City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance?

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.

Thank you. Roll call, please.

Mayor Gibbons?

Here.

Councilmember Arnold? Here. Councilmember Burkett? Here. Councilmember Jack Sedek? Here. Councilmember Lavender? Here. Councilmember McLean? Here. Councilmember Schaefer? Here.

Thank you. This evening, we have some recognitions. The Assistant Fire Chief, Zeitz, is here to give a presentation.

So tonight we'd like to honor a local hero of ours, Connor Westermeyer, who came up. He's a teacher's aide over at West Robinson Elementary. Matt Mathis is our captain in charge of public education. He can kind of tell you a little more details of what happened. But this incident really highlights the need for CPR training, time of maneuver training, and first aid.

hi those who don't mean my name is matt mathis captain kirkwood fire department um mayor council members city administrators guests thanks for allowing us to take a moment this evening tonight kirkwood fire department is honored to recognize a hero whose quick thinking and decisive actions help save the life of another person the lifesaver award is presented to individuals who take immediate action during emergency and make a direct impact of a positive positive outcome While we recognize firefighters, paramedics, and other first responders, this evening we're recognizing someone who proved that anyone can make a difference when faced with an emergency. On a recent day at Robinson Elementary, a fellow student notified a trusted adult that his friend was choking. Recognizing that the situation was serious, Mr. Westermeyer acted without hesitation using the skills he had learned Connor performed abdominal thrust, commonly known as Heinleck maneuvers, to create and clear the student's airway. Because of his quick response and willingness to step forward, the student was able to breathe again and recover from what could have been a life-threatening emergency. Emergencies rarely happen when we expect them, and they often require someone to remain calm under pressure and take action. Connor demonstrated calmness, courage, and compassion beyond his training. His actions serve as an outstanding example of how preparedness and willingness to help others can truly save a life. So on behalf of the Kirkwood Fire Department and the citizens of Kirkwood, it's my privilege to present the Lifesaver Award to Connor Westermeyer.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. That was really, we appreciate getting to meet you and hear all about your heroics. Would you like to address the consul at all or?

Fire department and you all for recognizing me with this. I don't like the limelight. So it's very, very nice.

Thank you. Thank you for your heroes. We have no public hearings tonight. So now we will go into a public comments.

please. Public comments, three minute limit per person. The public comments portion of the meeting is an opportunity for the city council to listen to comments from citizens. It is not a question and answer session, and the city council will not respond to comments or answer questions during this period. The mayor may refer any matter brought up to the city council to the interim chief administrative officer, but it will be the chief administrative officer starting Monday, or the city clerk if action is needed.

Do we have any public comments today, Jessica?

Yes, we do, Mayor and Council. We have the first one from Laura Elliott.

Hello. My name is Laura Elliott. I live at Fairway Lane with my husband and my two kids. They're ages four and six. So I brought them here tonight so you all can see who I'm trying to keep safe. Fairway Lane is a straight, flat, residential street. It's 20 feet wide with no sidewalks. It has a pedestrian crosswalk that connects Bogey, Fairway, Parr, and Seacamp. It's heavily used by Tillman students walking to school. I mainly stay at home with my kids, so I'm home day and night to watch traffic flow. I have a pretty good idea of the conditions of our street. I recently renewed my efforts to curb speeding on Fairway Lane. I contacted SCIT and was told the city pays for data collection services through sources like Apple CarPlay and OnStar. SCIT told me the average speed on our street in March and April was... 12 miles an hour. And the 85th percentile was 16. This seems implausible at best. I've asked if there was a low cutoff to account for the things like idling delivery cars or cars backing in and out of driveways. I have yet to receive an answer. SCIT provided a speed trailer and said the average speed was 17. The 85th percentile was 22. Again, it's hard to believe that the average speed is below the limit. Kirkwood subscribes to the outdated 85th percentile rule and ultimately SCIT will not pursue anything further when it cites that the 85th percentile is not a problem. Common sense tells us that the trailer itself deters speeding. De Pere knows this and has instead recommended using concealed black tape monitors on the roadway. Why won't Kirkwood do this as well? SCIT feeds its citizens junk data and then says that there's nothing else that can be done. I know I'm not the only concerned citizen to come up against SCIT, only to be told that there is not a speed problem on my street. If SCIT thinks that Fairway Lane doesn't have a speeding problem, I invite all of you to bring your children, please, or your grandchildren, and come play on Fairway Lane. No sidewalks, no extra precautions, despite having a crosswalk. Come play on our streets. if you think it's so safe and trust me sooner or later you will come to agree that it is not a safe street at all plain and simple i am asking kirkwood to please do better thank you what do we say to city council thank you and we're going home to bed now beth your heart

I was going to talk about.

