all over the country. So Frank's going to take us through the next part. Thanks Mayor Harris and all their men and all their women for having us here this evening.

I think this is a really important topic and I appreciate you guys really taking an interest in it. Certainly we share our air around this community and it's important to all of us, in my opinion, to do what we can for our communities as a whole. I'm the building commissioner for the city of St. Louis, and I've been the commissioner for about 21 years now.

I worked for the city about 34 years. So I've seen a lot of change in the city, and this is one of the more exciting policies that I've seen that really have major impact on our population and on the way people live. We've done things like, you know, we had a really bad lead problem in the city of St. Louis for many, many years and we address that lead problem, you know, through policy changes with our inspection programs and things like that.

And we went from a city that had essentially one out of four kids being lead poisoned at levels that were really scary to right now we're about 2%. So these policies that you adopt are real. And what local governments can do in the way of action is, in my opinion, really life-changing for a lot of our citizens. If we can change to the next slide.

OK. energy policies in particular, you know, these policies for benchmarking and for BEPS programs have really suddenly jumped. In 2017, the city of St. Louis adopted a benchmarking policy.

And this policy, oh, that's me, okay. Did I talk loud enough already? This policy, These policies, when we adopted that in 2017, I believe we were the third or fourth place around the country that adopted it. Right now you can see there's over 30 different places around the United States that have adopted some sort of benchmarking and BEP policy.

California being the most recent with adopting it as a state. And then you've got other areas around the country as well that are looking at doing this type of thing. Um, so it's, it's clear where, you know, where policy is going on this type of thing, you know, and I think what Emily was talking about before, as far as the cost of it, you know, that's, that's so important because we're at a point now where we're telling a lot of our big building owners, you know, come down and talk to us. You know, we do a lot of customer service with these people and, uh, You know, the reality is, you know, your return on investment, the payback on these things pay for themselves in about three years.

So a typical building that, you know, is costing, you know, I don't know, 1.5 million or something like that for utilities and stuff, they can save a half million dollars a year. So they spend a million dollars to do it and they pay it off in two years, you know, and then the person who owns it does even better. you know, and that's pretty much the way the situation works. This is not big government, you know, jumping down somebody's throat and making people do stuff.

That's really not good for, you know, the constituency. Why don't we jump to the next ordinance? I'm sorry, the next slide. Yeah.

Okay. In 2017 is when we first started. And I went to a conference down in New Orleans about, um, the city energy project. And that essentially was kind of our starting point for that.

And our first ordinance just required people to benchmark, essentially look at your buildings, understand how much energy usage you are actually using on your buildings. It's amazing. It was amazing to me to find out how many building owners, first of all, that don't live in the area, don't really know what their buildings use and are amazed to find out how much they're used, you know, how much energy they're using. so you know by benchmarking and using you know all of those um performance standards basically they can determine that and really find out you know where they're wasting how much they're how much they're spending on their particular buildings um and if you could jump to the next one you know so so what does this really do you know um You know, it means a number of things.

First of all, you know, the city of St. Louis is saying, hey, let's put our money where our mouth is. Let's walk the walk, talk the talk. So we're requiring all of our buildings to benchmark and we're requiring all uh, spend, I don't know.

We got a loan through the state. Uh, and it was again, one of those deals where the return on investment was two and a half years or something like that. And we have saved that much and have more than paid for it. So it just makes so much sense.

Um, you know, when you, if you guys get to the point where you really want to do this, um, you know, there's a number of buildings that are going to have different circumstances. You know, we've got some very high energy use buildings, some of the stuff that Bell has or AT&T has, I don't know how old I am. And, you know, those buildings are just packed with all sorts of telephone equipment that's really high intensity usage, you're never going to be able to really do much about those type of buildings. So you work with your community.

You figure out what it is that you can really affect in a positive manner. And you develop a policy and an ordinance that goes ahead and falls in line with that type of thing. You know the other thing we did is we did a lot of working with the Community, you know we worked probably a good two years before we actually pass this ordinance and we had people from you know the hospital community from. residential communities from boma from you know industry uh we usually had about i'd say about 18 people who actually sat around the table and by the time we really got to the point that we're going to do legislation i think everybody either supported it or they were to the point where they knew this was going to happen and it was probably best for the community and they wouldn't you know, verbally oppose it.

So it flew by in our city council, you know, our board of aldermen, which is now 28 members, but soon to be 14. And I think we had like a 26 to nothing vote on that particular, on those pieces of legislation at that time. Switch to the next one now. After we did the benchmarking requirement, we started thinking immediately about the BEPS requirement.

And the BEPS ordinance essentially requires 65% of our buildings to improve their energy performance. So by 2026 is the year that they actually have to report for the next time. And we can actually start having real understanding of where we're going and our committee, I should back up a second. One of the unique things that the city of St.

Louis did that nobody else has done is develop what we call a BEPS committee. And we have a nine member public committee in which the mayor appoints different people who choose to be on this committee. And this committee basically works with my staff who helped develop these energy standards. And the idea is as energy efficiency continues to grow and there's better methods, we can go ahead and incorporate that without having to do legislation all the time.

So, you know, that public input to me is a big thing. And it's based a great deal on the local benchmarking data as far as what we have actually are finding out in this information. If we can jump ahead now, because I think I did jump ahead a little here. Okay, that's the next steps for Clayton.

Okay, just the last thing I wanted to mention is that one of the things that the city of St. Louis did that was a little unique again around the country is that we actually decided to put this in an operations division. Most places have their BEPS programs or their benchmarking programs as an adjunct to the mayor's office. We put it in the building division because we feel it makes sense.

We issue mechanical permits, we issue electrical permits, all that kind of stuff. A lot of this is lighting, a lot of this is mechanical systems, cooling powers, all that type of thing. So, you know, and in the bigger picture, You know, you've seen that picture of Mayor Slay and myself and a couple other people. A lot of those people are gone already, but the idea of the concepts live on in the building division.

And, you know, I think that's really important is to get all of our people, all the folks who work for us and work with us to understand how important this is and to keep that mindset in the future. So that's kind of all I have really at this point. And I think we'd be happy to answer any questions. Oh, do you want me to cover that next step slide?

If you want to go back one? Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

So just a quick point of clarification that the city actually passed two separate policies, the benchmarking, the energy benchmarking policy, which requires the buildings that are 50,000 square feet and greater to simply report their energy and water use to the city. And then they followed up with a building energy performance standard that now requires those same buildings to actually improve their energy performance. So that's kind of one of the, some of the next steps for Clayton will be to determine if you decide you wanna move forward with some sort of policy and I hope you do because there's lots like Mayor Harris said, there's lots of big buildings in Clayton and lots of opportunity I think. It's kind of determining what are the elements that will be included in that policy.

What is the square footage threshold? Do you want to stick with 50,000? Do you want it smaller? Do you want larger?

Just for reference, 50,000 square feet is about the size of a large big box, single story. So if you think about most of the buildings here are multiple stories. So you're going to get, I don't know, a multi-story building is looking at over 100,000 square feet. you know, if not more.

So, you know, that's one thing. Do you want to combine those two policies together? That is something a lot of other cities have done around the country. They've passed a single piece of legislation that lays out the requirement for benchmarking and after, you know, five years, then this performance standard will come into place.

And then what part of the city will it cover? The city's legislation covers the entire city footprint now most of those buildings are downtown and in the central corridor. So I know that Mayor Harris had talked about just doing the downtown area. You know, maybe there's other opportunities.

An important next step will be to engage stakeholders. Like Frank said, we had a lot of meetings. We talked with a lot of people. The building owners, the operators, the different building industry organizations like the facility managers and the building owners and operators are important people to be Talking to luckily they know how to do it because they're doing it in the city, so that I think hopefully will make it a little easier and then simply drafting the legislation and there are sample policies that exist like frank said this is.

I mean it's really become. A best practice in cities every major every major metropolitan area probably has benchmarking legislation. The building performance standards are coming next. There's a national coalition.

30 cities have signed on to that with a commitment to put some sort of legislation into place by Earth Day of 2024. So, you know, Kansas City is right behind us. They're committed to passing that legislation. They're working on it right now.

So things are really rolling. And like I said, I mean, the city's legislation is obviously available to copy. We copied the Kansas City legislation for benchmarking and the Washington DC legislation for the performance standards. So that's a good form of flattery.

So that would be a few of the next steps that I kind of brainstormed before I came tonight. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it so much and appreciate you coming.

You know, appreciate your flexibility. I know there are probably questions, so I'm just going to open it up. Maybe I'll go in order of seniority first and then we'll just, you know, be a free for all. Okay.

Go ahead, Rich. Do you have a reason for why Clayton is more than twice the average? She said it was 87% versus 40%. Is there something about Clayton that's unique?

Well, I did not collect that data. I mean, that would have been data collected by the city at that point in 2006. It's the buildings, it's the high rise buildings, that's why. I mean, if you looked at a place like Wildwood, they're going to have, I mean, every city is going to have a high percentage of their emissions coming from buildings because like I said, that's what's in a city, buildings.

It's 80% in the city of St. Louis. So it's not that unusual. The other thing is you aren't going to have industry to offset it.

Do you know what I'm saying? Like here, I can't think of any industry that's... That's emitting, whereas in the city, there's about 17% coming from industry. So it's just a matter of how it balances out.

That answers the question. Thank you. So benchmarking just looks at the building and asks people to measure it. There's no...

It's the BEPS part that starts putting some teeth into it. Is that correct? Correct, yeah. What is...

Generally speaking, how hard is that to do and what does it cost people to start measuring? I mean, in my opinion, it's really good. First of all, it's a building management best practice to be tracking your energy and water use. And even waste is becoming more and more common for people to track that because there are costs associated with all those things.

The tool that's available, Energy Star Portfolio Manager, free tool available to anyone who wants to use it. You could use it for your own home if you wanted to. And I think to set, and so there's, the only cost is really time, is someone's time to do it. But otherwise, there's not a cost.

And we've done that here. A bunch of, or a number of building owners, building managers have said to my folks, I've been trying to get my owner to notice this for years. I can save them money, you know. this actually helps me make building more efficient and makes them understand that they have to do it.

Thanks. Thanks. I was just going to ask, what are some examples of things that buildings do to save all that money? I mean, like, what are some of the, and so I wanted to ask that.

And then would we assume that newer buildings are going to be more efficient? Are there things that brand new buildings are not doing that they can do different? Yeah, great questions. We have a lot of I mean, we've got some new big buildings, obviously.

And we have a lot of new potential apartment buildings that will be coming on. So I'm just curious. Well, I so the first question, what can what can buildings do to impact their energy use and save money? You know, I like to think about, like the different things that are going on in buildings, right?

So the envelope of the building windows, doors, air sealing, that's a big you know, insulation, those kinds of things can make a big difference in saving energy. And then the systems, your heating and cooling, that's probably the largest energy user in your building. So having efficient systems and keeping them tuned up and changing air filters and, you know, all these things, some of it is really just also good operations and maintenance, which is also good for the people who are inside of buildings, good for air quality. And then lighting and appliances is the other kind of big chunk.

So taking a look at those things, I think I'm covering all the bases there. Chillers, I would say, is a big one. I mean, chillers, the technology on a chiller nowadays versus 20 years ago, things can last a long time. People don't really want to buy a new refrigerator if the old one's running, so they don't.

But the fact of the matter is, if they buy it, they'd save the cost of it in two years and then save all. So there's electric, lighting, all that stuff. And for sure, a newer building is typically going to be more efficient, especially because as we ratchet the code up, the energy standards should also be more efficient as well. And so yes, you will see more efficient newer buildings, but.

It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paying attention to their energy and what you also what you can also see with new buildings. If they're not kind of if they don't go through a commissioning process or a process at the end where. someone kind of makes sure that they're functioning the way they were designed to be functioning, things can go wrong during construction and during installation of things. I mean, I have seen some crazy pictures of things happening in buildings.

I mean, one example, when Bush Stadium was built, You know built they were dumping hot water down the drain right instead of recapturing that energy at one point, so that was like a system thing like something that was just happening people weren't paying attention somebody came in and did. kind of an audit of what was going on. And they were like, you are just dumping tons of, you know, you're wasting water and energy at the same time. Like this has to be fixed.

So, you know, there are lots of things that happen in the process of construction where it's really good to go back and take a look. So even if you think you've designed and built a very efficient building, there's still, we're all human. Yeah. Is it my turn?

Okay, thanks. This is excellent. Thanks so much for the presentation. I would wonder if a lot of what you have to do is education.

How do you get the building manager and then to the owner to know that buying a cooler will recoup that capital outlay within a couple years? It sounds like a lot of one-on-one analysis and getting people to listen and come on board. And what kind of processes did you need for that? And what kind of pushback, what kind of problems have you run into?

Education is kind of key. I mean, really in all of this. And I think there are some different support systems here in St. Louis that can be helpful in providing that.

USGBC has done a lot of education we've launched a new initiative called the Building Energy Exchange that is available to assist owners in addressing energy efficiency in their buildings and specifically working with buildings in the city, but it is a regional organization. So yeah, it does often take a lot of, one-on-one time. The other organizations that serve the building industry, the American Institute of Architects, the Building Owner and Manager Association, they all provide education to their members as well. So there's a lot of people out there doing that.

In terms of pushback, I don't know, do you have any specific thing to share? Our level of pushback has been minimal so far, a lot less than I expected. I think the important thing to do with any of this stuff for the public is to provide a level of service where people find a certain level of comfort that the government's doing this for a good reason. And we do have the benefit right now, I finally got three people on staff and then I have a secretary.

We're actually able to sit down with people, work with them, explain the whole process, explain why it's useful. You know, we don't really take the stick approach as much as the carrot approach. Ultimately, we could take the stick approach. And I'm not talking about fines and stuff.

We are the city's building division, so occupancy permits, all those kind of issuance could be tied to you not cooperating with us. So the residential side of it has been wonderful. All those big apartment buildings, they have jumped to it. And I think for all the right reasons too, they really get it.

They understand how it can affect their bottom line. So far so good. That's great. And I think you've laid the groundwork for the education.

