City Council - Regular Meeting

If everybody would rise, we will do a prayer, and then if you remain standing, we'll do a pledge of allegiance. Dear Father in Heaven, as we approach the 250-year anniversary of the founding of this great country, America, let us not forget that it is with your divine intervention that has helped guide the leaders from past to the present in the future of how we shape this world and how we shape this country. Let us keep in mind that through you, all things are possible with your guidance and with your help. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and do a roll call.

Callers?

Present.

Allen? Here. Holt?

Present.

Puzzleton? Here. Joe? Here. Campeter?

Present.

Lester?

Here.

Michael?

Here.

Thomas?

Here for one night only. Young? Present. Navicora?

All right, no encores.

All right, that takes us to item three, adoption of the agenda. I move. Second. Motion is second. Seeing no comments, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, we've adopted the agenda. Item four, miscellaneous agenda items. There were none. Item five, opportunity for public comment. We do have some individuals signed up, so... You will have four minutes to speak. They will put it on the timer up here and the first one is Saffa Vasco. Welcome. If you could just identify yourself so we make sure folks at home and they will, I think, get the clock running here in a second.

Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Sasha Vasco. and I live on 1928 North Circle Drive of Jefferson City. I've been a resident of Jefferson City for 30 years, and I've been riding my bicycle on the streets and roads of Cole County and Jefferson City for eight years. And I'm here to address the law that's been passed. By the way, thank you for passing the law. That's a very helpful law about treating stop signs as a yield sign. And I think the misconception right now is that it may need some education in public, which to me, the only time where I would treat a stop sign as a yield sign is when there is no traffic around. If there is traffic, I'm not going to get in front of traffic. I'm going to stop. This is going to be a stop sign for me. So if there is no traffic around, who are we going to educate? creates a question in my head. So the second item here is stopping on the bike is not as easy as in the car. When I'm stopping on the bicycle, I have to downshift while squeezing the levers, braking, and at the same time twisting my foot out of the pedal. So it kind of creates a dangerous situation. And two years ago, I was riding in town by the capital, and I was stopping at a traffic light, and I lost control of my bike. I hit the curb, went over the handlebars, and had severe trauma, had to be taken to the hospital. Helmet saved me, thank God. If we can avoid these unnecessary stops, I feel that that's going to make our roads safer, not more dangerous for bicyclists, I mean. And I also would like to remark that, in my opinion, riding bicycle on the roads of Cole County and Jefferson City is a very exceptional experience. And I've been to places. I've been to Boulder, Colorado. I've been to Seattle, San Francisco. I've seen all those places. And I think that riding bicycle in Cole County is at the top is the best place for me to ride a bicycle. So I would very much like to see the city to promote this activity. I feel like that's a great opportunity for tourism and overall, you know, health and development of the city. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, Frances Klar. Again, if you'd identify yourself, welcome. Thanks for being here.

Thank you. My name is Francis Carr and I'm a president of Ward 3. I'd like to take this opportunity first to say thank you to Derek and to Trica for your representation in Ward 3. Best of luck to you in the future, Derek. I'm here to speak in opposition of the proposed amendment that changes how vacancies are filled on the City Council. Section 1 of the 2026-008 repeals sections 12 through 18 and acts one new section. I worked for the legislative oversight division for like five sessions, so I'm pretty familiar with this. So the first thing I noticed was the footnote that indicated that deleted language was shown that it would be struck out. That's not in the amendment, so you don't really know what language is being changed. So, therefore, I had to go back to the city code, which I did to figure out what was really being deleted and what was being put in the new stuff is underlined. But you do not have the deleted language in there, so people really don't know what you're doing to this section. That's one of my concerns. And I also wonder what the rationale is for including the mayor in filling vacancies. Because in my review of the code, the city code today, I didn't find anything that would give the mayor authority to be involved in filling vacancies on the city council. In fact, our city charter has numerous places in it that basically says this function is to be fulfilled by the city council, not the mayor. So if you're going to change this, in my opinion, you have to go back and you have to change the charter. And if you're going to change the charter, you have to put it out for a public vote. Which brings me to another very important issue. And this is the elimination of public participation. I'm not even, I'm beyond annoyed. I'm angry that you think it's okay to remove the public's right to be involved in our city government. We are a participatory democracy and we have the right to be here and to be involved in this and to state our opinions. And I don't wanna have to write a note to TREKA and whoever fills Derek's position and say I'm opposed to this and this is why. I'm quite capable of coming here myself and telling you why I'm opposed to it. So eliminating public participation is wrong. And you really don't have the right under our democracy to take away public participation. I worked in state government for many years. I worked with a lot of different federal agencies. Public participation is a hallmark. of our democracy and it has a very high value and we have every right to be involved and as far as i'm concerned you have no right to take away public participation for the citizens of jefferson city thank you thank you for being here

Jackson Hoteling?

Did you identify yourself?

Thanks for being here.

For sure, thank you. My name is Jackson Hoteling. I'm not a resident of Jefferson City, but I'm a frequent work and leisure visitor from my home in Columbia. I mostly get here via Amtrak, Greyhound, or by biking on the Katy Trail. So I'm here today representing Missourians for Responsible Transportation. We're a partnership between TrailNet in St. Louis, BikeWalk KC in Kansas City, Ozark Greenways in Springfield, and Local Motion in Columbia. So as an organization that advocates for the needs of Missouri's vulnerable road users, or those who walk, bike, use wheelchairs, or take transit across the state, we are concerned by the disturbing trends locally, statewide, and nationally. when it comes to bike and ped fatalities. So Missouri's fatality data is not yet finalized for 2025. However, it's possible that we reached a record high when accounting for both bicyclists and pedestrians this past year. So I'm here to really talk about the Idaho stop law or the stop as yield law that's being proposed in favor of its adoption. We do believe that it's an important mechanism that Jefferson City can take to reverse the trends that I mentioned locally with safety benefits to bicycle riders that include reducing exposure at intersections by increasing visibility of riders to motorists as well. So to quote the 2023 document developed by NHTSA that's included in the council meeting packet, based upon the current research and data available, these laws showed added safety benefits for bicyclists in states where they were evaluated and may positively impact the environment, traffic, and transportation. So I know that this was sent back by the mayor. I just wanted to respond to a few of the mayor's concerns about the Idaho stop law. So just in terms of its existence and adoption around here, this isn't such a new and bold thing anymore. It's a growing standard accepted in municipalities and now about 13 states, including our neighbors in Oklahoma and Arkansas. So we actively have places where people know what the law is on one part of the state line. And maybe if you're in Northwest Arkansas, you might not think that that's not true. We also have a dead red law, which allows bicyclists and motorcyclists to proceed through red lights if the light does not change to green for them within a reasonable period of time. So the Idaho stop law would extend the dead red light safety principles to more intersection contexts. And from a financial standpoint, If safety is improved, as expected in this case, this will amount to a cost savings for the municipality if your city services are needed for injury and fatality response. So the National Safety Council measured the average comprehensive societal cost for traffic fatalities in 2024. to be more than $14 million. So that includes the quality of life and all sorts of things in addition to the direct economic costs that will be faced and that the city would have to pay some part in paying for. So just to conclude, adopting the Idaho stop law, the stop is yield law, is an opportunity for Missouri's capital city to improve the safety and efficiency of its intersection. So I look forward to riding around the streets in the future. So thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Great. Michael. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. If you could just identify yourself.

I'm Michael Cardinal. I actually live in Holtz Summit, but I work in Jeff City and spend most of my time riding the roads of Jeff City. I'd like to support the Idaho Stop Cycling Ordinance. I'd like to address a few of the concerns that have been raised. First, if there's a car involved, do cyclists have to abide by regular traffic laws? Yes. It does not change right away. And this is also a permissive, not mandatory. So if a cyclist wanted to stop because they didn't feel safe, they definitely can. How does this help traffic move faster? First, it helps reducing unnecessary stops, maintaining momentum, and helping riders clear intersections more quickly. When a cyclist can roll through an intersection without stopping, they can get out of the way faster, which benefits motorists behind them as much as a cyclist. It makes the whole system more efficient. If a car and a cyclist approach a four-way stop, the cyclist gets there first and proceeds, but the car driver, assuming that everyone must stop and then go, and hits the cyclist who's at fault. Legally, cyclists must yield to vehicles or pedestrians who have the right-of-way. So, once again, this does not change the legality of the right-of-way. Fourth, is it like the red turn or right on red? Yes, it is. It's actually probably the opposite comparison. You know, only after stopping and checking for traffic are you usually legally allowed to go through a ride on red, similar to how the yield would be. In closing, I'd like to say that there's a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop Law in a 2009 study. A Delaware study found a 23% reduction in injuries at stop sign controlled intersections. Oregon State University simulator study found no unsafe behavior for bike riders and no difficulty sharing the road for motorists under stop as yield conditions. This law has been tested for over 40 years in Idaho, adopted in Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, and other states. The data supports it, logic supports it, and with the right public education effort accompanying it, our community can implement it safely.

Great purpose. Welcome. Thank you, sir. You can just identify yourself. Appreciate you being here.

I'm Ray Purvis, I am a citizen here of Jefferson City, have been for probably about 39 going on party years. I am not a major bicyclist here in Jefferson City, but some of the things that I do appreciate about Jefferson City and our biking awareness and that is the fact that we have that beautiful greenway, that's my style of bike riding, not on the city streets. But we also have the marked Cheryl Lane bicycle lanes throughout the city and some great bicyclist opportunities. We also have the connection to the Katy Trail. And it just seems like with those safety and statistics presented by several of the presenters, the city of Jefferson City has a chance to be that model city to support bicyclists in their safety and such. That's all I have to offer, sir. Council?

Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Henry Hitchens? Welcome. Again, if you could just identify yourself for folks watching at home.