First of all, thank you for your service to all of us. My name is Beth Gerhardt. I live at One Sunset Lane for the past 30 years. I represent citizens for historic Kirkwood. We're the ones responsible for those red signs that you see around the city. We're asking you to please put these issues on the agenda. Our goal is to give the Landmarks Commission the ability to do its job. Kirkwood became the first certified local government for historic preservation in the state of Missouri in 1986. This meant we were supposed to follow the Secretary of the Interior's historic preservation standards, which include preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Nowhere does it recommend demolition or destruction, which is occurring in Kirkwood at an alarming rate. Kirkwood gets tax credits for being a certified local government. We are not holding up our end of the bargain. We have a Landmarks Commission that cannot accomplish its given goals. The latest destruction of 751 North Taylor, a designated Kirkwood Historic Landmark in the North Taylor Historic District exemplifies this failure. Most Kirkwood citizens didn't even realize that such a house could be destroyed in our city. And it, of course, can. Despite the duties of the Landmark Commission stating that demolition requires a certificate of appropriateness, a COA, approval, Kirkwood leadership, for some reason, feels that a COA for the destruction of a historic property cannot be denied, only approved. Beyond the lack of logic, I mean, why go through getting a COA approval if it's automatically approved? It just wastes everybody's time. Missouri opinion number 123-89 by Attorney General Webster clearly states that the ability to approve ipso facto gives the ability to disapprove in city governments. The Kirkwood COA form even has a box for disapproved that Kirkwood apparently feels it cannot use in the case of demolition. None of this makes any sense. Why has Kirkwood taken this unusual approach? What is the logic and who determined it? And why should we care? The historic charm of Kirkwood brings everybody here. They come here to live for that. They come here to shop for that. They come here to dine for that. The historic charm of Kirkwood is its homes. Everyone says they come for the charm. Even the people that tear down a house and build a McMansion. They want to come here to do it because of the charm. Destruction of these historic homes makes Kirkwood just another saintless suburb. No one moves here for the utilities or the roads or the budget. all of which you guys work very hard on. We only have 250 years of history in our nation and 173 years in Kirkwood. But that relatively short history is disappearing one building at a time. We're asking you the mayor and the council to take up this issue before more Kirkwood history is lost. It's time. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Ryan Zickel.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. I'd just like to start off. My name is Ryan Zickel. I also live on Sunset Lane, and I'm a lifelong Kirkwood resident. I went to Tillman Elementary, NYFER, and I'm a graduate of the class of 2022 at Kirkwood High School. I just graduated from Truman State University, and I've lived in Kirkwood all my life. I bring up the fact that I'm a lifelong resident because I'm not so sure how many of my fellow class of 2022 graduates are going to be able to say that in the future because this process of tearing down these historic homes removes the historic charm that may draw them back to Kirkwood and removes the affordable options that may give them the option of living in Kirkwood at all. So this makes it harder for people who grew up here to come back here. Now, I'm not anti-development. I believe the apartments downtown are a great use of expanding the housing supply and growing Kirkwood's population. But I am hesitant when historic, affordable family homes are bought and demolished to build million dollar McMansions. This does nothing to increase the housing supply. And this erodes the historic charm that Kirkwood is built upon. This is why I'm asking the council to empower the Landmarks Commission with the ability, just the ability, not the requirement, but the option of denying demolitions of historic properties. Please add this to your agenda. Let's protect Kirkwood's future by preserving its history. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Daniel Daly.

When I came down here, I turned off a clay and I came down, I saw all these cars and a lot of go, I'm not going to have a seat in this place. But I didn't know there was a concert going on across the way. Hey, before I came down here, I live in Brooksgate Manor. It's a little condo community up by the junior college. And I found out that the trash company in Kirkwood doesn't have to service us. because we have more units than you guys say, but they have been doing this for quite some years. And up until a couple years ago, you guys were doing a great job. But a couple years ago, we noticed when the, it's a small trash truck, when he comes through, he squeezes, you know what I mean? When they squeeze the trash and compacts it, all this residue winds up on our driveways. And sometimes it's really bad. It's so bad it can actually work its way down to the sewer of a yellow, milky thing. And sometimes there's broken glass. Sometimes there's nails and all kinds of stuff. And what really gets me is the trash guys don't see that and sweep it up and put it back into the trash truck. I've had to ask them to do it. But that's my concern. But when I found out that We need you, we need you more than you need us. They kind of, so I just hope you can take that into consideration. I don't want to keep any more of your time, but thank you very much.

Thank you. Louise Bradshaw.

Hi, I'm Louise Bradshaw, and I'm really here to express some gratitude. Gratitude to Mayor Gibbons, Councilmember Deb Lavender, to David, to Chris, for a really great conversation that you all helped us have not so long ago. It's about the recycling center here in Kirkwood, the drop-off center. And we have here in Kirkwood some residents who have an incredible knowledge and expertise in how to make recycling efficient and economically feasible. So thank you so much for creating the opportunity for us to share those ideas and thoughts and perspectives. And we're just really thrilled with what you all are doing. So thank you.

Thank you. Elizabeth Heuermann.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Hurman. I'm here to speak briefly about accessory dwelling units, abbreviated as ADUs. These small affordable homes are a kind of homes that many frustrated Kirkwood residents are seeing disappearing from our community. ADUs are perfect for young adults just getting started out or for aging family members, paving the way for multi-generational living that has long been the foundation of our community. ADUs are legal in Kirkwood already with a special use permit. If they could be made a permitted use rather than a special use as the council is forced to approve compliant ADUs anyway, this would save time and cost to both the council and to the citizens desiring to construct an ADU. In addition, if they were allowed to be built within the footprint of existing detached garages, even if the garages do not meet setback requirements, this could allow for more multi-generational living and help both young adults and aging family members with affordable housing. I respectfully ask you to consider putting these items on a future agenda. Thank you very much.

Thank you. There are no further comments. Thank you. We will now move to the consent agenda. May I have a motion and a second?

So moved. Second.

Thank you. The consent agenda this evening has board and commissioners on it. And I would like, I know we have a couple, I think, here that are going on board. If Mike Cordy would come up, who's going to be on our civil service commission. Did you want to say anything or introduce yourself?

Thank you for the opportunity to serve.

Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate that. And I believe Scott Pozzo is here as well, who is going to be going on to our Landmarks Commission and maybe give them a little bit of background on what you do. Hi, everyone.

So happy to serve the city. I'm Scott Pozzo. I'm one of the co-owners of Choteau Building Group, a general contracting company. We showed a building group focuses on, we do a lot of historic work all throughout St. Louis area, do a lot of Kirkwood. I've been in the business in the construction industry for 21 years or have a lot of experience with historic homes. And that's primarily what our company does and upkeeps. I have, of course, a special interest in Kirkwood and preserving that. Absolutely hearing all the comments lately, specifically pertaining to this. So look forward to, coming on board and helping to improve that.

Thank you, Scott. Thank you. I do want to go back to Mr. Cordy for a moment. He didn't give us enough information because he's going to be working on a commission that deals with grievances with employees and some things like that. And, um, Mr. Cordy is an attorney, um, who specialized in worker issues. And, um, my knowledge is that he literally wrote the book on worker issues.

So workers compensation was, and I, uh, if you would like me to talk about the book, I, I, I can take a couple of hours, walk, walk you through it. But, uh, But not employment-related or labor law issues, to be clear about it. Thank you.

OK. All right. Anyone have any statements? Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the idea. OK. All those in favor of the consent agenda as presented, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Thank you, Scott and Mike. Appreciate it very much. Moving into unfinished business, Bill 111137.