It continues to build as you've done it. It makes it easier for us as we go forward with it. And I was also impressed with the input in the Citizens Committee that you guys have utilized. So thank you.

Thanks. I have a question around the performance standard. I was wondering about 65%, why was that chosen? Is that kind of like a general standard?

And also curious about how that, like what I'm thinking is what if you already have a relatively efficient building? Like, is that a lot more challenging and does the performance standard take that into account at all? Yeah, good question. I feel like that 65% was a little bit arbitrary when we were working on the legislation.

I mean, we could have said 50%. You know, it was a little bit like, you know, we know that one thing that we know, so the performance standard itself is the target that those buildings have to meet is based on local data, right? Data that has been submitted through benchmarking. And so basically, the city analyzed that data per building type and said, OK, office buildings are on the spectrum of efficiency.

And if you draw a line where 65% of the buildings have to improve, the ones who are above it, they don't have to do anything. But the ones who are below that, then they have to get up to that 65th percentile. So if you are efficient, then you're... Okay.

I didn't understand that that's what that meant. So that makes sense. So in that sense, it makes a lot of sense to gather the data through the benchmarking before maybe you decide how to set the performance standard. Correct.

Yeah. I mean, you could... Yeah. There are ways that you could do the legislation at the same time, but it was really helpful to have the benchmarking data to review, yeah.

But what else is important in this whole process was that by establishing this committee under as the building commissioner, I have nine different boards. We have basically established a 10th board. And this board is just like any other appeal board. Your board's an adjustment, or you guys do it probably here.

And if somebody for whatever reasons wants to appeal our decision on that, they have a route to go through. And the board can go ahead and overrule us then. Gives the citizens both input and the ability to make their argument. That's great.

Thank you. I was just wondering on the carrot versus stick issue, aside from the regulatory aspect, do you get all involved with incentivizing compliance either through some type of tax incentives or through zoning, or is this strictly a regulatory process? Strictly regulatory. You know, I don't want to go there.

I'm a civil servant. I don't go that route. We do, though, through the education side of things, try to help people connect with resources that exist to make their buildings more efficient. So the utilities have incentive programs that are available that are very useful.

And if people haven't used those already, those are available. As I mentioned earlier now, with all the Inflation Reduction Act opportunities rolling, we're trying to get up to speed so we can help people connect with those resources that exist. The state has a revolving loan fund for certain types of buildings, so trying to make sure people know what are the tools that are available to them. City, you know, they don't have the money to incentivize building owners in this space.

I think the incentive is the energy savings from my perspective. Yeah, there's going to be a great deal of profit for these building owners eventually, you know, in doing a lot of those programs. And, you know, and the beauty of this too is as it grows, You know, you know, I've talked with David and possibly guys, you know, could use the same website and everything else. There's a lot of things we could share to work together.

You know, building managers downtown manage buildings out here as well. So they'd probably appreciate that. thank you very much i think this has been fantastic i'm i know that um i'm hoping the sustainability committee will talk about this a little bit you can share i don't know if we had anybody else joining us online but maybe you can share some of this with them and i know emily do you have possibly time in your schedule to visit our sustainability committee too and walk through this and if there's yeah time in the new year to to come together i'm happy to happy to connect yeah I just think, I think one of the first things we'd want to do is just get a handle on kind of the size of our buildings downtown. Like what's the smallest commercial building?

What's the commercial and residential? What's the smallest, what's the biggest come up with sort of some ideas about what kind of parameters we would put on that and then start trying to maybe have some public conversations or some conversations with property owners and see what they would think. And so, and I think you said you have resources and things that we can use to sort of illustrate to them how this would work. I know I've looked at the website and you've got a lot of different fun little presentations on there that could be used.

So I think this is good. I will ask since you, we have our sustainability chair here, if you have any questions yourself or would like to Yeah, that's not a part of any of the legislation that the city has passed. I don't think so, at least as part of this legislation. The Energy Star portfolio manager tool does track.

You can use it to track waste, but it is a much more challenging, which is a much more I don't know, dynamic. There's so many different waste streams and it's just a different kind of picture altogether. Okay, thank you guys very much. All right, we have a couple minutes before seven.

So let's just take a quick break and we will start our meeting promptly at seven. Okay, come on. You don't want to be out there, do you? Want to go out?

Okay, go on. Go on. What else is there? That did no good at all.

You heard it, but Chief is still talking. I never use that, but when I have unruly guests, I have to bang the gavel. Okay. All right.

Well, welcome to our seven o'clock on December 13th and will the city clerk call the roll? Alderman Lentz. Alderman Berkowitz? Here.

I'm sorry, it was off. Alderwoman McAndrew? Here. Alderwoman Buse?

Here. Alderman Patel? Here. Aldermen Gary Feder?

Here. Mayor Harris? Here. City Manager David Gipson?

Here. City Attorney O'Keefe? Here. Thank you.

Great. Now we'd like to approve the minutes from November 8th, if I could have a motion. I will move to approve the minutes from November 8th. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good.

Now's the time for public requests and petitions from our listening and in-person audiences. Anybody who has a question or a comment about something that is not on our agenda tonight, now's your chance. I'm looking for hands anywhere and I see none. So we're gonna move right along into our joint discussion with the Clayton Community Foundation.

We'd like to welcome you here tonight. I see the president and the immediate past president with us just to say, we love you guys. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you do every day on behalf of bettering the city of Clayton. So with that, I will let the city manager give his report.

Yes, so this is a presentation first from the Clayton Community Foundation and then we'll have a conversation about a proposal we received from the Executive Director Alex Elmstead. We do have him online this evening and I believe he has the slides for the presentation and will walk us through it. David, is the floor mine? It is.

Take it away. Okay. Sorry I couldn't be there with you guys in person. I was actually really looking forward to seeing a lot of you in person, though my wife fell ill a little bit earlier, so I had to be Zooming from home here.

So I'm going to share my screen, and I'm going to take us through the deck. If June or Andrea can... Give me sharing privileges. We're working on it.

Sure. It should work now for you. Okay. Okay, just give me a minute.

Okay, so. I'm just gonna go through this deck and I'm gonna try to go through it pretty quickly actually. So there's actually time to go back and discuss any of the things that I might have gone over in actual discussion about kind of our approved projects and everything else. So I'm gonna try move through it pretty quick.

So if it seems like I'm moving quick, I am. So just a quick recap of 2022. It's been a good year. It's been a year for CCTF and it's been a good I think for the City of Clayton.

You know, we opened up the first mural in the city of Clayton at DeMunn Park. We've secured a gift for a new artwork at public artwork at East Wydown. As we speak, we are trying to get a public artwork in the Chapman Fountain, which is shut off on a seasonal basis because the fountain will freeze otherwise during the winter months. So it's to activate the fountain during these winter months, which was always a part of that larger project it's just you know there was so much with the project that it didn't move to that part so we're going to be getting that uh going and installed in the fountain and then it'll be in that fountain for every consecutive winter thereafter so it'll be a permanent installation and it's a collaboration with third degree glass and trocco fabrication The Hanley House continues to receive ongoing support from the community in various different pledges and maintenance and other different projects.

The new park on Maryland Avenue recently received a major gift for the Living Green Wall, a first for the city of Clayton. So I think it's gonna be a really great signature item for that park. We had a lot of things happen in July, you know the old pond and pavilion opened up in July Anderson Park which has been a project ongoing for a while, or the dog park in Anderson Park had opened up in July, again the demand mural opened up. Some other things that we're working on too is things like e-transportation initiatives and just kind of searching out grants and incentives and programs for that.

If you haven't seen where our new offices are, you can just kind of look right behind you. I'm usually back there most days so you can come say hi whenever you like. And then one of the big things too that we just recently completed is an FY21 audit. because we do this biannually, but we had just recently moved to a contract accounting firm.

So this was a pretty big move to kind of move off of the city's finances, be less reliant on the city finance department. So really kind of doing a lot of the accounting work in-house through the contract accounting firm. And then we're reaching kind of our three-year mark for our strategic plan. So we're going to be doing a lot of strategic planning refinements, I think, in the coming year and some strategic planning sessions.

And then this is just kind of a – this isn't all the projects, but I've separated here from pillars. Okay. A Bee Named Bubbles, if you weren't familiar with the name of the Robert Fishbone mural in DeMond Park. That's the title, community given title, by the way.

That's a rendering of the seasonal artwork from kind of a bird's eye view. It's really meant to incorporate nature and things like that. I actually think the leaves are going to be more of a amber color, which I think will be appropriate with the season. The first historic site marker at City Hall, this is one of many.

The next one to go up will be the Attucks School marker. It is already ordered and we are going to try to get that in the ground before Black History Month in conjunction with February. So assuming no delays, we'll have that at the bottom in Hanley kind of site. Clayton the man the place.

You can't see kind of in the background mayor's given a welcome remarks but that's the annual exhibition that opened up an amazing crowd and let's say it was great crowded crowd a lot of people can you can tell so many people. Don't be modest. There was press there, received press. There was a lot of good crowds.

And I like to say this about the Center of Clayton, too. There's no better place to have an exhibition. It's like having it in an airport. High traffic area, of course, with the school, educational, etc.

It is really the best place to have an Additionally, the Ralph Clayton portrait is now recontextualized. It is fully restored. You wouldn't think so, but there was a lot of smoke and soot from the room, so it really looks clean and good. Oak Knoll Pond Pavilion enhancements, as I had already mentioned, to the left, and then the opening of the dog park at Anderson Park, or reopening rather.

And then just e-transportation efforts, something the city's already has, which I think is really incredible and we should talk more about is those e-bikes for police. So I was originally going to be trying to get some more of those and solicit that type of opportunity for donors and sponsors to support not only the police, but e-bicycles, which is a transportation vehicle. And then planting trees, you know, through our enhanced Clayton program. We continue to be a tree city USA and it is, you know, a place of clean breathable air is more important than ever and parks are more important than ever.

So planting trees is more important ever for our community so that opportunity continues to exist. This is just kind of, I'm now moving into 2023. So kind of my proposed 2023 priorities separated out again from the pillars under art. You'll see the public art on Wydown Boulevard, the East End.

This is really focusing on through CCF art committee, had decided that it really is imperative that a new artwork is commissioned. And there's the appetite for it. Clayton has a lot of donors and art patrons that are interested in this type of engagement, so I think there's real interest in it. And it allows it for it to be site specific.

It allows it to kind of speak to the historic aspect of the area. You know, Whiteown Boulevard is named one of the most beautiful streets in America. So therefore, it deserves great art as well. And then public art aligned with the master plan.

There's so many opportunities and connections with various different art museums that are willing to lend more art to us. We just have to ask and align it with the master plan and make sure it all works for all parties involved. So those efforts are also underway. history, already saw the historic site markers, Hanley House, the century plaques, all of the homes in Clayton, if they're not already 100 years old, they're all turning 100.

So this is a really good opportunity for somebody to be able to showcase their residential home or building. It is both for homes, residential and commercial. The Enhance Clayton program really encompasses, I've kind of expanded this from just the tree and bench program to different opportunities from a water drinking fountain to historic marker to sponsorships of a community event or concerts to a flower basket in downtown. So all these various different opportunities, a tree, to allow to memorialize or to honor a loved one or a family member, but then also enhance the city.

The common study and project is an ongoing big one in terms of parks. And then in sustainability, e-transportations, as I talked about, and I've said this again and again, but I'm really making sure that I'm trying to advocate sustainability as a practice, less so as an object or an item, meaning Everything that we do has sustainable features or components in it, right? So whether it's a facility within parks that is LEED certified or whether it's planting a tree or whether it's cycling on the new Maryland park, how do we make sure that we're really talking about these things that we're already doing? and integrating it into all the different projects.

But I loved hearing about the benchmarking, and I can't wait. And I've been making sure that I've started to attend those sustainability committees so I can listen, learn, and contribute accordingly with sustainability and how the city wants to go forward. The water bottles and compost buckets is really more so an idea. We've done, of course, promo giveaway items with water bottles, and it's a sustainability feature.

They're, of course, popular. And then the compost buckets... having to do with trash and the current vendor is really, again, another idea and the possibility of doing a promo item. Since the current trash vendor allows compost pickup with yard waste, it would be a way to brand or to do a giveaway to various people that would want one to compost.

And then you could brand it CCF and yada, yada, yadda. And then they could put it underneath their sink and then dump it into their yard waste on a weekly basis. So this is just, I'm trying to do things that we are doing preexisting city-wise and not trying to reinvent the wheel and also trying to advocate for things again that we're already doing but we're not maybe touting loudly enough. So, okay, I'm almost done, I promise.

CCF is celebrating its 15th anniversary in 2023. So, you know, with some discussion at our last board meeting we really talked about launching an awareness campaign, you know, a campaign to really draw public visibility and awareness about the nonprofit spread our mission why it matters show supporters how they can get involved, etc. One of the, jumping kind of ahead of myself, but one of the things that we've learned is our annual donors and giving is around maybe three to 5% of Clayton households. It should be 100%, but I think in 2023, it might be a good ambitious goal to at least shoot for 50%.

So of Clayton households, not necessarily every individual, but of Clayton households And some of the significant items that are kind of upcoming are we found very successful is hosting what we call salons and donors homes. You know, people want to see each other's houses and they also want to network with each other. This allows for, of course, awareness of the organization and people give to other people. So oftentimes if their friends are giving to this organization, they're other friends will join in.

So this is a successful model that really increases really donors, but also awareness of the organization. COVID kind of stopped that. And this is really in promotion with the corresponding Clayton Neighborhoods video series that we've put out. So this allows it to kind of traffic both online, but also physically.

And then some people, I have not been a part of this, but the party of the century, I didn't go to the first one, but we've been talking about a party of the century part two. And the last party was really focused on the past of Clayton and thinking about how this can focus on its future. And that would be in November. So really, after all the salons that we hosted throughout the months in 2023, this would be kind of the capstone.

Showcasing all the comprehensive portfolio of CCS completed projects, fundraising of the Clayton Commons, Shaw Park. And then really using all of the above mentioned things to launch or establish a plan for launching an operating expense endowment and campaign. So I've included this just more so so you can see that we do have a strategic plan. We have, of course, Board of Aldermen liaisons that see this every single meeting.