Good evening City Council and Mayor Fitzwater. My name is Henry Hentges and I was born and raised here in Jefferson City and I'm currently a resident. My wife and I live on Morrow Drive just on the east side of town here and I am a quality manufacturing engineer at Hitachi Energy which is the old ABB plant right across the river. So I go across the bridge every single day to get to work and I have been biking to work I've been shooting for one to two days a week, just whenever I have the time to do it and the weather cooperates with me is when I normally do it. And I really enjoyed that aspect of commuting. It's great exercise. I love the scenery going across the bridge. I love that it takes a little bit longer, but it's a great way to just engage with the city on a more local level and to get the exercise and enjoy the nature i'm also coming to you guys in addition to that i also cycle for fun outside of work i do do mountain biking and i also do right on the roads in jefferson city and around cole county and i am also coming to you guys in favor of the idaho stop law In my experience, I believe this would be a helpful precaution to take for us cyclists, especially for me and probably a lot of other cyclists as well. We use clip-in shoes. So whenever we are having to stop at an intersection or a stoplight, we have to unclip at least one of our shoes or both. And then we lose most or all of our momentum when we have to do that. And then doing that, coordinating that with also paying attention to what's going on with the intersection with the traffic just adds another layer of risk and also makes it more difficult for us. And it's also slower for us to get through the intersection because we lose all that momentum and we have to unclip and clip in. So I think this would be a helpful measure. It would help us to be able to cycle more safely. And I also think it would help improve traffic flow both for us cyclists and for the traffic, the automobile traffic around. And I think this could be a helpful thing for our city that would encourage more people to adopt cycling as well. Thank you all for your time. Thanks. Thank you.

Hannah King. Anne, if you could just identify yourself. Thanks for being with us.

Of course. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. My name is Hannah King, and I am a resident of the Fifth Ward on Bald Hill Road. I'm here today to speak in support of the Idaho Stop Law being implemented in Jefferson City. Making cities safer for cyclists and pedestrians is a topic I'm greatly passionate about. So when I saw on Facebook a few weeks ago that the Council passed the Idaho Stop Law, I was very happy to see my hometown was taking such strides for safety for cyclists. Then yesterday I saw in the paper that the mayor had vetoed the ordinance and I must say I was a bit confused. I was confused because the media coverage I had seen regarding the topic seemed to imply that the new ordinance was already in effect. I was also a bit confused as to why the passing of this ordinance would be a subject of debate in the first place. As both a cyclist and a motorist in Jefferson City, this ordinance would benefit me no matter what mode of transportation I was taking. As a motorist, this ordinance could save me time on my commute. If I'm behind a bicycle approaching a stop sign with no cross traffic, I currently would have to stop and wait for the cyclist to come to a full stop, take their foot out of the clip, and then build up the momentum to go through the intersection. With the passing of this ordinance, if the coast is clear, the cyclist can continue through the intersection and I will not have to wait behind them. As a cyclist, this ordinance would benefit me by greatly reducing my risk of being involved in a collision with the vehicle at an intersection. Multiple studies have found that stop-as-yield laws improve safety for cyclists by increasing visibility to drivers and reducing their exposure when they're on the side of the road. After reading about the veto on the paper, I looked up the veto message that was quoted, and I read over the reasons for the veto. And I appreciate the concerns that are brought up, but I wanted to use the last of my time to address some of these concerns directly. In regards to education for motorists, motorists will make no changes to the way that they drive and will not need to worry about cyclists riding out in front of them at intersections after the passing of this ordinance, because as Andy Besselman said, cyclists do not want to be hit by cars. I have traveled to states that have Idaho stop laws, as I'm sure many of you have as well. There are 12 of them, including the District of Columbia. None of these states have signage explaining the Idaho Stop Law to visitors, and that lack of education has not prevented the Idaho Stop from being an effective safety measure. I don't see any reason why Jefferson City drivers would need more education on this topic than the residents of Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or any other state that has already implemented this law. Also, in regards to public education on this topic, I would like to take a moment to circle back to the previous confusion on the passing of this ordinance. I, as well as many others of the community, believe this ordinance to already be in effect. I actually brought along a picture of the Google results if you look up the Idaho stop law in Jefferson City. You'll find not only news talking about it, but members of the community on Reddit, Facebook, X, and YouTube. If the veto is sustained, a large amount of education will need to go out to tell members of the community that the Idaho stop is not actually in effect. More education than I believe would be necessary if the ordinance is passed. Lastly, I would like to end with the main reason why I'm so passionate about this topic and why I took the time out of my day to attend this council meeting. Throughout the talks regarding this ordinance, there has been no disagreement over the fact that this measure improves safety for cyclists. There is really no debating the fact that stop-as-yield laws save lives. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, the University of California, Berkeley, and many other reputable sources have found it to do so. With Missouri being ranked 49th in the country for cyclist safety and 25 cyclist fatalities on Missouri roads last year, Jefferson City currently has the unique opportunity to lead the state in a change that could save lives. I ask the council to please review the reasons for the veto and weigh them against the possibility that this bill could save just one member of our community.

Thank you. That is all we had signed up. All right, we will move to item six, public hearings. We have none for tonight. Item seven, appointments by the mayor. You have a list in front of you.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. All right, thank you very much. That passes. Presentation from staff consultants and invited guests. I'm not aware of any. Fixes to announcements by Mayor, Council, and staff. Item number nine, Councilman Adler's Administration Committee.

There will be no meeting this month.

All right. Councilman Leichhold, Finance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our next meeting will be June 17th at 4 p.m. across the hall.

Public Safety, Councilwoman Mello.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our next meeting will be Thursday, June 25th at 3.30 across the hall.

All right. And then Public Works, Councilman Campeter. June 11th, 7.30 here at Council Chambers.

Any other announcements? All right. Item 10, consent agenda. You have one item in front of you, which are the minutes. Motion to approve? Second. All right, we have motion and a second. Seeing no discussion, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Minutes are approved. item number 11 bills introduced item 11a 2026-005 thank you mr mayor uh before you the bill being filed up again we need to read it

In ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, changing, amending, and modifying the zoning map of the zoning code of the City of Jefferson by rezoning 20.6 acres located at 2117 Christie Drive from RS2 Low Density Residential to C2 General Commercial.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. So the bill before you is introducing a rezoning for the property located at 2117 Christie Drive. And that is a rezoning from an RS-2 to C-2. It's being introduced tonight and then the public hearing will take place on June 15th. In your packet and on the screen, the property in question is outlined in blue. The property is located on Christie Drive, about a half mile south of Ellis, just south of the Toyota dealership there. The purpose of the requested rezoning is to allow for commercial improvements to this property. The property owner to the north of it is who owns this property as well. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval unanimously at their May 14th meeting on a vote of six to zero. And as I said previously, we'll be public hearing at the next council meeting. Be happy to answer any questions.

All right, seeing none, thank you. Item 11B, 2026-006. I'll give you time to read it this time.

In ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, changing, amending, and modifying the zoning map of the Zoning Code of the City of Jefferson by rezoning 4.1 acres located at 3701 West Sherman Boulevard from C1 Neighborhood Commercial to C2 General Commercial.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the clerk stated, the bill before you is for rezoning of the property at 3701 West Truman Boulevard. It has a rezoning from a C1 to a C2. The property is outlined in blue on the screen and also is including your packet. It is currently the site of the Hawthorne Bank, which is just... at the intersection of west tremont boulevard and amazonas drive just north of the high b grocery store the zoning request is to allow for additional commercial development of the property that is not currently able to be permitted under the c1 this uh This rezoning went to the Planning and Zoning Commission on their May 14th meeting and passed by a unanimous vote of six to zero. And we'll come back before council for a public hearing on June 15th. You happy to answer any questions?

All right, so no, thank you. A11C2026-007.

In ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, changing, amending, and modifying the zoning map of the Zoning Code of the City of Jefferson by rezoning .5 acre, located at 428 East Capitol Avenue from MU-1 Mixed Use to PUD Planned Unit Development and approving a PUD plan.

travel thank you mr mayor uh as the clerk stated uh the bill before you is introducing uh planning or rezoning and a pud plan for the property at 428 east capitol avenue this property is located at the corner of jackson and capitol avenue it's outlined in blue on your screen it is currently a mixed use one zoning Before you, you have the view of the property from the street. The property is currently a brutalist style of architecture and is in contrast to the rest of the architecture in the area. One of the reasons this is coming before you is due to the fact that it is in the overlay district up on Capitol Avenue. So one of the parts of the overlay district was to put in a provision that buildings that were unable to comply with that overlay would have an option to be able to be rehabbed under the PUD plan, which is why it's before you. So before you, some renderings that were provided to us of what the new additions look would be to the outside of the property. There would be some exterior lighting, some exterior signage, metal panes that are installed on the windows and then also more street level landscaping around the building. at night you can see what their lighting plan is and then also on the building up here you can see that there's a little area up here that's being added and that is to extend their elevator shafts so that they can actually put a meeting slash patio area on the top of the roof to enhance the you know view from the downtown area um the planning and zoning commission recommended this for approval at their may 14th meeting on a unanimous vote of six to zero and it is scheduled for public hearing at the june 15th council meeting be happy to answer any questions

I note the brutalist architecture, but that's rapidly becoming historic. Historic preservation or any of our historic planners, et cetera, had any chance to weigh in on this?

not in historic preservation being that it's it's a pud plan it's a land use action so it went through planning zoning and not the historic preservation commission okay thank you

Well, there is a public comment section on the planning and zoning meeting, so there are opportunities for people to respond and there will be a public comment section at the next meeting in the public hearing. Correct. Any other questions? All right, you will see these three back at the next meeting. Item 11 D2026-008.

An ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri amending the City Code regarding filling of vacancies.