Mayor and Council, this is an ordinance appropriating $8 million from the Certificates of Participation Series 2026 to the other bond proceeds account and to the building and site improvements account for the Public Works Facility Renovation Project.

Very good. Thank you. Do I have a motion and a second?

This is second reading, so you can open for discussion. Okay.

Okay, we will open for discussion. There's a lot around this. The certificates have already been sold. We are at the point now of putting this $8 million into the budget. Any reverse on that would stop the process, but it wouldn't stop the um the sale of the property that we've already bought and what have you now this is to move the public works from the location where it is currently which is a very desirable location down to the building that we have purchased on leffingwell Cities have no business sitting on huge, huge sums of taxpayer money to do new projects. All municipal projects end up being funded. It's the type of funding that you have and what kind of rates you can get and those kinds of things that come into play. So the entire project that we are in the process of implementing, moving our electric department, our public works facility, street department, garage, water department, et cetera, to the Morazic property is going to end up a total being about $22 million, where we had been looking for 10 years somewhere to move this facility and could not find anything. We could have gone outside of Kirkwood and purchased something. It probably would have ended up being about a $30 million project. So the project as it is, is actually costing less than it would have had we had to move. And there were no other options. Mr. Mrazek knew that Kirkwood wanted the property and he held out. There was an appraisal on the property. of about 6 million. We paid 12.5 million. There was rental involved, and at one point it was 50,000 a month. Do we have a total on that, David, of what the rental was?

Yes, Mayor. We received $910,000 for rental. Okay, thank you.

Council conversation.

You know, as I look at this project and have had lots of conversations with not only the staff, but looking at the financials of this, you know, when we talk about commercial real estate and the cost of this project and i think one of the things we leave out is that having this property still in kirkwood consolidating really bringing everyone together and talking to the staff about all the benefits of coming into this property it's huge and i think we're missing some of those opportunities where there's going to be operational efficiencies and the future use of that property is well worth this effort. We also don't talk a lot about the fact that when we did these COP and borrow the money, we have delayed the principal payments until 2028. So we'll pay interest, but not principal, giving us the opportunity to take proceeds from the sale of the property to pay off the debt, which means that we would have reduced that debt back down by whatever we're able to get for that property and take down the interest. So that's really important to me. The other thing is I think about the 200 families that could potentially be moving into our downtown area. And what they're going to bring is additional sales tax revenue. They're going to bring potentially children to our schools, which we need. They're going to bring their personal property tax payments. So there's lots of other benefits that come by having this move forward. So just a few of the reasons I'm moving forward with this.

Some of the, some folks have been concerned about additional people, adding additional people to our, our fair city. Um, it's Kirkwood at one point was at 31, excuse me, 31,000 residents. Um, and then we started falling and we are now almost at 29,000. So, um, we've, we're not exceeding where we've been in the past.

I will go ahead and I was actually going to save some of these comments for the next one, but I'll go ahead and jump in since some good points have been made. Just to remind everybody, and this was some information David confirmed with the council, the all-in costs, which includes the retrofit and all the other things, but with the interest on the debt will be at $39.8 million. And that's minus some rent would be still right there in the neighborhood of $38.9 million. And as we get to the next issue, the next thing on the agenda, there's a lot of things that aren't gonna happen immediately with the retrofit. And so no telling how much more of the next five to 10 years we're gonna have to put in this building. i understand and we've all heard this this was set in motion 10 years ago and times have changed in this city over the past 10 years and granted back then everything made sense to move but i still say we struggle with what happens with water what happens with electric because we have some big challenges The thing with the Amerasic, that's a done deal. It's been bought. But what we also need to know is that original price was negotiated between Mr. Sabata and Green Street, a previous developer that was looking at the public works. They negotiated the $12.5 million. So before the city could sign a contract with Green Street, they pulled out. And so Mr. Sabana, negotiating with the council and the city administration, was insistent that he was going to get the 12.5, even though the city had done a restricted appraisal for six that hit six million. So there's still a lot of, okay, we kind of got caught up, previous council administration, in this situation. access this price for um for um a morassac um so now we still we don't really know what's going to happen with public works um but we now have facing a 40 million dollar investment that is just couch for the moment we don't have anything in the next five year capital there's parts of what we're going to do is not covered in the bid that we have so there's going to be challenges going forward or things that we're going to have to add on the electric building is going to be empty so there's no plan for that all a few of us have asked over the last year or two is can we revisit this can we look at what's changed it may still make sense i mean obviously it makes sense to several people to keep plowing forward but i just happen to disagree Again, I recognize there's been a change in some of the challenges of this city. I wasn't saying let's, you know, I don't sell everything, but I just would like us to have additional information. It's not going to happen, I'm pretty well assured. And, you know, all of us are entitled to our opinion. But everybody voting every step of the way have an opportunity to say, do I have enough information to make this decision? And I have confidence that everybody that voted a year ago on different things and those that are voting tonight on these two addition all feel like they have enough information to move forward or not move forward. And I have respect for everybody up here, but we all have the same information. The other issue is if another $100,000 needed because as they tear something apart, we're not gonna say, I would venture to believe that I'm gonna say no and stop a $39 million project. So we're moving forward. um and just as i've been back on the council for the two years you know the police department for the last 10 years have talked about they need a new building we have some issues with some of our public safety our fire buildings we have a lot of resources staffing we just had a work session and we have some challenges with the staff trying to provide city services and do we have enough so okay, we're gonna have a 80,000 square foot building that could be full, could be not full, but we don't know because we've not taken a big picture conversation. So hence, I'm consistent in my no votes. And I think it's a challenge for us going forward. But I want those who have been paying attention and those who might just be dialing in know that I do recognize we have some challenges.

Okay. Any additional? Yes.