But I am more than willing to share this with all the aldermen so they can kind of get a snapshot and see the various different objectives that we have both on a short-term and long-term basis. And then this is just really honing in on our infrastructure and our operations. So you can kind of see how we're thinking about things from governance to internal affairs to external affairs and various different goals. Dave Kuntz, i'm not going to stay too far into this, but I can jump back like I said as I, as I have questions so in my deck i've included our current approved project list just for reference, but I am going to open it up to.

discussion. Thank you. All right, any questions about anything that's been presented here thus far? No, okay.

No, I think we're all on track. So what is this plan for discussing the agreement? So the next item, the second item under this discussion is related to the agreement. So there's an agreement currently in place that states that CCF will be expected to incur 75% of all costs associated with the administrator for fiscal year 2023 so that's the current fiscal year uh for all the years thereafter uh they would incur 100 of the costs uh so we've had some conversations and i see uh mr whitlock coming to the microphone now uh the current president of ccf and i'm sure he can talk about this a little bit uh we had said had some discussions with them and and they had uh expressed a desire to uh continue that contribution uh in the future and um So we'll talk through that just a little bit.

The request as it was made and as we've discussed it is an amount roughly equivalent to half of the administrator or the executive director as they're going to change the title. 50% of that salary going forward. When you factor in benefits, that's roughly $50,000 a year. So I'll let Cordell walk through it a little bit and explain the proposal.

There was a proposal in the packet that had been drafted by Mr. Elmstead. So hopefully everybody had a chance to look that over and kind of see what the thinking is there. But I'll turn it over to their current president and he can introduce the proposal just a little bit.

And I'm not going to get into everything that CCF does. I mean, Alex just spent 10 to 15 minutes talking about the value we bring to the city. And I think it's important to remember, it's not just the city that we do projects for. I mean, whether it's a playground or art or sustainability or the Ralph Clayton historical exhibit, we stress an inclusive environment.

And we hope that folks from across the region, across the country who come to our community, for lack of a better term, enjoy the fruits of our labor. But if you just look at the projects in your packet, Alex's salary more than pays for itself. And I think now more than ever, CCF's role is critically important. When you talk about promoting that public-private partnership, giving the current economic climate, we at CCF think it's more than fair to ask the city to contribute half of Alex's salary.

So if there are any particular questions, you know, about the proposal that hits runs and errors or anything else regarding this request, please fire away. I'll just go around in order and see if we have questions. I think the only bigger question I have, not so much on the specifics of it, which I know all have been useful, If I don't ask, she will. Is to have you just comment on the effort to get CCF more independent of the city and what policies and program, what efforts you're making in that direction?

It's a fair question and Alex can, you know, fill in the really major strokes. But I will say, for instance, in terms of our accounting, we used to rely on the city for our accounting. We took that all off your hands. And now that is all handled internally.

And when we took this to David, his first question was one of a question about or concern about transparency and exactly what you know, what Alex's role is in a salary that's going to be partially funded by taxpayers. And I think we came to an agreement that met the smell test, for lack of a better term. We had our attorney, Hannah Kim, take a look at it. David took a look at it and I think it's important to remember that I know that COVID affected you all first and foremost, with sales tax or lack thereof.

I have to remember when Alex started, I believe he started in 2019, right before COVID. So we literally, I like to joke that CCF was started by Judy Goodman and Gary Feder and others in a garage 15 years ago, and that's not too far from the truth. So we went from an all-volunteer organization to one that had an executive director And then six months later, COVID hit. And that obviously affected us.

We're just learning how to work with this executive director. And so it certainly put a wrench in some of our plans. Alex, aside from the accounting duties that I mentioned, you want to talk about some other ways that we're working on becoming more independent of the city? Yeah, the website is a big one for me because I think it's in both our interests to be separate in all those regards.

You know, I don't ever want us to feel as though we're a fundraising arm of the municipal government. You know, we are the official partner of the government, you know, and of the city of Clayton. So it's important that we had our own separate website to which we do now. The transactions, not only this relates to the website, the transactions go through our transaction platform online and otherwise.

So everything is separate in that regard. The city helps, of course, with all things financial matters as it pertains to deposits and checks and balances and things like that. And we still require that and we need that oversight. But it is separate from a donor's perspective, both internally and externally.

And the website is just a huge, huge tool which allows us to further showcase the various different projects that CCF has been involved in for the past 15, 14 plus years. Thank you. Irma, you're up to bat. Do you have any comments or questions?

Yeah, is this asked for, is it just for a year or two, or is this something you're looking for basically forever? I believe it's a three-year agreement. Alex, is that correct? Yeah, I had wrote in it as three years.

But just like with any of our agreements, CCF, city, aldermen can always come and say, let's talk through this. This is why we have these annual meetings. And this is why we continue to be in sync. So if there's anything that ever feels as though it's out of sync or not correct then then we're able to have those conversations and rewrite it the I'd like to just kind of expand on the the question a little bit Ira you know the the agreement as I've kind of written it is is not similar to this percentage where it's like this 50 percent to 75 percent to 100 percent you know it's kind of a whole different model meaning in the proposed agreement, you know, I'm working 10 hours for the city a week doing grants.

So instead of CCF, me writing those particular grants and then the nonprofit securing those grants and then it going to the city, I would work with those particular department directors and the various different initiatives and programs and opportunities out there both on a state, federal and local level to secure possible opportunities and grants. So that and that would go directly to the city, not to CCF. So this is a different kind of proposed model and structure. Additionally, the operations piece, similar to jumping off of what David and Cordell talked about is, you know, it's It's meant for the city to reimburse operating expenses, not necessarily the salary and benefits of an executive director that acts as the solicitor.

If that makes sense. Yeah, thank you. Ira, any further questions there? I'm just digesting it at this point.

So I could probably call Alex anytime I want, so. and come back to you. Bridget, comments, questions? Yeah, you know, and I don't even, this certainly isn't a matter of fairness or anything.

I mean, CTEF does an incredible amount for the city. I mean, it's unbelievable, you know, all the different projects that CTEF has done. I mean, I was the Aldermanic liaison for a couple of years. It stopped about a year and a half ago.

And, you know, there was this goal to be independent So I guess I'm just curious, is it, and the goal obviously was to have some sort of endowment that would ultimately pay for Alex's salary. Is that still the ultimate goal? And as COVID kind of just slowed donations down that CCF can't be ultimately financially independent from the city at this point. Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up.

So when, as I mentioned, when Alex was hired, Six months later, we had COVID. We put together these series of fantastic videos on each of the neighborhoods in Clayton. And the plan was to launch these videos at cocktail parties and start this grassroots effort to really spread the word. Because I still think as an organization, we're struggling with the profile.

I don't think the average person knows who we are. And if they do, frankly, they probably attach us to city government. So I think one of the more important roles Alex has as we get our legs underneath us as a grown folks organization is that fundraising piece. And as he mentioned in his presentation, one of the things we are starting in February are these parlors where we're going to go from neighborhood to neighborhood and actually play the video and explain to people what CCF is.

So eventually, yes, we would like to be a financially self-sustaining organization. That is obviously the goal. And we're in the process now of building up a donor database, building up our social media presence, but that stuff takes time. And we certainly would have been farther along if we hadn't lost the two and a half years to COVID because six months in, we were in the same boat as everyone else.

So eventually I would like to not have to come up here or have the president of Clayton Community Foundation have to come up to ask for this 50-50 split, but we're still getting our financial legs underneath us and learning to harness the resource we have in an executive director. All right, Susan, any comments, questions? Yeah, and thanks Alex and Cordell for talking about that because it was originally thought to be independent. And we do need to understand that given that I'm also, I have to say, having been the liaison here and sitting in these meetings, I am so impressed with Alex and with the leadership with you Cordell and everybody else, everybody really who's been contributing and what they're doing.

And you mentioned that going from a 3% giving to 50%, which is a huge goal. And I agree, I think a part of it is establishing in our community that understanding that this is a separate organization. And as you do that, you all explained it very well, that getting your feet on the ground and being independent I think is a much more viable possibility. I'm also excited in the proposal that there will be assistance with the city finding grants with our staff working so hard and so many things, and having other eyes to help capture those opportunities could be really, really, really helpful and we'll have the data to see it to see how all that goes.

So, it, it all sounds good to me. And I appreciate the work that's been done. So thank you. Very good.

Thanks. Becky, any thoughts? Yeah, I have three areas of question or comment. So first I'm curious about if there's anything that our city manager or city attorney can share about what appears to me to be a like new or changed concern on the part of the city as it relates to the nature of this agreement and position.

in order to get that advice, I think we'd probably rather do that in a closed session to talk through the details of that. Okay. As a legal matter. Okay.

So noted that we would, I would like to see that happen. And then the other thing, two things. So The, I see two basic changes to the agreement from my perspective. One is this reframing this idea that the executive director of CCF is actually dedicating some period of time for quote unquote city work.

And my initial response to that is that that actually seems to further blur the lines and complicate the matter in when it comes to the idea of viewing the two organizations as separate, but like separate organizations that partner together. So I just would wanna understand more about that. I think David, can you address that real quick? That comment?

And that somewhat relates to what we would talk about as far as the breakdown of that work. I think if we're paying for work that's being done expressly for the city, and that's what we're trying to get to. We certainly don't see any issue with that type of arrangement. That's the preferred arrangement if we're going to contract with an agency or contribute to an agency.

We want work done specifically for the city. All right. And then just the nature of the agreement seems to be changing so that there's two parts to it. There's like a portion of the cost of compensation, wages and benefits paid by CCF to the city.

Ben, I'm seeing this other thing about CCF annual operating expenses to be paid by the city and I want to be clear about whether that's an actual transfer of funds or a documentation of the value of those things which we recognize the city is providing. Yeah, I'm going to try to answer that one, Becky. What I see it as is at the moment, CCF is budgeting for those various different operating expenditures. So things like filing of taxes or director's insurance and things like that, some real basic operating costs that we budget for.

I believe those probably could be offered mostly in kind by the city, but the technicalities of it, I guess I would have to defer to the city and finance department and David and things like that. I see it as more of an in-kind than it is a cash reimbursement type of situation. Yeah. And I think that's something we need to work out as far as how that agreement would be worded.

Uh, I do, you know, we did put the proposal in the packet so that everybody could see that and review it. Um, I do think if we put that into an actual MOU form, um, to be a third amendment to the MOU that we have, that's already been established with CCF, uh, it would probably take a little bit different shape, but that's something we would need to spell out in there exactly how that works. Um, John Potter, Additionally, I do think it could be as simple as just you know, adding additional time saying that will contribute X amount and that contribution goes to these specific things and try to make that language as easy as possible. John Potter, So if that's something that the board wants to pursue if that's the direction ultimately then we'll get together with with CCF and put it again in a form similar to that that existing mo you.

Thanks. um i would just like add generally i um support the clayton community foundation as a resident and as a member of the board and a member of our larger salos community um and i would just like to look at like how this just actually seems to be further complicating the matter to me a grapple with that and understand it and see if there's anything else we can do to continue to simplify it. Okay, great. Thank you.

Alderman Gary Feder, anything? Well, I would agree that obviously having been involved with CCF for almost from the beginning, Judy Goodman was in the garage without me, but I did join a year later. So I want to do everything possible to help CCF. I agree.

I think the reframing needs some more thought. I'm always trying to think of the ways to do things more simply than more complicated. So to the extent that we have an arrangement where it was 50-50 and now suddenly it's 75-25, seems to me the easiest way is to continue 50-50 for a couple more years without starting to make payments. And it just seems to me unnecessarily complicated.

So I hope we can find an easier way to do that. I think historically people should understand, at least when we started, the city essentially provided 100% of all the support for the organization and did for a long time. And so we're clearly moving in the right direction, both as a city and CCF to go from a hundred percent to 50, 50. I mean, that's a major step forward.

Adding Alex was a great move, but that also added expense. So that makes it a little bit more complicated, but you know, I hope we can figure something out. I'd like to see us continue the 50, 50 support, um, I think to some extent, we want to try to figure out some way to incentivize CCF to try to work on this issue of how do you raise money for operational funds? It's a tough challenge.

I mean, I can say we did extremely well in these 15 years with capital improvement projects because you build things, people can put their name on it. It's a sexy donation. You know, raising money for operations is never easy and So that's a challenge and it will always, it will continue to be a challenge. But so I hope we can figure out a way to get there.

And part of the, I think the conundrum that we found in fundraising is the more people see CCF as part of the city, the harder it is to get particularly individuals who live here to contribute because they're figuring, hey, if it's part of the city, I pay taxes. Why should I contribute? So somehow we've got to somehow continue to emphasize the independence of CCF if you're going to raise money from the general public. And so that's a problem that has to be dealt with.

But again, I love CCF. I want to see it succeed. $10 million raised. or a few places in the United States can claim what CCF has done.

So we should do everything we can to support it. We just need to work out the details. Great. I agree with everything.

I just, again, commend you guys for all your hard work. I do know that you pay for yourself over and over again, so that's not the question. I think the question is purely one of transparency and trying to make sure that... that we do achieve that separate, you know, not only reality, but perception.

I will say that, you know, we've been working together on the big project, the commons, and we started fundraising for that right before COVID hit. And I will say all fundraisings came to a grinding halt right then. And we did nothing until just recently. And so I think I understand how that impacted the organization.

And so it really wasn't a time when you could do much toward your endowment planning, et cetera. I will also say that we kind of started out with this thing with the, not the executive director, but the staff person half and half by working half on Hanley house and then which was the city park and then half on getting CCF up and running. And so this is not a totally new arrangement here. So I'm comfortable with that.

So I would like to say, I know we can move forward. It sounds like everyone is supportive in terms of finalizing the proposal and the nuts and bolts of it. But I would like to make sure that in your strategic plan for this year then, we end that process with a plan to get the endowment started, a concrete plan for that. I think that's something that would just, it's good for you.

It's good for us to see. And I think it's important and I'm giving you a little deadline for it. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Okay. Oh, we have a hand. Excuse me. Thank you, Jim.

