September 2021 Board Meeting Minutes

September Monthly Board Meeting

September 22, 2021
Approved Minutes
1. Call to Order + Opening Remarks
Jim Dallas, President, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Board Members present included: Jim Dallas, President; Michael Pastore, President-Elect; Debby Brown, Treasurer; Chris Currington, Secretary; Neil Putz, Past President; Nancy Kelly; Margi Koors; Nancy Lambert; Karen Moske, Billy Tomber; and Gary Toribio.

2. Minutes of the Previous Monthly Board Meeting

Chris Currington, Secretary, said that he had sent the draft of the minutes from the Aug. 18, 2021, Board Meeting a week previous to this meeting and he had only received minor changes. He asked for a motion to approve the Aug. 18 DRAFT of the Board Meeting minutes.

Michael Pastore made the motion to approve the meeting minutes. Karen Moske seconded the motion.

The vote was taken.

All voted in favor of accepted the draft of the Aug. 18, 2021, Board Meeting as final. No votes opposed it.

3. Financial Report

Debby Brown, Treasurer, handed out the profit and loss (P&L) for the fiscal year and explained that this was more information than the monthly updates, which may not reflect income and expenses. Debby thanked all the recent fundraising efforts, and there is now only a loss of ~$1,600 and the account balance is up to ~$71,000. A good portion of the auction (Floral & Art Auction held Sept. 11, 2021) income has been booked, but not all of the expenses. Debby will process check requests during the week after this meeting. Michael Pastore said this event was a huge success, and Margi Koors said she was happy that the Board enjoyed it. It was a lot of work pulling it together, but people were generous that day. The way it was set up was conducive to success; art inside; alcohol and socializing outside.

Jim Dallas said that, by the end of September, the expenses should all be in Quick Books. At the October Board Meeting, everything should have flowed through (membership dues, expenses, etc.) and a lot should be reflected on the income statement. Jim also reiterated that the quarterly report would be posted on the website since the monthly report has too much volatility to it given timing of income and expenses.

4. Safety Committee Survey

Andrea Maddox-Dallas, Safety Committee Chair, arrived and gave the report about the neighborhood survey that was taken. The survey focused on residents; it didn’t ask for feedback outside of Soulard. Individuals were reached through the blaster and there were ~100 respondents. There were some things that came to light, such as a Neighborhood Watch. Sixty percent of respondents want to bring this back.

1

There are certain road intersections that are of concern, and this was also covered by the Community Improvement District’s survey.

There are certain crimes that need to be addressed, such as traffic, speeding, running stop signs and stoplights, and car break-ins.

To increase general safety, there has been increased policing (from the Soulard Special Business District), better lighting and more cameras. Now, it is hoped that there will be a Neighborhood Watch.

The Safety Committee has looked at other neighborhoods, and people of Soulard really wanted a surveillance camera database. This has legal issues, though. The Hill neighborhood has a surveillance database, but it is only managed by their police liaison, so residents can volunteer and provide their email and phone number. If something happens, a detective doesn’t have to knock on doors; he or she can easily check the camera footage. Jim Dallas asked if this database was volunteer. Andrea confirmed it is and that there are 60 residents in The Hill who have signed up for it. For The Hill neighborhood, if a detective needs to see footage, the liaison calls the right people to see what’s on the cameras.

Andrea then mentioned the Safety Walk scheduled for October 14, to start addressing ally cleanup and other safety issues such as lights out and tree branches covering stop signs.

There was then a brief discussion about how to get the information about the survey out to SRG’s General Membership. It was decided that an executive summary of the results would be published on the website and announced in The Blaster, and if anyone wanted more information, they could email the Safety Committee.

Nancy Lambert asked Andrea’s thoughts on the camera program. Karen Moske said she thought we were already doing this. Nancy Lambert said we aren’t. Billy Tomber confirmed that the SBD has access to the SBD-owned cameras—about a dozen. Nancy Kelly asked how residents are going to be encouraged to register their cameras with police. Andrea said this is why she has a meeting set up with some people from The Hill neighborhood to discuss their camera program.