I'll echo some of Gina's comments. I feel for the public that are trying to follow along and see if this is the best decision for the city, because from the way that we paid for the property originally with partially an Interfund loan and then COPs, We later refinance those COPs into the debt that we're now taking out to build this out. It's actually gonna cost a lot more than 8 million with the interest to build this out. But I really struggle with how hard it would be for the public to follow that along and really know whether that's the best decision. And so I continue to believe that there's a better way for the city to provide financial information. so that the residents can actually see, understand, and then follow up on what the city is doing. I don't doubt. that previous councils believed that they were making the most prudent decision on the public works question. But since we purchased the property for 12 and a half million in 2024, we've had several, in my opinion, intervening events that I think gave the city an opportunity to pause and reevaluate whether that really was the best way forward. First would be when electric overspent by the 14 million and put us in a financial situation That is really strapped the city and that we're still digging out from and I think we will be for some time. The second interviewing event, in my opinion, is the unresolved situation with our water department and the substantial investment that we need to make in order if we're going to keep and maintain that. Obviously, that plays into. uh the the new public works and i think the third intervening event is the proposed development of the current public works site um and i think that deserves a little bit more attention so i remain concerned about both of those projects you know, in our willingness to continue to take on debt and have my children's version of Kirkwood pay for the decisions that we're making right now. And so I'll continue to be a no on this tonight.

I just want to clarify something with our interim chief administrative officer who will be that for one more day. And our new chief administrative officer is here tonight. And I just want to give shout out to you and thank you for being here. And he's come in quite often over the last couple of months. So Darren, we can't wait for Monday morning. But anyway, back to you, David. The $8 million that is being used for the retrofit, Council Member Jacetic indicated that we don't know what it's going to end up being if there's things that aren't in here and what have you. Can you speak to that and where we are?

Yeah. So you know, in speaking with our group, that is doing the construction of the facility and with our city engineer who's going to project or our public services director, sorry, not city engineer, who will be the overseeing the project, there will be just general maintenance items to the facility of any facility is but the only major capital outlay will be in 2035. which will be for an additional roof. So that will be coming up in nine to 10 years. After that, there could be some RTU units, but everything within those 10 years is covered within this agreement for what we need to do for functionality.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Schaffer.

Thank you, Mayor. So I've struggled with this. I went back and forth. I was a no vote the first time around. I did a little more research and I come to find that contract that we have with the developer, he can walk away on up until the 8th of this year of October. So I've got grave concerns because that's where some of this money was going to come from to pay this bond off in the future. And if that developer walks away, we're holding the bag again and so so for me i have a real problem with doing that and voting yes so i also want to say that we're using 1.2 to move people that's going to cost the city to move everybody over to the new place and that's coming out of the general budget i'm told which means that what are we cutting to do that um is it streets and so forth so i've waited for some of those answers so because we don't have a for sure thing locked down i'm going to be a no vote on this so let you know

Any additional discussion? Council Member McLean.

Most of you know, this has always, like Paul, this has been one of my toughest decisions, and I've gone back and forth. If you haven't heard my dissertation on it before, go back to some prior council meetings and you'll hear it, so I won't bore you with it again. But, you know, Paul just said if the developer says no, we're going to be holding the bag. Well, if we say no, then we're holding the bag with two properties, and we're going to have debt service on the one property anyway, and we're going to still have the maintenance to go with the public works. By saying yes to this, which I agree with Gina, and I'm hoping, and I'm putting a lot of faith in Darren and the new administration, that we're going to really be tight on the finances going forward. but we can now move the public works over to the new facility and if the developer says no come october we're going to have at least be in a better position to sell the public works because we will be out of there and moving on quickly versus right now we're still in there and developers we're going to say well we need time to get out and so that's going to be another year and a half two year process so this will speed up the process but we are very constrained with finances, and I'm very concerned about it, and everyone raises a good point up here, and I just really hope that everyone up here sticks to our guns when we say no to certain things. So I'm a yes, though, Mayor.

Any other additional comments? All righty. Let's see.

Roll call. Mayor Gibbons? Yes. Councilmember Arnold? No. Councilmember Burkett?

Yes.

Councilmember Jaxetic?

No.

Councilmember Lavender?

Yes.

Councilmember McLean?

Yes.

Councilmember Schaefer?

No.

The bill has passed. Bill 11128.

Mayor and Council, this is an ordinance appropriating $6,010 from the equitable sharing fund balance to the police department machinery and equipment account, accepting the single source quote of elastic ink in the amount of $6,010 for the purchase of a drug terminator machine for the police department and authorizing and directing the director of procurement to issue a purchase order.

Do I have a motion and a second to accept Bill 11128? Thank you. Is there discussion about buying an incinerator for our police department?

Thank you, Mayor. I probably have one for David. Why is this an ordinance instead of a resolution?

So the reason is an ordinance is because we have a special funds that are received through forfeitures through the police department. That money can only be utilized to help support unfunded items for the police department. And they have to be appropriated into the budget before we can expend them. They can't be pre-budgeted.

So the fund is sitting there. It is not currently a part of our budget. So this is adding this amount to our budget. So then we can spend it for this specific purpose.

That is correct.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

And do you have any idea how much this is going to save us? I mean, it's indicated that we're spending some time now and what have you.

So there are very beneficial programs that the police department offers to the community. There are some things in the realm of evidence that get destroyed in this manner. Currently, our options are to take them to a certified center over in Illinois and Um, that costs, uh, just to have somebody be your observing partner there. Um, 900 and I believe $5. I could be a couple bucks off on that, uh, per occurrence. Uh, so we will save those fees, but we currently also, one of the programs that we, uh, provide to our community is we have a pharmaceutical drop box that's in the police department, which is heavily utilized by the community. Currently, the DEA has been taking those drugs from us to incinerate them, but they haven't They have informed us that they will be discontinuing that service in the future. So this will save us from taking more trips with an extended volume. That box fills up three to four times a week when it's a substantial volume that we receive. And we want to continue to provide that to the community. This will allow us to do it on site.

Thank you. Any more questions? I have a couple of questions. One was the cost savings, but that's been answered. Is there, are the DEA regulations that we're going to have to comply with? Do we have policies and procedures in place? And then who from the police department will be overseeing this program?

Yes, we do have policies and procedures in place to move forward with this program. It will be the ultimate oversight will be through the chief of police and through him, the, um, operations captain that's underneath him. Um, officers, uh, that are, have been intimately involved with this is actually, unfortunately, um, officer Beckman who is normally here at these meetings, um, was the one that helped spearhead this, uh, for the city. Um, this is just probably the first time in several years that he had a miss for another obligation that he had. Um, But they do have oversight in place. We do have the same protocols in place.