Kathleen Gund, would you like to comment? Your mic is off. Yes, I would. Thank you, Mayor Harris.

This is Kathleen Gund. I live at 329 North Bemiston Avenue. I am very impressed with what Clayton Community Foundation has brought to our community. I also understand that there are hurdles that have been put in place by COVID and that affected fundraising.

However, I think that the idea that in the next few years there would be a fundraising initiative to put an endowment together that the earnings on that endowment would support operations is That sounds like it would be the plan, but until that point, I think it would be more practical for CCF to take the steps to add administrative costs or fees onto donor donations. For example, you have a community member who would like to spend six figures to improve a park, put their name on a plaque. that that donation would not be, let's say $100,000 and we spend $100,000 on this project. It would be, you know, we have operations that need to be supported.

We will put $90,000 towards the project and we will take 10% for our administrative costs because that would be a way for CCF to professionalize themselves to educate their donors that there are costs beyond just the, quote, capital costs of what they're doing for some of these large donations. I've spoken about this to Alex before, and it's the way in the grant world having administrative costs attached to a grant is not unusual. In fact, it probably happens more often than not. And I think that CCF should explore those options.

It would require educating donors, but I think that it would also serve to let people know that CCF is its own organization with their own expenses. And thank you for listening. Thanks, Kathleen. Kathleen and Mayor, do you mind if I respond to that?

Oh, no, go right ahead. So thank you so much. That's one of the things that we also are making sure that we're doing more of is writing financial policy and also investment policy. So one of the things There's a financial policy that does dictate that.

So the policy is set at actually 10%. So if there is a restricted gift, 10% of that does go to operations costs. There's a threshold. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I think it's $10,000 and above is 5%.

and then a $100,000 gift or more or negotiated by the donor is at 2.5%. So those policies have been adopted, they've been approved, and they are now fully implemented by this organization. And that started in 2021. And we'll continue to make sure that we're doing that.

Additionally, as I just alluded to our investment policy, this is something that we need to do better at because when we receive a gift, we need to understand what investments we're making and what type of uh, earned revenue that we could have from those potential investments and gifts. So, uh, that, that just takes time and that takes a little bit of leadership and direction, of course, from a treasurer and people that know much, much more about financial policy and investment policy than myself. But, uh, those people are on our board and, uh, we're going to be working towards that, uh, in the new year to make sure that, um, that is sound and that revenue is increasing so that just begs one little question and i don't want to belabor it just to ask and maybe it's just something for you to think about or something but you know i know that with with capital gifts now depending on what it is we want to include um for sustaining that gift over time. So Chapman Plaza has a capital investment to build it, but also has an ongoing resource for improvements, repairs, whatever else needs to be done.

So is your policy on this, is it inclusive of that and CCF expenses or is it just one or the other? Or do you have that separated out? Like, are you referring to like, for example, like the maintenance endowment that we hold for Chapman? Yes.

Yeah. So usually if we receive, for example, a stock gift, we'll sell that immediately. But if there is an agreement, which is a specific thing as it pertains to stock gift or an investment gift. I mean, we would have to review that based upon a case-by-case scenario and decide through the treasurer what we would be doing with that and how we would be utilizing it.

It's all case-by- case depending upon the particular donor and the donor interest in the particular project, but it's all on the table. So just to put this in your hopper, I think with your financial policy, it would be great if you included some language about some consistency of policy around capital gifts that are gonna end up requiring ongoing maintenance, that it's sort of automatic that either a certain percent or you have a process for determining what that ongoing maintenance amount would be. And then also separately, I think expenses of fundraising funds CCF expenses, if you're going to give a percentage for that, you know, that would be a sort of a seems to me a sort of a separate part of your financial policy. And so that would be great to do.

Yeah. Noted. Yeah. Very good.

All right. Anything else from anyone, anything else Cordell that you would like to say? Yeah. All right.

Thank you very much. Great discussion. Thank you. Thanks all.

Okay. Very good. At this point, we'll go on with, oh, sorry. I need to look at my screen more.

Hank Winkleman would like to make a comment. Go ahead, Hank. I appreciate the opportunity to view the presentation. I hope you're hearing what I'm saying.

We can hear you. I found it very discouraging. I found it. It basically is dealing with the city of Clayton.

In essence, stepping back from the responsibility of city planning. Standing back from the responsibility managing our assets. and providing it to this organization that I've got to say, I read questions about or discouragements about having lived here as long as I had. So I just want the most careful consideration of what the city of Clayton's planning process will be and how it doesn't get mixed up with let's call it other initiatives of developers and others.

Very, very uncomfortable to watch. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Hank. Can I say one thing?

And very much appreciating that comment because we all have to stay aware of that at all times. But one of the impressive things about CCF, which I think Cordell and Alex both addressed, is that a lot of the direction is taken to make sure that the efforts are supporting and interweaving and strengthening where the city is hoping to take us anyway, the vision that the city has. in taking the comment from Mr. Winkelmann and keeping that in mind is I think helps CCF continue to be that, to play that role in our city, helping us be stronger with the vision that we all share and not going off on tangents with a special interest or something else.

So thanks. Yeah, very good. Thank you. All right.

I think with that, we've concluded our CCF discussion. And we'll now move into our public hearing. So the first item here is a subdivision plat at 6602 Alamo. I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

Yes, this is a public hearing and subsequent ordinance to consider approving a subdivision plat for the division of one lot into four lots. All lots have a zoning designation of R5 medium low density multifamily residential district. The subject property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection between Alamo Avenue and St. Rita Avenue.

Construction of four townhomes on the existing lot is underway. The development was originally approved as a condominium-style development where all four townhomes would be located on one lot. The developer is now proposing a subdivision plat to allow for the development of the four townhomes and fee simple lots. The proposed plat conforms to the subdivision regulations and the R5 district standards.

The plan commission considered this request. at its November 21st, 2022 meeting and voted 5-0 to recommend approval with the two conditions contained in the ordinance. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance with the conditions set forth in the attachment. And we do have our Director of Planning on a crane here this evening as well as the applicant.

Yes. I will open the discussion. First, I will close the public hearing and open the discussion. Would you...

Julian, would you like to say anything, address the board about the project? I'm Julian Hess and I'm pleased to represent 6611 Partners in our development of four town homes at the corner of Alamo and St. Rita. Very good.

Any comments or questions from the audience? No, any comments, questions from the board? Nobody, no. Okay, great.

Thank you. All right, Alderman Lentz. I'll introduce Bill 6925 to approve a subdivision plot for 6602 Alamo to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6925, first reading an ordinance providing for the approval of a plot to subdivide certain property located on Alamo Avenue in the city of Clayton, Missouri.

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

I'll move the board give unanimous consent for consideration of adoption of Bill 6925 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed. All right, let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent. Then I'll introduce Bill 6925 to approve a subdivision plot for 6602 Alamo to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any further discussion? All right, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6925, second reading and consideration for adoption.

An ordinance providing for the approval of a plat to subdivide certain property located on Alamo Avenue in the city of Clayton, Missouri. Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermwoman Buse.

Aye. Alderon Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Aye. And Mayor Harris. Aye. Thank you.

All right, next would be the outdoor dining. Oh, you're welcome. Oh, excuse me, I was just thinking of something. Okay, yes, I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

This is a public hearing to consider amending the outdoor dining section of the city's zoning regulations to allow temporary tents over outdoor dining space located on private and or public property. Outdoor dining is permitted year-long on public and or private property as an accessory used to a restaurant that has indoor seating. As an emergency effort during the COVID-19 pandemic, the city launched an outdoor dining temporary tent program. The program was utilized by a variety of restaurants throughout the city.

After discussions with various restaurant owners and landlords, staff is proposing to make the temporary tent program a permanent option. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit documents for review as part of an outdoor dining permit. The planning department has discretion to issue the permit, refer the matter to the architectural review board, or deny any outdoor dining permit application. Temporary tents as part of this permit would be reviewed by the building division, the fire department, and public works department, in addition to the planning staff.

All existing provisions for outdoor dining areas, including location and operation, would apply to the placement and design of a temporary tent. The plan commission considered this request at its meeting on November 21st and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Staff recommends the Board of Aldermen approve the amendment as proposed. And I did receive a question or two on my board calls this week about this.

Mainly when we say this is a permanent option, it doesn't mean that the tents can be up all year. The regulations that are in the permanent ordinance are the regulations that we had used in the temporary program and the ordinance, the way it is written would permit the tents essentially from November until the end of March each year. So they wouldn't be up year round. Just wanted to clear that up.

We do have Gary Carter, our director of economic development here this evening, as well as on a crane. Very good. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments from anybody?

No, I had that one question which David answered. That was it. Okay, very good. All right then, then I will close the public hearing and Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6926 to approve an amendment to section 405.3990 outdoor dining to allow for temporary tents to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6926, first reading and ordinance amending chapter 405 zoning regulations, article 29 outdoor dining section 405.4010 to allow temporary tents over outdoor dining areas. Good. All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz. Can I just ask a question before we go on?

What you cited was different than what I did or am I confused? No, sir, that's correct. The agenda short... Wait, I'm confused?

You're confused and I changed it. Are both correct. The shorthand on the agenda is of a prior draft of the material and the language which I read is the language of the bill. I'd also point out that for reasons...

which defy my understanding, there are missing letters from the document attached to the agenda. So I apologize for that. I have no idea what the computer decided to do with some of the letters, but I thought we didn't need them all apparently. So it is section 405.4010.

4010, okay. I see. I see. Okay.

Then I will move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6926 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? All right. Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

Then I will introduce Bill 6926 to approve an amendment to Section 405.4010... outdoor dining to allow for temporary tents to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion?

All right, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6926, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending chapter 405 zoning regulations, article 29 outdoor dining section 405.4010 to allow temporary tents over outdoor dining areas.

Alderman Lynch. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye.

Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right, moving on the well a car is looking at a CUP and I wanted to note that this is listed as a public hearing but it's actually not a public hearing so we will go forth with the city manager. Yes, Mayor. This is an application for a conditional use permit amendment submitted by Polly of BL Hospitality LLD doing business as a car restaurant owner to allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant into an adjacent tenant space. The existing restaurant space measures approximately 400 square feet with an additional outdoor dining area.

The proposed expanded restaurant measures 1,280 square feet. The proposed expansion area would provide an additional 26 indoor seats. Other than the expansion, changes to the operation of the restaurant or COP are not being requested. Expansion of the use is considered a major amendment to the conditional use permit and therefore requires approval by the Board of Aldermen.

Staff recommends that the Board of Alderman approve a conditional use permit for the operation of a car located at 7641 Y-Down Boulevard per the conditions outlined in the resolution. All right, thank you. I'll open the discussion. Any questions or comments?

Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz. I'll move to approve resolution 2022-27, granting a conditional use permit for a car restaurant located at 7641 Wydown Boulevard. Second.

Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Okay, very good. Moving on to first watch. Yes, this is a public hearing. Oh, we'll need to do the public hearing language on this.

Oh, that's right. Okay, I'm sorry. It looked just like a CUP and I just asked that question, but I forgot. Yeah, I will open the public hearing and request proof of publication.

This is a public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit submitted by Emily Roberts of Consolidated Development Services on behalf of First Watch Restaurants Incorporated to allow for the operation of a 4,802 square foot restaurant with an outdoor dining area. First Watch will be open seven days a week from 7 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. The restaurant concept is a full-service sit-down restaurant open for breakfast and lunch.

The applicant has stated an intent to apply for a liquor license. The restaurant will have 130 indoor seats and 22 outdoor seats. The proposed restaurant is located in a mixed-use building known as Foresight Point, which is on Foresight Boulevard, which includes additional restaurant and retail spaces, office tenants, and a parking garage. The subject property was developed with an onsite parking garage sized to provide enough parking to support the various uses on the site.

The applicant has stated that employee parking has been secured. Deliveries to the restaurant will be made using the loading dock facilities off the alley. Plan Commission considered this request at its meeting on November 21st and voted unanimously to recommend approval as requested. Staff recommends that the Board of Aldermen approve a conditional use permit for the operation of First Watch located at 8001 Forsyth Boulevard per the conditions outlined in the resolution.

Very good. Any discussion? Okay, well, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and Alderman Lentz. I move to approve Resolution 2022-28, granting a conditional use permit for First Watch Restaurant located at 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, which happens to be where they used to be located.

Seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? Okay, very good. Now we're ready for the city manager report. Thank you, Mayor.

The current ordinance relative to the designation of a prosecuting attorney states that the city attorney shall designate one assistant city attorney as prosecutor who shall represent the city and prosecute all cases in the municipal court and perform such other services as requested by the city attorney. The Clayton Charter states that the Board of Aldermen shall provide by ordinance for such assistant city attorneys, as it may be necessary, who shall be appointed and may be removed by the city attorney with approval of the Board of Alderman. The Board of Alderman believes that creating a separate office with responsibility for enforcement of city ordinances and prosecution of ordinance violations under the city manager will better align this important municipal function with the values of the city and more clearly delineate organizational responsibility and oversight for that activity. The attached ordinance would amend the prosecutor designation process to state that the prosecuting attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the city manager with the consent of the Board of Aldermen.

This action would consequently shift oversight of the position from the city attorney to the city manager. Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. Very good. I'll open the discussion.

Anyone in the audience? I don't see any hands. Anybody on the board? Rich?

Any comment? Nope. Bridget? Ira?

No comment. Susan? No, the only thing I can say is this is something that the Equity Commission in looking at this big picture and structure of government and accessibility of positions had raised. And staff has looked at it very carefully and thoroughly and professionally as has the board.

And I'm glad we're moving forward on it. Thank you. Great, thanks for mentioning that. Alderman Gary Feder, anything?

No comment, thanks. Okay, very good. Alderman Lentz. I'll introduce Bill 6927 to approve an amendment to Chapter 110, enacting a new Section 110-060, designating a prosecutor to be read for the first time by title only.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Very good. Alderman Linz. Bill number 6927, first reading and ordinance amending the Clayton City Code. Wait a minute.

Don't we have to do the unanimous consent piece first? He has to read it. He has to read the first reading first. I'm sorry.