5. CID Survey

Terry Hoffman, President of the CID, showed up to the meeting and gave the report. There was a survey completed back in May to get feedback from Soulard stakeholders including residents, business owners, property owners who are business owners, and those who visit Soulard. They developed a Survey Monkey survey online, and the CID board created guidelines. The survey was open for four weeks, from mid-May to Mid-June, and they tried to advertise as much as they could through social media, The Blaster, The Renaissance, and word of mouth. There were 565 responses, all or in part. The CID feels good about the sample size, but not everyone answered all the questions.

Terry then discussed the respondent profiles. Seventy percent were residents of Soulard; 8% were business owners; 5% property/business owners; 17% didn’t classify. When asked if a respondent lived in the CID, 40% didn’t answer; 47% did live in the CID. There was good mix of residency longevity in Soulard and those who own or rent. Of the respondents, 2/3 were CID residents, and time living in Soulard skewed to those who have lived here shorter times. Half are owners; around 1/3 renters; and the remainder didn’t answer.

Terry said there were different pieces of information he was going after when analyzing the results. Three hundred thirty-six people, or 80%, said crime is “very important”; adding “important”, this goes up to 90%. Other categories, including beautification, infrastructure and alley cleanup are about even in importance.

2

Nancy Lambert asked Terry if he was surprised that traffic concerns weren’t higher. Terry said he was. He also said that if you cut some of this apart, owners and renters, you’ll see some variances. The results also skew if you look at those who have lived here longer.

Margi Koors then asked if CID took into consideration where people lived and gave an example of those living on 9th Street would be more prone to talk about noise levels than someone on 11th Street. Terry said this wasn’t considered, but they have addresses and could probably codify and see if there are some patterns by people who live in one part of the neighborhood vs. those in another part.

Gary Toribio asked if there was a difference in responses between residents inside and outside the CID, but who are in Soulard. Terry said he has not taken a cut of this data. Gary said it’s important to note whether someone is in or out of the CID.

Terry said that the CID was able to dissect what business owners said vs. non-business owners. Business owners thought marketing was much more important for them. Parking solutions are also more important. Not as important for them were festivals and events, beautification, traffic calming, and crime. Owners and renters ranked traffic calming and crime much more important than non-owners, and festivals and events less important. Renters were the exact opposite. This points out the necessity for the CID to address the projects that will satisfy the most constituents.

There was a question about the priorities and where crime ranked in the survey responses. Crime and crime prevention ranked high for everyone, and because it was so high, the CID pulled those responses out so it could see where other categories fell in importance. The CID isn’t focused on crime; the SBD is focused on crime. That data will go to SBD. Michael Pastore asked if the CID is going to ignore the facts about the crime ranking in importance. Terry said this is why CID and SBD are working together on the traffic calming; that has parallels to crime and safety and CID won’t turn its back on it.

Terry then talked about streetscape, and that 6% of respondents said this is number one in importance. Nance Lambert asked what this means. Terry said streetscape reflects signs, lighting, and it’s reflective of how the vista and vision of the street looks. The survey didn’t describe this but gave examples, and they didn’t want to dictate what some of the things meant. Could be beautification; could be historical significance. Nancy L. then asked if this could reflect potholes and infrastructure. Terry confirmed this, as well as sidewalks, street, and ally cleanup.

Terry then discussed perception indications. At the top are restaurants, then architecture, then walkability, and history. If as a collective group—SRG, CID, SBA—they undertake a comprehensive marketing strategy, these things will need to be addressed, and it gives them a starting point of what they should work with.

Terry said that aside from the survey, there are other things that are important, such as traffic calming. Money has been invested in the pre-study. They’re also trying to assign projects around historical significance, streetscape, street, and ally cleanup. The trashcans are out and going well. The CID is talking to a service provider for bulk pickup on opposite weeks of the other pickup. Some initiatives cross categories. They’re starting to explore historic street signs and what Lafayette square has; this is a very reasonably priced project to undertake. Jack Coatar has also agreed to help expedite getting trees planted in the tree wells. The role of CID would be to make sure they get watered and are cared for.