We have to do federal reporting on the destruction of the controlled substances and all that.

Yes, ma'am.

Any additional questions? All in favor of first reading approval of Bill 11128, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The bill has passed first reading approval. Bill 11129.

Mayor and Council, this is an ordinance amending the Kirkwood Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14, Article 8, Section 14396, Schedule F, Speed Limit Designation, Subsection F, 15 miles per hour.

Thank you. Do I have a... um motion in a second to accept thank you thank you um you know i had one question that i found out it is already so we're asking to add um west excuse me east jefferson there's already an ordinance that says west jefferson so it's The same as the one that's in place.

Yeah. Any other questions? Just glad to see other people have trouble with east and west.

Yeah. And north and south, right? Yeah, north and south. That will come next time.

It's actually taken away the speed limit on east Jefferson. So that remains 20 miles an hour. And it's currently signed as 15 on east Jefferson. on east jefferson i'm sorry west jefferson and between duffy's and and pj's that portion and so the ordinance was incorrect when it was written um back in 2025. yeah i got their east and west yeah that's all yeah yep okay thank you so on west jefferson which is kirkwood to clay it's 15. yes okay and then on east jefferson which is kirkwood to taylor taylor it's 20. it's 20 because that's an unposted speed limit and therefore it's 20.

get considered there's rising up to 15 since there's a library there and there's a crosswalk and certainly can uh we just see a bit more pedestrian traffic there and it was just kind of context of of businesses around there that's i get it on west jefferson east jefferson it's getting more crowded too of course it was now the restaurant's gone

Are you in favor? Okay. All right. Any other anything else? No. Okay. All in favor of first reading approval, say aye.

Aye.

Bill 11129 carries. Resolution 492026.

Mayor and Council, this is a resolution accepting the bid of J.E. Foster Building Company in the amount not to exceed of $7,999,999, which includes a 9.2% contingency in the amount of $673,999 for renovations to the new public works building at 545 Leffingwell Avenue, Kirkwood, Missouri, and authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into a contract.

Thank you. Do I have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 49-2026? Motion. Second. Thank you. Obviously, this is related to the project that we just approved. This is the build-out of the Maraisic Building so that our public works can move into it. and free up the land next to our Performing Arts Center for an apartment complex to go into that location. Are there any questions or comments?

Mayor, I have two different items. I'll take them one at a time. The first is really directed more towards David. I know, and I do not believe I'm speaking out of turn, two weeks ago we had a closed-door session that discussed these bids. As I'm looking at the page here dated May 26, signed by Rachel, the bids were opened on April 28th, And my concern is why did the council consider these bids in closed session and why this session on our selecting a bid, why was that not an open work session?

So actually this was classified as a request for proposal and there was an error in this letter as I'm looking at it now. Request for proposal process is a closed and sealed process. The bids were received or the proposals were received on April 28th.

So the wording on this letter is incorrect? It should say the bids were received by April 28th?

The proposals were received on April 28th.

Okay. And so until we saw them in council two weeks ago, none of these bids were public for anyone else to see?

Yes, ma'am.

All right. My concern is that we had it in closed work session, and Mayor, this is for our council as well. We talked about this in closed work session two weeks ago. and without any opportunity for public to listen to any debate about it we're now on council and i pardon me resolutions are once and done we vote for it once and it's done we don't bring it back up yes you could say this was in the packet that people had access to friday so over the weekend but this is also on page you know 62 of the packet after the agenda so my concern is that we went from a closed door session to a city council meeting with only one vote on it. So I understand that it's an RFP, it's a sealed process until we're in work session, but I would like to see space if it's work session closed, that it's then brought up on a work session that's open, that people can hear the open conversation that we had on which bid we went with and what we selected. So that's my first comment. And then second, I think might just be further reworking of this letter. The paragraph, the bids were provided to a public service director. It's recommended that the bid be awarded J.E. Foster as their bid of 7.3 million is the lowest responsive and responsible bid meeting specifications. I'm not sure I would agree with the accuracy of that statement. This wasn't the lowest bid. Now, responsive and responsible, perhaps, and there is a specific reason why we went with this bid because of the timing, but I would challenge the language of that paragraph to maybe be a little bit more descriptive of what actually happened to give anybody who at least is looking at this the opportunity to know we did not take the lowest bid, but there was a reason why we went with the bid right above that.

You might explain what you mean by timing a little clearer. You said that we did not take the lowest bid because of timing. So the timing piece...

Pardon me. The timing is that the second lowest bid will be done in nine months versus the first bid that would be done in a year. And because of the savings of those three months, we will save architectural and navigator, I'm sorry, quality engineering?

Construction management.

Yeah, but there's another engineering. What's the word that says engineering? Okay. We will have fewer consultants on the project for three months, and the savings that that affords the city was why we went with the slightly higher bid because of the less time in construction. So pardon me, that's what I mean by the timing. Thank you, Mayor. Still concerned about closed-door versus coming immediately to Council for a once-and-done vote without any opportunity for the public to really weigh in or listen to us have a conversation about this in work session. All right. That's my first item. Would you like me to go right into my second?

Sure.

All right. I do have an amendment for Resolution 49 that we would add... at the following of the whereas this would be an additional whereas so first second third fourth it would be the insertion of a fifth paragraph that says whereas the city of kirkwood will initiate a specific audit investigating cost in the electric department and the cost of obtaining the marazic building by november 1st of 2026. This assures perhaps more of our citizens who have concerns and trust issues with us right now that we do plan to do due diligence and find out where this money was spent, how it was spent, and have an accounting to the people of our city.

Okay, we need to have a second to the motion before discussion.

I'll second it for discussion.

Okay, all right. You already have. Well, I've stated.

She's made her statement as to why, so now to open it up. Right.

Now it's open for discussion. We've already talked about this, and now you're bringing it to the forefront. We've already talked as a council about doing an audit, and part of it was how we're going to pay for the audit, what kind of audit.

Mm-hmm.