Well, that isn't on. So very good. All right. Oh, here it is.

I crossed it out. I'm sorry, you guys. I'm racing ahead. Very good, Mr.

City Attorney. You go right ahead. Bill number 6927. First reading and ordinance amening the Clayton City code regarding the Office of Municipal Prosecuting Attorney.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Now, Alderman Lentz.

I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6927 on the day of its introduction. Second. Sorry. All those in favor.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Let the minutes reflect the board has given unanimous consent.

then I will introduce Bill 6927 to approve an amendment to Chapter 110, enacting a new Section 110-060, designating a prosecutor to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Mr. City Attorney.

Bill number 6927, second reading and consideration for adoption, an ordinance amending the Clayton City Code regarding the Office of Municipal Prosecuting Attorneys. Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz.

Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Buse.

Aye. Aldewomen Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder.

Aye. And Mayor Harris. Aye. All right, the weapons and firearms amendment.

As the city of Clayton recognizes the increasing rate of gun violence in the United States, the state of Missouri prohibits municipalities from enacting firearm legislation outside the strict and limited scope permitted by the General Assembly. The Board of Aldermen has expressed a strong desire to update the city's firearm regulations and enforce every measure available to reduce or prevent gun violence. The attached ordinance updates the city's firearm regulation to conform with Missouri state law and adds a provision to the Code of Ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a firearm or similar deadly weapon without a valid carry concealed firearms license. This provision would not apply to state, county, or municipal peace officers.

Very good. I just want to say that as someone who kind of promoted this in the beginning, I'm really glad that we were able to get something on the books. I've been involved a little bit regionally with the crime matters and working closely with chief and other chiefs. I really, you know, we really are all frustrated about our ability to tackle the crime problem, especially since so many of our minors are involved carrying weapons.

And so I'm glad we're able to do this and anything we can do to support our public safety officers is super important because honestly, I sort of fear for your safety sometimes. So this is a great step forward, even though it's like not, it's kind of small, but it's a step forward that it's a step that we can take. So any comments or questions on it? Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6928 to approve an amendment to Chapter 215 related to weapons and firearms to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr.

City Attorney. Bill number 6928, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 215 of the Clayton City Code relating to weapons and firearms. All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, all in the minutes. I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration of adoption of Bill 6928 on the day of its introduction. Second.

All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Okay, let the minutes reflect.

The board is giving unanimous consent. And I'll introduce Bill 6928 to approve an amendment to Chapter 215 related to weapons and firearms to be read for the second time by Title Omen. Second. Any other discussion?

Okay, Mr. City Attorney. Bill number 6928, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending Chapter 215 of the Clayton City Code relating to weapons and firearms.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermwoman Buse. Aye.

Aldemwoman Patel. Aye. Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. All right, an amendment to debarment for debarment. Yes, the city of Clayton expends great effort to be sure that public money is expended.

efficiently and that work performed meets the community's ideals and standards. The code of ordinances does not currently have any provisions to prevent irresponsible or poorly performing vendors from bidding and contracting with the city for future projects and services. The attached ordinance contains provisions for the debarment or suspension of vendors and establishes the reasons, procedures, effects, and length of debarment of vendors. This is a common provision found in municipal ordinances and purchasing policies.

staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. Very good. Any discussion? Just a question.

When you say it's a common one, is it kind of word for word what other people used or did we make any changes to it that are unique to Clayton? The principles here are not uncommon. I used several municipal models around the state and incorporated what I believe was both the efficacy and simplicity to try and balance that so that there's due process consideration with effective enforcement and adequate delineation of grounds with a delineation of remedies. So I kind of like this approach hybrid from the sources that I looked at.

But the concept, it's not every city that has this. It's generally cities with more sophisticated operations such as Clayton has. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Oh, I have a hand. All right. Mr. Berland.

Go ahead. Thank you. A quick question, and that is, if a vendor is disbarred, is that a lifetime or is there a time period for his or her not being able to submit proposals? So there is no specific length of debarment within the ordinance.

As it's written, debarment shall be for a period commensurate with the seriousness of the cause. So during that due process, the city attorney had referred to the length of that debarment would be established or potentially the suspension. And there is a provision in the length of debarament that also says that it should not exceed three years. Thank you.

But then if you read the next however if circumstances weren't could be longer, but I would think that that would be an experiment in a really extreme circumstance. Thank you. Okay, good question. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board. I have, I just want to be i'm not sure that if this is spelled out and i'm not suggesting it should be but. Is it the case that the city manager would be the one determining that a department is going to be issued like that that notice will be served like presumably would a department head or finance bring that to you and then you would make that determination and proceed. That's exactly right.

Yeah, okay, thanks. With an appeal process. Yeah, I see the appeal process. So that seems clear to me.

There's an initial determination of eligibility and likelihood of debarment, then a hearing before the city manager, then an appeal if the vendor wishes. Thank you. Okay. All right, if there are no other comments, Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce Bill 6929 to approve an amendment to Chapter 100 related to the suspension and debarment of vendors to be read for the first time by title only. Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr.

City Attorney. Bill number 6929, first reading and ordinance amending Chapter 100 of the Clayton City Code relating to suspension and debarament of vendors. All right. All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Alderman Lentz.

I'll move the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6929 on the day of its introduction. Second. Second. All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? Okay, let the minister reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

Then I'll introduce Bill 6929 to approve an amendment to Chapter 100 related to suspension and debarment of vendors to be read for the second time by title only. Second. Any discussion? City Attorney.

Bill number 6929, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance amending chapter 100 of the Clayton City Code relating to suspension and debarment of vendors. Alderman Lentz. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye.

Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye.

Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right. Next on the list, Washington University's agreement. Yes. So for several years, the city of Clayton has provided Washington University with fire prevention, fire protection and emergency medical services at their hilltop campus, the main campus or the Danforth campus as it's most commonly known.

Since 1992, the city and university have maintained these services through various written agreements. Our current agreement expires on December 31st, 2022, and both parties have expressed the desire to continue this arrangement. To that end, an amendment to the current agreement has been negotiated. This agreement shall be for an initial term of nine months, commencing on January 1st, 2023, through September 30th, 2023, and shall be automatically renewed for four one-year terms to September 30th, 2027.

unless either the city or university gives the other party timely written notice of termination. Highlights of the new amended agreement include an increase of the base contract price from $391,000 in fiscal year 2022 to $407,000 in fiscal 2023, which is an increase of $15,951 in base fees. proposed new base fee was established on a current cost for services formula and accurately reflects the city's cost for providing these services to the university. The base fee shall increase annually by the lesser of either the consumer price index or 5%.

There's also a continuation of an annual meeting to address planning issues related to upcoming construction projects, fire prevention, and public safety education programs with university leadership. We will provide EMS support to five special events on campus, and also fire alarm response guidelines and false alarm criteria have been modified in this particular agreement. Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance. And we do have Chief Rhodes from the fire department here this evening if you have any questions about those services.

All right. Any discussion? I know we've gone over this quite a bit already. So Alderman Lentz.

I'll introduce bill 6930 to approve an agreement with Washington University for fire prevention, fire protection and emergency medical services on the Danforth campus to be read for the first time by title owner. Second. Any discussion? All right, Mr.

City Attorney. Bill number 6930, first reading an ordinance to repeal ordinance number 6458 and put a new ordinance in place which authorizes the city manager to enter into an agreement with Washington University for the provision of fire prevention, fire protection, and ambulance services to the portion of the Danforth campus located in unincorporated St. Louis County. All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? All right, let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent.

No, no, no, no. Alderman Lentz, sorry. I move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6930 on the day of its introduction. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good.

Now the minutes can reflect. The board is giving unanimous consent. I'm sorry, guys. Then I'll introduce Bill 6930 to approve an agreement with Washington University for fire prevention, fire protection, and emergency medical services on the Danforth campus to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any other discussion? All right. Mr.

City Attorney. Bill number 6930, second reading and consideration for adoption. an ordinance to repeal ordinance number 6458 and put a new ordinance in place which authorizes the city manager to enter into an agreement with Washington University for the provision of fire prevention, fire protection, and ambulance services to the portion of the Danforth campus located in unincorporated St. Louis County.

Alderman Lentz? Aye. Alderman Berkowitz? Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew? Aye. Aldermen Buse? Aye.

Alderman Patel. Aye. Alderman Gary Feder. Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. All right. Now we have an agreement with St.

Louis County for license plate recognition cameras. Yes. Since August of 2021, the Clayton Police Department has utilized fixed license plate recognition or LPR cameras to solve and reduce crime. The LPR cameras send real-time alerts to our police officers when a stolen vehicle is detected.

The LPR cameras will also notify our officers of the vehicles associated with a missing person in an amber or silver alert. LPR cameras help law enforcement by providing objective evidence needed for investigations. All of the city's current cameras are installed in the city right-of-way or in areas maintained by private entities. Through analysis of crime reports, the police department has determined that installation of an LPR camera on the 6400 block of Clayton Road in the county's right-of- be a strategic location for the prevention and investigation of crimes involving vehicles.

Other locations maintained by St. Louis County are currently being evaluated for placement of LPR cameras. The attached ordinance authorizes the City of Clayton to enter into an agreement with St. Louis County for the installation, operation, and maintenance of license plate recognition cameras within St.

Louis County's maintained right-of-way. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance and Chief Smith and Captain Al Thuet are here this evening if you have any questions about the technology. Very good. All right, any discussion or questions?

Great, I'm glad we're getting this. So if there's no discussion, Alderman Lentz. I guess I will ask one quick question. Just generally speaking, what is our, what's the pace that we're putting up cameras?

I mean, how many do we have now and how many do we expect to keep adding? Sure. Is this on? So initially, when we started in August of 2021, we had installed a camera at Arundel and Daman, and also the Hillcrest subdivision paid for the other one at Aberdeen and Daman.

So we had two initially, and then we expanded more later in 2021. We added one at Alamo and Daman and one at Northwood and Daman. Concordia Seminary purchased two, which they gave us access to the information. And those are on San Benito, right around their campus.

So initially we started out with six, but then we've expanded earlier around September. We installed license plate cameras at, one second here, Westwood and Clayton Road on Westwood going into the Morelands, Brentwood and Francis, and Wydown and Ellenwood. And just recently, another subdivision in Clayton purchased their own block cameras. We were trying to get this one installed at Clayton Road.

We have a lot of activity on Clayton Road right now. We're trying to get installed back in September with the other three, but we were going back and forth with the county Department of Transportation. They finally told us you need to have an ordinance passed, so that's why we're here tonight. Yeah, there's We've been trying to get this.

It would have been helpful. There's been a lot of crime, car-related crime along Clayton Road recently in our jurisdiction in Richmond Heights, and this would have been helpful, it's gonna be helpful. Richmond Heights has a few up, already on Clayton Road, and we were able to get that information from Richmond Heights as well. That's another part of this.

We're using flock safety cameras. So we're all in the same network. So use cities on it. We do Brentwood, Maplewood soon to have some installed, Creve Coeur, Frontenac, and then you keep going out further into the suburbs.

A lot of the other cities have it. Those notifications are helpful for us from the ones that are close to us, but also for the data we get during investigations. If a car comes through Clayton, let's say we have a hidden run. Somebody gets hit by a car.

We can go in there and find that car if it went by one of the cameras. So that's one of the ways it's used. But mainly, right now, it's the vehicle thefts that are going on. We're up over 60% of vehicle thefts compared to last year.

And we've had quite a few success stories. We know our pursuit policy is very strict and limited, as it is throughout most of the United States. But there's been quite a few times when... The cameras alert us to stolen cars coming through neighborhoods, and we've been able to go there and thwart the offenders from committing other crimes.

Just recently in the Hillcrest neighborhood, we had a car that came through there at two in the morning. It was reported stolen. Our officer intercepted it at DeMond and Arundel. It took off from us last seen going very fast southbound on Skinker.

We found out afterwards that car was just involved in a robbery on Washington Avenue in downtown St. Louis. So- It's not just a property crime. These crimes have a potential for violent crimes because often guns are involved.

Thank you. Thanks, Chief. All right. Alderman Lentz, are you ready to?

Sure. I'll introduce Bill 6931 to approve an agreement with St. Louis County for the placement of license plate recognition cameras to be read for the first time by title only. Second.

City Attorney. Excuse me. Bill number 6931, first reading and ordinance approving an agreement with St. Louis County for placement of license plate recognition cameras.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6931 on the day of its introduction.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, let the minutes reflect.

The board has given unanimous consent. And I'll introduce Bill 6931 to approve an agreement with St. Louis County for placement of license plate recognition cameras to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Discussion. Bill number 6931, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving an agreement with St. Louis County for placement of license plate recognition cameras.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermen Patel. Aye.

Aldeman Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right. The CECC lease agreement. Yes, in 2013, the city of Clayton entered into a lease with the Clayton Early Childhood Center or CECC. As a successor to the original tenant, the CECC board of directors and the city were cautious and entered into a relatively short-term or five-year lease, which had one renewal option.

CECC exercised their option in 2018, thereby extending the lease through December 31st, 2022. Negotiations began in 2021 and a new lease was approved by this board in January of 2022. However, since that time, CECC board has requested certain amendments to the approved lease. If approved, the amended agreement will become effective on January 1st, 2023 and extend through December 3rd, 2032.

Changes to the approved lease agreement include the city will replace the roof of the building and make repairs to the foundation and the area of the playground within two years. So previously we were just gonna do the roof within that period. Secondly, allowance for temporary decorations, signage, balloons, or banners for special events as long as those temporary items remain for only 30 days prior to the holiday or event and are removed within five days after the holiday or event. There is a reduction requested in the holdover rent reduction from 200% down to 125%.

So this would be if they continue to occupy the building after expiration of a lease. That holdover rate would be reduced again from 200% down The interest rate on delinquent amounts will be clarified to be the lesser of the highest rate of interest allowed by law or 12%. And then finally, there's a change related to the right of first refusal in the event of sale. So that's been adjusted within this particular agreement.