Mr. Nicholas.

Thank you, Your Honor. This came through the Administration Committee. Following the last fill in the vacancies that we had, there was some discussion by the council that they weren't happy with the process that was in the code and we show them. Various options, and this is the option that was selected. It is an option that has a number of steps. After the vacancy is declared, the mayor will send out a notice to the community that there is a debt out there. And following that, the council will have the opportunity to make nominations. Those nominations will be covered, accompanied with a resume. And then at the next following meeting, the council will vote on those. And part of that was to address the issue that the there was a thought that the current process was too long and too cumbersome. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Councilman, thank you. Mr. Nicholas on the part where the mayor may submit names. So then that basically gives the mayor the same opportunity to present candidates that have presented themselves to him as qualified. Other than that, his authority is no greater than it was before whenever it comes to this process. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. And I think there is some misunderstanding on that subject. The mayor is, in fact, a member of the council. He is a member who has some limited powers. You know, he can only vote in certain instances, but he is still a member of the council. And if you compare, I've said many times, just city's ordinance is unique in the state. And one of the primary differences is in almost every other city, particularly third-class cities, we should have city laws. Mr. Mayor? Point of order.

State your point of order. And I'm sorry for the interruption, but the city attorney's role is to advise us on the legality and so forth and help writing arts and stuff, but I feel like he's venturing into advocacy for a different method of function for the council.

I see your point of order not well taken. He was asked a direct question. My impression is he's trying to answer that direct question. I will proceed, sir.

So in other cities, the mayor does have that role. In fact, he's the only one who can nominate. That's what makes Jefferson City's process very unique. So yeah, it certainly is not unusual or beyond the scope of the charter for the mayor to be included in the process.

Thank you, Mr. Nicholas. Other questions or comments? Councilman Lester.

Yes, I'm going to move to amend the bill 26-008 to replace section of my name with N-C-T and we have that for you. I previously shared I will make that motion. And I will second. Okay, I'll make some comments. I previously shared an e-mail which I outlined under principles, I think, to guide the council in developing this process. And among those, I thought the ordinance and secure replacement where a counselor explicitly defined the time frame for the process, allowing nominations and votes to occur as soon as possible, but also providing adequate time to identify willing and qualified candidates, implementing candidates in argument and reform selection. And I also thought a founding principle should be the basic process we've used for work. There's no need to change it. Whereas language in our current ordinance explicitly sets a minimum two-week window to begin the nomination process to replace the council vacancy, the language in the bill has an indeterminate timeframe. The substitute language that I've presented to you specifies a minimum two-week time period between vacancy announcement and meeting at which nominations are obtained. I think all would agree it takes time to alert the public and identify prospective qualified candidates who may want to serve. I would hope a future council will not abuse the absence of a specified minimum time frame, but hope or even common sense may not prevail when ambition or political advantage are in the mix. I strongly encourage my colleagues to adopt the proposed substitute. language that requires a two-week period at a minimum between the announcement of vacancy to be filled and the convening of the meeting at which nominations are entertained to fill the vacancy. In addition, this bill introduces a new element to the process by, according to the mayor, new authority to nominate a candidate for council replacement. The language placed before you removes the mayor from the council vacancy replacement process. I'll echo Councilman Thomas' concern that the addition in the bill's language of affording the mayor a new authority to nominate a replacement candidate for council vacancy is contrary to language and intent of the city charter. I think the charter language of building council vacancies is clear. It states a vacancy in the council should be built by the council by rejoining all its remaining members. I know that's pretty much what our lawyer said, but I've talked with people on the charter committee and their view is that the mayor was not a member of the council, he was the mayor. The charter does specify powers and duties of the mayor, having a role in the process for filling the council vacancies, not more than those. Since the charter was adopted in 1986, 40 years ago, many council vacancies have been filled by the council. I've been directly involved in two of those, and they both went fairly smoothly, although, as has been mentioned, there were complaints about the process that we currently have in ordinance that we used most recently. In none of the previous processes has the mayor had a role, and no council throughout that 40-year time period has suggested that the mayor have a role. Why are we proposing such a change? Why are we proposing to afford the mayor new authority not granted in the target. If the mayor wants a person to dominate, do you think he or she will not be able to enlist the council member's assistance in giving that name in the mix? Of course, from the mayor's point of view, I can see that publicly, according to the candidate as the mayor's nominee, may have more influence on the outcome. Is this what the council wants? It may look good now, but not look so good with another mayor less favorable to your point of view as an office. Another consideration is that if we approve the proposal having the mayor with this role, it's unlikely the mayor's involvement will ever be renewed. the mayor has veto power over ordinance changes so if we pass an ordinance that increases mayoral influence future mayors will likely work to keep it in place i urge you to adopt this my substitute language for section c2 uh to win this

Councilwoman Allen.

Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of questions. So we've been doing it this way with the charter for 40 some years?

No. No, it was changed in the early 2000s. Okay. 2002. 2002? Prior prior to that, my recollection is that it was the mayor nominated the council.

Okay, but okay, so the past 20 years, we've been doing it with the city council is doing it. Okay. So the 1 thing I don't quite understand and of course. Maybe if it's what I totally respect you, so this doesn't have anything to do with you at all, but I don't understand. I wasn't able to come to the. To the committee meeting, and there's not a recording of it as we know. So I can't look and watch and see. So I don't really understand how that was introduced or why because. The intent I understood was to simplify the process. I just don't understand why that was added. It does seem to me logically like a separation of powers and I, you know, as an auditor, I tend to be sort of a separation of powers person, but that's what I'm curious about. I don't know if anybody can answer that from that's on the administration committee. That would be interested in answering that. I don't just don't understand the logic to it.

Thank you. There was a lot of discussion about how we maybe simplify it other than the code and the charter didn't align itself. With the discussion, my recollection of the mayor is the mayor being a member of the council, as a person who runs the meetings and all that, if he has a nomination, another person that would come to him to submit their name, he could nominate somebody like that. No other discussion was other than that, that if he had a person that he wished to nominate, he could submit that to the council. So it was nothing other than If there's another one that came about that people out there that were interested in submitting their nominations, he would just forward that nomination on to him and then they would have to have a second.

And just to clarify, Councilman Lester, is the only change here Removing that and sending a time frame. Is that is that the only change you're making to what's being proposed to us?

That's still the changes in what I'm recommending right now. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Council knowledge to your real quick. I don't think that we were looking at is trying to figure out to get the existing person, whoever we nominated. to vote on at that meeting is the faster to fill the seat. It was still gonna have, we were still taking questions, there's still gonna be public input, all that, but we looked for when the resignation was handed in and then how fast before the two meetings and all that was gonna take place afterwards as far as the way maybe have a a a quicker process to build an outgoing thing so we're looking at ways to fill the outgoing seat faster um you know but still having to a definitive time when we're going to start it when we're public input and all that the essentials of it so all right councilman hoselton had his hand up a while ago then we'll get it councilman camp peter councilman hoselton

Councilman Ahlers, has the language in this amendment, was this present whenever the admin committee reviewed the process? No. So this is the first time you've seen this? yes well before the before the uh the meeting and i got a copy of it so where elements of this discussed at the admin committee and wade and if they were why weren't they considered then and what what made you

go away from those we had four options that our the general counsel for the city gave to us to try to figure out a way to that we could all agree on that would bring before the council and after a lot of debate and discussions on it we came up with this thing being the the best option to uh maybe streamline the process and uh i don't know if there was a lot of deliberation on you know i think my general consensus of having the mayor just be able to submit a name or something like that uh was a good thing and be more people involved with that have to be but that's uh my recollection of the meeting thanks and also so just because the mayor may nominate the mayor does not get a vote whenever it comes time to select the candidate

That was the intent. Right. And so then, with that being said, the rounds of voting, the endless rounds of voting in this process that were in the formal process has been eliminated where it's simple majority now, right? Instead of we keep going until someone gets, was it six or five votes?

I can't remember what it was, but it's just a simple majority. Whoever can come up with a majority.

Councilman Holt.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Nicholas, you mentioned moments ago that the mayor constitutes a member of the council. So I'm curious with regards to the language that's proposed in the amendment as well. It mentions council members. Does that include the mayor with regards to nomination? With regards to nomination, yes. So essentially what the amendment would be doing, and even in the prior process that was approved by Thank you number 2, I believe you said was the mayor allowed to make a nomination or that language for council member. Unfortunately, I don't have it here, but I would assume if he's treated as a council member, if he would have had the ability to.

I think he would have, I mean, it's hard to say that was kind of poorly drafted. I. But I think as I read it, yes.

Okay. So under this, if we adopted the substitute language, we would then be building in a waiting period for the community to respond to any additional concerns or comments they might want to make with regards to now the meetings. And since the meetings are already delayed by two weeks normally anyway, given the scheduling of council meetings, that delay would be from one council meeting to the next after resignation, correct?

So, under this plan, of course, kind of depends on when the, when the vacancy occur, but at the 1st meeting, following the vacancy, you'd have the nominations and then you'd have the election at the next 1, which normally would be 2 weeks later. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so.

just your comment earlier um the thought was during the meeting was it should for the mayor was just giving another person to nominate it's just it could be just like if we open it up to the public then anybody can nominate You know, it's just giving another person, but we don't need 500 people nominating people.

I was going to ask what you were going to suggest.

No, I'm not suggesting. I'm just saying. It's just trying to get more options in there. The other thing is, is why I'm confused, is this passed, and the admin, he vanished, if I remember right. And so I'm just confused and why it's coming up today and not prior. So it's like a last minute and I didn't know anything about it. So I don't have time to think about it. Usually when it's passionate, actually, you don't see the change coming. And then the other comment I had was, I think it was kind of asked by Councilman Holt and then was answered was the time-wise. If the vacancy happens and then the next meeting is when the nominations occur, you're still giving all your times in there. And then when your, let's see, when your nominations are made, then you have two weeks before you vote. So if I remember, I mean, from the meeting, it was all, everybody agreed the timeline was fine. So I'm not sure where the confusion's at. And that's just, I guess, my question.