Council Member Schaffer brought that up to me. He said, what kind of audit are you going to do? I said, an audit, a forensic audit. He said, there's all kinds. So that is yet to be determined. Where the money is going to come from is yet to be determined. But this is something that the council has already discussed.

And had well every it came up in one work session I was in but I might be too new on council to have participated in a conversation about it. I

I have a question for Jackie. I mean, this is kind of a issue that's not tied to this. And typically legislation kind of follows things that are connected. Is this a problem for just tacking on something not related? I mean, I don't know that I see a relation between a contract for a provide you know somebody's going to build out something um i think you know we to the mayor's conversation yes you know we we need to bring this forward but i'm not sure that attacking it just to any piece of legislation is an appropriate approach so because it's a whereas clause it's an expression of the intention and not legally binding requirement it does not

you do not have to do anything with it legally um and it doesn't bind the council to actually conduct an audit it's an express it would just be an expression of this is the intention of what we are planning to do which has nothing to do with what we're Okay, thank you. My point is not that it's right or wrong, but it's not really gonna make a difference one way or the other if you add it or don't add it. Right, okay, thank you.

Council Member McLean.

I totally agree that we need an electric audit, but I don't think this is the right place to put it. I don't wanna start bringing writers into these bills. I know they do that in Washington and Jeff City and things like that. I don't wanna start that at this level. And at the same time, I agree with you.

Well, I think it creates the opportunity to have a discussion on this in the public so people are aware that we are willing to pursue investigating what happened with the $13.5 million overspent or sudden expenditure in the electric department that a lot of people feel we haven't gotten full answers to yet. Sure.

And again, we have talked about that this is going to this is on a work session agenda, we will yeah. So any any other comments or questions okay. For the amendment, I need to know who is in agreement. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay.

Just so I clarify, Lavender and Arnold in favor, Burkett in favor?

OK.

Thank you.

All right, back to the resolution itself. Are there any other comments with regards to the resolution?

I have some. Did you want to go? No, go ahead. I have some. So I'm going to go back to how encompassing this bid is and just have some questions for David. Based on what we got before, we did eliminate the third floor dispatch and the storm shelter components, which would have gone to the dispatch. So that's been eliminated from some. again we've gotten over the last year year and a half a lot of variations of what we are aren't going to do so i'm trying to match it to what we last heard in february um and then match to what we're you know looking at right now but um so dispatches out um the energy management system at 95 000 is out it was not included in this bill correctly it's it's on the list is not Chris says I'm right. Okay, good answer, Chris. The painting, the exterior of the building, am I right on that one too? That one at $96,000 is out of this bid. The storm shelter was $174,000. So there is some...

money that may or may not be needed but it is things that we specifically said we were pulling out of this um rfp i'll i'll address the two items on the energy management system that is to operate the system from anywhere on the internet however we have controls in the in the in the base bid to operate the HVAC systems. It's just the ability to use those systems throughout the internet is what was an alternate to the project.

So we didn't think we needed that? Correct. Or it was just expendable?

It was expendable and we didn't feel like it was a necessary item to add. And then also on the painting of the building, looking at the other bids compared to what they had bid, it was high. And so we felt like we could do that at a cheaper price if we felt like we could bid that out separately. That was almost the highest bid of them all. some some of them bid at 50 000 this one bid at 96 000 and so that's the reason why we didn't select it so we're still gonna we think we're gonna still spend some money um well you know we've as you can see in the um you know, in, in, in the language of the, of the resolution, there's contingency. And obviously that is, you know, it's an old, it's a older building, but it's not a, not a extremely old building. And so we understand there, there may be some items that are unforeseen, but we've done our due diligence and we believe that there will be some extra contingency and we'll probably end up painting the building with that.

Well, I'm glad you mentioned contingency. I've never seen a 9.2%. It's always at least 10. So my assumption, I'll let you tell me otherwise, but that's to keep it $1 under the $8 million target. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes.

Okay, so we may have, because typically that 10% and 15%, but we are $1 under that $8 million. Congratulations.

And when I get up to a... $8 million project and I've got a contingency of 600,000 versus 750,000, it really doesn't matter. I'd rather be under budget.

We'll have cake and ice cream. The other thing is in previous meetings, we've talked about the elevator over there, and it's got a life expectancy that is not that long. Are we just duct taping that together for a while, or is that in something that will be in a capital expenditure?

That would be in a future capital expenditure. However, at this time, there's a very small... fix that is going to be happening that's under ten thousand dollars that will need to it's a it's a bearing in the in the cylinder of the of the elevator um and that would could be done with the project so that's going to be but that may be something down the road that we may have some problems with and have to do and i don't anticipate a full replacement of the elevator uh you do some smaller maintenance items that are that are maintenance type. It's not a capital improvement project expense that would be anticipated.

So I did ask David, because I was trying to compare what we've been told was going in, trying to understand the base bid. And he did get me some information this afternoon. But this morning, I did, thanks to Lori, get 1,377 pages of the bid specs that were sent out in that RFP. and so as i'm a budding ai person i dumped that into ai and within a few minutes it answered some of my questions which i will eventually follow up with not here yet cao darren but it did highlight a few things that i just want to verify i'm not going to go through it all but there's some question is um Let's see. So the entire exterior painting is off the table in terms of the base bid. Because I think in the RFP, there was a question whether there was an alternate part and limited painting in the base. Is it all exterior in this alternate we're not taking?

There is inside painting that's included into the base bid. All exterior painting was in that alternate.

And what about the roofing is there some roofing in the base in some roofing not.

All roofing that is proposed is in the alternate.

Okay. So it's in the alternate.

And that's chosen, that's to be included into the project. That's included in the $7.3 million. Okay.

So it's not as an alternate that we didn't take.

Correct. We're accepting that alternate.

And then the interesting thing is, and I know the one we're going with, is they're guaranteeing a 90-day early roofing. completion and we gave them a fifty thousand dollar little they proposed a fifty thousand dollar reduction to their contract to their proposed a fifty thousand dollar reduction so in their um We have, and this was just, and again, I don't know what the final end result of their bid, but we have in there $1,000 a day if they don't complete this on time, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so if they don't do it within 90 days early, each one of those days we're going to get $1,000 from them.

That's correct.