There's a provision in there that basically says if the city wants to sell this particular property, the first thing we would do is get together with CECC. We would agree on a group of appraisers. We would then get the appraisals back and agree on an amount for that sale. If they then refused that offer and we put this out on the market and decided that, say, for example, that initial appraisal came back at $1 million and they said no, we went out to the market, we just put it on the market, and we had an offer for $800,000 and we wanted to take it, they basically want to first write a refusal if that's less than 95% of that appraisal amount.

So essentially what they're asking for, I guess, is a second first refusal. So we would have the first refusal and then if we went out to the market, they would have a second shot at it if it was less than 95% percent of that previous amount. So anyway, that's what that change would do. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance approving certain amendments to the lease between the city and the Clayton Early Childhood Center for property located at number one, Oak Mill Park.

And Tony Searing, our director of Parks and Recreation is here this evening. And I know she's certainly familiar with this lease and that particular entity. Thank you. All right, any comments or questions?

I guess my only question is not that I think any of this is unreasonable, but I'm just curious how we could approve it less than a year ago and negotiations obviously must have started immediately I guess my answer would be I'm not really sure where the communication breakdown was this board approved it and I don't think that the cecc board thought that it was final which I don't, I was not director at that time. So I'm not really sure where that communication breakdown was, but we took it back to them and said, okay, you're going to sign off. And then they said, oh wait, there's still a few more things that our lawyers need to look at. So we've been over the last several months hammering these details out with Stephanie Carr and their attorneys.

So essentially they didn't think they had an agreement at that point. Correct. They didn't think the, what you had over, this board had originally approved was in place yet. Thank you.

Ira, anything? Anybody else? I don't have any comments. Ira, did you have a comment?

I did not. Okay, yeah. Susan? Yeah, the changes are, for example, the work on the playground.

What's additional cost and how does that affect the... So there is... Go ahead. sorry, there are some, they have some water issues that seem to be a result of the foundation that is actually abuts their playground.

So restoring the playground and its surfacing would be the responsibility of CECC, but we would need to address the foundation issues. We've gotten some initial quotes for mitigation that could be less than 20,000. We've gotten something Additional quotes, they're not even really quotes. They're kind of like worst case scenario is I think over 100,000.

But again, worst case scenario. Okay, but it sounds like if that's something that the city would have been responsible regardless or is it because we're putting it in the lease? No, we would have been responsible, regardless. I think they just wanted it specified in this lease the way the roof was specified.

Thank you, previously. Very good. Moving on. Yeah, that was consistent with what I was going to ask.

The roof replacement, I believe, is already in our capital plan, right? So that has been like approved as a future budgeted item. Um, it sounds like this other foundation repair may not have been budgeted yet or in any planning, but is something that would fall under our responsibility under the current agreement that we have in place anyways. Correct.

And so, um, okay. And just to make sure I understand this whole, uh, if we sell, which I don't think we are currently planning on selling that property. We It kind of makes it like if they don't want to buy it for 95% of the appraised value, but somebody else offers us 80% of the appraisal value and we entertain that offer and intend to accept it, we actually have to go back to them first and say, actually, we're willing to accept 800. That's what we found in the market.

Do you want that? That's correct. Right? Okay.

Thank you. Alderman Gary Feder? So I have a similar comment on the right of first refusal. When I read the amendment, I had no idea what it was talking about because we didn't have the original contract, the original document.

Now that I've read it, I still think it might be wise for our city attorney and Tony to take a look at that language because I still think it's oddly worded. I mean, as I understood using David's example, if we said we want to sell it We don't have another offer. We just say we want to sell it. Then we have to get an appraisal done.

If the appraisal is a million dollars, they can take it or leave it. If they leave it, it says their interest is null and void. Then we add this sentence, which sort of like, you know, it comes back from the dead. And suddenly now, once again, if we sell it for 900,000, then they have another right of first refusal or second right of first.

I think conceptually it makes sense. I just think it's rather awkwardly written right now, and I would think would create some confusion if we ever get there. So I think the board's okay with that particular term. If you were to pass this, we could look at that language.

No, I don't have a problem. I don't have probably good work on it. I think the idea makes sense. I just think the wording needs to be tweaked a little bit more because I think it's confusing right now.

I thought of something else I wanted to ask. Have we had any issues with payment or delinquency on this? Okay, thank you. Good.

All right, is that all the discussion? Okay, Alderman Lentz. I'll introduce Bill 6932 to approve an amendment to the lease agreement with Clayton Early Childhood Center at 1 Oak Knoll Park to be read for the first time by a title only. Second.

Discussion. All right, Mr. City Attorney. Second.

Bill number 6932, first reading, an ordinance approving certain amendments to the lease between the city and the Clayton Early Childhood Center. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Then I'll move that the board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill 6932 on the day of its introduction. Second. All those in I heard that second. I heard it too.

All in favor? Simultaneous. Okay. All right.

Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent. And I'll introduce Bill 6932 to approve an amendment to the lease agreement with the Clayton Early Childhood Center at 1 Oak Knoll Park to be read for the second time by title only. Second.

Any discussion? City Attorney. Bill number 6932, second reading and consideration for adoption. An ordinance approving certain amendments to the lease between the city and the Clayton Early Childhood Center.

Alderman Lentz. Aye. Alderman Berkowitz. Aye.

Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye. Aldermwoman Buse. Aye.

Aldervoman Patel. Aye. Aldernman Gary Feder. Aye.

Mayor Harris. Aye. All right, the last thing on the list, the agreement with MoDOT. Final item.

The city of Clayton was contacted by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission regarding the establishment of a permanent access easement across the city-owned parcel to enable access to two 60-inch water mains running between Francis Place and I-170 in the Clayshire neighborhood. Just so you know, a 60-inch water main is huge, and we have two of those running through there. So that's... Most of the city's water is going through those pipes on the way there.

So anyway, these water mains are owned and operated by the City of St. Louis Water Division. When I-170 was constructed, a steep grade and elevation differential was created between the new roadway and the existing water mains, which are located in Modot right away. This area is not traversable by equipment for maintenance and emergency operations.

Lack of maintenance or inability to access these water mains during an emergency could have severe negative impacts to adjacent Clayton residents, particularly those along the east side of Francis Place. Maintenance would include the removal of brush and large tree roots to prevent damage to the water mains. The City of Clayton owns a 10-foot strip of land between the homes at 646 and 654 Francis Place. Currently, a sidewalk leads from Francis Place to the tunnel under I-170 at this location.

The five-foot sidewalk would become a 12-foot path with a truck turnaround at the east end and an additional streetlight near the tunnel entrance. Three removable bollards would be installed on the west end of the path at Francis Place to prevent unauthorized vehicles from accessing the path. The bollards would space so that pedestrian and bicycle traffic could still pass. Construction is planned to be phased so that access to the tunnel is maintained during construction.

To construct this path, an easement is required from the property at 646 Francis Place and the fences along both properties are required relocation. MoDOT has negotiated with the property owners and both of these items are complete. The agreement would also grant a permanent easement to City of St. Louis Water Division and MoDOT on the city-owned parcel.

Initial construction would be funded by MoDOT The city of Clayton would fund and be responsible for regular maintenance of the easement area, and significant maintenance would be performed by the city of Clayton and funded by a 50-50 split with the city of St. Louis. MoDOT will only be involved during construction. The agreement will continue between the city of Claydon and the city of St Louis following construction.

The adjacent property owners at 646 and 650 Francis Place have been contacted and notified of this agenda item. Staff recommends the Board of Aldermen approve the ordinance. Our Director of Public Works, Um, the patient Matt Malik is here this evening patient, not just because it's the last item on the agenda, but also because. Uh, this agreement has been talked about for about two years now.

Uh, and it's finally, it's three or four, he says, and it's finding hitting an agenda. So this is a big deal. Um, so he's here this evening. If you have any questions about it.

Very good. Thank you. Um, we have, uh, an attendee that wanted to make a comment and I'm not sure. if it's about this or if it's about a previous thing.

Okay, very good. Okay, Dr. Takes, is it? Would you like to make a comment?

Yes, thank you. I'm the resident at 654 Francis Place, my wife and I. And what's most disheartening about this particular issue, and as you just heard, it's apparently been going on for four or five years, is that the lack of communication from Clayton to the residents of Clayshire. No one knew, including our subdivision trustee, that this was happening.

And many people in the subdivision still don't know, other than those to whom I have conveyed information, this information. The only ones who knew are my wife and I and the Yatskos who lived on the other side of this pathway who have since sold their home and moved, and had this been any other subdivision, this would not have happened. I did eventually contact Alderman McAndrew, and I thank her for taking this up and opening a communication channel for me, and she's been a a good conduit to Mr. Malik, who has also been communicating to me, but many people did not know and still don't know why this is happening.

It is a done deal, but had this been any other subdivision, it would not have happened that way. That everyone would have known that this, because this is a major project and it involved taking the easement that Clayton allowed me to put a fence up on and I've been maintaining for 30 years. And many people still don't understand why this is happening. I finally understand why they want to do this, but it leaves one question for me.

We have these huge conduits and I understand, or these huge 60, whatever it was, 60 inch pipes. And the question that I'm left with is, is you know why now how did they address these 60 inch pipes uh historically uh in the 30 years that i've lived in clayshire and also like i said among the misinformation was that when and i first found out about it because i was approached by modot in 2018 or 2019 telling me move your fence and uh You know, and the way MoDOT has represented this to me right up until back in 2020 when we finalized our agreement with MoDOT is that this had already been approved by the Board of Aldermen and that this was just a done deal. And you know, I needed to take my part and finish my agreement with MoDot so this could proceed. So those are the questions and the comments that I have.

And I encourage the Board of Aldermen to focus on, you know, when something like this is occurring that has a major impact on a subdivision like ours, which has a lot of children, for example, that use that pathway, there needs to be a better pathway of communication to everyone within the subdivision. Thank you. Yeah, well, thank you for letting us know all of that. We're glad that you take the time to come and stay and wait until this came on the agenda.

I know it was a long time. So thank you very much for your input. We have Director Malik here, and I'm going to give him a chance to address your concerns. Yes, thank you and thank you Mr.

Kakas for your comments. As far as the why for the plan, the description provided by MoDOT and reviewed by the city is the access along this path was cut off when I-170 was constructed by MoDOT. It elevated the roadway and created this area that wasn't traversable to access these water mains. that's why MoDOT is involved in this agreement and is working with City of St.

Louis Water to rectify this and provide them access, and then the agreement will be between City of Clayton and City of St.Luis Water. I can't speak to why MoDOT represented um any particular stance other than at that time they had indication from the city that we were supportive of the idea from talking with staff but there was not any agreement in place i can't speak to anything that moda would have conveyed to you so i'm sorry if that was um not in keeping with what was uh is actually the approval of the city um Let's see, the notice as far as the neighborhood. There had been discussions over the years. This goes back to 2019 from my recollection.

There had been different meetings and notices provided to the trustee at the time. The two properties that were your property and the property to the north were dealing with MoDOT. Mr. Yasco, I believe who's no longer there, did get a negotiated an easement with MoDOT on that property where yours was the removal of the fence.

For the agreement itself, we thought notice of those properties was important. Now, as we move into construction, there'll be a timeframe that will provide notice to the surrounding owners or the surrounding properties, but the overall project itself, I would say is according to MoDOT and this is contractor's scheduling, but a couple of weeks. So you can probably double that, but access is expected to be maintained during that time. And then future use of the path is supposed to be on any emergency or a maintenance basis.

So not a regular daily usage or anything by any means. I hope that addresses some of those comments. Well, if I read it right, the pathway will still be open for pedestrians, kids to go through and there'll be an additional City Council Chambers, Streetlight and so could be improved situation right. City Council Chambers , Yes, folks based on the way we know that pathway was used, we requested that about out for the construction was to maintain access.

City Council Chamvers, And then, some of the improvements, along with the streetlights were will be providing that streetlights so it matches the rest in the neighborhood. City Council Chambs, But that was previous discussions with that neighborhood is that was a concern in that area, so there was a chance to incorporate with this project. So, I mean, I think, Bridget, do you want to comment on this since you've been in touch with the homeowner? Yeah.

You know, I think this has been a difficult project. You know, Alderman Sokol and I met right at the beginning of COVID in the spring with a whole group of residents because I didn't really know much about this project because it had been going on for a long time. I think Matt had recently become the public works director, so we had both kind of assumed or, you know, this project had kind of started before us. You know, MoDOT had some interest and then all of a sudden seemed to be pushing forward to get this taken care of.

I think the important thing to understand is, you know, we did explore with MoDOT. We questioned MoDOT if they could do this in other places. It does say in the packet, you know, if they had tried to have an access point on other parts of 170, it would have involved an actual taking of people's property. So there is this tunnel, obviously under 170, which makes it easier.

It certainly concerned me since I represent the neighborhood that As David mentioned, these are giant, giant water pipes that were constructed like 50 or 60 years ago. So these pipes are old and if they could not be shut off, it would flood the neighborhood. I mean, it could cause horrible, horrible damage. So I think taking care of that and making sure that we have an access point is crucial.

Again, I do really appreciate Peter's patience, you know, we really thought that this would happen. It was going to happen in the fall and then it was going to happen a year later. So it really has been a yo-yo kind of emotional thing for him and certainly the surrounding neighbors. So it will be nice to hopefully finally have this taken care of.

I'll only believe it once we finally see construction taking place. So Yeah, so I'm, you know, and I feel confident that, you know, staff will be able to notify the neighborhood once construction will actually occur. You know, we can do that, I'm sure on next door social media, just to let people know that this construction will happen and I am glad that it sounds like The path will be open throughout construction because I'm sure students and our residents use it to access Shaw Park. So, and I'm also hopeful that the new light will make lighting better.

The tunnel is not lit very well. So I'm hoping the lighting will help as well. So again, it has been a long process. So I'm that it will get taken care of finally in 2023.

So very good. All right, I think we can move on. Dr., is it Takis? Still has his hand up.

Do you have any further comments, doctor? No, I'm sorry. I had to lower my hand. I apologize.

That's okay. Just checking. No, the, you know, I have no other comments with regard to this. You know, it's, as I said, it appears to be a done deal.

And, you know, my... My question, you know, about the pipes that Mr. Malik, and it's takes, by the way, not Takis. I'm sorry.