Comes from . Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I enjoy a discussion and maybe some debate over things that are important that have substance, and this one certainly does. And there's difference of opinion of people that I greatly respect their own kind of different thoughts on it. So I'm glad to exchange or interject my thoughts on it. First of all, about the mayor aspect of it, No matter who the mayor has been or in the past, if there have been vacancies, had probably at least to some level canvassed the community or that particular award for potential candidates unofficially, generally. I think most people would come to that conclusion. With it being stated in the language, I could see where that really just makes it transparent. Who the mayor, he or she down the road could ever enter into that with nominee with having not a vote, but unable to appoint or recommend or present to this body as a vote. So to me, there's some good transparency piece of that part of it. I think I'd rather have it that way maybe than going out and canvassing or recruiting or whatever. I mean, sometimes these positions aren't easy to find. And competition is a good thing from my background. So if there's multiple candidates, that's a win for our community, no matter who they come from within this body. timeframe-wise from the Admin Committee, and generally from this body before we even got to the Admin, we met the last time when Councilman Holt joined us We are trying to just streamline the process, not to exclude the public by any means, but we just wanted to streamline to get a replacement as soon and as quickly as we possibly could so we had everyone seated. No ill intent at all in any of our discussions, and they've all been public. So, anyway, that's just just my thoughts on those 2 key elements of what we're kind of discussing tonight. So, thank you.

I also think it's important to understand to the. Like, Mr. Michael said, this isn't. More pertaining to the continuity of government, whenever a vacancy does arise by no means is serving the public process. If the public is unhappy with who is selected, they may fire him whenever he runs for reelection. So the public is not out of the account for this. Just a couple of comments.

The current bill language about the timeframe states that a regular or special meeting after the notice of vacancy is made, selected by the council, which is referring to the meeting council members place names in the nomination. Since it could be a special meeting, That can happen really quickly after an announcement. That's what I'm trying to get at and saying there needs to be a specific timeframe that allows the public and for us to identify qualified persons to nominate. I'm just trying to make sure that This cannot be, I know it won't be done by this council, but any council in the future will try to hurry up and just do it right after the announcement. I think that's important. Related to the mayor, I've talked with a person who was a member of the term committee. They were very adamant that there intent was the mayor was not considered a member of the council and the mayor was not to have a role in this process uh and i i do take issue uh that the mayor has ever ever been involved uh i don't think so since the chart if that's the case please give me an example i don't think it's happening I don't think the mayor's nomination can be viewed as just like another nomination. I think the mayor does have, his nomination has weight. He's a special member elected by the whole city. I don't see how anybody sees that that's the same as a member of the council.

But that's my opinion. Councilman Thomas? Excuse me, Mr. Nicholas, did you have a response to that?

I'll let you. It's twofold. First of all, there have been a number of times, and I think I know actually who you probably talked to, but the rule is this. What the charter drafters thought gives no relevance. We don't use that when we're interpreting what the charter means. We read the charter for what they wrote. Okay, and that's it. And the charter clearly says the mayor should be the president of the council. I don't see how you can see that and they could have written that and said the mayor's not a member of the council. How could he be president of the council and not be a member of the council? So that's just completely wrong. And I can also tell you that from, you know, I can't pull out specific examples, but, you know, I worked here for 10 years and we had vacancies and we did make those nominations. That did happen that way. And so I think your source is just forgotten.

I've got Councilman Thomas and then Councilwoman Young and then Councilwoman Allen. So

I'm speaking in support of Councilman Lester's substitute language and also against what's currently written. I keep hearing that we need to speed up the process and make it quicker and so forth. And I fail to see what the urgency, the emergency is to do that in our city government. when that can, could come at the expense of public involvement. And my whole reason for being in this seat was to help bring the public into the process and make it more transparent. So anything that even potentially cuts out public participation just sticks in my craw. Mayor as council person, I get the president of council reference, but you can be chairman of the board, and that doesn't necessarily mean that you're a member of the board as much as you are the presiding officer to keep things flowing, et cetera. I also want to respond to the comment about this being a last minute talk about what was unanimously passed at the Admin Committee. I would love to have known what happened at the Admin Committee ahead of time, but getting minutes out of Admin seldom comes. It came to Council in the packet and that's when I found out about it. I don't see this as last minute at all. as to this being or having been a unique process. Thank God for unique processes. I am proud of Jefferson City as being a unique city that does things in a leadership position rather than me too. So those are my thoughts and I would hope that we could pass the substitute language. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to mention that I was at the admit meeting and I did vote for the substitution for the mayor to be included. But here from the public, my concern is that if the public have a problem with the transparency of that, that this language should clearly include the language that's included on his amendment but and i hear the attorney saying that the mayor is a part of the council but maybe the language on this amendment should say council members With the clue, excluding the mayor, I did have a question at the admin meeting about the language as well. I also had a question about the public. Having a chance to discuss the. And address the nominees, those were my 2 questions. um and right now today i continue to have those same questions so with this amendment i would like if we were going to vote on it i would like for it to be amended to if we were going to vote on it as such to actually state that the council members minus the mayor on it so that it could be clear language that's that's my only input councilwoman allen and then councilman

All due respect council, the reality is the mayor and the city council are separate. We do have separate powers and authority. So. You know, if we go down that slippery road, you're basically pretty soon we'll just be including everybody in everything. And that's really not the event of. A city government and the way we work, there are separation of powers between the mayor and the city council. So I just don't. That just doesn't jive with me what you're saying about that. And again, this really has to do with. I just think there are separation of powers and they're there for a reason. And so that's really where I'm coming from hearing from other people of the community. I think that that separation is important and that we have the mayor does a great job in his function. The council does a great job in our function. So I just all I'm going to say on that is I just don't agree with your viewpoint on that. Thank you.

Mr. Nicholas, so just to be clear, I don't have any, any, any. Any dog in this hunt. Okay. You know, put the Mary in and take the ball. All right. Okay. I don't that doesn't bother me. What does bother me though is I'm hearing these things that are just not correct. Okay. And my job is my job is to bring you the law and to tell you this is what the law says. If you look through the case law. And I do that all the time. It's what I do every day, all day. No doubt, no doubt that the mayor is a member of the council. The courts recite that all the time. This is not some wild concept that I invented. And the people who wrote the charter knew that when they wrote this. The mayor is part of the council. And while I respect the concept of separation of powers, in local government, that's a very different concept than what you would think of at, say, the state or the federal level. For instance, you don't see the governor or the president sitting on the council. They sit separately because they're separate. You also don't have, as you have on the council, the legislature making judicial decisions. But this body can sometimes sit in a legislative, or sorry, in a judicial capacity. And so separation of powers in the local level, local government, is very different. And it really has to do with you only doing one thing at a time, not that there's that kind of The 3 ring circus that we all learned about, you know, from schoolhouse rock. Okay. It's just, it's just very, very different. And that does, I know that that's confusing. Okay. But it is the way that it is, and that's what I try to do for you guys is to bring to you and say, this is the way local government works. I am an attorney and have studied the law, I've studied municipal law for 30 years. People who are giving advice have never been to law school. They are getting their own personal opinions, not based on any law. The things that I say, I can back up with case law and with the charter and with the ordinances.

Can I respond to that? I didn't mean any disrespect to you at all on that. It's simply I don't agree with your analogy. I do think separation of power is important. And, you know, as an attorney, you have the right to give us the advice and I do appreciate it, but I don't always have to agree with it always. So thank you so much.

Councilman Hall and then Councilman Ellers.

Councilman Western, so just to be clear, in comparing this language to the proposed language, specifically that section two, The exclusion of the bear one way or the other doesn't seem to apply. It sounds like the mayor could have participated in previous appointments, but this does specifically allow for an additional 2 week period. To provide the public with that notice, and then potentially participate in public comment at the hearing in which. The individual who has been nominated or the nominees are going to appear present themselves to counsel. Is that correct? Is that your understanding of what this amendment does? This is my question.

As I said before, yes, the amendment requires a two-week period between, at least a two-week period between announcement and nomination meeting. Okay, it does that. the way I wrote it, my intent was that it no longer included the mayor. In fact, I also sent in my email, what it currently says in the bill, and I show in red, strike out, which strikes out in the mayor or the mayor. So I mean, I think I was clear that my intent with this language was to not include the mayor. And as I said, it's been at least 20 years that the mayor has not been involved in this process. then I think it's probably more than that. But anyway, regardless, it's not been the case that the mayor has been involved. And as far as I know, there's not been a problem with these vacancy replacements.

Thank you. Thank you very much and good back and forth from our council members. I like it a lot at no time. Did we look to start event the public? It was actually. a way to get questions from the public. When we found out about it, they could email us questions that they wanted to get to. If they couldn't attend, there was never any discussion that said that we were going to circumvent the public from input in this at the administration meeting. What we look to do is try to figure out a way from what the charter said and the city code said to align something that we come up that is uniformity down the line. And it still has the same, almost the same thing as what the code says about the nominations and the timeline and all that stuff. The only thing to me looks different, in my opinion, looks different is that we're We're going to discuss and debate whether the mayor is a council member and or has the right to maybe submit a nomination. Although that he does nominate people for vacancies, if you read up further up into this stuff. I respect our general counsel when he went through the 4 or 5 options he gave us. We debated this pretty good at the probably for an hour at the thing and it did pass unanimous. So getting this amendment and then. It was more than likely in the paper before I ever got a copy of it, so I'm not sure how transparent that is. If the paper writes an article before the chairman of the administration meeting gets any kind of notice or discussion on it. So I am taking a little bit back about why that was done. As everyone knows, I'm generally an easy person to get along with these person get a hold of. I would love to have further discussion and see if we can fine tune it. But this did pass the administration meeting five to nothing. So I look forward to more debate on this.