Okay. and then there is um there's there's information in there so if they fall behind we'll have some oversight and have them submit plans or how to submit a recovery schedule on how they intend to get the project back into into uh compliance watching all of this but again just somebody who's going to hold their feet to the fire and then submit plans and all of that the other thing i there's no relief for weather delays um correct and so no extensions for that and there's no um uh cost increases due to material increases tariff increases or or weather related ones that's correct so there's some protection built in there um in some parameters by which they have to be successful or complete this project that's correct okay yeah I'll have others I won't go through them all

Any other comments or discussion? Okay.

Well, pardon me, may I write to you? David, is this bid publicly available to people?

It is now, yes.

And are those 1,173 pages of specs available to the public?

They can be, yes.

And where would somebody find that?

They can reach out to the city clerk and the city clerk can provide any of the publicly available documents.

And there's not another way to just come onto our website and have a link to be able to find this.

Typically post-construction relief, we don't have them up, but we can look at a method to get some of that documentation out there.

I'm just looking again for transparency for our citizens to be able to have access to look and see what we're doing, the cost, and maybe even to see if we're on time. And not that I want to put work on anybody, but is there a way for citizens to measure if we're doing the work in a timely manner?

Yeah, and it might be actually a little bit more beneficial if we do project update planning on our website as well. Maybe we facilitate something in that realm where we give milestones and updates.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, anything else? Roll call, please.

Mayor Gibbons? Yes. Councilmember Arnold? No. Councilmember Burkett? Yes. Councilmember Jack Sedeck? No. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean?

Yes.

Councilmember Schaefer?

No.

The resolution has passed. Resolution 50-2026.

Mayor and Council, this is a resolution authorizing the City of Kirkwood to provide insurance coverage for liability and workers' compensation at an annual cost of $833,166, effective June 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027. Thank you. Yes, Councilman Arnold. Because I am employed by one of the insurers listed here, I will be recusing myself from the vote.

Thank you. So he will leave. And Sheila, if you'll retrieve him when we're finished with this.

I didn't know that was one of my roles and responsibilities now. You may have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 50-2026. Motion. Second.

Thank you. Is there any discussion?

Quick question, David since this renewal is after the budget approved this all fits into what we anticipated and budgeted correct.

Yes, ma'am right, thank you, one of the insurance companies is someone that justin represents, we need to reconsider.

Mayor. So, David, on the heels of that, I also see that we have a million dollars budgeted for this, and it's at $833,000. Do we expect the difference, or is that...

So, some of the funds that are associated in those accounts as well go to some additional coverage for small amounts.

All right. So... We didn't choose all of it, and there's still more that will be spent out of that budgeted item. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Anything else? Roll call, please.

Mayor Gibbons? Yes. Councilmember Burkett? Yes. Councilmember Jack Sedeck? Yes. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean? Yes. Councilmember Schaefer?

Yes.

The resolution passes. Resolution 51-2026.

While we wait for Councilmember Ortt to join us. Oh, sorry, sorry.

Forgot about him. OK. All right. Resolution 51-2026.

Mayor and council, this is a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to enter into an amended contract with the St. Louis County Justice Center to provide detention services for inmates sentenced to jail time by the Kirkwood Municipal Court.

Thank you. Do I have a motion and a second to accept resolution 51-2026? Motion. Okay, good. Thank you. You know, the only thing that I wondered, and I believe David said it's in the budget. We've got an increase of, what, $25 a day, I think it is? Yes, ma'am.

And it is covered in the budget. It's covered underneath the municipal court. um this is actually a very low expense item for us thankfully um you know this is a 200 to 2600 a year type of expenditure which you know 50 increase is you know never good to see is 50 increase but that being said that amount will be nominal very good thank you any other questions or

Seeing none, roll call, please.

Mayor Gibbons? Yes. Councilmember Arnold? Yes. Councilmember Burkett? Yes. Councilmember Jack Sedeck? Yes. Councilmember Lavender? Yes. Councilmember McLean? Yes. Councilmember Schaefer?

Yes.

Resolution 51-2026 passes. Resolution 52-2026.

Mayor and Council, this is a resolution authorizing the interim chief administrative officer to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the local union 2665 of the International Association of Firefighters, effective June 4th, 2026 through December 31st, 2028.

Thank you. Do I have a motion and a second to accept Resolution 52-2026? Motion. Second. Thank you very much. This is a lot of work to come to an agreement with our fire staff. I'm glad you guys are still here. And I really want to emphasize how much our Assistant chief administrative officer this this was part of his assistant chief administrative role role and he's been doing chief administrative officer plus been looking for a new head of our electric plus been looking for a new HR director, I mean so much on his plate and to. bring to us an agreement with our firefighters where they agree. Thank you for all the work that you have done. We appreciate it.

Appreciate it, Mayor.

Thank you.

I think our shop stewards here tonight would like to speak to the council. So come on up, Nick. Let's hear it.

Thank you so much Council Member Schaefer for calling me up here. Madam Mayor, Council Members, some of you I have met before. There's some new faces here that I look forward to meeting in the future. Madam Mayor, you actually stole part of my icebreaker there. Mr. Weidler here and I were lucky enough to meet many, many, many times over the last several months. I'm sure he would hold the same sentiment. We're definitely appreciative of the city of Kirkwood for the progress that we made in this CBA. It's definitely not easy, as you alluded to, to come to an agreement in the negotiations of the CBA. Our CBA ensures our working conditions, our safety, and our pay But ultimately, this CBA ensures that the Kirkwood Fire Department is competitive with other fire departments. And I believe that we did that with the gains that we made, the progress that we made, and the negotiations that we made. We look forward to the future. We look forward to our new CAO, the negotiations in the future, and keeping the Kirkwood Fire Department competitive in the future. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, Nick, before you leave. Again, over the years, I've gotten to know more and more about the fire department. I do want to just highlight, you all don't work the typical 40-hour week, 20-80 work year. You work something, what, like 2,900 hours a year? 2,912. 2912, though, as we look at budgets and negotiations and benefits, and we are looking at a unique workforce that really do work and their time away from family and neighborhoods and communities. They spend an exorbitant amount of time here working in Kirkwood, and we appreciate it.