That's okay. I had it right the first time. Yeah, common mistake. My main question about, you know, why was, you know, was concerned with what was being done to maintain these pipes before that gave the city access to these pipes because 170 has been there a long time and what was done before that makes it that urgent now that we need this access.

And quite honestly, to Bridget's comments. If these pipes break and start flooding Clayshire, I'm not confident that this walkway is going to give them access fast enough to get to those pipes and stop that problem anyway. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, Dr. Tick, sorry. I probably mispronounced your name as well and gave a different indication, so I apologize about that. I think the idea that the path would directly limit a direct break.

Yeah, that's a very limited impact, but what it does more so my understanding is gives them access they haven't had since I-170 has been built in order to clear the immediate area around the pipes of any potential tree roots or anything that could impact these pipes and cause that break of those two 60 inch mains. So that would be more of the description that was provided to me from MoDOT and St. Louis Water I think over the years since I-170 was constructed, the vegetation in that area wasn't growing to that concern. I think this is something that's been on their to-do list for quite a while.

And as you can tell, just getting this three-party agreement passed three or four years, hopefully. But that was the information coming from MoDOT and St. Louis City Water on that. Okay.

Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions from the board? All right. I will ask Alderman Lentz to read the motion.

I'll introduce Bill 6933 to approve an intergovernmental agreement with MoDOT and the City of St. Louis for water main access along Francis Place to be read for the first time by a title owner. Second. Any discussion?

City Attorney. Bill number 6933, first reading an ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and the City of St. Louis for access along Francis Place. All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? All right. Alderman Lentz.

All those in favor? Aye. I should probably second it, though. Oh, I'm sorry, Ira.

The problem is I couldn't hear Rich. I'm losing my focus power. It's okay. I just couldn't hear Rich, but I'll second whatever he said.

Okay, because his mic was off. Whatever I said, you're going to second? You bet. Okay, we have a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right.

Let the minutes reflect. The board has given unanimous consent. I'll introduce Bill 6933 to approve an intergovernmental agreement with MoDOT and the City of St. Louis for water main access along Francis Place to be read for the second time by title only.

Second. Any discussion? City Attorney. Number 6933, second reading and consideration for an adoption.

An ordinance approving an intergovernmental agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and the City of St. Louis for access along Francis Place. Alderman Lentz. Aye.

Alderman Berkowitz. Aye. Alderwoman McAndrew. Aye.

Alderaan Buse. Aye. Alderna Patel. Aye.

Aldermen Gary Feder. Aye. Mayor Harris. Aye.

All right, I think that concludes our main business. Would we like to have a short roundtable? Yep. Okay, we'll start with Alderman Lentz.

Okay. We've had a couple of Sustainability Committee meetings and I'll let Becky talk about the actual meetings meeting we had, but I'd like to talk about the presentation that the Washington University students gave to Matt, John and myself and Deb Grossman where they had done their review of our potential solar potential solar potentials, things that we might be considering doing or what we might do. And it was very interesting and very, I'm not sure how much of it was truly practical. There was a lot of modeling that they did.

So I think the models are probably worthwhile giving us some sense of what could be done. But one of the things that I thought was the, was very appropriate and timely was the their discussion of a group called soul smart. And it's a national certification program that essentially certifies the policy of a city, not not that we have infrastructure in place or whatever, but that we have put the policies in place that would facilitate solar energy. And it would be a very easy process.

I mean, we're doing much of it already, particularly with the changes to the to the ordinance that Anna's put together. So it would just be a nice thing to have Clayton be one of these cities that is, I can't remember what the designations are, but they're various, you know, silver, gold, whatever, soul smart designation that we are friendly to solar and whatnot. So I just thought that would be interesting. That's all for now.

I'll let others comment on the other things. Ira, anything to report? Yeah, we had a Parks and Rec meeting last week, which was incredibly enlightening. I had not seen so far where our two consultants, Chris and Ted, had gotten, but they've gotten pretty far.

I was just really impressed with not only the design that they've come up with with the open roof, the open cover, which I think is 10 times better than what we've ever had so far on any design for this commons. But I'll tell you, it was really very refreshing to see the options that they've come up with. These two gentlemen, Chris Chevetta and of course Ted. Ted's been with us a long time.

He did the Chapman Plaza. These two guys are at the top of their game. We are incredibly lucky to have them. And they just went through the details what they're doing.

And they're not stuck on anything. I mean, you bring up an idea and they run with it. They just, yeah, okay, fine. Yeah, well, let's see what we can do about that.

We'll see if we can fix that. So very open, very communicative. And I think the public will appreciate very much the more they can get out. And apparently they've gotten out quite a bit.

Chris went through his list and he is working incredibly doggedly through these last few weeks and getting the word out on what they're doing and what this thing looks like and what it's all about. So I was very, very excited. It was a great meeting. Can you comment on the reactions of the Parks and Rec Commission in general?

Yeah, I mean, I don't know that we didn't we didn't exactly go around and look for you know the responses but I think it was, it was generally very very positive from each of the members of the of the commission. You know, I mean I had some questions and, you know, and they batted them pretty well and I think Susan also had some questions, and I think they responded very well to those. Eric Schneider, he had some issues. So I think in the end, though, I think everybody was very happy with the responses.

And I think we kind of bandied about the various options for the open roof. And there was not a consensus of opinion, but there was a consensus about the fact that these options were very good options. And so I think that was pretty clear. Susan might be able to clarify a little better, but that's what I read.

Okay, thank you. Bridget. Yeah, we had a CRSWC meeting, had a membership report. You know, obviously the center's doing a lot better than we were doing a year ago.

Youth memberships are actually at an all-time high, which is fantastic. We're still struggling with corporate memberships No surprise, and family memberships are still down a bit. But I will report that the center, the deficit or the money, you know, that we'll have to contribute is less than what was projected by about $50,000. So that's great.

And we also approved a new marketing plan. So we will see that in action, I'm sure sometime soon. So and then with respect to the plan commission, a lot of what we approved tonight was what we've been doing the last month. But in addition, I just thought I'd add just to let everybody know, honeymoon chocolates is going to have a cafe inside so you can go and have dinner and then go to honeymoon chocolates and have dessert afterwards.

They're going to be open, I think till 10 o'clock, which was, you know, pretty late. So, and then I was also just going to mention, we obviously had a solar panel discussion, which I know Ana will bring to us The whole plan commission was very supportive of solar panels around the city. And then also lastly, I was just going to mention because I don't think it will come or it won't come to us but which I think is actually a really good idea but the triangle around where the residence in is, and then all the office buildings they're going to have new signage, which I think will be great for that whole area just so people are aware of where they're going into the office building and where they're going to the hotel. So I think that'll be a nice addition to that area.

Yeah, sounds good. All right, Alderwoman Buse. Okay, well there's an Equity Commission meeting and I think of interest really. Prior to that, several people from the commission had met with the Kirkwood Human Rights Commission to find out what they were doing, just kind of coordinate efforts.

And it was an informative meeting. They have been around quite a bit longer. Their focus really is on you know educating uh have they have pamphlets they have events they have plaques at different buildings and things like that so i think it was an informative discussion something that ben you should tell who is currently chair of the commission has pushed for a while for us to do so hopefully we can all learn from each other with that um and gary can add on to that and then their bright the parks and rec commission meeting was informative and Mayor in response, I was trying to look at some of the comments that people made. It was very well received the different presentations, the different options presented and Chris Chavetta and Ted Spade did do a really nice job and were very receptive to any input.

And some of the questions were, this all looks beautiful and where are we gonna get the money? And they just said, well, just wait, we will finish this. apparently by the end of the year, as promised, we'll know whether this is happening or not. And some other questions were with the designs, which everyone seemed supportive of, but there was that observation that make sure that it stands the test of time, that it's not so wonderful today that in 20 years we're saying, what did we do?

So there was some discussion like that, but it was overall, as Iris said, very positive and informative and Um, they've done a very thorough job with, they just had a couple more groups with whom they hope to meet. I think they met with what was it? 30, 35 people or something throughout the community around 30. Yeah.

Yeah. To get that input. Um, And then after that, Toni gave her Parks and Rec report that the, I think it's, is it basketball that's got, or baseball? What season is taking off now?

What month is this? Basketball. Basketball, right. Basketball.

back up to the levels that they want it to be with the teams and everything so that was great and looking forward then to starting the livable communities master plan the consultants ready to go after the first of the year once we get the report on the commons and things like that so that's good yeah that's about it thanks right yeah Thanks. Yeah, I just want to share with folks some feedback I got from a resident of U City who was trying to register a basketball team in our youth basketball league. And the league at that level was full. And so we did not have space and already had a wait list.

And the measures that our staff took to go above and beyond and support um these kids from u city and finding a place where they could play basketball was like phenomenal and i've just got like really um extensive positive feedback about the work that patrick mcgee specifically in parks and rec did um to help you know basically like help people in our region you know who we could have just said no to um find a way to play basketball so i just like super thrilled to hear about that. Rich and I hosted award coffee. I think we had about eight attendees, which is pretty typical for us. Really no hot topics.

We certainly talked a little bit about waste collection, but nothing major raised there. I was thrilled to see the work that Anna and her staff did on the revisions to the code as it relates to solar panels, which both seem to provide greater options for where solar panels can be placed, as well as moving the review and approval process to more of an administrative staff decision. So staff will have the ability to forward some applications to ARB, which they're likely to do in historic areas or things like that. But the general movement is to make it an administrative decision that staff can approve, which I think we should do wherever possible to make it easier and more accessible for folks to make these kinds of improvements to their homes.

So that's awesome. And then the last thing I'll share is that on Thursday, I'm going to be attending an event. I think it's at WashU with some other members of the Clayton community I know about how thoughtful housing policy promotes thriving communities. um so i'm looking forward to learning there and sharing with y'all what we learn thank you alderman Gary Feder uh just to piggyback on the comments about the community equity commission i think looking ahead we're trying to we have reached out to representatives of synagogues and churches in the platen area and are hoping at our january meeting that we can invite a number of their religious leaders to sit down with the commission and talk about what they're doing in terms of equity and inclusion um and i think we're at least talking in february um valerie patton who is the head of dei at greater st louis inc i think may be our guest to talk about what that organization is doing.

So I think some positive things there and just some old news, the Turkey Trot was great. Compliments to Ben Hockman who basically helped make that happen. And Julian Hess. I think those were the two people who Julian and Ben really made that happen.

And we had a very nice event in Davis Place, the Light Up the Night, which is an annual event, something of a fundraiser, but just a very nice opportunity to to enjoy our neighborhood. And other than that, I think Alderwoman McAndrew and I have received a few comments from people on trash. And I think we've made an effort to respond to people by email or sitting down, having coffee. And hopefully, I don't think we've ignored anyone.

We've tried to go back to everyone, answer their questions. And so hopefully that's a positive process. Very good. Yes, I can commiserate because I've been getting a fair number because the letter came from me.

I think I've been getting fair number of emails and requests for meetings and conversations which I've been having and they've all gone very well once people really understand the situation. It takes some understanding of our budget and the process to really get it that yeah, we are at that place where we have to do this I cannot tell you all the things i've done over the past couple weeks, because I do not have my calendar right here and I cannot remember but um I did and David and I went to the. City clerk annual luncheon and it was a very nice affair and I was shocked to learn. We're the first two city manager and mayor in Clayton that have ever gone to it in support of our wonderful city clerk.

So we will be there every year unless something's really wrong. We will be there. Yeah, and encourage all of you to come. It's pretty fun.

On a very minor note, the commemorative landscape task force has moved on. Now we we've ordered the CCF has ordered the plaque for the black neighborhood. We are now sort of finalizing over the next month or so a recommendation to this board, uh, on the Philippine neighborhood. So, um, we're moving right along.

We're going to try to turn a few of these out and get some momentum behind, uh, making Clayton more welcoming and recognizing some of our communities that are so important. That's, I think that's all I have. So I wanted to wish everybody happy holidays. Oh, belated happy birthday to Alderman Gary Feder yesterday.

I know I forgot your birthday. Oh, well, we had a legislative chamber legislative meeting yesterday. And that was interesting because Jason, not Jason, Gail forgot to order the cakes. Yeah, yeah.

But Governor Parson's new assistant came to our meeting and talked to us a little bit about his job and was very cute he's very young just out of college and uh anyway it was very informative and good so um with that i wish you all a happy holiday although i will see you friday i guess actually yes and we will hear you you will all who haven't already you will all hear about an update for the commons project so it'll be nice among other things yeah any other words from you Not tonight. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Yes. I don't think there'll be any opposed. All right. Good night, all.

Good night. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 1 of 11

THE CITY OF CLAYTON

Board of Aldermen In-Person and Virtual Meeting December 13, 2022 7:00 p.m.

Minutes

The meeting was open to individuals to attend in-person and/or virtually via Zoom.

Mayor Harris called the meeting to order and requested a roll call. The following individuals were in attendance:

In-person: Rich Lintz, Bridget McAndrew, Becky Patel, Gary Feder, Mayor Harris, and City Attorney O’Keefe

Staff: City Manager Gipson, City Clerk Frazier, and Andrea Muskopf, Assistant City Manager

Virtually: Alderman Buse, Alderman Berkowitz (joined at 7:25 p.m.)

Motion made by Alderman McAndrew to approve the November 8, 2022, minutes. Alderman Lintz seconded.

Motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously on a voice vote.

PUBLIC REQUESTS AND PETITIONS

None

JOINT DISCUSSION WITH THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

Alex Elmestad, Community Outreach Specialist, attending virtually and provided the Board with a presentation and update on the Clayton Community Foundation.

Cordell Whitlock, CCF President and Sarah Mellinger, past CCF President, were present to answer questions.

Kathleen Gund, 329 N. Bemiston Avenue, addressed the Board in support of the CCF.

Hank Winkelman, citizen, attended (virtually) stating his discouragement of the city’s funding support for CCF.