I'm sure. Thank you. Councilman Housleton has the next.

that's impossible i would draw mine i was gonna i was gonna call the question but apparently there is more to be said at all i mean the only i have communicated by email with people on the council i'm not communicating with anybody else what staff

I assume you were referring to the article in the paper on Sunday. Yes.

Councilman Thomas. Just to briefly respond to that, I sent pretty specific language about this out to the full city council, the mayor, Mr. City Manager, and the clerk well before Just never hit the paper.

Councilman Lester, would you take an amendment to your amendment to include say council members not including the mayor? That would be appropriate. Is it appropriate to read it?

For clarification I guess.

I would like to make a motion to change it to say council members not including the mayor may place names if anyone wants to second that. I'll second that.

All right we've got an amendment to the amendment. Is everybody clear on the new proposed language?

I would at least like to be read what it's going to be.

Yeah, I'm here for some. All right, we'll have the clerk read the entire.

At a regular or special meeting selected by the council, which is not less than two weeks after the notice of the vacancy is made, council members, not including the mayor, may place names into nomination. The council member shall provide at that meeting a resume of the candidate. A second of the nomination shall be required. No council member may make more than one nomination. No council member may second more than one nomination.

Mr. Mayor, quick question. I don't know how you would drill this down to which amendment, but I can't remember even which one of my colleagues made a comment about a mayor veto. And whoever said it could clarify it because I'm not sure I understood it. That if something is passed or if the mayor's included it, in order to make another change or revert or any change futuristically somebody made a comment about america veto did somebody clarify i don't know who said it i can't remember

So yes, that was part of my comments, and just, if we place it, well, any ordinance, if we place it in the ordinance and pass it, and then at some future time, if we want to change it, the American veto our change, and then we would have to have more votes to pass it over as veto. Just like what's before is for the black vote. So I'm just saying, As I said before, if you put something in the ordinance that gives the mayor new authority, it's unlikely the mayor is going to want to have that changed for the future so they have less authority.

Okay, thank you. All right, you have an amendment to the amendment in front of you. It has been read. We'll do a roll call vote.

Callers? Aye. Allen? Aye. Holt? Aye. Mazelton? Aye. Joe? Aye. Campeter? No. Lester? Aye. Michael? No. Thomas? Aye. Young? Aye. 8 ayes, 2 noes. The amendment to the amendment passes.

All right you have the amended Amendment in front of you any further discussion on that?

Yeah, I just want to ask council before we vote on this. Are there going to be any other amendments? And the reason I voted no, because this does not give you what you want. That's all I'm going to say. So, is this the final amendment? Are we going to see another one? This isn't the final bill, right? Next time is it? Next time is the second. So, is there going to be another amendment is all I'm asking.

Okay, that's why I voted. No. All right, you have the amended amendment in front of you.

For Alan. All right. No, Joe. I can't Peter. Lester Michael. No. Thomas? Aye. Young? Aye. Allers? No. Six ayes, four nos. All right.

Any other comments on amended 2026-008? All right. Takes us to item E, 2026-009.

In ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, amending the City Code by adding one new section regarding motor vehicle regulations.

She will be welcome. Thank you. It's great to be here. Over the last year or so, we've seen a definite increase in the number of mini bikes, pocket bikes, small bikes that are manufactured for the purpose of basically being toys or off-road type vehicles being used on the city streets. We've got other ordinances that deal with electric bicycles. We have prohibitions against three and four wheel. ATVs on city streets and we don't currently have an ordinance that would prohibit the use of the mini bikes on our streets. So this would give us a mechanism to enforce that ordinance and keep those that are not street legal for me and you live on city streets. Do you have any answer any questions if you have any?

Yeah, and this is... I'm all for this. I just have two clarifications because I get to see these fun little things up on East Capitol every day. What's the difference between an electrical minibike, because they're out there. I can name the guy who drives it. An electrical e-bike or a gas-powered bicycle and a gas-powered minibike. That's the only thing. I want to make sure that's in here because... Those are both up on East Capitol, and I don't know which one I would call it. Just for clarification, if your officer, if I call or somebody calls on East Capitol and says, hey, they're down there, what's that clarification? That's the only question I have. I support this 100%. But as I was reading this, I just all of a sudden thought,

It's a hard line. Generally speaking, the electric bicycle or a motorized bicycle assist the bicyclist that already has pedals. So it's technically a bicycle that has the motor assist through electric or gas purpose. Well, defer to the city attorney if he's got a different view.

Well, it's interesting. I was just talking with another city attorney about this very issue. It is really complex. The number of these types of vehicles is spreading faster than the regulations can catch up with them. So motorcycle is defined as 50 gross braking horsepower. A lot of people say it's 50 cc's, but that's not actually the definition. E-bike has a very specific definition. And bicycle has a very specific definition. And a motorized bicycle has three definitions. So what these are is none of those. That's the thing. And so it is a motorcycle that is small enough in its gross braking horsepower that it doesn't qualify as a motorcycle, and it doesn't qualify as an e-bike, and it doesn't qualify as a bicycle or as a motorized bicycle.

Sorry, if that doesn't make any sense, but if you understand that, I just want to make sure, because I see every 1 of those types of 1 of these capital on a daily basis. Yes. I don't know which 1 to call it.

I struggle with that myself. And usually, when I talk to councils about these, these ordinances, I usually try and bring pictures. You know, so, well, this is this, you know, and then we have scooters, which is a little 2 wheel things. There's no regulations about that at all. Don't do it quite sure how to regulate them. So. This is this is where we've been getting complaints and so this is what we're striking at 1st.

1st of all, I want to say thanks to you for helping us get this drafted. I know you have a lot of expertise in this. And I really appreciate and also the chief and all the police officers who got you got feedback on. I do think that those are really great questions that you asked. And, you know, it wasn't too long ago that actually, I think this was. Not even a bike, but I think it was like a. Hoverboard or something that in another state ran into a site, an actual bicycle, you know, and it killed them both. So there are a lot of probably things like you said that we may have to in the future address that are just the electric part of it just keeps proliferating. But I just want to say, thank you so much for the work that you put into this. It's a really great start for the problems we're having and getting in place on a just city.

Thank you too.

Other than I know these things can be noisy and that's a little obnoxious. Other than that, are we seeing a trend of safety concerns with the operation of these as far as crashes, traumatic incidences? More than just some people riding in a V down the street, I guess.

In the last year, we've had about six or seven confirmed accidents with these type of vehicles on the streets. My biggest concern is actually a lot of them are being driven by our youth in a manner that's really unsafe. I think we've all seen it, people running through stop signs with them. I was present at a Parade a homecoming parade last year where the kids were riding them, you know, through stoplights through stop signs and we really didn't have a manner to to enforce that at the time that I needed, you know, on its face right there. Very unsafe. So.

If I could just add nationwide, the issue with them, it's always been that they're very small. So they're very low to the ground and difficult to see. Easy to hear, but difficult to see.

I'm in support of this. I've seen the young kids up there at the state parking garage down by Union Pacific Railroad, numerous times up on that top level, zipping around, doing wheelies and all kinds of things up there. And also, I've had numerous complaints. I probably, last year's time, I talked to Chief Willie on East Elm. Up there by the renewable sources were used to be that mild diesel board zipping down through there and all that. And a lot of times the gentleman I work with, Craig, would go out in the middle of the street and they'd just go right around him and just go up and down the street. And in time, get somebody over there, they'd be gone or parked somewhere behind where they couldn't find themselves. I think this is a good thing.

I myself can also personally attest to the nuisance and hazard of these 20 bike groups.

I'm out of the door in access.

I've almost been run down by a group of them, and I found myself in the mud instead. So this is needed.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, thank you. Item 2026-010.

In ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, amending the City Code by adding one new section regarding stunt driving.

Chief Wilden, welcome back. Thank you once again. This is another situation that's generated a lot of complaints for the police department again over the past year or so with what I call display driving, stunt driving, the popping wheelies on your motorcycles, unsafe actions, doing donuts in the middle of the street, those sort of things. Again, we didn't have a mechanism in place for the specific display stunt type driving that's going to be detailed in this ordinance. So I'll be happy again to answer any questions.

Councilman Campion? okay again just a clarification um so the first part are just definitions so the burnouts and all that but then in b number one it says perform stunt driving in connection with street takeover it doesn't just say anywhere that i could found just the act of stunt driving it only connected it to street takeovers so i took this as i could still go do a burnout and really as long as i'm not in a street takeover But I may have read it wrong because I'm nowhere close to the lawyer, but I just wanted to check that. I'm 100% for it again, but.

I just read it a little different, so we copied this from the new state statute. But if I look at it, I think that's a concern and we'll look at it before the next reading.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, I, I had that same concern about it.

Thank you. Texas item 12A2026-004 bills pending. I think we've got one more. Why don't we go to 2026-011.

An ordinance of the City of Jefferson, Missouri amending the City Code by adding one new section regarding personnel.

I wasn't trying to ignore you there, but I know you want to talk about this topic.