Thank you. We appreciate you.

Mayor, I have a question, if I may. So one of the points that you negotiated was reducing normal hours of work to end at 12 on Saturday and Sunday and holidays from 1500. What happens to those three hours between 12 and 1500? Is there nobody working?

No, no, no. It's not that we stop working, we're still at work. It's kind of more just our daily... uh, operations or we have like daily, certain daily chores or daily trainings that we do, uh, And maybe it's just whatever that we're doing around the engine house that particular day. Those are our hours of work.

OK, so you're still there. You're still on call. Absolutely. Your task that you do throughout your normal day, stop at 12 on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. And then you go home at three.

We do not go home. It's 24-7, 365.

So I understand what you told me, but not in terms of we're reducing normal hours of work to end at 12 on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays from 1500.

So it says work, but we're working constantly. It's kind of a misnomer. It uses the word work, but... I mean, we're washing trucks at six, seven, eight o'clock at night. We're running calls 24, seven, three 65 to have negotiated in your contract. It kind of protects us from a, uh, 10 o'clock at night or a midnight. We're going to go do this. Uh, it, it provides some protection so that, uh, that, that doesn't, that situations like that don't happen.

All right. Yeah.

Yeah. It kind of ensures you that you, you're going to have some downtime, um, But there's no guarantees, of course.

Well, right.

A call could come in at any time.

Those are your calls, not the task that you do on your daily workday that's not going out on calls.

Correct.

Okay.

This is the stuff that you have to do.

Yes.

You're going to get it done between 8 and noon on a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday. All right. All right.

Thank you.

You bet.

Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome.

Anybody else? I have a question, David. So their contract officially ended December 31st of last year, correct?

The expiration date is of that date, but it continues in place until we finalize and complete the new agreement. So they've been working underneath that agreement ever since.

So they don't get this, these benefits are not retro to the beginning of this year. It's a, at the time you reach the agreement, the new benefits come in. They don't get retroed back to January 1st.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. All right.

All right. Thank you, Nick.

Thank you. You're released.

Right. Thanks, Nick. Yeah. Right now. That's what I thought. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Roll call, please. Mayor Gibbons. Yes. Council Member Arnold. Yes. Council Member Burkett. Yes. Council Member Jack Sadek. Yes. Council Member Lavender. Yes. Council Member McLean. Yes. Council Member Schaefer.

Yes.

um the resolution passes and while we're talking about our firefighters we've got a firefighter a fire marshal is going to be retiring it's june 10th at 8 a.m that's a wednesday at firehouse one right downtown and it's really these retirements are really um really special um There's bagpipes and the big flag is hung from the truck. And so if anybody would like to come and see our fire marshal off to his retirement, I would suggest that you join us on June 10th at 8 a.m. Okay. We are going to city council reports now. A couple of things that I wanted to mention are we are going to be having a welcome for our new CAO, a public welcome on June 24th from 430 to 630. That will be in the council chamber. So please spread the word that our citizens come and can meet Darren and tell him what a great community we live in. So... also um june 30th will be a stormwater public forum that will be held in this room from 4 30 to 6 30 we would like to hear from residents that have had issue with stormwater and that there's codes that we are considering and we will be giving copies of that code to those folks at that And then lastly, big drum roll, please. The ribbon cutting for the Kirkwood train station will be on Tuesday, September 15th at 11 a.m. So please help spread that word. I would love to see if we can get a really big, great crowd.

September 15th, 11 a.m.

That's all I have. Anyone else with a report?

No? Okay. Interim Chief Administrative Officer report.

Yes, Mayor, I have two different items to report. The first is the city received an application for temporary outdoor variants from Radiant City Church for a public event with live music on the Taleo Coffee Porch at 132 West Monroe Avenue on Thursday, June 18, 2026, from 6 p.m. to 745 p.m. This request would require city council approval by a voice vote.

Okay. You have something to add? I have a question. We need a motion and a second. Okay.

Motion.

Second. Okay, great.

I have a question. This may be a typo on the second page. We will be doing a public event for our upcoming church plant.

Oh, I do recall, I'm not speaking for them. I don't know if the applicant is able to attend or not. I can speak just because I got, before they filed their application with me, I think it was like a phone call. or an email I got from the owner of Taleo asking about the process. And it's because they're starting a new church. And I think that they use the word plant because it's- As in a seed plant, a new church. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, all right. That's what I- Thank you. That was the clarification. Thank you.

Any other questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The variance carries. Second one.

The second one, Mayor, is the city received an application for liquor license application to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink, including Sunday, intoxicating liquor in the original package, including Sunday, beer and wine by the drink, including Sunday from Fox's Finest at 159 West Argonne Drive. This request requires city council approval by a voice vote.

Okay. May I have a motion? Second.

Second.

So what they, what they want to do is be able to sell it by the package.

So take a bottle of wine home. Yes.

Yes. Take a six pack of beer home. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's what original packages. Thank you. Okay. So we're good. That's in there. Okay.

All right. Right, guys? And by the way, this is for Fox's Finest. If anybody doesn't know, they're going into the corner of Argonne and Clay, and it will be a market that the Beatty family is opening, and all of Kirkwood is so excited, and so is St. Louis, because it got out in St. Louis Magazine, and we're really thrilled that you guys are doing this. It's going to be So pretty to our streetscape, and we're going to be able to get all kinds of wonderful things at the market. Any other comments, questions? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Nay. It carries. Congratulations.

Well, it's tough.

Yeah, that was, yeah, really, really, really tough.

Okay. Sure. Yeah, sure.

certainly wasn't in our, in our, in our wheelhouse to put this project in. And there were a lot of unknowns for us because we came out of the automotive industry, et cetera. I just really want to thank all the various people we've been in contact with through this process because they've been amenable. They've been willing to help at every junction and offer assistance and some guidance through this. So I cannot say, enough about the council all the other people we've come into contact with in Kirkwood it's been a real joy to do it so we picked the right place to open this business no question good so thank you thank you thank you okay city attorney report nothing to report city clerk nothing to report okay this meeting is adjourned we will meet again at 7 p.m on Thursday June 8th 2026 thank you

We need to go back downstairs.