Gary said he has concerns. There’s nothing on infrastructure and the repair of sidewalks. Those are safety hazards. Terry said there are opportunities with this. Gary then asked how many buildings have approached the city to fix sidewalks. Terry didn’t know the percentage of sidewalks in the neighborhood that need to be repaired but said that some had been repaired. Gary said this is more important than

3

historic street signs and decorating poles. Gary said that he thinks we have too many signs in Soulard. Terry then said Gary could come to a meeting. There was then a discussion about the 50/50 program and how useful it would be at helping to replace sidewalks.

Nancy Lambert said that crime is high across the board, but not reflected in the planned projects. Terry said that SBD deals with crime. Billy Tomber said that that’s what SBD is funded to do, but it hasn’t had a lot of time to digest the survey results.

There were no additional questions.

6. Blues Museum Donation

Jim Dallas brought up this agenda item, and then asked Margi Koors, Board Liaison to the Fundraising Committee, to give a report. Margi said the Blues Museum agreed to play at the second Soulard Summer Concert. They don’t ask for money. The musicians play out of the goodness of their hearts, and SRG makes a donation to the Blues Museum. We originally thought about a $1,000 donation. However, Chris Schwarz, Fundraising Chair, and Margi agree that $750 would be appropriate, and they hope that amount has the blessing of the Board.

There was a discussion about the budget amount of $5,500 in revenue and $5,500 in expenses for the concert (break-even). Expenses came in at $5,400, assuming $750 to the Blues Museum. It does not appear that SRG will break even on the Concert Series, even if two planned donations come through. Margi then added that expenses for the concert are fixed, and also includes the porta potties and other things. Margi also reminded the Board that we told the Fundraising Committee to put on the concerts and the Board needs to remember that these aren’t money-making events. Karen Moske said these are community events; not fundraisers. Nancy Kelly said that in the future budgets we need to have an assumption that we won’t break even. Michael Pastore said it’s a cost for being in the SRG. The budget shouldn’t try and balance out. Jim then said that this was a learning experience; not a money-making opportunity.

Margi Koors said she would like to move that the Board offer a check for $750 to the Blues Museum. Karen Moske seconded. Debby Brown then said that she’s in favor of offering more. Gary Toribio also said that he agreed with more. Michael Pastore then said this should be discussed. Karen said SRG has done $1,000 in the past, and Debby confirmed this. Margi said that there may be an issue with paying one band less than another; then said $750 for the Blues Museum is the recommendation of the Fundraising Committee Chair and the Board Liaison. Billy said there’s a difference in the fee for a band and a donation for a band. Karen then reminded everyone that SRG did not make revenue last year because of COVID so maybe the Blues Museum doesn’t expect $1,000. Billy then said he’s in favor of what the committee chair and liaison are recommending. Karen said the donation should be accompanied and explained with a letter.

The vote was called for the $750 donation to the Blues Museum. The vote was taken.

Eight voted in favor of the $750 donation. Two abstained from the vote, noting that it was not a “no” vote for the $750 donation.

The motion passed.

Karen Moske then asked that the minutes reflect the recommendation of an additional $250 in 2022, for the Blues Museum, for a total of $1,000.

4

7. Retreat Topics Update a. Fundraising

Jim Dallas deferred to Margi Koors, Liaison to the Fundraising Committee. Margi said that Chris Schwarz wants to step down as chair of the Fundraising Committee at the end of January, after Smarty Gras. She said that Nancy Lambert and Chris Currington, with help from Jim, had worked on the job description (displayed at the meeting and attached to the Board Meeting pre-read materials). Margi then read over the Fundraising Chair job description. She then recommended that a Board-approved version be posted in The Blaster as an effort to get people interested in the position and reach out to Margi.

Jim asked if the Board wants to come up with candidates on its own and approach them. This can be advertised and see what we get. Nancy Kelly said we can do both outreach and determine candidates. A second approach would be going out and asking candidates. Billy Tomber then said it would be good to communicate that the Fundraising Committee chair has additional coordinators (i.e., Andrea and Smarty Gras, Billy and Smarty Gras, etc.) and that the Committee Chair is not in charge of everything. There is help with concerts, beer booths, trivia, etc.

There was then a brief discussion about grant writing and someone who has experience with that could be a big help to SRG. Jim then asked Margi to take a closer look at that. It was agreed to leave grant writing experience in the description, but move it lower, and change the wording to “may include grant writing experience.” Debby Brown then suggested adding requirements and useful skills.