No, this is this is pretty pretty straightforward. This is just an ordinance that would adopt put in policy for us that. Yes, and when the mayor or city administrator would enact that over time to be paid to employees in the city who are normally exemption over time. So, under the fair labor standards, certain employees are exempt and don't get overtime. Don't get paid overtime when they work. Extra hours, but under certain circumstances, they may be asked to do that under certain circumstances. We may compensate them for that. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. There's no prohibition against compensating exempt people for overtime as long as it's clear that we're not then treating them as not exempt. And so it happens in special circumstances such as disasters or major events and things like that. So when that happens, a lot of times there are other funds, there's disaster recovery funds or mutual aid agreements involved that enable us to get reimbursed for the expenses of that event. But if we don't have a policy like this in place, these kinds of expenses wouldn't get covered. So that's really all this is. It came up for us back in the 2019 tornado is my understanding. We anticipated that it could come up again if we were to provide any officers to provide services over with the FIFA tournament this summer in Kansas City. And so we just want to have this in place so that when these circumstances come up that we have the ability to recoup the funding for that's really all this is.

Councilman Hustleton. Mr. Buckley, the trigger for this is basically whenever a disaster type or special type of funding is triggered, say, for example, the tornado or the World Cup or a certain event, and then that would trigger this to go into effect. Yes.

Not exactly. What would trigger it would be something declared by the mayor or the city administrator. But it would have to be one of those events in order for that to occur. So Section E of the ordinance says this is the authorization. And that says that the mayor or city administrator has to authorize this policy. Section D before that lists the types of events for which it could occur, which is what you're describing.

i was trying to get some information i attended a co-ed meeting today and i don't always remember exactly but it's the group trying to make sure we're prepared for disaster if we ever get a tornado again that's brought community group and there's a presentation from sema and he was indicating that there may be some changes at the federal level on percentages the federal government would pick up versus what the locals will be required. So part of the discussion was that we need to do a good job of making sure that every volunteer that we can claim every dollar. So I think this is going to be important as we move forward. Hopefully we never have another disaster here and we don't have to worry about it because there are changes coming. It looks like at the federal level and it's going to be even more important that We get these match dollars as high as we can to meet our match. Yeah, 100% agree. And this would just help keep that typed up. Community Organization Active and Disaster, if anybody was wondering what COED stands for. And it is an amazing group. Anne Bax is chairing it, formerly of United Way, but it's got a lot of folks on there. We did an amazing job from where we were in 2019 reacting to the tornado. Hopefully if we have a repeat, this group is doing a good job of pulling, trying to be ready in advance. This change would be helpful, I think, for what's coming down the road. Any other councilman like thank you very quick question.

If we were to need to use some folks for emergency or FIFA, whatever, do we have a system in place to be able to gain that data and provide that upward? Needed to other than this, it's a study.

Absolutely because this would only exist if compensation were granted in these circumstances. So our regular payroll processing. Would contain the data we would need to report for reimbursement.

Thank you and again, part of the discussion was there would be an organization that will work with. Everybody that had volunteers to pull that data in. I think the federal government may set a cap on what you can be reimbursed per hour, but that is part of the plan because we did not, anybody that volunteered last time know that it was hit or miss in some areas until we kind of got our act together. So part of the plan is to be able to grab that information so any area can get reimbursed. Thank you. All right, anybody ready to go to item 12? I don't call pending bill pending 2006.

The ordinance of the city of Jefferson, Missouri, authorizing the mayor and city clerk to amend the lease agreement with new singular wireless for a cell tower located in Ellis Porter park.

Mr. Bruce? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This bill, as mentioned, would amend the original lease agreement with new singular wireless by reducing the lease area size, amending the tower height, and then removing the reference in an agreement about painting of installed antennas and equipment in the monopole towers, and then also includes clarification on revenue sharing. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right, seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote.

Colt? Aye. Osselton? Aye. Joe? Aye. Canpeter? Aye. Lester? Aye. Michael? Aye. Thomas? Aye. Young? Aye. Ahlers? Aye. Allen? Aye. No passes.

All right. And of 14 resolutions, 14, a resolution 2026, 0, 4, a resolution to execute a contract with gut.

Well, technologies incorporated for configuration migration of current data deployment and support software.

Yeah, I'd like to bring this to bring the 2026 to the table for discussion.

We've got a motion and a second. Mr. Helmick, would you like to discuss it?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the clerk stated, this is to authorize a contract with GovWell Technologies for a new software platform for plan review, permitting, contractor licensing, code enforcement, health inspection, and it would take the place of multiple softwares that we currently have. Currently, the city staff use multiple softwares between each department and some of the divisions. This software would combine those together. It would allow for plan review, public works to use the same software, including the plan review. It would allow fire and anyone else that needs to use that to be able to access all this data at the same time. That would also make it, it is an enterprise system, so it is not limited to a certain amount of city staff to use. So everyone would be able to use it, whether it's planning protective services, public works, fire, PD, and anyone else that we would need to use it. Some of the things that are real exciting about it, We do not currently have. This would allow online plan review and permitting. We do accept the plans currently, but you have to use the third-party software to be able to do the plan review and not everyone has access to that. The ability to take online payments, That's something that we've been working on for years to get. The payment system with the GovWell has been confirmed with our bank that it is something that's acceptable and they will work with it for online payments. So a contractor will be able to go online and make their payments, submit their application, do their plan review, get their comments from us all on the same platform at the same place. And then all the city staff that need to look at it would have access at the same time. It also does an AI initial plan review before the plan is even submitted. That will give the applicant a list of things that maybe the plan is deficient in or if the plan is incomplete. That will help us with staff time. It is something where if it's a complex situation, it can be overridden and they can still submit it, but it will flag it and it will alert staff that, hey, these items are missing before we even get it submitted to us. It does have a user-friendly citizen portal similar to what the current software has. With this one it does do, you can type in do I need a permit for a fence in Jefferson City and it will search our information and tell them what the regulations are and then if they choose it will also give them a link to the permitting process to apply for their permit for a fence. As far as the software goes, it is very close to what we currently pay for just the code enforcement and permitting software. When you add in the online payments, Ability to do the plan reviews and then also softwares that other departments like Public Works is using. It's approximately the same price as what it is that we pay now. That's currently budgeted for the software. There is a one time implementation fee, which is $45,500. It's broken down in your packet what that exactly goes to. That would be for all the data migration for all those areas that we just spoke about. To have that data pulled in, it would also be customizing it to what we need. That would be the testing, the training, Rolling out is a soft rollout so that we can get the stakeholders input and make changes before it goes public. And then the continuing support for this. And that would be paid for through position savings that we have identified within PPS. I know that was a lot real quick. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Councilman Lightman. Thank you, Mayor. And I have a question, but thank you for doing it because this is going to make your job a lot easier and make things transition a lot quicker. So well done. Thank you.

All right. We have Resolution 2026-04 in front of you for roll call vote.

Hosselson.

Aye.

Joe? Aye. Cam Peter? Aye. Lester? Aye. Michael? Aye. Thomas? Aye. Gallants? Aye. Ballers? Aye. Allen? Aye. Holt? Aye. Resolution is adopted.

All right. Item B, Resolution 2026-05.

A resolution authorizing the City of Jefferson to enter into a communication site lease agreement at 1675 Cavalier Drive.

Councilman Allen?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to bring this to the table for discussion.

Second. We'll get a motion and a second to bring this before the Council. Chief Schofield.

Yes, thank you. This, as stated, would allow for a communications tower to be installed of the roundabout on mission drive more on the cavalier side it's actually a cavalier address so just uphill slightly from the new high school but between the new high school and st mary's hospital on the site that was previously identified as a potential future fire station six location as you know from that area it's it's the high ground so it's well suited for this purpose and it would allow for not only lease agreement funds to be inserted into the general fund but also future revenue share of sub leases on the tower and also allows for public safety communications equipment to be located on the same tower should we decide to utilize it. So happy to answer any questions.

All right, seeing none, you have resolution 2026-05 in front of you for roll call.

Joe? Aye. Cam Peter?

Aye.

Lester? Aye. Michael? Aye. Thomas? Aye. Young? Aye. Ballers? Aye. Allen? Aye. Fultz? Aye. Osselton? Aye. Resolution is adopted.

All right, item 14C, resolution 2026-06.

Supporting an application for a bridge investment program grant.

Councilman Caputo. Yeah, I'd like to motion to bring this to the table.

Second. We've got a motion to bring 2026-06 in front of council, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So before you is a resolution to provide council support for the latest grant application that we are attempting to get for replacement of the high street viaduct. This is the BIP, which is Bridge Improvement Investment or Bridge Investment Program. Successful award would fund the replacement of the High Street Viaduct as well as the Missouri Boulevard Bridge over Wears Creek. As far as the grant amount goes, it would be an 80-20 grant, which would be $16,800,000 and some change federal with a $4 million match giving us about $21 million total if we were successful to work on those projects. Letters of support help, and again, this is just another grant that we're trying to get for replacing the Viaduct. Happy to answer your questions.

Councilman Allen. It's just not really a question as much. What happens when we get the bill grant and this one?

We all celebrate. We would just not ask for acceptance of the second one, but honestly, that would be a great situation to be in.

I just want I just reading about you know all that stuff and all that I just wanted to tell you that I'm glad we're still actively and people would know that you all do behind the scenes to actively going after this and it's not something we're just let go by and all that stuff so I appreciate everybody's work that's going behind the scenes looking for everything and we can get our hands on so thank you all very much. That's for us.

I see applications due at the end of June. When is the more expected or that we'll know? You know? It was fall.

Mr. Crane?

I thought it was around fall.

Yes. i i believe it's early fall but this is the fourth one that we've got going right now so it's it's hard to keep them exactly straight but uh we we are working currently with uh you know public works outside organizations um you know rachel and her staff are really pushing forward on this um you know along with the brick the build grant and all the other grants that we're going after for it so but all of them break that that early fall late fall period

Alright, resolution 2026-06 in front of you for roll call vote.

Cam Peter? Aye. Lester? Aye. Michael? Aye. Thomas? Aye. Yellen? Aye. Pollard? Aye. Allen? Aye. Holt? Aye. Hollister? Aye. Joe? Aye. Resolution is adopted.