A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING A SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR 6602 ALAMO AVENUE

Mayor Harris opened the public hearing and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Gipson reported that this is a public hearing and subsequent ordinance to consider approving a subdivision plat for the division of one lot into four lots. All lots have a zoning designation of R-5, Medium-Low Density Multiple-Family District.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 2 of 11

The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection between Alamo Avenue and St. Rita Avenue. Construction of four townhouses on the existing lot is underway. The development was originally approved as a condominium style development where all four townhouses would be located on one lot. The developer is now proposing a subdivision plat to allow for development of the four townhomes on fee simple lots. The R-5 District requires a minimum lot width of 20 feet per townhouse unit and a minimum lot area of 1,974 square feet per townhouse unit. A cross access easement is established to support use of the shared driveway by all four townhouse units. The proposed plat conforms to the Subdivision Regulations and the R-5 District standards.

Anna Krane, Director of Planning was present to answer questions.

Julian Hess, applicant was present to answer questions.

Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6925, to approve a subdivision plat for 6602 Alamo to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6925, first reading, an Ordinance Providing for the Approval of a Plat to Subdivide Certain Property Located on Alamo Avenue in the City of Clayton, Missouri by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6925 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6925, to approve a subdivision plat for 6602 Alamo to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6925, second reading, an Ordinance Providing for the Approval of a Plat to Subdivide Certain Property Located on Alamo Avenue in the City of Clayton, Missouri by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6784 of the City of Clayton.

A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 405.4010 OF ARTICLE XXIX “OUTDOOR DINING”

Mayor Harris opened the public hearing and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Gipson reported that this is a public hearing to consider amending Article XXIX “Outdoor Dining”, Section 405.4010, of the City’s Zoning Regulations to allow temporary tents over outdoor dining space located on private and/or public property.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 3 of 11

Gary Carter, Director of Economic Development and Anna Krane, Director of Planning were present to answer questions.

Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6926, to approve an amendment to Section 405.3990, Outdoor Dining to allow for temporary tents to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6926, first reading, Amending Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations), Article XXIX “Outdoor Dining”, Section 405.4010 to Allow Temporary Tents Over Outdoor Dining Areas by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6926 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6926, to approve an amendment to Section 405.3990, Outdoor Dining to allow for temporary tents to be second for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6926, second reading, Amending Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations), Article XXIX “Outdoor Dining”, Section 405.4010 to Allow Temporary Tents Over Outdoor Dining Areas by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6785 of the City of Clayton.

A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR 7641 WYDOWN BOULEVARD RESTAURANT KNOWN AS AKAR

City Manager Gipson reported that this is a public hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment submitted by Poh Lee of Bl Hospitality LLD, d/b/a AKAR, restaurant owner, to allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant into an adjacent tenant space. the existing restaurant space measures approximately 400 square feet with an additional outdoor dining area. the proposed expanded restaurant measures 1,280 square feet. other than the expansion, changes to the operation of the restaurant or cup are not being requested.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz to approve Resolution No. 2022-27, granting a Conditional Use Permit for AKAR Restaurant located at 7641 Wydown Boulevard. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 4 of 11

A PUBLIC HEARING AND A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 8001 FORSYTH BOULEVARD RESTAURANT TO BE KNOWN AS FIRST WATCH

Mayor Harris opened the public hearing and requested proof of publication.

City Manager Gipson reported that this is a public hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit submitted by Emily Roberts of Consolidated Development Services on behalf of First Watch Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a First Watch, to allow for the operation of a 4,802 square foot restaurant with an outdoor dining area.

Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz to approve Resolution No. 2022-28, granting a Conditional Use Permit for First Watch Restaurant located at 8001 Forsyth Boulevard. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE CLAYTON CITY CODE REGARDING THE OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

City Manager Gipson reported that the current ordinance relative to the designation of a Prosecuting Attorney states that “The City Attorney shall designate one (1) assistant City Attorney as prosecutor who shall represent the City and prosecute all cases in the Municipal Court and perform such other services as requested by the City Attorney.”

The Clayton Charter states that “The board of aldermen shall provide by ordinance for such assistant city attorneys as it may deem necessary, who shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the city attorney with the approval of the Board of Aldermen.”

The Board of Aldermen believes that creating a separate office with responsibility for enforcement of city ordinances and prosecution of ordinance violations under the City Manager will better align this important municipal function with the values of the city and more clearly delineate organizational responsibility and oversight for that activity.

The proposed ordinance would amend the Prosecutor designation process to state that the Prosecuting Attorney shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the City Manager with the consent of the Board of Aldermen. This action would consequently shift oversight of the position from the City Attorney to the City Manager.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6927, to approve an amendment to Chapter 110 enacting a new Section 110.060-Designating a Prosecutor to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6927, first reading, an Ordinance Amending the Clayton City Code Regarding the Office of Municipal Prosecuting Attorney by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6927 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 5 of 11

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6927, to approve an amendment to Chapter 110 enacting a new Section 110.060-Designating a Prosecutor to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6927, second reading, an Ordinance Amending the Clayton City Code Regarding the Office of Municipal Prosecuting Attorney by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6786 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE CLAYTON CITY CODE RELATING TO WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

City Manager Gipson reported that the City of Clayton recognizes the increasing rate of gun violence in the United States. The State of Missouri prohibits municipalities from enacting firearm legislation outside the strict and limited scope permitted by the General Assembly. The Board of Aldermen has expressed a strong desire to update the City’s firearm regulations and enforce every measure available to reduce or prevent gun violence.

The proposed ordinance updates the City’s firearms regulations to conform with Missouri law and adds a provision to the Code of Ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a firearm or similar deadly weapon without a valid carry concealed firearms license. This provision would not apply to state, county, or municipal peace officers.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6928, to approve an amendment to Chapter 215 related to weapons and firearms to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6928, first reading, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 215 of the Clayton City Code Relating to Weapons and Firearms by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6928 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6928, to approve an amendment to Chapter 215 related to weapons and firearms to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6928, second reading, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 215 of the Clayton City Code Relating to Weapons and Firearms by title only.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 6 of 11

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6787 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE CLAYTON CITY CODE RELATING TO SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OF VENDORS

City Manager Gipson reported that the City of Clayton expends great effort to be sure that public money is expended efficiently, and that work performed meets the community’s ideals and standards. The Code of Ordinances does not currently have any provisions that prevent irresponsible or poorly performing vendors from bidding and contracting with the City for future projects and services. The attached ordinance contains provisions for the debarment or suspension of vendors and establishes the reasons, procedures, effects, and length of debarment of vendors.

David Berland, resident, inquired if debarment is lifetime or temporary.

City Manager Gipson explained that depending on the issue the debarment could be evaluated/reconsidered at some point.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6929, to approve an amendment to Chapter 100 related to suspension and debarment of vendors to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6929, first reading, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 100 of the Clayton City Code Relating to Suspension and Debarment of Vendors by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6929 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6929, to approve an amendment to Chapter 100 related to suspension and debarment of vendors to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6929, second reading, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 100 of the Clayton City Code Relating to Suspension and Debarment of Vendors by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6788 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION, FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ON THE DANFORTH CAMPUS

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 7 of 11

City Manager Gipson reported that for several years, the City of Clayton has provided Washington University with Fire Prevention, Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services at their hilltop campus (main campus). Since 1992 the City and University have maintained these services through various written agreements. Our current agreement expires on December 31, 2022, and both parties have expressed the desire to continue this arrangement--to that end an amendment to the current agreement has been negotiated.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6930, to approve an agreement with Washington University for Fire Prevention, Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Services on the Danforth Campus to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6930, first reading, an Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance No. 6458 and Put a New Ordinance in Place Which Authorizes the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Washington University for the Provision of Fire Prevention, Fire Protection and Ambulance Services to the Portion of the Danforth Campus Located in Unincorporated St. Louis County by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6930 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6930, to approve an agreement with Washington University for Fire Prevention, Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Services on the Danforth Campus to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6930, second reading, an Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance No. 6458 and Put a New Ordinance in Place Which Authorizes the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Washington University for the Provision of Fire Prevention, Fire Protection and Ambulance Services to the Portion of the Danforth Campus Located in Unincorporated St. Louis County by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6789 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ST. LOUIS COUNTY FOR PLACEMENT OF LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION CAMERAS

City Manager Gipson reported that since August 2021, the Clayton Police Department has utilized fixed license plate recognition (LPR) cameras to solve and reduce crime. The LPR cameras send real-time alerts to our police officers when a stolen vehicle is detected. The LPR cameras will also notify our officers if a vehicle is associated with a missing person in an AMBER or Silver Alert.

LPR cameras help law enforcement by providing objective evidence needed for investigations. The LPR cameras photograph license plates and vehicle characteristics, not people or faces.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 8 of 11

Each search of the LPR database requires a justification, and the data is never sold or shared with third parties.

The cameras are used to solve and reduce property and violent crime. They are not intended for traffic or parking violations.

The City of Clayton utilizes Flock Safety LPR cameras. These cameras are currently installed in the City right of way or in areas maintained by private entities. Through analysis of crime reports, the Police Department has determined that installation of an LPR camera on the 6400 block of Clayton Rd, in the County’s right of way, would be a strategic location for the prevention and investigation of crimes involving vehicles. Other locations maintained by St. Louis County are currently being evaluated for placement of LPR cameras.

The proposed ordinance authorizes the City of Clayton to enter into an agreement with St. Louis County for the installation, operation, and maintenance of license plate recognition cameras within St. Louis County’s maintained right of way.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6931, to approve an agreement with St. Louis County for placement of License Plate Recognition to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6931, first reading, an Ordinance Approving an Agreement with St. Louis County for Placement of License Plate Recognition Cameras by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6931 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6931, to approve an agreement with St. Louis County for placement of License Plate Recognition to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6931, first reading, an Ordinance Approving an Agreement with St. Louis County for Placement of License Plate Recognition Cameras by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6790 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CLAYTON EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER

City Manager Gipson reported that in 2013, the City of Clayton (City) entered into a lease with the Clayton Early Childhood Center (CECC). As a successor to the original tenant, the CECC Board of Directors and the City were cautious and entered into a relatively short-term (five

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 9 of 11

years) lease which had one renewal option. CECC exercised their option in 2018 thereby extending the lease through December 31, 2022.

Negotiations began in 2021 and a new lease was approved by this Board in January 2022. However, since that time, the CECC board has requested certain amendments to the approved lease. These modifications have been negotiated and reviewed by the City’s legal counsel.

The proposed lease amendment, if approved, will become effective January 1, 2023, and extend through December 3, 2032.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6932, to approve an amendment to the lease agreement with the Clayton Early Childhood Center at #1 Oak Knoll Park to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6932, first reading, an Ordinance Approving Certain Amendments to the Lease Between the City and the Clayton Early Childhood Center by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6932 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6932, to approve an amendment to the lease agreement with the Clayton Early Childhood Center at #1 Oak Knoll Park to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6932, first reading, an Ordinance Approving Certain Amendments to the Lease Between the City and the Clayton Early Childhood Center by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6791 of the City of Clayton.

AN ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS FOR ACCESS ALONG FRANCIS PLACE

City Manager Gipson reported that the City of Clayton was contacted by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC/MoDOT) regarding the establishment of a permanent access easement across a City-owned parcel to enable access to two 60” water mains running between Francis Place and I-170 in the Clayshire Neighborhood. These water mains are owned and operated by the City of St. Louis (Water Division). Matt Malick, Director of Public Works, was present to answer questions.

Dr. Peter Takes, 654 Francis Place addressed the Board (virtually) to express his concerns regarding communication from the City to the Clayshire neighborhood.

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 10 of 11

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6933, to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with MoDOT and the City of St. Louis for water main access along Francis Place to be read for the first time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6933, first reading, an Ordinance Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and the City of St. Louis for Access Along Francis Place by title only.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Motion made by Alderman Lintz that the Board give unanimous consent to consideration for adoption of Bill No. 6933 on the day of its introduction. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

Alderman Lintz introduced Bill No. 6933, to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with MoDOT and the City of St. Louis for water main access along Francis Place to be read for the second time by title only. Alderman Berkowitz seconded.

City Attorney O’Keefe reads Bill No. 6933, first reading, an Ordinance Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission and the City of St. Louis for Access Along Francis Place by title only.

The motion passed on a roll call vote: Alderman Lintz – Aye; Alderman Berkowitz – Aye; Alderman McAndrew – Aye; Alderman Buse – Aye; Alderman Patel – Aye; Alderman Feder – Aye; and Mayor Harris – Aye. The bill, having received majority approval was adopted and became Ordinance No. 6792 of the City of Clayton.

OTHER

Alderman Lintz reported on the following: • Sustainability – presentation by Washington University students regarding potential program, Solar Summer National Certification program.

Alderman Berkowitz reported on the following: • Parks & Recreation Commission – received on update on the design for the Commons project from Ted Spaid and Chris Chiveta.

Alderman McAndrew reported on the following: • CRSWC meeting o Membership report – youth membership has increased; corporate memberships are struggling; adult memberships are low • Plan Commission o New restaurant – Honeymoon Chocolate o Discussion on solar panels o Discussion on new signage for the Residence Inn

Alderman Buse reported on the following: • Community Equity Committee – met with the Kirkwood Human Rights Commission • Parks & Recreation –

12-13-2022 BOA Minutes December 13, 2022 Page 11 of 11

o the Commons update was well received o basketball registration was up o Livable Communities Master Plan – focusing after the first of the year

Alderman Patel reported on the following: • U-City Youth Basketball program - a U-City resident commented that the Clayton staff went above and beyond to help them out when they needed a location • Ward 1 coffee – eight attendees • Solar panels – please with the revisions • Washington University event – Thoughtful Housing Policies to promote thriving communities

Alderman Feder reported on the following: • CEC – reached out to area synagogues and churches to invite them to the January meeting • Turkey Trot event • Light Up the Night event in Davis Place • Received a few comments from citizens regarding the trash survey

Mayor Harris reported on the following: • Meetings and conversations regarding the trash survey • Landscape Task Force – the plaque has been ordered for the African American neighborhood, working on the recognition of the Philippine neighborhood • Clayton Chamber of Commerce Legislative meeting was held yesterday • Alderman Feder celebrated a birthday yesterday

The meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

____________________________

Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ City Clerk