Margi is to rework the job description and send it in an email to the Board.

Gary Toribio asked if SRG is doing anything with new members and having them get involved in committees. Margi said yes, there’s a wine tasting in the works specific to this group. This will be solidified at the next Membership Committee meeting.

b. Board Goals

Nancy Lambert had copies of the Board Goals and reminded the Board that it talked at the last meeting about the differences between aspirational and operational goals. There are 16 operational goals in the bylaws that need to be accomplished. Nancy then read over the 4 aspirational goals.

Nancy then said she’d like the opportunity to sit with Jim Dallas and fine tune the aspirational goals. Jim then said he’d ask for a vote at the next meeting if it ends up being the four Board goals that we should adopt. There was a question about if the Board Goals are for a particular term. Nancy Lambert said the operational goals are set with the bylaws. The aspirational goals can be for this Board. Karen Moske said they can change with the next Board, depending on that Board.

c. New Comm

Jim Dallas projected a document that Chris Currington had prepared about the New Committee to replace the Residential Promotions Committee. Chris explained that he’d had many conversations with different people, and presented the concept for New Comm, with a proposed name, “Community Involvement & Events.” The document contained the new mission of this committee, and Chris explained the committee’s goals and how they tied to the Board Goals that Nancy was developing. Chris also explained that this committee would be committed to diversity, inclusion, and equity, and provided a list of potential events so that the committee would be ready to turn over to a new chair after the Board approves the resolution.

5

Jim asked the Board to consider the mission and goals of the Community Involvement & Events committee before the next Board Meeting in October. Jim also asked for Board feedback prior to the next meeting.

There was then a brief discussion about where some areas could be improved with better diversity and inclusion.

8. General Membership Meeting Logistics for Oct. 6

Jim Dallas recommended to the Board that the next General Membership meeting be held indoors and ask people to wear masks. Otherwise, the current choices are to: 1) go back to Zoom; or 2) outdoors and with lack of sunlight and inclement weather, moving up the start time. Jim said his inclination is to have the meeting indoors unless someone tells him to revert to Zoom. Gary Toribio asked if there will be a Zoom option in addition to outdoors. Billy Tomber said Zoom could be included, but it’s hard to follow questions. They can be monitored and added to Facebook. Jim asked if Comm Comm is open to always having someone show up and live stream events. Billy said this the concept has been discussed, but not the personnel. Michael Pastore reminded the Board that the pandemic is getting worse, and the Legion is a confined space. Jim asked if he should look at another venue.

Margi Koors suggested the Rose Room for the next meeting; the lower room is very large. Billy said the cost for this room is $50. Nancy Lambert said the cost is the same as the Legion and the Rose Room is bigger. Nancy Kelly then suggested Sts. Peter & Paul. Margi said that the meetings went back to the legion because it was smaller and has technology. Billy said that what made it the best place now makes it the worst place.

Jim said he would contact someone at the Rose Room and inquire about having the Oct. 6 meeting there. If it doesn’t work, then the next General Membership meeting will be held via Zoom. Margi asked if the Membership Committee should plan a social. If the meeting is via Zoom, then no social. If it’s at a different location, then there will be a social.

It was decided that Jim would check into the Rose Room for the next General Membership meeting, and if it is held there, then Margi Koors will work with the Membership Committee to organize the social afterward.

9. Request from Bob Brandhorst—1836 S 10th

Jim Dallas asked the Board if they’d paid attention to the email traffic about this agenda item. Bob Brandhorst has asked for a letter from SRG in support of the modification of zoning at his location. Jim, Michael Pastore, and Jay Gibbs talked with Bob at the Wood Shack, along with Chris and Hope (owners of The Wood Shack). Bob is looking for a variance from a multi-family to a first-floor commercial with a lease for the Wood Shack. Jim, Michael, and Jay had the chance to ask Bob some questions, and the hearing was supposed to be the day of this Board meeting.

Bob has asked for an extension to next month because he wants a letter from SRG, and he got the extension approved. Jim then went over the diagram of the specs. Michael said he was educated during this process about what they want to happen at this address. The initial sign says full bar and outdoor dining. That’s a way down the road and different than a letter of support. The Wood Shack will still have to go through all of the permits.