All right, item D, resolution 2026-07.

A resolution of the City of Jefferson, Missouri authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Higgins Asphalt Painting Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,993,581.50 for the Mill and Overlay 2026 project.

A motion to bring this wonderful paving project to the table.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to bring this before council.

Mr. Brummer, welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's great to be talking about infrastructure this late in the meeting. As everybody knows, the capital improvement sales tax renewal is up for vote in August. I just want to remind everybody what primarily goes to fund this mill and overlay program. is the capital improvement sales tax. So with the program this year, it's approximately six miles of roadways that will be addressed. Also with this bill are four parking lots that are paid for by the various entities. There's two parks and recreation parking lots, one fire and one parking lot. Again, six miles of roadway. We have about 250 miles of street overall. So you do the math. We can all do it pretty quickly and realize that It's never enough, right? It's not even close to enough, but we do appreciate being able to present this. And what I like about this year's mill and overlay program that our operations director has put together is that it goes toward primarily main roads in town. We're talking Stadium Boulevard, Clark and Moreau, Lafayette, a stretch of High Street, Boonville, South Country Club. capital lafayette so we're trying to put put pavement down where it's needed the most where the traffic is the heaviest and i would love to to address more more streets and do more but i do think this is a good program that's that's presented this year so with that uh be pleased to answer any questions

Thank you for all the work. I really appreciate the work that you all do in public works. So thank you so much. And I know we continue looking for ways to get more funds dedicated to our support. I don't know, Mr. Payne, would you mind just speaking just for a second about really there's really a balance between finding it in the budget making sure we get our capital improvement sales tax passed and also growing our making sure we have a vibrant economy or if the mayor would prefer to speak about that but just there's multiple reasons that multiple things we need to be working on in relation to in order for us to get more money for our streets

Sure. Yeah, we try to be as efficient as possible and make our dollar stretch as far as possible. That's why you see them working the year ahead trying to get these roads ready so they're not coming back after we do an overlay to fix something. So they do a really good job of trying to get everything teed up for the investment that's getting ready to happen. And if you remember the sales tax that Kyle mentioned, three years ago we were $1.3 million in asphalt overlays. And luckily the council was able to capture some of those funds that had accumulated in that sales tax and put additional money towards overlay. So we had a big infusion about three, four years ago of 500 to a million dollars per year that we put towards doing additional overlays to try to get caught up. Then we, about two years ago, we changed the formula so we could get, instead of retaining a lot of those funds and contingencies in that capital improvement sales tax, we really tried to push that out to all the departments because there was such a need in every department. So we wanted to capture those funds immediately start doing overlays with them. So we were able to get that 1.3 up to about 1.8 as a baseline funding source. So now we, about two years ago, we were up to 1.8. And then last year we really focused on internal revenues and how we could realign those and what we realized was that the utility that we operate doesn't doesn't pay for being in our street like most utilities do so that put us at another disadvantage when we're looking at how do we pull money in to fund all of our streets so with that realignment we were able to get us up to about 2.4 2.5 million dollars so that's now our baseline overlay program is 2.4 2.5 now what you've heard kyle discuss is that he really thinks we need to be hovering around four to keep up with those lines oh look at him he went five Can we get six? But what we know is that with the amount of resources we have and every department having a lot of needs, we're really at that point where we've grabbed what we think we can get. We think we're about as efficient as possible. And that's why when we talk about other projects in the community, like you mentioned, economic development projects, it's really important for us to try to identify those projects that could potentially bring additional revenue. So sometimes you have to give up a little to get a lot. When you look at all the activity that's happening around our community, whether it's private business, government entities, there's a lot of investment going on. So that's why cities nationwide invest heavily in our economic development programs. To say, how can we, for the most part, backload incentives to get people to spend more, hire more. And that's how we grow the pie that we talk about. So, you know, when you only have a small pie and you change the pie for every department, you're still covering, you're cutting up the same amount of money. So what we're really trying to do is increase the amount of investment in our community that will help us hopefully continue to see sales tax growth, population growth, and that's why it's going to be so important in the future that we're looking at ways to create revenue. It's not just tax people more, it's what projects provide additional benefit. Is that what you're looking for? Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. And I appreciate the work you're doing towards that. She knew that's one of my soap boxes.

Well, I would just add to that. As a city that, like many cities that are so dependent on sales tax, indeed, we are trying to create opportunities. I think council has been supportive in the past of trying to find ways to attract people to our community. I say it every time I talk that we're proud to be the capital city. We're proud to have events like state track meet and. all the other events that come to our city because it helps our businesses here and certainly helps city hall so appreciate the work that that the public works has done and Our goal is to send you more money. I hope we can get to that $5 million.

I love the fact that Mr. Crane hit on all the work that we do in advance with the street division and even our collections crew, wastewater collections crew, ahead of time. Invariably, you can never predict what's under the street in some cases, but those guys do the best they can from... from camera and storm sewers that are underneath to uh working on the endless prior to so there's a there's a lot of investment and care uh that that our folks put into it should i ask you a question also there was event in town maybe last week was there a group that you're familiar with that won an award or won some type of competition well now that you bring this up It was great that we had public works week this past month in May and we do a public works barbecue and we started having a rodeo event with it last year and so we invite the county folks and Parks and Recreation wastewater, all public works entities that we have here. And those that participated in the rodeo was the county road and bridge crew and our street division and wastewater collections division and parks and recreations. And last year, parks really shamed us and took it to us, but this year our streets So we're pretty happy about that. But it was a great event and really appreciate those who participated. We even had an ice cream truck that was out there that I know Julie helped put together with the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown and east and west side business groups. So really appreciate them appreciating our folks. It goes a long way and it makes what they do more enjoyable. So really appreciate that. Congratulations.

Yeah, I just wanted to say I attended that rodeo because I was just curious as to what what that was and it's really interesting. There's some real amazing skill that those workers show out there and the competition is really neat.

So just, yeah, great event. I just want to say that they had a time limit on the events, and I did try out the events, and needless to say, I didn't meet the timeline. So those guys are very skilled with the work thing and the equipment that they're on. Can I keep talking so Aaron doesn't filibuster this resolution?

Is that what you're saying? Actually, Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say on behalf of Parks, we want to extend the thanks for the opportunity to participate in the event. Even though we lost the trophy, I've been reassured that we'll be back to regain ownership of it next year. But as Councilman Lester said, we have a lot of gifted staff, not only within parks, but public works as well. So congrats to your crew, much deserving. And it's a lot of fun for our staff and a great way to build culture within the city. So thank you.

All right, I think we filibustered resolution 2026 about as much as we can. That's 07. so get council ready. We'll do it. We'll call the.

Lester Michael Thomas. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Resolution is adopted.

All right, that takes us to new business, item 15A. And I may make a few comments. I don't get the impression Mr. Bremer had much additional to say about this. In the packet, and I appreciate everybody that came in and spoke to the Idaho law. And I spent a lot of time at the last meeting listening to the comments, listening to the direction, and I put in the letters some of the concerns I had coming out of that meeting. And I think anybody that would go back and look at the YouTube, that piece of the meeting, my concern was there were a lot of questions asked where we got multiple answers that were sometimes 180 degrees apart. And there was confusion in the room. And I just felt making a change like this, although those that are familiar with it say it's not that big a deal, I did note that in a lot of instances, the comments were made were state A, state B, state C. This is a city doing it in a state that has not adopted this language. And I have full confidence that bikers understand traffic and will not intentionally pull in front of a car. But I've got three teenage grandkids that drive, and there's a lot of factors out there that I just did not feel like were addressed or addressed in multiple ways at the meeting. So I think anybody that read the letter, I hope you would interpret that I was not saying this ought to disappear forever. I made a recommendation that it should go back to a Meeting of elected officials, and I have high regard for transportation committee. That's where I got my start when councilman elders was the chair of that committee. So, it's no reflection on the individuals that looked at that, but I know that the way sometimes. It's looked at at that level. And the pressure that is put on sometimes versus elected officials that we all signed up for the give and take and the positive comments and more importantly, the negative comments. I was concerned a little bit about may have spent a lot of time in the capital. I don't recall seeing many positive physical notes. So I just thought there were enough questions that this opt to go back to a group of elected officials to take a look at. i made a suggestion on a committee i'm not really committed i mean i know there's been some comment that maybe public safety is a better place to put it again that's a committee made up of five elected officials anyone else on council can participate and get the answers to the questions that were asked at the last meeting all focus in the same direction and make sure that we're ready for this before I mean depending on what that committee if I mean if you send it back that direction does before this community does something that based on I guess four weeks ago two weeks ago I just didn't feel like we were ready based on the answers that we got so that's why I submitted the letter that's why I would request that this be allowed to proceed to a council committee and let's get the answers right and do it right. Councilman Thomas.

On some level I feel like we're making a mountain out of a molehill but with all due respect and understanding I don't believe the veto can be successfully overridden here tonight. I would like to make the motion that

um this subject be brought to public safety i'll second it all right we've got a motion and a second comment on the motion so the charter requires that you consider the override okay so It says, if the mayor, they use the term disapproved rather than vetoed, but if the mayor disapproves, it says that this question shall be raised at the next council meeting. And they have a specific motion that has to be made, which is, shall the ordinance take effect despite the disapproval of the mayor?

So the easiest way to unwind from that would be to have the maker of the motion withdraw the motion in the second take that up as a motion and then council will decide what the next step is is that accurate correct are you comfortable with that councilman yes i withdraw the motion second second yes sir okay so yeah councilman camp here So are we going to discuss it before we do that? Yeah, this will be a motion that can be discussed, correct?

