Owner of Saint Charles Rock Road event venue tells aldermen she will require St. Anne police at certain events

The owner of an event venue at 10425–10427 Saint Charles Rock Road told the Saint Anne Board of Aldermen at a Sept. 2 public hearing that she will require Saint Anne police presence at certain bookings and will vet clients more closely after a prior incident.

The public hearing opened when the mayor asked the owner to introduce herself and explain planned changes; the owner, identified in the meeting as Sierra, described a combination of client vetting, contract language and mandatory on‑site police at some events.

The owner said she will ask clients to hire the Saint Anne Police Department for events that give her a safety concern and that the department has a four‑hour minimum for such shifts. She said she has already begun telling clients about the requirement and that some clients have declined to book because of it. "I vow to make sure that Saint Anne is hired. I believe it's a 4 hour minimum," she said.

She told aldermen she now evaluates whether an event is an "open invite" or family‑oriented when deciding whether to require police. After an earlier party that drew uninvited guests, she said she now screens clients in person, reviews social media where appropriate and will require security for events with higher risk — she said the age band she watches most closely is younger attendees and referenced ages she described as 12 to 25 as more likely to trigger requirements.

Board members and other meeting participants discussed contract language to make security requirements explicit. One board member urged the owner to put the police requirement into customers' contracts so hiring officers is not optional.

The public record in the transcript shows the owner repeatedly said she would not require police for every booking and would tailor requirements to the type of event and the client's relationship to her. She also said exceptions might be made for certain events such as a repast. The board did not record a vote on the special use permit amendment in the excerpt of the transcript provided.

The discussion included references to conversations the owner said she had with city staff (named in public comments earlier as Blake and Bob) about timing and logistics; she told the board those staff had provided guidance on notification intervals and other operational details. The transcript shows the owner and a staff member referenced 24 to 48 hours in the context of notice requirements or timing for staff follow‑up.

The board opened the public hearing and heard the owner’s explanation; no formal approval, denial or vote on the SUP appears in the provided transcript excerpt.

The owner provided additional contact information to the city and asked staff to refer families and future clients to her for bookings; she said her changed practices stem from a single previous incident that prompted the new vetting and security steps.

The board did not take a formal vote on conditions in the public excerpt, and the transcript does not show the city attorney or a formal conditions sheet being read into the record during the excerpt provided. Additional materials or later proceedings may record any conditions attached to the special use permit amendment.