After some discussion highlighting the importance of neighbor support, or similarly, lack of opposition, Jim offered a motion about the letter. Billy Tomber amended the motion to include time for the immediate neighbor to respond.

6

The amended motion that was proposed: The SRG Board will honor the request from Bob Brandhorst, and SRG is to write a letter of support, with Jim’s (SRG President’s) signature, for the variance for his property from a multi-family to commercial, barring any objection by an immediate neighbor in the next 72 hours.

The motion was seconded by Neil Putz.
The vote was taken.
All voted in favor of the letter of support with the President’s signature. No votes opposed it.

Jim then turned the discussion to a proposed resolution on the minimum asset purchase size and that one person asked to revise it. Three voted yes via email. Margi clarified that anything over $2,500 should be amortized; anything below is immediately expensed. Jim encouraged everyone to read the email and vote. Gary Toribio said this is a separate policy. Margi and Michael agreed. Jim asked everyone to review the resolution and vote via email.

10. By-Laws Review

Jim Dallas said that at the previous Board meeting, there was discussion concerning what to put into the revised by-laws regarding the editor position or a communications director, since the by-laws revision is removing the editor role as an appointed position. At that meeting, Neil Putz volunteered to put together thoughts about that topic. Jim turned the discussion to Neil Putz, who went over a handout.

After review of Neil’s handout and discussion (including whether the SRG should consider creating a paid position), it was agreed that the by-laws revision will not attempt to define “editor” or “communications director”, but instead will rely on the fact that the Board is publisher and editorial board of the newspaper, and the Communications Committee will have the responsibility to work with the president and the Board for all communications.

The next issue that was discussed was that of the approval process for applicants, in particular whether the by-laws should state that the Board should approve every application – both voting and nonvoting members (the current by-laws say that the Board will review every nonvoting member application). The discussion focused on the extent to which the Membership Committee currently reviews applications, whether any are ever sent to the Board, and whether what happens in practice should be consistent with what the by-laws state, or whether what is stated in the by-laws should be stronger than what is the current practice. In the end, it was agreed that the by-laws should state that acceptance of both voting and nonvoting members will be subject to review and acceptance by the Membership Committee.

Gary Toribio then asked whether everyone agreed with his suggestion that we clarify in the by-laws that ownership of a business should not give them the right to be a voting member of SRG. All agreed with Gary’s suggested revision.

The next item concerned the duration of dues paid on a given date, and whether a pro-rate approach should be taken when someone becomes a member outside the normal renewal period. All agreed that the clarification of the process does not belong in the by-laws, but something should be considered for the Policy and Procedures manual.

The last item discussed was language concerning disciplining Board members. Discussion revolved around whether there should be a policy and procedure (P&P) developed, and the requirement to

7

adhere to applicable standards as set forth in the P&Ps. It was agreed that the by-laws should add to the Removal section that the Board can remove a member by a 2/3 vote of the Board.

Jim asked if anyone else wanted to bring up an item. Neil brought up awards programs. As a 501c3, if the Board establishes a scholarship fund, that should be considered a special case. We would need a good policy and procedure that talks about the impartiality when talking about scholarships. Gary asked if we’re going to award scholarships, do we have anything included about education? SRG has sent people to a leadership academy and some city programs.

Jim then said the list of items is still open until the Board approves the by-laws, so if there are any issues, let him know or continue the discussions. The assignment before the next Board meeting will be to review Section VI to the end of the by-laws, and email comments to Jim a week before the next meeting, so by Oct. 14.

11. Adjourn

Jim Dallas asked if we wanted to turn to committee reports. Karen reminded the Board about the Beautification Committee fundraiser at Molly’s. Fundraising has proposed an event at the Soulard Station as a fundraiser. Billy said that Oktoberfest signup sheets for the beer booth had been sent out. Neil Putz reminded everyone about the previous Board’s commitment to memorials for Paul Kjorlie, John Peyton Keene, and Don Kirby. Don Kirby’s memorial parade would be in October and the Board should follow through with memorials for Paul Kjorlie and John Payton Keene. The Board resolved to decide on memorials at the next meeting.

Karen Moske made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Billy Tomber seconded the motion. The vote was taken.
All voted in favor to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m.