Yes. It says that the presiding officer, which in this case would be the mayor, shall put the question, shall the ordinance take effect despite the disapproval of the mayor? If seven members of the council vote in favor of the proposition, the ordinance resolution shall be declared to be enacted. Less than 7, so essentially you make the motion. The form that I wrote it out for you and. I don't think it requires a 2nd. It doesn't seem to and then the discussion.

All right, so we'll start processed and I'm just moved that shall the ordinance take effect despite the disapproval of the mayor. And now it's open for discussion. Councilman Campeter, did you have a comment?

Yeah, so my concern last time when I voted no, I think was during the presentation was brought up again um so last time we were told that if you were pulled up to the stop sign as a bicycle first you could go through even if there was cars going through but the gentleman i don't remember his name said only use the stop sign as a yield if no one is around so i think that's the confusion and why it needs to be at least looked at because how can anybody in law enforcement or anybody um enforce this if we're all still confused i still see head shakes out there so it to me makes it sound like we're still confused because this gentleman that asked for us to pass this says it can only be used if no cars around But last time, because I took great notes on it, we said, not we, but the professionals said, as long as the bicyclist is first, they can yield and continue on. So that's two complete different things, and I think that's where the confusion lies with me. And I still don't think I have an answer with it.

Councilman Holt and Councilman Hodgson, turn.

With regard, and this will obviously come out with regard to the suggestion of public safety, I agree. I think the language is written. Is this a little bare bones and that creates room for ambiguity and whatever committee gets referred to. For this, I would just suggest that they go and they look at the I. O. statute that deals with this, which can be easily adopted for our organization provides information about the interactions between other drivers at an intersection. I think that will provide clarity to the general public. I also think with regards to the necessity for a fiscal note, I disagree. I don't think this means any kind of signage. In fact, I think signage might make it more confusing. But I do think that it can be improved upon and that's why I'm in favor of sending it back to committee to have it looked at and have a more thorough examination of it.

Vice President Haselton and Councilwoman Young. Mr. Mayor, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If a bike goes through an intersection with a red light and no one's around to see it, does it break a law? That's all. Councilwoman Young first. I'm with Councilman Covey.

I think, and Camp Eater, just for clarification reason, I think that we need to just go ahead, send it back to, and I'm in favor of public safety because this is a public safety issue. It is not public and works or any other concern. I think that is the committee that needs to be looking at this. And I think we can very easily clear this up with adopting the laws that's been placed in front of us.

To answer your question, councilman houses here right now. Yes. Yes, it is technically breaking a law. People break laws all the time. No, 1's watching. But, yes, it is breaking a law as a cyclist who isn't very good. I hate I'm clipping from my pedals. It's horrible for me because I tip over 50% of the time. So, if I can avoid doing that, and, you know, hurting not only my body, but also my ego, I'm in support of that. But, but I would agree that it's pretty straightforward. The right of way law doesn't change if everyone comes up to a 4 way stop at the same time. The same one that exists for traffic would exist then, but this just makes it a little easier that if no one is around an intersection, you can continue going. You don't have to unclick. You don't have to stop. But I'm also fine with sending it back to committee if that's what we decided to do, but I'm not sure that it's necessary.

Come from now.

I do think with the confusion that it makes sense to go back and just make sure it's very clear. I also agree. I don't think we need to find. I think that will actually create more confusion, but that is something we can certainly discuss. The only thing I would just encourage us in the future, we see these bills two or three times, so it's great to have the discussions if we can as we're going along. So we don't have to do a veto and come back that we can work on it as the bill is progressing. I think we all sometimes that doesn't work and that's okay. But if we can, I would like to encourage us and myself. Especially to do that when we can.

Just to make another comment with regards to some of the concerns that were raised in the letter. Well, I understand. other jurisdictions passing on a state level, I do think by adopting something of this nature in Jefferson City, we are uniquely primed given our location, the Katie Trail, and the increased interest in tourism that was mentioned by various members. It would be a boon. To have something come out of public safety that establishes these kinds of protections for bikers. And I think the safety data is is there. So, I would just, I would just encourage whenever he gets this that they take that into consideration. Hopefully get it back to council.

That's fine. So we have a motion on the table to, not a motion, but the question before us to approve the law despite the disapproval of the mayor.

If you vote yes, the ordinance would go through. If you vote no, depending on the final count, if it's voted, there aren't seven yes votes, then it would be open to the motion made by Councilman Thomas or whoever wants to make a motion. We have to go in two steps. All right. So yes vote would... send it through as is a no vote would it take seven yes votes to send it through we restate the question and i call the question The motion is shall the ordinance take effect despite the disapproval of the mayor? It would take 7 yes votes to accomplish that. No vote would say send it back to. It sounds like public safety with seems like from council. A direction for that committee to address it and bring it back to council as soon as feasible. You call the question, but I don't see any hands up. So we're ready for roll call vote.

Michael no Thomas.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um. I wanted to go to committee, so was that a no? That'd be a no. No. Ballers?

No.

Allen? No. Holt?

No.

Hossleton? No. Jobe? Yes. Campeter?

No.

Lester?

Yes.

Three yeses, seven noes.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to move this issue to public safety, second consideration.

All right there's a motion to send this issue to public safety. So seeing no other comments we'll do a roll call vote.

Thomas? Aye. Young? Aye. Fallers? Aye. Allen? Aye. Holt? Aye. Robinson? Aye. Joe? Aye. Campeter? Aye. Lester? Aye.

All right, it takes us to the second new business item, item 15B, quality in and suites. I don't think you have anything to read. Mr. Nicklaus.

The honor to this council to issue a subpoena to an individual and to the quality in suites for financial records regarding their payment of the lodging tax. They have not complied with the subpoena. Not produce the records before tonight, and we will investigate with the next steps that the city should.

Any questions or comments we talked about that a little bit in the Pre meeting. So I think that anticipates additional information coming back at a future meeting. Probably the next meeting is that. They have a moment of personal privilege. Absolutely. This being my last night here, I'm recalling after I was sworn in and sat in this chair,

this overwhelming sense of responsibility that came over me. And I have hopefully held up that responsibility. i have had tremendous support from city staff from public works parks public safety everybody has just been awesome and i want the public to know what a professional courteous experience group we have working for the city here and lastly i want to thank my fellow council members It's been great working with you, and I appreciate that the yelling and screaming has been pretty much nothing. This is good. And lastly, I just want to encourage everybody, the public, council members, et cetera, participate in this process. Come to meetings, pay attention to what's going on, let us know, let them know. what's important to you. And with that, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Councilman, thanks for your service.

Councilman Howard. First of all, I want to tell Derek, it's been an honor to know you and a pleasure to work with you. And even though there's times we don't get along, it's just that we don't, you know, maybe we don't see eye to eye. And that's nothing wrong with that in today's world. It's the respect we get out and that, you know, we see each other. We are a love for the airlines or airplanes. It's something I'll take away with me. But I've also been brought up better than... than what leads on to and so i need to apologize to you and mike tonight because on the email i was telling you about and i have a witness councilman holt as soon as we got done with that debate your email popped up and it's sitting there circling spinning I looked through, we looked through the trash and everything on my iPad. As soon as we got done, and Cody will vouch for me, it popped up and there it is spinning, downloading. So I need to apologize to Mike and you on that. I'll just retract it as a misstatement or something like that. But I wanted that out in public that, you know, just so that you know that. And then Godspeed on the way down to Florida. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Thomas, it's been a privilege to serve with you. As valuable as you've been to this body, and it probably won't surprise many in this room, but you're even more valuable over at the airport and your volunteerism that you've done to support that air show. And you're going to be sorely missed there, too. So thank you, sir.

Councilman Young and then Councilman Lester.

Yes, you know, I'm going to miss you. I just want to let it be known that it's been not only an honor but a pleasure to work with you and have you as a seatmate, share your ideas, share your thoughts, and to help move Ward 3 forward from where we were to where we are now. Your expertise, your knowledge, your passion has not been unseen. So I just want to thank you. I wish you all the best. I'm not jealous that you go on the floor, but okay, we won't say anything. But I wish you all the best, and I know things will work out the way they're supposed to for you.

Thank you. Councilman Lester, then Councilwoman Judd.

Yeah, I just wanted to say from my time serving with you on the council, having to know you as a man of integrity who does his utmost to serve well the citizens of Jefferson City. And I know that from our deliberations, you're often the one that asks those questions that need to be asked for transparency and for accountability and for clarity. And I just want to say it's been a pleasure serving with you and I wish you well. I'm sorry that it's ending so soon, your service with us, but I wish you all the best in the world. Thanks for your service. Thank you.

Yes, as someone who kind of inadvertently roped you into all this, I'm really sad to see you go. I remember sitting having dinner with a lot of people who are your friends now, and they did not know you yet. And I remembered you from the dog sphere and I said, that is a wonderful human. Somebody call him and he said, no. but then we kept working on him and later he said, yes. So thank you for your friendship. Your leadership style is wonderful to me and introducing me to lots of fancy cheeses.

I really didn't mean to turn this into a love fest.

Well, Sometimes the best way to send somebody off is breaking bread, so following this council meeting, if you guys want to get together and figure out a place to go, we can have a sundown dinner for you if you'd like. I'd like.

Councilwoman Allen?

Ditto, and I wish you the best.

with you for a couple of council meetings, but it's been nice getting to know you. I wish you the best of luck in Florida and thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thank you.

So I guess I'll end it here, make it short. But since the beginning, you know, we had a cheers show or something. I don't watch TV, but since the beginning, we've had those great conversations. We don't always look eye to eye, but like Jeff said, that's the part of that's why we're here to have these great discussions and just wish you the best. And maybe when I'm down in Florida, I'll see you.

You need to read something? Not tonight. Oh, let me edit it. Unless you want to continue. No. Mr. Mayor, I move that this meeting be adjourned.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.